Marine Protected Areas and priority marine features management in Scottish waters: social impacts research

Executive Summary

The Scottish Government is developing fisheries management measures for existing inshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) including Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (NCMPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs), and to protect the 11 Priority Marine Features (PMFs) most sensitive to bottom contacting mobile fishing gear. These areas are managed in a way which protects the features, while still allowing sustainable use. This can result in the restriction of some activities.

In undertaking this work, the Scottish Government has sought to better understand 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. The current research was intended to gather this information from local communities and identify issues and concerns.

Eunomia Research and Consulting Limited, in association with ABP Marine Environmental Research Limited and eftec, was commissioned by the Scottish Government Marine Directorate to design and deliver social impact research for MPAs and PMFs in Scottish Waters.

This report presents the perceptions of stakeholders in seven mainland and island locations around the Scottish coast regarding the potential implications of the proposed fisheries management measures. It is based on public and stakeholder engagement events: open-to-the-public drop-in events and invitation-only workshops conducted in June 2023, and an online workshop in August 2023.

Attendance was sought from a wide range of stakeholders. Because the proposed fisheries management measures being discussed have the potential to directly impact on fishers and affect their livelihood, the drop-in sessions and (to a lesser extent) the workshops had a higher participation of fishers and those associated with the fishing industry than of other stakeholder types. The larger number of fishers attending the sessions, compared to other types of stakeholder also had the effect of making the views and perceptions of fishers come through strongly. The main age group replying to the supporting survey, were respondents between the ages of 35 and 54 (46.4% of respondents) and male (69.3% of respondents). Certain other perspectives may therefore be less well reflected in this report.

Research

The approach to developing this research follows the Scottish Government’s Guidance for undertaking Socio-Economic Impact Assessments (SEIAs) for MPAs in inshore waters (2022)^[1]. The methodology for the research was based on a social values framework developed from past engagement with coastal communities in Scotland.^[2] This enables a better understanding of what is important to local communities, the potential impacts (positive and negative) of proposed MPA and PMF fisheries management measures and opportunities for mitigating impacts on communities. This is intended to make SEIAs more meaningful for the communities involved and more useful as an input to marine planning and decision-making.

The locations selected for engagement were fishing communities: Peterhead, Lerwick (Shetland), Ullapool, Stornoway (including a linked online event for Barra^[3]), Oban and Troon. These were selected to represent Moray Firth, the Northern Isles, north coast, Western Isles, west coast and Clyde, respectively. The selection of locations aimed to ensure coverage of different regions, types of areas and designation types.

In each location a drop-in event was held, with a stakeholder workshop on the following day. Over all the locations, 82 people participated in workshops, more than 200 people attended the drop-in sessions and 205 people completed a survey which was distributed at the events and online. Information on the sites being considered and the potential fishing gear restrictions was provided at all events and provided the focus for the discussions. Specific detail of management measures within the designated sites was not available (e.g. where measures might take a zoned or seasonal approach).

Findings

Views expressed varied between locations, but some themes also emerged.

Context – Current state of the fishing industry: The fishing industry was generally reported as being in decline and this perception was expressed most clearly in Troon, Peterhead, Ullapool and Western Isles. Reasons given for this decline included: recent marine protection measures, the threat of future measures, quotas limiting the amount of fish that can be landed, staff shortages, the Covid-19 pandemic, Brexit, the encroachment of foreign vessels into Scottish waters, and the effects of wind farms reducing the area accessible for fishing.

Social values – Fishing and community livelihoods: Fishing was described as integral to sustaining the livelihoods of both those in the industry and the wider community, since it supports a diverse range of occupations connected with the industry, and because of the income it brings to the community at large. A theme that emerged in the island locations in particular, was the disproportionate benefit to individuals and communities that can be provided by relatively small earnings from fishing, and the importance of part-time fishing to supplement incomes.

Social values – Fishing and local culture: Fishing was described as central to local culture and the sense of community in all locations. Fishing is important to heritage and a communal sense of place, particularly in the Western Isles, where there is an historic relationship between Gaelic culture and language, and fishing.

Social values – Participation and involvement: Fisher participants rejected what they saw as measures that had been developed without their involvement and that appeared not to take account of local geographies, practices and constraints. Both individual fishers and fishing organisations expressed a willingness to look at alternative measures to improve environmental impacts. Many organisations are currently involved in initiatives to improve the management and preservation of marine resources.

Perceived impacts of potential measures on livelihoods: Participants considered that the measures would be detrimental to those whose gear types would be affected and have wider impacts on local fishing industries and local economies. Some participants (Barra) considered the measures would reduce resilience by removing the ability of individuals to switch between gear types to minimise pressure from one gear type. The suggested benefits of the measures, for example for tourism or for fishers of gear types not affected by the measures, were described as uncertain, whilst the reduced income from the loss of fishing grounds for those affected was said to be much clearer. Fishers felt that the measures would further disincentivise investment into a declining industry. Rather than providing benefits for fishers whose gear types were not affected, e.g., creelers, participants suggested that displacement of affected fishers would increase the numbers practicing this activity, reducing the catch per fisher.

Perceived impacts of potential measures on communities and local culture: Participants felt that a reduction in local fishing activity and a decline in incomes from fishing would have a significant impact on local communities, aggravating existing population decline and the loss of local jobs and services. Participants further emphasised the intangible role that fishing plays in cementing a sense of place and expressed concern about how this may be impacted by the measures.

Perceived impacts of measures on the environment: There was a diversity of opinion concerning the current health of, and the likely impact of measures on, the marine environment. Representatives of conservation groups stressed the need for measures to avert further biodiversity decline while fishers were more likely to express concern for unintended negative environmental impacts resulting from the measures. Possible negative impacts included the increased impact of activities concentrated in smaller areas outside protected areas and damage to PMFs by predatory species.

Governance constraints: Participants described a lack of trust between the fishing community and Scottish Government. They described a sense that the industry was being demonised, and many questioned the scientific evidence used to inform the measures. Participants asked for improved disclosure of the evidence used to inform policy, greater clarity about the designations and about the different management measures brought under separate pieces of legislation. Views were expressed that local regulation, based on local knowledge, was more effective than national decision-making. Fishers, their organisations and local communities indicated that they were keen to be involved in developing any future measures.

Next steps

In line with the Marine Protected Areas in inshore waters: guidance for undertaking Socio-Economic Impact Assessments (SEIA)^[4], the findings from this social research report will be used to inform the SEIA. This will include:

• The development of a social and economic profile (Step 5 of the SEIA guidance);
• Scoping of the range of potential social and economic impacts associated with proposals and identifying those that require more detailed assessment (Step 6 of the SEIA guidance);
• Producing the baseline analysis (Step 7 of the SEIA guidance); and
• Analysis of potential impacts of measures, including:
• Economic impacts, such as the types of jobs affected (e.g., part-time), and the role of multiple gear types in supporting income stability; and
• Social impacts, such as identifying the social groups affected, and assessing the potential significance of consequential social impacts.

This report will form part of the materials used to develop the formal consultation on the proposed fisheries management measures. The issues raised will be taken into account in the SEIA, particularly regarding potential impacts on fisheries and the resulting social consequences. As part of the finalisation of the SEIA methodology and baseline approach, the issues raised in this social research report will be reviewed to ensure they can be captured in the SEIA process and structure, where relevant. The outcome of this review will be reported to Scottish Government’s Marine Directorate, and where any issues are not adequately captured in the SEIA process, suggestions will be made for adjustments to the process, and these will be clearly reported in the methodology.