‘Highly Protected’ sea areas of controversy

The subject is a commitment, enshrined in the agreement between the SNP and Greens, to designate ten per cent of Scotland’s coastal waters as Highly Protected Marine Areas while expanding the existing network of Marine Protection Areas and strengthening enforcement.

Duncan Macinnes , secretary of the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association and deputy leader of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, says the ten per cent target has “no scientific basis whatsoever” and will have “a disproportionate negative impact on the coastal communities that are furthest away from the decision making process”.

The Scottish Government says it makes them “world leaders in marine protection” and will “lead the way in creating a coherent network of these protected areas for our most valuable ecosystems that will extend from our coasts to our deep seas”.

Whatever their merits, past history suggests that the Western Isles will be in the front-line of these new designations. Already, virtually the whole of the Minches are classified as MPAs while, since 2021, the entire west coast of the islands has been designated as a Special Protection Area.

Last year, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar sought a ten year moratorium on new environmental designations, arguing that “the balance between economic development and environmental protection/ conservation is presently wrong” while “the process of designation makes many in the local business and wider community feel totally disenfranchised”.

Far from a moratorium, however, the latest consultation paper points in the opposite direction with fears that successful, long-established businesses, particularly in the fish processing sector, will become non-viable if island waters are extensively designated among the new HPMAs.

That likelihood of HPMAs becoming extensions of existing designations is confirmed in the consultation paper which says: “HPMAs will be selected in a way that complements the existing MPA network and is mindful of decisions that have already been made and/or are underway regarding wider marine management in Scottish waters.

“It may be that HPMAs overlap either fully or partially with some existing MPAs in order to maximise the conservation benefits that could be gained with stricter management approaches in a particular geographic location”.

What would this mean in practice? According to the Scottish Government: “These sites will provide high levels of protection by placing strict limits on some human activities, such as fishing and aquaculture, while allowing non-damaging recreational activities to take place at carefully managed levels”

As far as fishing is concerned, the message could not be any more categoric: “It is intended that commercial fishing of any kind and by any type of vessel will not be allowed within HPMAs. This includes fishing with static gear, mobile gear and hand collection by divers.”

Even to transit through HPMAs, fishing vessels will be required to observe “minimum speed requirements to help ensure that fishing is not occurring”; to “lash and stow all fishing gear” and follow “enhanced reporting requirements for vessel monitoring systems”.

When these proposals were first foreshadowed by the SNP-Green agreement in November 2021, Duncan Macinnes warned that they represented “the biggest threat to the Western Isles fishing industry for 30 years” with “disastrous” implications for processors in Stornoway, Kallin and Ardveenish.

He said: “We have had sustainable jobs at these three locations for the past 50 years and we can have them for the next 50 years if there is a proportionate, regional approach to management. However, the kind of designations and restrictions that are being talked about would be disastrous”.

The consultation paper has , he believes, borne out these concerns and he stresses that the process has reached this stage without prior discussion with the industry so that they are already engaged in a defensive campaign in the face of “draconian” proposals.

Mr Macinnes said that discussions so far have taken place “at the furthest possible distance from the communities most affected”. He added: “Nobody asked anyone in the Western Isles about an SNP-Green agreement but we are now faced with its implications”.

He said that the proposals would mean “displacement of effort for different industries” which would then become “squeezed into a much smaller area”. In terms of fishing, this would mean that “the remaining grounds will become over-exploited unless the number of vessels is reduced”.

Mr Macinnes quoted the precedent of Broad Bay in Lewis where a fishing ban was imposed 40 years ago in the face of opposition from the industry. “All we are seeing now are starfish and no economic benefit whatsoever. What good has that done for biodiversity?”

The paper confirms: “Alongside the introduction of HPMAs, the Scottish Government is also working on delivering fisheries management measures for existing MPAs, where these are not already in place, as well as key coastal biodiversity locations outside of these sites, by March 2024 at the latest”.

It insists: “HPMAs can be defined as designated areas of the sea that are strictly protected from damaging levels of human activities, allowing marine ecosystems to recover and thrive. These areas safeguard all of their marine life for the benefit of the planet and current and future generations; providing opportunities for carefully managed enjoyment and appreciation”.

The paper states: “There is no set minimum or maximum size for an HPMA and no predetermined view regarding the number of potential sites that should be identified. Size will depend on the rationale for identification, the functions and resources that the HPMA is designed to protect, and the requirements for management of activities.

“However, in accordance with the aims set out in the Bute House Agreement (between the SNP and Greens) site selection will result in at least ten per cent of Scotland's seas falling within stricter protection measures”. For the Western Isles, that ten per cent would almost certainly turn into a much higher number.

The consultation process on site designation for HMIAs is entirely in the hands of the Scottish Government, through Marine Scotland, and its environmental quangos. “By collaborating with stakeholders, Marine Scotland, NatureScot and JNCC will ensure that there is a shared understanding of the interests driving site identification and the likely implications of HPMA designations”, says the consultation paper.

While fishing is the industry most directly threatened by the possibility if HMIA designations, it is by no means the only one. Fish farming would also become a total taboo within these waters. Again, this is spelt out without equivocation: “It is intended that aquaculture of any form, including finfish, shellfish and seaweed cultivation, will not be allowed within HPMAs”.

The paper continues: “This would mean that consents for new aquaculture sites will not be granted within HPMAs and, in the event of overlaps, any existing sites within HPMAs will need to relocate in order to allow for recovery of natural processes within the HPMA.

“The Scottish Government supports the sustainable growth of the aquaculture sector; however, it is important that action is taken to protect and enhance marine ecosystems to ensure that they are healthy and resilient.

“The proposed policy to have no aquaculture sites in HPMAs will place spatial restrictions on where aquaculture developments can be situated. It will be important that we are able to take information from the aquaculture sector into account during the HPMA selection and assessment process and properly assess the impacts of proposed designations of new HPMAs”.

Proposing a total ban on shellfish cultivation within HPMAs, the paper says that 70 per cent of this sector is accounted for by mussel cultivation and continues: “Although, shellfish farms are located throughout the west coast, Western Isles, and Orkney the majority are found in Shetland, which accounts for about 70% of all shellfish produced by farms .

“The shellfish industry, with the exception of some of the large-scale Shetland farms, is essentially still a cottage industry with small operators and crofters adding it to their other activities. During 2021 the shellfish industry employed a total of 303 workers (141 full-time and 162 part-time and casual) largely in rural and island

communities .

“Although shellfish aquaculture is recognised as one of the most environmentally benign methods of food production, the need for ongoing human activities (both deposition and extraction) mean that this would not be compatible with the aims of HPMAs.”

Seaweed harvesting is also in line for the chop. The paper states: “It is intended that seaweed harvesting will not be allowed within HPMAs. This would mean that consents for seaweed harvesting, where these are required, will not be granted and, in the event of overlaps, any existing seaweed harvesting within HPMAs will need to relocate.

“Provisions will be introduced to prohibit seaweed gathering which does not currently require consent”. The paper goes on to acknowledge that “seaweed supports marine biodiversity and provides vital habitat for many fish and shellfish species. It also provides protection from natural hazards (for example acting as a natural flood barrier) and has a role in climate regulation”.

In spite of all that, “HPMAs will restrict where seaweed harvesting can be carried out in Scottish waters. Information on existing seaweed harvesting and wider areas of potential seaweed resources will be considered during the HPMA selection and assessment process to limit, where possible, impacts on existing activities”.

Martin Macleod, managing director of Hebridean Seaweed, said: “We have had no communication about this and we will have to look at it very closely. I hope there will be a lot of consultation before these designations are settled and they must surely take account of employment that is provided in the islands”.

The only industry which seems to be exempted from the prospect of HPMAs putting it out of business is renewable energy with areas already designated for major windfarm projects excluded from consideration for designation as HPMAs.

According to the consultation paper: “Given the need for increased offshore renewable energy capacity, the introduction of HPMAs will need to complement these targets and should not hinder their achievement.

“Any areas with renewable developments that already exist, are consented, or have draft or adopted plans will be scoped out of the HPMA selection process. This will include, for example, all ScotWind projects (and their associated infrastructure) awarded in January 2021, for which option agreements are in place”.

There are also some concessions to “marine tourism” and a “permitting system” is proposed to “limit the number of recreational vessels which can be in a HPMA at particular times”. However, the good news is that swimming will still be an option for those so bold as to take to the sea.

While it is “intended that recreational fishing of any kind will not be allowed within HPMAs”, it is “unlikely that recreational swimming would require to be restricted due to the negligible impact of the activity”. Well, that’s a relief!

The consultation period will close at the end of March and the crucial question of site designations will not finally be settled until 2026.