Proposed Fisheries Management Measures for Inshore Marine Protected Areas and Proposed Priority Marine Feature Management Areas in Scottish Waters - Draft Equality Impact Assessment Record

Screening

Policy Aim

Scotland’s Blue Economy Vision and long term commitment is that Scotland’s shared stewardship of our marine environment supports ecosystem health, improved livelihoods, economic prosperity, social inclusion and wellbeing; that our seas are managed to meet the long term needs of nature and people.

Implementing appropriate fisheries management measures in the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) designated in the Scottish inshore marine region will help to achieve this vision. Scottish Ministers have committed to delivering fisheries management measures for existing MPAs where these are not already in place.

Implementing a network of Priority Marine Feature (PMF) management areas where Priority Marine Features most sensitive to bottom trawling and dredging exist outside of the MPA network will also support achieving this vision. This is in line with the National Marine Plan.

These measures contribute to the ‘Environment’ National Outcome within the National Performance Framework, under the ‘Condition of protected nature sites’ and ‘Biodiversity’ indicators.

The aim of this policy is to benefit the conservation of vulnerable and characteristic marine species and habitats in Scottish waters and support sustainable use of our marine environment.

The purpose of the MPA network (made up of multiple protected area designations) is to safeguard important species, habitats and geology across Scotland’s marine environment. Maintaining or improving biological diversity by having an ecologically coherent MPA network meets a range of legislative obligations.

Certain statutory duties apply to Scottish Ministers in relation to MPAs. For NCMPAs this is the duty set out in the Marine Scotland Act 2010, Article 82. Scottish Ministers, when exercising their functions, must act in the manner which they consider best furthers the conservation objectives of NCMPAs so far as is consistent with a proper exercise of those functions. Where it is not possible to do that, they have a duty to exercise their functions in the manner which they consider least hinders those objectives, again as far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions.

For SACs, Scottish Ministers are required by the Habitats Regulations to establish conservation measures in SACs in a way that corresponds with the ecological requirements of the habitats and species for which the sites have been designated. Such measures should be designed to maintain or restore the protected features of the site to favourable conservation status and shall take account of the economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics.

For SPAs, Scottish Ministers are required to take the requisite measures to maintain the population of the species referred to in article 1 of the Birds Directive at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level. They are also required to take the requisite measures to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for all the species of birds referred to in article 1 of the Birds Directive.

For PMFs, Scottish Ministers must act in accordance with the National Marine Plan including General Policy 9 on natural heritage when taking certain decisions. In particular to avoid significant impacts on the national status of Priority Marine Features. Proposed management areas were developed by considering the distribution of the considered PMFs in accordance with the recommendations in NatureScot’s advice.

Different management approaches are considered for the different types of areas. For MPAs, based on conservation advice, certain gears are restricted within the site to protect the designated features. Where possible, zoned and temporal measures are used, or measures that apply only to vessels above a certain engine power.

For the majority of sites (53 out of 76), there are two options presented. For the remaining 23 sites, only a full site restriction, single management option, is proposed. This is the case where only one option was identified as enabling the achievement of the desired level of protection for the feature in question.

• Option 1 - zonal management measures for specified gears. These measures may be seasonal and there are also measures that only apply to vessels over a certain engine power.

• Option 2 - measures restricting specified fishing gears across the full site for the whole year.

The gear types identified as requiring management for each site are identified from advice and evidence provided by NatureScot. This is evidence and advice is available for each site in the Conservation Management Advice, which can be accessed through Sitelink.

For PMF management areas both options propose full area closures to all demersal mobile gear. The difference between these options is the size of the proposed area. 44 out of 90 areas have a single management option proposed. Only one option was identified for these 44 proposed PMF management areas due to one of, or combination of, evidence (fishing activity or PMF related), boundary setting principles and compliance considerations.

• Option 1 - reflects a smaller footprint that reflects one, or a combination of evidence (fishing activity or PMF related), boundary setting principles and compliance considerations

• Option 2 - reflects a larger footprint that offers more improved PMF protection.

NatureScot has also produced 11 PMF guidance documents, one for each of the 11 PMFs most sensitive to demersal mobile fishing gears. The guidance documents provide feature specific guidance for each PMF on its sensitivity. The advice only relates to demersal mobile fishing gear. NatureScot also has a PMF information hub and supplementary advice where additional information can be found.

The inshore area extends from the coastline to the limit of the territorial sea (12 nautical miles from the coast). This policy proposal fulfils duties in domestic legislation (including legislation that implemented the requirements of EU Directives), as well as contributing to UK and international networks of marine protected areas. In addition, three sites cross the 12 nautical mile territorial limit: Seas off Foula SPA, Seas off St Kilda SPA, and Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA. For these sites, NatureScot led on the development of the proposed management measures with the input and advice of JNCC (who are the Statutory Nature Conservation Body for the offshore region).

Each protected site (NCMPAs, SPAs, and SACs) is assigned conservation objectives for protected features found within the site. For NCMPAs these are to conserve or recover the feature and for SPAs and SACs these are to conserve or restore the feature. Therefore, to support conservation objectives being met it may be required to implement fisheries management measures. The measures required will depend on the protected features and could include restrictions on certain gear types, spatial, temporal or engine power restrictions.

A summary of NatureScot advice for the PMF management areas since 2018 has been published and takes into account new biodiversity evidence data obtained since 2018 until March 2024, when statutory assessments were begun by Marine Directorate. NatureScot advice has informed the development of proposed PMF management areas for the consultation to ensure that they are underpinned by appropriate evidence. These locations were then refined using the boundary setting principles, developed jointly by Marine Directorate and NatureScot, and considered:

Assumptions:

• making use of best available information, this is not a MPA process, and in most instances there is not sufficient data to map extent of PMFs.

• records from 1980s/90s can inform PMF identification, but before this should only provide context.

• PMF management areas are a proactive preventative measure, but can also support habitat recovery.

Initial boundary shaping principles:

• presence and distribution of the 11 sensitive PMFs

• areas that support multiple records

• areas that reflect the full range of environmental conditions the PMF can be found in

• boundaries that are defined by the physical requirements of the feature e.g. maximum depth limits for maerl beds

• accessibility of fishers to PMFs, given depth, topography etc.

Final boundary shaping principles:

• distribution of existing fishing activities

• overlaps of other fisheries restrictions

• use of buffers appropriate to PMF distribution and depth

• use of straight lines away from coast where possible

• disability;

• gender reassignment;

• marriage and civil partnership;

• pregnancy and maternity;

• race;

• religion or belief;

• sex;

• sexual orientation

Any further refinements were made, where possible, using valuable input from stakeholders in the form of e.g. additional PMF data, fishing knowledge and data. Marine Directorate considered stakeholder additional information, NatureScot advice, and compliance considerations, alongside the principles to provide a series of proposed PMF management areas that support the policy aims as outlined in Scottland’s NMP.

Who will it affect?

Under the Equalities Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012 the listed authority (in this case the Scottish Government) must assess and consider the impact of applying a proposed new or revised policy or practice against the protected characteristics outlined under the Equality Act 2010. These characteristics are:

• age

The purpose of this policy is to provide environmental protection to the protected features of inshore MPAs and to the features within proposed PMF management areas through implementation of fisheries management measures. This is to support the conservation objectives of these sites being achieved for MPAs, support the policy aims as outlined in Scotland’s National Marine Plan for PMFs, and to support wider ecosystems and marine biodiversity.

A resilient ecosystem provides wider benefits through the services provided by healthy, productive and biodiverse marine ecosystems, including building resilience in marine industries and strengthening food security. The Strategic Environmental Assessment undertaken on the proposed policy assessed the majority of the proposed zonal management measures as likely to have moderate or major environmental benefits within the inshore MPAs. The Strategic Environmental Assessment considered proposed PMF management areas on a region by region basis, rather than as individual sites. The boundaries proposed under option 1 were assessed as having a major beneficial impact within each region. It is also recognised that the increased protection brought about by the measures will provide potential future benefits to habitats and species within the sites as they will restrict new fisheries using the targeted gear type from setting up in the area.

A Socio-economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) has also been undertaken as part of the policy development process to identify areas and assess levels of impact. This explicitly explored potential impacts on social groups distinguished by location, age, income, social grouping (such as crofters, ethnic minorities, disability or long term sick) and gender. Stakeholder engagement has been undertaken throughout the process of developing measures. Stakeholders in a range of sectors were involved, including fishing, processing, tourism, NGOs, and community organisations.

Research into the social values of coastal and island communities that inform their perceptions of changes in the management of the marine environment, and how these impact on their lives, was conducted in 2023. This research was conducted through public and stakeholder engagement events. Attendance was sought from a wide range of stakeholders. Participants were predominantly fishers and those associated with the fishing industry, as these groups are the most likely to be affected by measures. This research has informed the discussions in this assessment. The findings of this research are detailed in the Social Impacts Research Report (SIRR).

The scale of consequential negative social impacts will be in proportion to the significance of the economic and employment impacts. The commercial fisheries sector is most likely to be directly impacted by this policy through employment impacts. This is because of restrictions placed on the types of vessel and gear that can be deployed within MPA boundaries, and within the proposed PMF management areas. This could remove access to current fishing grounds.

Total employment on Scottish fishing vessels was 3793 in 2022 (Scottish Government, 2024). The seafood processing sector employed 7381 employees in 2024 (Seafish, 2024). The SEIA estimates the proposed management options have the potential to put between 6 and 117 full time employment roles at risk in the commercial fishing sector and its supply chain (direct and indirect impacts) reflective of the level of management implemented. These impacts are most likely to fall on those of working age, and on men who make up the vast majority of those employed in commercial sea fishing. There could be further employment impacts in downstream activities like fish processing, which are likely to be more evenly distributed between men and women.

It is worth noting that some displacement of fishing activity is likely to occur therefore the impacts on employment are likely to be lower than the maximum estimate given above. Displacement of fishing activity refers to activity that is no longer permitted under the policy measure is then conducted elsewhere, reducing the impact. At the upper levels these impacts could generate economic and social costs for the individuals concerned and consequently for their families

What might prevent the desired outcomes being achieved?

A key challenge of this policy is supporting the fishing industry in balance with ensuring the protection and enhancement of the marine environment. The proposed fisheries management measures for MPAs under both proposed options may result in changes to fishing access, as measures may include restrictions on certain gear types and spatial or temporal restrictions. Proposed measures are site specific, and dependent on the site location, conservation objectives of the site and the associated risk to the features within the site. Exclusion of bottom contacting mobile gear in proposed PMF management areas will also affect access to these areas for some vessels.

Measures for MPAs and proposed PMF management areas under Option 1 have been developed with industry and environmental non-governmental organisations to mitigate impact where possible. Mitigation strategies included adopting a zonal management approach to measures for MPAs and smaller spatial areas for proposed PMF management areas. Zonal measures allow fishing to continue where there would be no impact on the conservation objectives of the sites, or where the level of risk to features or meeting conservation objectives is considered low. Option 1 for proposed PMF management areas is a smaller footprint that reflects one, or a combination of evidence (fishing activity or PMF related), boundary setting principles and compliance considerations.

Measures for MPAs and PMF management areas under Option 2 are likely to have a higher socioeconomic impact. For MPAs this is because they exclude all damaging gear types from the full protected area. For PMF management areas this is because the size of the area in which restrictions apply is larger.

Both options have been subject to a full Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) to provide quantitative (where possible) evidence to inform Ministers in their decision making. Impacts assessed include changes to fish landings and local processing (if undertaken) and the relevant findings are discussed in Stage 1 and 2 of this EQIA. The SEIA is subject to a public consultation. The consultation analysis report will be published, and a link provided, once the consultation has concluded.