Offshore Marine Protected Areas Fisheries Management Measures minutes: February 2025

Attendees and apologies

• officials from Marine Directorate (MD), Scottish Government
• officals from Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)

Items and actions

Agenda

Discussion of JNCC feedback document on offshore MPAs:

• the interactions between annex I stony and bedrock reef and demersal static gear 
• options for the protection of annex I reef sites from demersal mobile gear
• management approach for burrowed mud and offshore deep-sea mud
• management approach for deep-sea sponge aggregations

Discussion points

It was agreed that the main aim of the meeting was to ensure that MD clearly understood the content of JNCC’s informal feedback to the public consultation on offshore MPA fisheries management measures. JNCC and MD ran through the four aspects of JNCC’s informal feedback:

The interactions between Annex I stony and bedrock reef and demersal static gear 

JNCC noted there are challenges in understanding both the intensity and distribution of static fishing activity and the impact this might have upon the conservation status of Annex I stony and bedrock reef habitat. Whilst studies have been undertaken on the impacts of static gear use on Annex I reef features inshore, equivalent pressure-impact studies are not available further away from the coast. JNCC’s main point is that through future monitoring programmes, and in the context of an adaptive approach to MPA management as stipulated in the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, MD should remain receptive to potential changes in management requirements should empirical evidence indicate that static gear use impacts upon the conservation status of Annex I reef.

MD will look towards pressure monitoring in future to identify any increase in static gear use in these sites.

Options for the protection of Annex I reef sites from demersal mobile gear

JNCC noted that their view is that of the 2 options, the risk of not achieving the conservation objectives for biogenic and rocky reefs would be reduced by full site closures. This does not mean, however, that zonal measures were not sufficient to achieve the conservation objectives, they would just increase the risk. It was also noted that it was unlikely that demersal mobile fishing occurs on bedrock reef due to the risk of damage to gear.

JNCC also highlighted that in the consultation there was most support for full site closure of East Rockall Bank, even when campaign responses are removed. MD noted that feedback from the consultation would be considered as part of the advice to Ministers.

Management approach for burrowed mud and offshore deep-sea mud

In relation to Central Fladen, JNCC acknowledged that this is one of the most challenging sites in the network. The site was originally selected as a representative proportion of mud habitat in Scottish waters but the 40% feature protection figure was arrived at by referencing a consensus-driven process established under the CFP for Dogger Bank, prior to EU-exit. Given the high sensitivity of burrowed mud,  and the conservation objective to recover the feature, JNCC consider that the risk of failing to achieve that objective would be high. They recognise the economic challenges but advise that a more precautionary approach would be more prudent. 

When asked by MD what a higher feature protection figure might be, JNCC advised that there isn’t a scientific justification to provide an exact percentage but they could look to provide a percentage range. However, this would be a significant piece of work and they would want to include NatureScot and MD to ensure consistency.

JNCC noted that their advice was drafted based on the risk of not achieving the conservations objectives rather than setting a specific threshold. Given the relatively high risk that the lower level of protection might not achieve conservation objectives (i.e. allow the feature to recover from a modified state)  more protection than what was previously proposed would serve to reduce this significant risk. The extent of closure and thus the risk, would be a matter for the MD to decide. MD noted that, given the potential Trade and Cooperation Agreement implications and the likely reaction from the fishing industry, there would need to be robust evidence and data to support a move away from current proposals.

JNCC noted that the Central Fladen MPA is only one small part of the wider fishing grounds in the region. As the nephrops fishery is constrained by the availability of mud habitat, displacement of activity would likely be concentrated on the wider Fladen region. As such, the displacement constraints/costs may be different from other sites. It was also re-iterated that part of the selection process for Scottish MPAs was to minimise socio-economic impact, therefore protecting representative proportions of features in locations of relatively lowest socio-economic impact. Putting in place measures will be a tough decision so a more refined displacement study and analysis could help. MD noted that there would not be sufficient resource to carry this out internally so would need to be procured which, even if done quickly, could take at least 6 months. MD also noted that the socio-economic impacts in the SEIA contain a range of values, taking into account displacement.

Regarding the East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA, MD noted this would be a tough decision given the potential INTOG floating offshore wind development in the site. JNCC will be a consultee for this application and they highlighted that the area is likely to become a de-facto no fishing zone if the development is approved. JNCC also suggested that zonal measures have a greater risk of not meeting the conservation objectives and the INTOG development would also need to be considered in this.

Management approach for deep-sea sponge aggregations

JNCC outlined that there is limited data for both the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt and North-east Faroe-Shetland Channel, and that it would be more precautionary to place restrictions on fishing in the 400-600 m zone, recognising deep-sea sponge aggregations status as a Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) and the potential for deep-sea sponge aggregations to be present throughout this depth zone based on scientific understanding.

MD noted that this was a very precautionary approach and it has been clear from the outset that proposals have been evidence based where it is known that features exist and not simply where they may exist. JNCC acknowledged that a lot of offshore data uses modelling but, although it would be expensive, more survey work could be done in this area to provide greater certainty.

MD noted the challenge in balancing taking a precautionary approach, where data may be limited, with pursuing evidence-based policy making. Also noted that MD have committed to taking an adaptive management approach in the long term, to take account of new data, and the work on increasing protection for VMEs is still to come.  

JNCC confirmed that although option 2 (full-site closure) would lessen the risk that doesn’t mean that Option 1 (zonal measures) wouldn’t achieve conservation objectives.