Social Impacts Research for Marine Protected Areas and Priority Marine Features Management in Scottish Waters

5 Results by theme

Views expressed in the workshops, drop-in sessions, and the survey are organised under the five social value themes that emerged from the analysis of the participants’ contributions(see Section 2). These themes are:

• Livelihoods
• Community and culture
• Governance
• Environment
• Infrastructure and services

Under each theme heading, the first section looks at participants’ comments on the current situation and the second section looks at what participants thought the situation might be as a result of the introduction of the potential fisheries management measures.

Direct quotations are placed within quotation marks (“...”).

To provide the source of a piece of information, both by nature of engagement (workshop, drop-in or survey) and by location, the following bracketing notation system is used following a view expressed by a participant(s).

The first letter(s) in the brackets identifies the nature of the engagement, and the letter after the comma identifies the location.

1. Letter(s) before the comma: W = Workshop, DI = Drop-in, S=Survey

2. Letter after the comma: T = Troon, O = Oban, S = Stornoway, B = Barra, U = Ullapool, L = Lerwick, P = Peterhead

Hence, “Statement made by participant (W, T)” identifies the source of the opinion as the workshop that took place in Troon.

When reading the findings of the analysis, it is important to consider two important points, which are highlighted in Box 1 below.

Box 1: Context for the findings

• Specific fisheries management measures or the precise areas on which they may applied were not developed at the time of engagement with stakeholders
• Statements made by participants present their own views and are not necessarily statements of fact. Some of the statements made by participants may be considered by others to be factually wrong. As the focus of the research is on perceptions of likely impacts, it is important to understand the way that local people perceive what is happening today and how they believe the proposed changes might affect their lives in future.

5.1 Livelihoods

Livelihoods was the theme that came out most frequently and most strongly in all three types of community engagement (workshops, drop-in sessions, surveys) and in all the locations of engagement.

Current situation

The state of the fishing industry today

Across the workshop locations, there was a general consensus among attendees that the fishing industry is in decline, but this was mentioned more frequently in some locations (Troon, Peterhead, Ullapool and Barra in the Western Isles).

In Troon, participants said that there were now fewer boats fishing in the entire Clyde area than in the past (S, T).^[33] One participant said that membership of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA) had halved in the last few years (W, T). Another described the long-term historical decline and said that 20 years ago, 75 boats worked out of the harbour in Troon, but that now this number was just around eight. Participants attributed the decline to a combination of marine protection measures, closures of fishing grounds, Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, and an aging fleet. One participant said that the South Arran MPA^[34] had caused a fishing family to sell two large boats (W, T). In the workshop, it was generally stated that fishing is becoming a career that people can no longer sustain (W, T).

In Peterhead, participants described how the fishing fleet had “declined massively” and that there “are hardly any boats left” (W, P). Fishers present stated that many independent fishers in smaller boats (5-10m) are being outcompeted by larger companies with bigger boats that can travel out further and can handle bad weather and strong tides (W, P). They described how fishermen were selling their boats, because of increasing restrictions. Additionally, the cost of obtaining licences makes entering the industry inaccessible to young people. Participants reflected that this was causing skills learnt over a lifetime to be lost from the community, and also that when bigger company boats dominate, the benefit to the local community is reduced (W, P).

In Ullapool, workshop participants talked of a general decline in fishing “across the coastal areas” and noted that this was going hand in hand with the closure of pubs, schools and shops (W, U). A participant related how the fleet was “thriving” when they were younger, but that now the fleet is much smaller, and the industry has seen widespread job losses (W, U). Participants in Ullapool gave few reasons for this decline, but one participant said that they thought that overfishing had been a cause of the decline (W, U).

In Barra, a participant said that the number of boats was half what it had been seven years ago (W, B). In both Stornoway and Barra, participants described a particular case of two fishers who had sold their successful fishing business because of the impacts of marine protection measures and associated future uncertainties. (W, S; W, B). In Stornoway, a participant described how they believed the effects of new marine protection measures that were introduced in 2016^[35] have impacted investment in the industry: they mentioned that four years earlier a modern £1.1 million boat had been put up for sale but could not find a buyer (W, S). However, another participant - in Barra - said that the main reason for the decline of the industry was a lack of crew (W, B).

Other factors that were mentioned as pressures to the fishing industry across the locations were the encroachment of fishing vessels from other countries, increased licensing requirements, quotas, and offshore wind farms.

In many of the locations, participants expressed concerns about the number of fishing vessels from other countries that were operating in their areas, and their sense that these vessels were not operating under the same requirements as they are. In Troon, a participant described how fishing boats from the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland were increasingly being seen (W,T). The issue of foreign fleets competing for fishing grounds was also mentioned by multiple participants in Lerwick, and there was also a view suggested by participants that some of these boats were engaged in illegal fishing activities (W, L). Multiple participants in Lerwick thought that more should be done to control the activities of foreign fleets (W, L).

Several participants talked about the impact of quotas, which they said were affecting the ability of local fishers to make a living. This was mentioned in Shetland, Troon, Peterhead and Ullapool. In Ullapool, for example, a participant said that the high costs of obtaining quota meant they couldn’t land certain species of fish such as skate, despite the perceived abundance of stocks. The difficulty of obtaining quota for quota-managed species was also mentioned in Ullapool as a barrier to entering the industry (W, U). In Peterhead, one participant said that the quotas for catching mackerel were “misaligned” (W, P).

Fishers in Lerwick, Oban, Troon, and Peterhead described how wind farms and their subsea cabling were reducing the available areas to fish. For example, in Peterhead, a participant described how fishers have been squeezed by wind farms, and commented that the anchors used by floating wind farms may allow even less fishing. Participants also raised concerns about potentially being liable for millions of pounds if cables are damaged by fishing activities (W, P).

The importance of fishing to sustaining livelihoods

Across the different locations, participants described how integral fishing was to sustaining the livelihoods of both those involved in the industry and the wider community. Participants emphasised the interconnected nature of fishing and other industries. A fisherman from Barra described fishing as the economic “backbone” of their society (W, B). Indeed, the importance of fishing to the local economy was mentioned in all the locations. In Peterhead, one participant was of the opinion that for every person at sea, there are four on land with a job connected to the fishing industry. Participants listed the various occupations dependent on fishing, including painters, joiners, engineers, electricians, and those involved in fish processing and transport of the catches. They also felt that other jobs, including teachers, nursery workers, doctors, and hairdressers were made possible by the fishing industry and its associated services, because of the disposable income that they generate. One participant stated that the disposable income made from fishing is distributed throughout the local economy and that “everything starts at the harbour” (W, P). A participant described how the port itself supports a variety of industries, not just fishing, but that fishing was crucial to its upkeep and maintenance, with 2.5% of sales from the fish market going directly toward its upkeep (W, P). Boat building is also an important industry locally, and a participant stated that up to one hundred local people may have contributed toward a boat before it is put to sea (W, P).

Part-time commercial fishing was also described as an important source of income for some members of the community in both Lerwick and Barra (W, L) (W, B). Part-time fishing may also be important for those engaged in crofting. A participant in Barra, for example, said that crofting and fishing were both sources of his income (W, B) (see ‘Community and culture’ section for further discussion of crofting).

In Stornoway, a participant described how they felt fishing is “the mainstay of the local economy”, and another that when fishers go out of business, it has a knock-on effect for the rest of society, with people leaving the island and schools struggling (W, S). In Barra, one participant noted that the way in which local communities are dependent on the fishing industry may not be recognised if basing judgements solely on economic figures. This participant described how sums of money that people may earn from fishing as a side enterprise and which may appear insignificant on paper, can be essential to sustaining their livelihoods (W, B).

In Ullapool, participants highlighted that the economy is fragile and that fishing is an important economic activity. One participant gave a personal story of how fishing provided a livelihood when there were not many options available to him after he left school. It has since allowed him to be successful, support a family, and contribute to the local community (W, U).

In Troon, participants emphasised the importance of fishing to family livelihoods and young people, in particular. However, they were concerned about the industry’s decline, and the wider implications for the community this would have, including a loss of skills such as those in mending gear, navigation, and fishing skills generally (W, T).

In Lerwick, one participant stated that the seafood sector comprises approximately 40% of the local economy (W, L). The importance of part-time fishing was also emphasised. The fact that individual’s quotas may be filled quite quickly was also given as a reason for the part-time nature of some people’s involvement in fishing (W, L). But another participant also said that the definitions of part-time of full-time fishers is an ongoing debate and that licences do not reflect these flexible employment patterns. They also said that those working offshore sometimes engage in ‘hobby’ fishing when they returned to the islands, and raised a concern that this may not be allowed in the future. The participant thought that this was discriminatory (W, L).

In Oban, one participant emphasised the importance of the scallop industry, saying that scalloping sustained a lot of the local economy (DI, O). Fishing’s importance to the wider economy, especially to hospitality, was also mentioned (W, O).

Fish farms and aquaculture

The topic of fish farms was discussed by participants across the locations. Discussion centred around the employment opportunities they offered, and the additional pressures that they were putting on the fishing industry, including their perceived or potential negative environmental impact. On several occasions the impact of the MPAs on fish farms were mentioned, however more often, and in all locations except Lerwick, participants expressed concern that they felt farms were not being subjected to the same level of regulation as the fishing industry.^[36]

There was a diversity of opinion regarding the economic benefits of fish farms to local people in Ullapool. One participant said that they were “an integral part of the economic future”, whilst nonetheless also being of the opinion that the environmental impacts need to be addressed. Another thought that the employment opportunities fish farming provides must be considered in relation to the damaging impact they thought fish farming can cause to the environment (W,U) (further discussion of environmental impact is included in Section 5.4). One participant in Ullapool noted that they provide all year-round work but others stated that they tend to not employ local people (W, U). At the Oban drop-in session, which was attended by the aquaculture industry, one participant stated they valued the opportunities that aquaculture offers (DI,O). In Barra, a participant who was a representative of a company with fish farms in the western isles stated that employing enough of the right people for work on the fish farms is difficult because most are not local, and it is challenging to find accommodation for them (W,B). In Stornoway, one participant suggested that fish farms are displacing the commercial fishing industry (W, S).

Non-fishing related businesses and tourism

Whilst participants mostly discussed the importance of the fishing industry to the economy and its effects on livelihoods, there was also some discussion of other industries which are not directly related to fishing, and of wider employment opportunities. There was a general sense of there not being enough jobs for local people. Participants also discussed the relative importance of tourism to the local economy - which differed between the locations - as well as some of the pros and cons associated with this industry in the area.

In Peterhead, participants said that industries other than fishing in Peterhead, like oil, are declining, and that the renewables sector has not replaced these jobs (W, P). In Stornoway, some participants noted how today, the quality of jobs may have improved compared to the past, but there is also a shortage of labour. Others described how there are not enough jobs to keep the island going (W, S), and that there is a need for more jobs of a higher quality (DI, S). In Ullapool, a participant stated there were enough jobs, but not enough people to fill them, with a lack of people to fill key occupations like a dentist and care staff (DI, U). One participant described a need for more jobs in the environmental sector (S, U) and another commented that stable year-round jobs were not easy to come by (S, U). It was commented that in the islands, public sector jobs were ‘few and far between’ (W, B).

In Oban, participants described how there was a need for high quality jobs that were sustainable in the long term (W, O). As in Stornoway, participants stated that there were fewer job opportunities than there used to be, but at the same time not enough people to do them (DI, O). The work available was described as low paid and unskilled, Participants said that those leaving jobs in skilled professions, like electricians, were not being replaced. The location with the most positive description of business activity and employment opportunities was Lerwick. Participants here described the variety of different industries, and therefore the varied employment opportunities that exist. The local character was described as one of entrepreneurship and innovation, with a high proportion of businesses in local ownership and people working multiple jobs (W, L). It was also commented that working multiple jobs shows resilience (W, B).

Tourism is an important employer and aspect of the economy in coastal locations around Scotland, but its importance differed between locations. In Ullapool, a participant stated that tourism was the biggest employer, followed by fishing and fish farming (W, U). Others noted that it was increasingly important as a source of income, with a recent uptick following the Covid-19 pandemic as well as the promotion of the North Coast 500 route (W, U) (S, U). Nonetheless, participants also noted that the work tends to be seasonal and there is a need for more long-term, year-round, employment (W, U). Some participants were critical of the nature of much of the ‘fast tourism’ (tourism where people stay for short lengths of time) occurring there, which does little to support the local economy, and is associated with increased litter (D, U).

In Oban it was discussed how tourism may be a suitable employer for young people and students, but that it is not sufficient for those trying to support a family, and that jobs in tourism don’t pay as well as those in fishing (W, O). In addition, tourism can result in a high proportion of ‘Airbnb’ and other rental properties, meaning that there is less housing for locals (DI, O).

In Barra, a participant who worked in both fishing and the tourism sector, described how tourism plays a relatively small part in the local economy (W, B). Nonetheless, in Stornoway, also in the Western Isles, a participant stated that it is a “main contributor” to the local economy, and that the sector had recently been invested in heavily. In both locations, participants expressed concern as to its future given the reductions in ferry services.

In Peterhead, tourism was not a major issue: one participant noted tourism’s relative unimportance compared to fishing (W, P). This marks a contrast with many of the locations on the West Coast.

Potential impacts of fisheries management measures

It was a universal opinion across the locations that potential fisheries measures would be severely detrimental to the fishing industry with consequences for people’s livelihoods, jobs, and the local economy. It should be noted that specific details of the proposed fisheries management measures were not available at the time of the drop-in sessions and workshops, only an identification of which sites and gears might have management measures introduced. These opinions therefore could be considered a ‘worst case’ linked to whole sites being closed to different gear types.

This section is broken down into several sub-sections. Firstly, participants’ views on the general economic consequences of the measures are given, by location. Subsequently there is a more detailed review of related emergent themes from across the different locations. These include: the loss of productive fishing grounds, the disincentivising of investment into the fishing industry, health and safety consequences for fishers formerly earning a living within an MPA, the impacts on fishers whose gear types are not directly affected by the measures, as well as impacts on non-fishing related businesses and tourism.

General reported potential economic effects of potential measures

In Oban, fishing industry participants described how they expect potential measures would affect their ability to provide for their families and said that they were concerned for their future (W, O). They said that potential management measures in the areas would lead to the loss of good fishing grounds, not just for boats coming out of Oban, but also for those from Mallaig, Eigg and Muck. They predicted a big economic fallout and the loss of boats as a result, with a significant effect on communities like depopulation not just for the main population hub but the surrounding area. They said that areas left open are those that are not being fished anyway (W, O). In the context of measures already applied to the region, one participant described it as the “straw that breaks the camel’s back” (W, O).

In Stornoway, the owner of a recently acquired £200,000 small boat said that the suggested measures would mean their investment would not be worthwhile. Participants noted that the impact would affect not just owners of new boats, but also fishers needing to pay for upkeep of their boats (W, S). In the Barra workshop, some participants gave estimates of the economic impacts of the suggested measures on their businesses. A fisher from South Uist stated that the potential measures would cause a loss of approximately 30% of their scallop take, and this would result in a loss of about £800,000 a year, reiterating that it would lead to the decline of the industry (W, B). Another fisher in Barra described how the potential measures would mean some of the largest boats, the trawlers, would be taken out of action. This could undermine the viability of the largest fishing and fish processing company on the island, with wide-ranging repercussions (W, B). Participants in Barra and Stornoway in particular emphasised the potential impact on the local fish processing industry, which could lead to the closure of factories and significant job losses (W, S) (W, B). In Barra, participants also emphasised the negative effects on the resilience of the fishing community by reducing opportunities to be adaptable, making fishers more reliant on a single fishery, which may not be able to provide a stable income for fishers (W, B).

In Troon, one participant described the impacts of the potential measures on the industry as a “total devastation of the fishing industry and huge loss to the local economy” (DI, T). Another stated that the measures would make the fleet in the Clyde area, which is already struggling, “disappear”. Participants highlighted that the potential measures would impact local family boats, since individuals are already not able to enter the Clyde with a boat over 70 feet. Indeed, one participant said that “if we were trying to get rid of small boats in the Clyde, then this is the way to do it” (W, T). In Troon, the impact of Brexit and fuel prices were described as very difficult for fishers, and that they were only just “getting back on their feet” (W, T). A participant in Troon described how fishers would be hit by having to spend more on fuel, due to the need to range further out to sea to fish (S, T). This effect was also mentioned by participants in both Stornoway and Barra (W, S) (W, B). Participants also thought that the socio-economic impacts had been demonstrated when previous generations of MPAs and measures were introduced to the area, with one describing how they had been “promised 127 jobs” but that, in reality, boats and many jobs were lost, and very few new jobs created (W, T).

In Peterhead, a participant said that the measures would force people to leave the fishing industry, and would result in communities being ‘decimated’ as a result (W, P). Another likened the decline of the industry that would come about to a collapse of the centre of the town (W, P). One participant said that hearing about the potential measures made him feel as if he was “on death row” (W, P). As well as reiterating the negative consequences of potential measures for the town at large, much of the discussion in Peterhead focused on questioning the science behind the potential measures (see Section 5.3).

In Lerwick, there were repeated references to the loss of jobs and the negative economic impacts that would come about because of the measures. Participants commented that whilst the negatives were clear, the positives were very unclear to them (W, L). One participant said that potential measures would “kill communities”, resulting in fishers leaving the island and the loss of “all we’ve worked for” as the value of boats would plummet (W, L). One participant suggested that there would be more jobs in science and monitoring, and that fishermen would be supported because of this: this was contested by another participant (W, L). As in Troon, the effects on small boats in particular were highlighted in Lerwick: participants said that the MPA areas are some of the only areas that small boats are able to fish in (W, L). One participant also described the negative effect it would have on marine electronics, fabrication, and net-mending companies.

A fisherman in Ullapool related how potential measures would mean he would be unable to pay his mortgage, and that both his sons and his daughter who worked in the family business would also be left without jobs (W, U). One drop-in session participant noted that people may be forced to move away, although one other also thought that “so many more important issues affect the community” (DI, U).

Loss of productive fishing grounds

Participants said that the effects of measures would be very damaging because they would result in some of the best fishing waters becoming off limits. In several locations, participants expressed concern that the measures would impact on some of the best fishing areas. In Troon, a participant said that the measures would prevent access to some of the richest areas of scallop fishing in Scottish waters, which had been fished for three generations (W, T). In Stornoway, a participant wondered how he would be able to sustain himself with the closure of one very important area that he fishes for a few weeks of the year, and which is one of the most prolific areas for scallops (W, S). Another participant stated that the cumulative impact of the measures would be huge, highlighting how the Scalpay area was critical for the whole mobile gear sector; this participant felt that potential measures would be disastrous for the whole economy (W, S). A participant in Oban described the proposed areas around Islay as “the best scallop area in Scotland” (W,O). A fisher from South Uist described how the closure of scallop dredging in the proposed areas will result in the serious decline of the industry, as the proposed areas are some of the most productive (W, B). Two participants in Peterhead said that “99%” of their catch is within the areas suggested for fisheries management measures (W, P).

Disincentivising investment into the industry

A repeated theme was that the uncertainty around potential implementation of fisheries management measures would disincentivise further investment in the industry, with associated implications for the economy and jobs in the fishing industry. According to participants in Troon, banks are not loaning money to people wanting to start their own fishing businesses because of the uncertainty in the industry. Some participants were also of the opinion that the influence of social media could be exacerbating bank managers’ perceptions (W, T). In Stornoway, a participant gave an anecdote of how a local fishing business in South Uist bought a new boat for £900,000, decided to then sell it on, but was unable to do so because the buyer could not secure a loan from the bank (W, S). Nonetheless, a councillor in Stornoway did state that the council was still helping to finance fishers entering the industry and buying their own boats (W, S). In Barra, a participant expressed his doubt as to whether it would be worth investing in a new £30,000 winch, given the uncertainty (W, S). This theme of investment was also evident in Oban. The sense that fishing businesses are being left to decline was reflected in the comment by a participant that not only are banks not willing to invest, but the government does not want to grow the industry and provide associated support (W, O).

Health and Safety consequences

Participants from the fishing industry noted that the potential measures could result in serious health and safety consequences for fishers. The closure of areas for certain gear types would push smaller boats further out to sea and into potentially more dangerous sea and weather conditions that they may not be able to handle (W, T) (W, O).

Impacts on fishing activities not directly affected by the measures

Participants also described how there would be economic effects on fishermen practising activities that were not the targets of the potential measures. Most of these were described as negative effects. In both Oban and Troon, participants described how the potential measures would force more fishers to move into creeling, which would come at the expense of the existing creelers (W, O) (W, T). A participant in Troon said that oversupply of a more limited range of species may also reduce what fishers get paid for their catch, whilst another said that the effects of the South Arran MPA on scallop fishers had forced the local chandlery^[37] to close because of the loss of the custom (W, T), which also affected those fishers whose activities were not impacted.

Some participants also said that there could be positive economic effects for the fishers not directly affected by the measures. A participant in Troon said that creel boats will be able to employ more people and that products could be sold at higher prices because they are creel caught and seen as being more sustainable (W, T). Participants in Ullapool also stated that creelers as well as liners would benefit locally (W, U), whilst in Oban, one drop-in session participant thought that having more sustainable fisheries would increase the sector’s attractiveness to young people and make it less of a ‘free for all’ (DI, O). In Lerwick, one participant thought that trawling and dredging was “not maximising” economic output from fishing, and another that the protection of nursery grounds would be a positive for the fishing community as a whole (W, L). The environmental effects more generally of transferring to other gear types and target species is discussed in Section 4.6.

Impacts on non-fishing related businesses and tourism

Participants described how suggested potential fisheries management measures would result in the closure of shops and businesses. In Troon, a representative of a fishing organisation said that since MPAs have been put in place this has led to an increase in closures of shops and businesses. This comment received wide agreement from other participants at the workshop (W, T). In Oban, a participant described the tourist and hospitality sector as being “reliant” on the fishing industry, and that it would suffer because of potential measures (W, O). In Peterhead, a participant expressed an opinion that businesses including restaurants and hairdressers would be forced to close, because of the loss of the disposable income that fishing brings to the town (W, P).

There was limited discussion of how tourism would be benefitted by potential measures in the workshops. Nonetheless, one drop in participant in Ullapool did suggest that tourism “may take up some of the slack [reduction in fishing industry]”. One representative of a local environmental community group in Ullapool also mentioned that tourism could “benefit from protection of the marine environment” but did not elaborate on the point (W, U).

It was also brought up that tourism in island locations is restricted by the ferry services which are in a poor current state (W, B) (W, L). The potential benefits to tourism were described by a representative of the fishing community in Lerwick as “intangible” and “much less certain” (W, L). Another fisher in Lerwick thought that “tourism does not expand with the presence of more nature” and another that “stopping people from going scallop fishing is not going to increase tourism” (W, L). In the drop-in session in Lerwick, a participant supported this point by providing an anecdote of how, despite a significant decline in bird populations following the recent bird flu epidemic, the numbers of tourists going on bird tours locally has not declined (DI, L).

5.2 Community and culture

Current situation

Perceptions of demographic change and current state of the community

Participants in most locations indicated that they are concerned about demographic decline and the loss of young people; many felt that potential measures would create an additional economic challenge. In the majority of the locations, participants perceived that the local population had been in decline for some years.

In Stornoway, participants reported that young people were leaving the islands (W, S) (DI, S). This was said to be a particular problem for South Uist, and one workshop participant said that school numbers had declined by over 50%, although the participant did not say what date this was being compared to (W, S). Participants felt that the lack of affordable and social housing, as well as employment opportunities, were significant factors in the loss of population. One participant did however comment that some people have moved to the area and bought houses which has helped in keeping schools open (W, S). The sense in Barra was that the island has not suffered the same kinds of population decline as other islands, like South Uist. One participant described the population as “stable”.

In Lerwick, there were mixed opinions about population decline and the state of the community in Shetland. One drop-in session participant commented that some areas were struggling to maintain numbers or had seen a fall in their populations (DI, L). Some survey participants also reported feeling that their community and culture was being “eroded” and their heritage “watered down” (DI, L). However, another participant reported a positive view of community life, saying that they had seen more people moving to Shetland in recent times (S, L) and another recounted how they could a remember a time in the 1950s when the situation was very poor, with people emigrating, schools closing, villages emptying and the drastic decline of the knitwear industry (W, L). Workshop participants readily discussed the dynamic and entrepreneurial spirit they felt characterised the community (W, L).

In Ullapool, participants thought that there were fewer young people today than there used to be, with one describing how the local school is “on the edge of closing” (W, U) and another that the numbers at the high school in Kinlochbervie are reducing (W, U).

Participants in Oban noted that the population was becoming older, that there were fewer families with young children, and fewer young people under the age of thirty generally (S, O) (W, O). One stated that there were previously eighty children in one local school, but now there were just fourteen (W, O). Another felt that since the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a greater sense of community, but also more people having to leave to find jobs (S, O).

Troon was described as generally an affluent community, but one that is changing, with a lot of people who have moved in from other places (W, T). However, concerns were also raised about young people being unable to get jobs and having to rely on food parcels. One participant described how one deprived area in Troon, Muirhead, has suffered in recent times, with a lack of jobs, and shops closed (W, T).

Despite Peterhead being a large commercial fishing port, participants described the town as poor and deprived, with a very low housing value that “keeps decreasing”. One participant described how the decline of the oil and gas industry had led to an exodus of people, and that they wouldn’t want a similar thing to happen because of impacts on the fishing industry (W, P).

Values and language

In some locations, participants discussed at some length the cultural values that were most important to the community, mentioning the need for openness, honesty, respect, as well as self-sufficiency. The theme of resilience and self-sufficiency as part of the culture emerged in particular in workshops that took place for the island locations, notably for community members drawn from Lerwick, and also Barra in the Western Isles, with participants discussing the importance of crofting^[38] culture, working multiple jobs, being innovative, and locally-owned businesses (W, L) (W, B). However, in Ullapool, two participants noted the decline in the crofting culture. One described how crofting and part-time fishing were vital to the production of local food, whilst the other stated that whilst traditional values associated with the ability to “live off the land” seem less evident today, the traditions of music and community gatherings do continue (S, U).

In Stornoway, several participants reported valuing Gaelic language, and the way this related to their cultural heritage, with one going as far as to say their culture was “defined” by its language (W & DI, S). One workshop participant described how the Gaelic language is used whilst at work fishing and amongst the lineages of families working the fishing boats (W, S). In contrast, in Stornoway, a participant associated the Gaelic language’s decline with other cultural reasoning, like the influence of television (W, S). In Barra, Gaelic was described as tying aspects of the community together, but also in danger of being lost (W, B). A participant in Ullapool stated that there had been a recent attempt to keep the Gaelic language alive amongst the children of the community, as well as holding more arts and cultural events (S, U).

The importance of fishing to culture and community and the potential impacts of measures

Participants in all locations emphasised how important fishing is to the area’s culture and sense of community, and how it is integral to heritage and intergenerational continuity. Participants described the intangible nature of it, referring to fishing as a “thread that runs through society” (W, L), a “glue” binding the community (DI, U), that the area is “steeped in fishing heritage” (DI, T) and “defined by fishing” (W, P). One participant in Stornoway said that fishermen are “heritage holders” (DI, S).

In Lerwick, participants associated fishing with a sense of independence, freedom and self-sufficiency, all values they felt were part of the culture of Lerwick itself. Fishing was described as part of the area’s DNA, and central to the way that local people develop an attachment to the sea. The suggested measures were described as “a death knell” to Shetland culture: some participants said that they would “destroy” communities and the way that families have lived for generations.

In Troon, a participant reflected that it would be impossible to put a value on the contribution of fishing to culture, as this was part of local stories, poetry and artwork (W, T). Another participant took a different view, saying that it was sad that fishing is no longer integral to the community, comparing the situation to Shetland, where they felt it still is (W, T). One thought that Ayrshire’s fishing heritage should be better represented, perhaps with a museum, to highlight the industry’s importance to the community.

In Ullapool, participants expressed strong concern for the effects of the measures on local community and culture, with one stating that without fishing “the place would die”. Another commented that the concept of a “just transition” is of no interest when it involves the loss of their heritage and way of life (W, U).

In Barra, participants discussed the many ways in which fishing was embedded in the life of the community, and said that without it, people may move away. It was described by one participant as a “social cement”, and another stated that “we are 100% dependent on the fishing industry – we are a fishing community” (W, B). The importance of fishing to the community and culture was also brought out in Stornoway. “Culture, heritage and language; it’s all interlinked with fishing”, said one participant (W, S). The same participant described fishing as central to the indigenous heritage of the islands, and how the Gaelic-speaking fishing community has been historically oppressed for speaking the language. They expressed frustration that rights and autonomy afforded to other marginalised groups around the world were not being afforded to those in the Western Isles today (W, S). Another made a point about the importance of “indigenous voices” being central to the sustained management of fisheries today (DI, S).

Participants in Oban emphasised the heritage of the fishing industry in particular, that economic wellbeing was tied in with general wellbeing and that “everything flows from the harbour” (W, O). One participant stated that ‘Scottish traditions’ were especially important in island and coastal communities, and that any measures need to look after the cultural heritage of inshore fishing (DI, O).

A participant in Peterhead likewise described the life of the community “starting in the harbour” as well as how fishing was more than just a livelihood (W, P). Another stated that the area is “defined by fishing”, and that it is the “fishing capital of the UK”.

Fishing skills and local culture

Fishing was also described as vital to local culture because it teaches transferable knowledge and understandings of the sea. For example, in Barra, participants described how the local lifeboat service is dependent on volunteers who are fishermen or ex-fishermen, who have learnt the skills to be able to perform the job through fishing. They described how the decline of fishing in the area had contributed to the difficulties in recruiting enough individuals into the lifeboat service (W, B). The skills learnt through fishing are also important to the tourism industry, as it is through fishing that many learn about where the wildlife on the islands is to be found, as well as an understanding of the tides and therefore how to reach the locations (W, B). This was incidentally described as one reason as to why tourism could not compensate for any decline in fishing activities as a result of the measures (W, B). Participants also feared for what the measures could mean for the loss of skilled members of the community in Troon, Peterhead and Lerwick (W, T) (W, P) (W, L).

5.3 Governance and decision-making

Current situation

Lack of clarity about designations and decision-making

Even though it was officially not part of the conversation for this assessment the public debate about Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) formed a backdrop to the discussions. Many attendees in the drop-in sessions did not differentiate between HPMAs and MPAs, confusing the acronyms while they spoke.’^[39] This was prominent in the survey where 29 respondents (out of 205 who completed the survey) used the term HPMA in their answers to the open-ended questions. Some people expressed a view of the process of defining management measures as a slippery slope: which starts with designating an area as an MPA with no fishing restrictions, then setting management measures, and gradually imposing stricter regulations until it becomes an HPMA (e.g. DI, L; DI, T; DI, P).

A few participants said that there is a lack of clarity about management measures because different areas are designated under different legislation (MPA, SAC, SPA, PMF, HPMA). This makes it difficult to see the whole picture of marine management. Some referred to this lack of clarity as intentional, for the purpose of creating public confusion (W, T) (W, L). A few stakeholders felt that confusion among members of the public was contributing to a “trust gap”, described in more detail below.

For example, in the Troon workshop, after the Marine Directorate representative provided a full explanation of the process of designating MPAs and the status of the HPMA proposal, one participant replied that “it is strange that MPAs and HPMAs are not being looked at under one framework”. At the workshop in Lerwick there was a debate about the need to consolidate all the measures (MPAs and others) under one system of legislation complying with the same processes and regulation. One participant concluded this discussion by saying: “there’s a need, there’s a political ability and opportunity (due to Brexit), but there is no political will to do so” (W, L).

Mistrust in the science

During the workshops, there was a prevalent theme of scepticism among attendees towards the data and science behind proposed management measures. Many of the fishing community participants expressed doubts regarding the accuracy of the data and questioned the methodology used for marine surveys, as well as the motives behind them. A comment that was repeated in all the events was that the evidence is out of date. NatureScot attended all the events to address questions about the data, and the basis for their advice to the Marine Directorate on the sensitivity of protected features. Even though, NatureScot provided information about the robustness of the data, their clarifications often failed to convince fisher participants of the strength of the evidence base for the proposals, serving instead as a reference point for further questions about the evidence. At the workshops, fishing sector participants continued to express their distrust of the process of developing the measures by questioning the data.

Many workshop participants – including some who were not local fishers - felt that disclosing the type of science and evidence used to determine each measure, as well as incorporating input from local stakeholders, would enhance the significance of the scientific evidence and foster confidence in the process and its results. For example: “[speaker 1] Science needs to be neutral in a way that informs policy. […] we need regular data. [speaker 2]: Fishermen’s data is never taken into account.” (W, T). In other locations, participants including active fishers and their representatives, said that they did sometimes engage with the Scottish Government to discuss the evidence for proposed management measures.

In every workshop, at least one participant gave an example of an area where in the past fishing measures were introduced based on what they considered to be inaccurate, out of date or incomplete information. In Lerwick there was an example of a survey where marine features were recorded but due to technology at the time, the record is probably not recorded in the right place. Participants used this story to argue for devolving responsibility to the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO). “The map that was proposed [by the Scottish Government, in this case] was based on zero science and could have been quite devastating economically, and [would] not have improved nature because the features weren’t there. So in terms of a process, it was the wrong way around […] the process had not followed the best practice, and that makes it more stressful. […] If we had local control none of this [pointing at the maps] would have mattered because Shetland would have done a better job already.” (W, L).

Local influence on decision making

Most participants in the drop-in sessions and workshops expressed a general discontent about Scottish Government making decisions which are disconnected from local communities and their needs. “The problem is the distance of the decision-making from the community” (DI, L); “we respond to consultation after consultation, and we feel that we are not listened to (W, S); “Local control had stopped overfishing of shellfish. Give us more local control. (W, L)”. Opinions of this kind were more prominent in participants from the island communities:

“[speaker 1] What would we think about this if it would be managed by a local committee, say the people around this table (with young people) and the boundaries were flexible and it could be revisited by this committee on an annual basis on the basis of compliance? How would you feel about it then? [speaker 2] definitely more supportive. And if you could show this feature exists in this place […] If it had been done locally it would be more acceptable, full stop. The further away these things are decided, there is resistance to that as well” (W, L).

5.4 Environment

Understanding of the condition of the marine environment was a major factor influencing the views of participants of the impacts of any further restrictions on fishing. Participants drew on their own knowledge and experience of the marine environment and views of different stakeholders varied considerably. Participants were generally discussing their perceptions of the situation and their comments should be taken as evidence of these perceptions. They may be contested by scientific studies or other evidence.

Current Situation

Perceptions of the relative sustainability of fishing and the current state of the marine environment

Many fishers talked about the value that local fishers put on a sustainable approach to fishing, emphasising that the long-term health of the fisheries were in their direct interest. Representatives of fishing organisations and associations talked about the actions they are taking to ensure sustainability:

• The SSMO, as a regulatory body, works with the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) to monitor and report on shellfish stocks in the areas where SSMO members work. Members said that the organisation uses this information to decide on their own management measures.
• The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF) collaborates with the Scottish Government to collect fisheries data, including data from a combined Sampling Scheme which are being utilised in stock assessment^[40].
• In Ullapool, the RSSLA fishing association^[41] mentioned the survey work they would be doing with NatureScot that will feed into PMF management measures in South Skye.

In several locations, fishers said that the data they provide is essential to accurate surveying and monitoring.

Some fishers perceived that fish stocks were in reasonable health or higher than in previous years (S, L) (S, O) (W, B). Environmental and some community stakeholders on the other hand, expressed concerns that fisheries were declining (W, U) and that the marine environment was being damaged by human activity (DI, T) (W, T) (W, O).

Whilst fishers generally said that measures were not necessary, other participants said that there was a need for further measures, and for a change in the inshore fishing industry, citing the poor state of the marine ecosystem and the decline of fish stocks.

In Lerwick, a member of the fishing industry described the respect for the sea that fishers have, and how it is central for them to be able to survive. They compared this to the lack of concern they perceive foreign fleets have (S, L). One workshop participant said how integral the fishing community in Lerwick has been when surveys have been carried out to assess the health of the marine environment (W, L). A survey participant said they felt measures were unwarranted because fish stocks “are a lot higher than some years ago” (S, L).

In Ullapool, a drop-in participant stated that a marine conservation ethic was “inherent” to the local population (DI, U). At the workshop, there was a discussion between members of the fishing industry and one participant representing a marine NGO and community group on the relative damage that the fishing industry causes. The thinktank representative said that the fishing industry “is putting itself out of business [due to overfishing]” with fisheries collapsing, and that trawling and dredging “is not maximising the fisheries”.

In Peterhead, participants in the workshop emphasised the contribution of fishermen to providing the data that marine science has been based on in the area. One stated that the industry has been “driving for this collaboration” (W, P). One survey participant stated that bottom towed gear should be banned, and another that increasing protection for MPAs and PMFs whilst including more opportunities for static gear fishing would lead to ecosystem recovery, higher value low impact fishing jobs, and new opportunities for marine tourism and recreational use (S,P). This respondent thought that transitioning to lower impact gear types would retain the heritage of the industry (S, P).

In Troon, there was an extensive discussion at the workshop on how fishing can reduce its negative impact by using modern technology. One fishing association representative described the use of depth sensors to avoid protected features and allow for fishers to work near features (W, P), and two other members of the fishing community said how cameras could also be beneficial in this regard (W, P). Another member of the fishing community also described the importance of fishermen to marine surveying, describing the benefits of video technology, and there was a general consensus of the need and desire for fishermen to be included in the process of scientific production (W, P). Participants also described what they saw as a conservation ethic within the fishing industry and how they had been brought up to fish sustainably (W, P).

In Stornoway, this conservation ethic was also discussed, with fishers stating that it was necessary for the viability of their businesses. One participant in Barra suggested that trawling could be beneficial for productivity since it “ploughs the seabed” (W, B). The same participant said that the seas were in healthy condition because the landings of fish were as good as they were 40 years ago (W, B). Comments from the drop-in session included points about the need for the use of modern technology to allow the coexistence of fishing in areas with protected features, and about improvements in dredging technology in recent decades, with reduced contact with the seabed (DI, S). One drop in participant also described the range of conservation measures that the fishing community has implemented locally, including the use of exclusion zones at certain times (DI, S).

In Oban, the contribution of fishing organisations to data collection for scientific research and stock assessments was mentioned by several participants. One participant said that it is an “insult” to say that fishers do not think about the protection of the marine environment (W, O). A survey participant said that the seabed was in “good health” today, citing the numbers of flapper skate seen (S, O). However, three survey participants expressed a strong desire for changes to be made to fisheries management, with one stating that they felt the ecosystem has been “abused” by fishers and government, and another advocating a reinstating of the 3 nautical mile (NM) ban on bottom trawling and dredging^[42] (S, O).

Potential environmental effects potential measures

Generally, participants talked more frequently about the negative effects of additional measures on the marine environment than about their positive effects. The most commonly cited reasons for negative impacts were that: the measures would cause a spatial squeeze and displace fishers into other areas, causing those areas to be overfished; more trawler fishers would move into creeling, resulting in overfishing of species relevant to that gear type; and that there would be an increase in the number of predators like starfish, which would reduce fish stocks. Connected to the final point, a few fishers also voiced an opinion that trawling and dredging could be beneficial for marine ecosystems because this activity ‘turns over’ the seabed, increasing productivity (the comparison was made with ploughing in agriculture).

Some participants who were members of the fishing industry opposed the examples of fisheries management measures that were described, and suggested alternative locally produced management measures that they considered could provide environmental benefits. These included the implementation of ‘depth zones’, extending temporary seasonal closures, weekend bans, and the rotating of gear types at different points in the year.

Participants who mentioned positive impacts of management measures thought these could allow fish stocks to recover and result in an increase in marine biodiversity. The protection of marine features and nursery grounds were cited as particular biodiversity benefits. Some participants emphasised that proper enforcement would be necessary for further measures to produce meaningful change. Some participants who talked about the negative effects of displacement and spatial squeeze, nonetheless recognised that there would likely be improved environmental outcomes in the areas where additional measures were introduced.

Participants in Oban mentioned the themes of displacement, an increase in fishing pressure by creelers, and an increase in predatory species as potential impacts of any further measures. “Areas will get decimated…you can’t cram them [boats] into one area”, said one workshop participant (W, O). Limiting trawling and the potential effect on increasing the number of creelers was described by participants as creating “an unregulated monster” (S, O), potentially meaning that prawn stocks “would collapse” (W, O). One workshop participant gave an example of the perceived effects of the introduction of a closed area in the Western Isles, saying that it had allowed starfish to proliferate which dramatically reduced the scallop population (W, O). Another also said they had witnessed the effects of an area closed to dredging when diving, saying they saw evidence of dead “queenie shells”^[43] as a result of starfish predation.

Other participants who were not fishers in Oban identified potential positive impacts of further measures and said that there is a pressing need for further fisheries management measures to allow marine biodiversity to recover (W, O). Drop-in participants in Oban also stated that there could be wider “spin-off” effects in terms of increasing public awareness of marine ecosystems, but also that enforcement was necessary for positive effects to be realised (DI, O).

Displacement effects, and boats being forced to fish smaller geographies. was also discussed in Lerwick, with workshop participants stating that this was particularly an issue for scallop fishing, since scallop stocks exist in concentrated areas (W, L). In addition to the negative effects on scallop stocks, one survey participant also said it could result in the decline of salmon, mussels and mackerel (S, L). In terms of positive effects, a member of one inshore fisheries group said that prior restrictions introduced by the SSMO had been beneficial in protecting nursery grounds, and expressed the hope that similar protections would be afforded by any new MPA measures (W, L).

In Ullapool a representative of a local environmental NGO emphasised the need for measures to halt marine biodiversity and fishery “collapse”. This was strongly contested by members of the fishing community (W, U). Support for the environmental benefits of the measures was more frequently supported in survey and drop-in responses. Three survey participants thought that the fishing industry in its current form is unsustainable, with one advocating for increasing the numbers of protected marine features, and another for all trawlers to be decommissioned (S, U). Another thought that “preferential access” should be granted to “low impact fishing”, to prevent “further declines” of marine biodiversity. However, one participant also thought that they could be “difficult” to implement in practice [S, U]. Several drop-in participants in Ullapool also thought the measures would bring about positive environmental effects, with one questioning how else seabed features could be protected.

Significantly more than in any other location, fishers in Ullapool discussed extensively the negative environmental impacts of aquaculture. Different fishers brought up the issues of sea lice and eutrophication. One described how eutrophication can affect the prospect of maerl recovery, and another expressed concern about the use of chemicals to control sea lice (W, U). The pollution caused by fish farms were described by one fisher as causing significantly more harm to the environment than his own activities (W, U).

In Stornoway, an example of the effects of previous measures was given, to demonstrate potential negative effects of any further measures. A workshop participant said that when scallop dredging was restricted in Broad Bay in the 1980s, it led to “unprecedented” numbers of starfish which predate on fish stocks like plaice (W, S). The effects of displacement were said to be likely in both Stornoway and Barra, where trawling was described as by nature a “nomadic enterprise” (W, B).

Nonetheless, several participants in Barra and Stornoway suggested alternative measures to protect the marine environment. One participant in Barra did state that, whilst they did not support blanket bans in terms of the closure of areas, they would like to explore the implementation of a “depth zone”, to avoid interaction with birds closer to the surface (W, B). A participant in Stornoway said that they would advocate a weekend ban to allow for areas to recover (W, S). Another participant in Stornoway explained the current localised practice in the Sound of Barra of seasonal on-off cycle closures and suggested that this could be further developed as a phased approach, looking at only opening the grounds for a single season in a year, to allow for greater species recovery (W, S).

Participants in Peterhead said that an increase in creeling could have detrimental effects to stocks, and two workshop participants suggested that it could result in a higher likelihood of lines being tangled (W, P). The view that trawling could be beneficial in terms of its effect in “turning over” the seabed and increasing productivity as a result was also mentioned in Peterhead (W, P).

Discussing the introduction of the South Arran MPA measures seven years ago, a workshop participant in Troon said they felt that this had led to creelers “decimating” the area (W, T). Displacement effects were also mentioned (DI, T).

One participant in Troon also opposed a blanket ban for certain gear types in specific areas, but did say that they would be willing to explore the use of different gear types at different points in the year, so as to have improved environmental outcomes (W, T).

5.5 Infrastructure and services

This section largely focuses on participants’ views of the current state of transport infrastructure and services in the locations. Having good transport links is vital to coastal communities in Scotland. Island communities are reliant on ferry services, whilst many mainland coastal communities in Scotland are remote and have to access services such as hospitals in cities. Issues to do with reduced ferry crossings were reported consistently across the island locations. There was also some discussion in most locations of issues around housing infrastructure, internet connectivity and public services like medical and postal services.

This section builds into wider understandings of the local context in each region, and what pressures communities may be facing, in addition to any potential challenges, or opportunities, that were perceived as potentially arising from the proposed MPA measures. In addition, these issues are all relevant to the aims of this report since the provision of infrastructure services is related to population. A strongly recurrent theme across the locations was how the strength of the local fishing industry influenced the vitality of the community and whether people decided to live there.

In Lerwick, there was a very negative view of the ferry services between Shetland and the mainland, but also between the different islands. Inter-island ferries, for example, were described as “in a terrible state” and “that this is only getting worse” (S, L). Both poor transport connections as well as inadequate housing were thought to be “stifling the local economy”, but that the government was nonetheless unwilling to invest (S, L). Difficulties in being able to see a doctor were also described (S, U).

Participants in Stornoway and Barra in the Western isles also expressed frustration at the very poor state of the mainland-island ferry services, with one participant describing feeling as though they had been “effectively marooned” and that it was making it difficult for fishers and aquaculture producers to export their product off the island (W, S). For another, the ferry services were described as “creaking at the seams” (W, B). The adequacy of ferry services was said to be a particular issue in the southern islands (W, S). In both Stornoway and Barra, participants stressed the importance of the ferry service to the tourism industry (see Section 5.1) and to the economy (W, S) (W, B). One participant in Barra questioned how the tourism industry could be expected to compensate for perceived anticipated losses to the local fishing industry, if the ferry services could not be relied upon. Inadequate housing was also listed as an issue that was affecting the ability to attract potential crew and employees to the island (W, B). In Barra, the fishing community was described as being of vital importance to supplying the island with food, with supplies transported from the mainland to the local supermarket via a fishing vessel (W, B)

Inadequate housing for transient workers was also described as a problem in Ullapool. (S, U). Other infrastructure and services were considered inadequate: participants mentioned the closure of services including the local post office, a bank branch, and the dental surgery. One participant described how local people sometimes have to travel to Inverness even for relatively basic medical issues that used to be treated locally (S, U). In Troon, poor quality roads and transport links were also brought up, in both the drop-in sessions and survey (DI, T) (S, T). A participant described the lack of good bus and train services as a particular inadequacy (DI, T). In Peterhead, one participant thought that public transport was too expensive and infrequent, and that the ferry services were unreliable (S, P). A participant in Oban thought road, rail and ferry services were also insufficient (DI, O), but another described how the public transport had improved in outlying areas recently (S, O). Whilst the health service was thought be in a bad state, improved internet and mobile coverage was recognised (S, O). Such issues show the variety of challenges that these communities face, providing context for some participants’ views that the measures would compound an already challenging situation for their communities, as well as potentially exacerbate infrastructure and services issues through perceived consequences of the measurers to depopulation.

Stornoway

"Culture, heritage & language. It's all interlinked with fishing. When you go to small harbors, most are [worked by] indigenous islanders that have links back hundreds of years. This is unique to fishing, where Gaelic is a working language."

"There is a risk of losing the heritage holders [as a result of the measures]"

"We've been effectively marooned because of [the lack of] ferries... fishers and fish farms can't get their products off the island."

Ullapool

"I think the fish farms are doing much more harm than me [a fisher]. They are polluting the sea and it's scandalous."

"Overfishing has caused the decline of the fishing industry... Trawlers have contributed to loss of fish."

Oban

"You are forcing boats into smaller areas- these areas will get overfished and be decimated."

"Starfish move into these area and eat all the scallops- when they trawl, they take away the starfish."

"The current system does not work. We need more and better protection."

Troon

"The Clyde is the most protected area for the space there is- these measures will make the fleet disappear."

"It's going to increase fuel costs as boats will have to travel further out."

"If you are trying to get rid of small boats in the Clyde, this is the way to do it."

"Low impact fisheries will employ more people... products can be sold at a higher price if they are creel caught."

Lerwick

"The value of our boats which we have worked hard for and invested heavily in will plummet overnight. It will kill our communities and rural way of life."

"I support it to a certain extend but there needs to be balance between protecting the fish and ruining our fishing industry."

"If you stop fishing in an area, people will lose their jobs. The people that advocate for protected areas, promise intangible benefits, whether that's a different fishery opportunity or tourism."

Peterhead

"There is a feeling that consultations are not affecting outcomes, that plans are decided technocratically regardless [of what people say]"

"Fisherman have lost their voice... If there was decision making locally, positive impacts would be felt locally."

"There is a perception of a witch-hunt going on for the industry."

Barra

"Gaelic culture is really strong, without fishing that culture would be gone, and people may move away."

How are the tourists, proposed as compensating for the fishing industry losses, going to get here [with the reduced ferry services]?"