Proposed Fisheries Management Measures within Scottish Inshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and proposed Priority Marine Feature (PMF) Management Areas - Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA)

1. Step One – Develop a clear understanding of the objectives

1.1 Objectives of the policy, strategy, and service

MPAs are sites containing habitats and species that have been identified as being of conservation importance to Scotland, most are a subset of species and habitats identified on national, UK or international lists. In the inshore waters of Scotland (0-12 nautical miles) there are a total of 166 sites and areas that were considered for fisheries management measures. These sites and areas consist of 76 designated sites (including 21 SACs, 44 SPAs and 11 NCMPAs) and 90 proposed PMF management 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 SNCB for the offshore region).

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.

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.

By implementing fisheries management measures in our MPAs and key biodiversity locations outside the MPA network we also contribute to, and support, a number of additional national and international commitments and obligations such as:

• work towards the outcomes of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy: Protected areas will be larger, better connected and in good condition and that natural capital will be embedded in policy making.
• contribute to the achievement of Good Environmental Status (GES) under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive through the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010.
• contribute to the National Performance Framework by supporting marine elements of the biodiversity, and protected site indicators for the Environmental National Outcomes. These measures will also support the economic objective for natural capital.
• Joint Fisheries Statement and Fisheries Act 2020.
• help deliver the UK Contribution to Ecologically Coherent MPA Network in the North East Atlantic
• work towards the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and Convention on Biological Diversity targets of 2030 for 30% of marine and coastal areas are “effectively conserved and managed, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes”
• and support the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources)

Following the conclusion of the inshore public consultation process, Scottish Ministers will decide upon the appropriate fisheries management measures to take forward. Legislative mechanisms to implement fisheries management measures may include orders under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, and the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.

1.2 Is the policy, strategy, or service new

This is a new policy the Scottish Government is implementing. MPAs and Proposed PMF Management Areas Proposed Fisheries Management Measures Options for Consultation document summarises the proposed fisheries management measures to be consulted on for MPAs and proposed PMF management areas in Scottish inshore waters. This proposal for fisheries management measures is already reflected under various requirements under UK legislation.

Certain statutory duties apply to Scottish Ministers in relation to MPAs. Among these, for NCMPAs, is the duty set out in the Marine Scotland Act 2010, for Scottish Ministers, when exercising their functions, to 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 so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions.

For SACs, Scottish Ministers are required 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. They must also take such steps in the exercise of their functions as they consider appropriate, and so far as lies within their powers, to secure the objective of the preservation, maintenance and re-establishment of a sufficient diversity and area of habitat for wild birds in Scotland in implementation of Article 3 of the Wild Birds Directive (including by means of the upkeep, management and creation of such habitat, as appropriate) having regard to the requirements of Article 2 of that Directive.

The proposed PMF management areas were developed by considering the distribution of the considered PMFs in accordance with the recommendations in NatureScot’s PMF advice. These locations were then refined using the boundary setting principles, developed jointly by Marine Directorate and NatureScot, and considered:

• locations that support multiple records;
• locations with recent and/or reliable data;
• locations that reflect the full range of environmental conditions the PMF can be found in; and
• boundaries that are defined by the physical requirements of the feature e.g. maximum depth limits for maerl.

Any further refinements were made, where possible, using fishing data supplied by stakeholders and in conjunction with NatureScot, using these principles to support the policy aims for these features, as outlined in Scottland’s National Marine Plan (NMP).

There are also national and international obligations, including the commitment for Good Environmental Status (GES) under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive through the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010. A well-managed MPA network helps aid the Government to fulfil the UK’s commitment to the OSPAR Commission's strategic objective to establish an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas.

1.3 How are the islands identified for the purpose of the policy, strategy, or service

The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 defines an island community as a community which consists of two or more individuals, all of whom permanently inhabit an island (whether or not the same island), and is based on common interests, identity or geography (including in relation to any uninhabited islands whose natural environment and terrestrial, marine and associated ecosystems contribute to the natural or cultural heritage of an inhabited island).

1.4 What are the intended impacts or outcomes and do these potentially differ in the islands

The strategic outcomes for this proposal are set out under section 1.1.

The intended outcome is to ensure any fishing activity which takes place is not impeding upon the desired level of protection for the protected features to protect marine habitats and species for the future whilst allowing sustainable use to continue.

These fisheries management measures developed for consultation are proposed for existing designated MPAs and proposed PMF management areas mostly within 12 Nm of the shore. There are three SPAs which overlap the offshore region (beyond 12 Nm). The proposed PMF management areas are not being designated. These areas are proposed as fisheries closures.

The management proposals are dependent on the site and area location, conservation objectives and the associated risk to the national status of protected features. Due to location of the sites and areas, it is possible the proposed fisheries management measures impact and outcomes could affect island and coastal communities.

The sites and areas are listed under SMRs for other impact assessments and these have also been used to identify sites and areas for the Islands Regions used in this assessment. The approximate site and area numbers in the vicinity of each Island region are listed below. There will be sites and areas in this process on the North Coast, North East and East Coast that are not attributed to an island region.

Across Scotland’s Island regions, a range of marine conservation designations are in place, or management areas proposed for the 11 PMFs most vulnerable to demersal mobile fishing activity, to protect important habitats and species.

The Argyll Islands include 1 NCMPA, 3 SACs, 3 SPAs and 13 proposed PMF management areas.

In Arran, Bute and the Cumbraes, there is 1 NCMPA, 1 SPA, and 9 proposed PMF management areas.

The Highland Islands host 1 NCMPA, 3 SACs, 1 SPA, and 30 proposed PMF management areas.

On Lewis and Harris, Great Bernera and Scalpay, the Uists, and Barra islands, there are 3 NCMPAs, 4 SACs, 7 SPAs, and 17 proposed PMF management areas.

In Orkney, both the mainland and surrounding islands, there is 1 NCMPA, 1 SAC, 9 SPAs, and 9 proposed PMF management areas.

Shetland, including both its Mainland and outer islands, there are 2 NCMPAs, 4 SACs, 9 SPAs, and 11 proposed PMF management areas.

Impacts assessed include changes to fish landings and local processing (if undertaken), however there is also a potential impact for individuals reliant on fishing activities within the areas to be subject to prohibitive measures. To mitigate these impacts the fisheries management measures were developed in collaboration with the fishing industry over many years.

A Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) has been undertaken to explore and understand potential socio-economic impacts of the implementation of these fisheries management measures within inshore MPAs and proposed PMF management areas, see the SEIA for more details of these assessments.

Evidence in this ICIA is drawn from the work of Scottish Government Marine Analytical Unit (MAU), Statutory Nature Conservation Body (SNCB) NatureScot, consultants ABPmer and eftec. Evidence comprises of scientific, evidence-based arguments for management and projected potential social and economic consequences of the proposed management options.

The following activities have been identified as present in the islands (or likely to be present in the future) where proposed fisheries management measures are to be considered to be implemented in inshore MPAs and proposed PMF management areas:

• Commercial fisheries and fisheries processors
• Marine tourism
• Recreational activities
• Public sector
• Research/education bodies.

The commercial fisheries sector is most likely to be directly impacted by MPA and PMF fisheries management measures, as restrictions are proposed on the type of vessel and gear that can be deployed within sites and areas. The impact to commercial fisheries has been estimated in terms of value of landings, gross value added (GVA) and average wages per employee, part-time and full-time, for employment. Impact for both options is presented as a range to reflect the potential for the displacement of fishing activity to compensate for loss of landings from the sites and areas. The analysis presents a lower and higher estimate for Options 1 and 2. The lower estimate assumes that (some) fishers can adapt and change fishing grounds to offset the potential loss in landings. For this to be the case, the vessel needs to pass a ‘displacement test,’ the method for which is outlined in detail in the SEIA Appendix A, section A.6. The higher estimate assumes no displacement takes place (i.e. all affected landings are assumed lost.