Official Report 531KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is a round-table evidence-taking session on marine issues. In considering its work programme, the committee agreed to take evidence on marine issues. Last week, we heard from Marine Scotland. This week, we have a round table with stakeholders. We will hold our final evidence-taking session with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment next week before writing to the Scottish Government with any views ahead of the Government’s planned consultations in the summer.
I am the Scotland programme manager for the Marine Conservation Society. I also convene the Scottish Environment LINK marine task force, which has eight members who represent, in turn, 470,000 members.
I am head of conservation policy for RSPB Scotland and am Scottish Environment LINK’s nominee on the Scottish Government’s marine strategy forum.
I am a regional list MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife.
I am senior policy manager at Scottish Renewables for offshore renewables.
I am marine project officer at the Community of Arran Seabed Trust.
I am an MSP for South Scotland and the shadow minister for environment and climate change.
I am policy and consents manager with the Crown Estate in Edinburgh.
I am with the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network.
I am an MSP for Central Scotland.
I am the acting head of the coastal and marine ecosystems unit in Scottish Natural Heritage.
I am the MSP for Angus North and Mearns.
I am the chairman of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation.
I am aquaculture development officer for Highland Council and am based in Inverness. I am here to represent the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I am the MSP who represents the Galloway and West Dumfries constituency, which also has an extensive coastline.
We do not know that yet.
I am the environmental issues director with Oil & Gas UK. We are the representative body for the upstream oil and gas industry on the UK continental shelf and represent 350 companies.
I am an MSP for South Scotland, which has a more extensive seacoast than just the Galloway and West Dumfries part of the region.
I am chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and I think about the sea all the time.
I am MSP for Falkirk East and I have a short coastline on the Forth estuary.
I am the environmental adviser at Aberdeen harbour. I am here to represent the British Ports Association.
I am the MSP for Angus South and the deputy convener of the committee.
If you want to speak, please raise your hand. I will choose people in turn.
I think that we know a bit more about the sea bed than that—we are not at the Orville Wright stage.
There are definitely some areas of the seas that we could understand better. I find the comparison with marine renewables very interesting; the work on deploying marine and offshore wind is driving more environmental research than we have had for a very long time and we are using the huge body of information that we are collating to deliver the most environmentally sensitive planning regime possible for offshore renewables. The very inclusive process that we are going through is a very good example of how planning should be done in the offshore environment and is also helping us with the MPA process. In short, our work on delivering renewable energy is helping us to understand our environment a lot better—in fact, better than ever.
Following that comment, I note the interesting point that many of the sea bed features that have been designated as special areas of conservation have been found by oil and gas surveys. I certainly think it important that we contribute to the science. A recent challenge for us is that industry-provided information and science are seen as somehow tainted and not valuable, and I make a plea for more central research and monitoring funds to be made available.
We might well return to that specific point.
A huge amount of information is being gathered in offshore renewable developers’ environmental impact assessments. I hope that it is not considered to be tainted, because it is making a massive contribution to knowledge of what is going on in our seas, especially with regard to birds, marine mammals and fish. I also hope that all that information will be fed into the continuing process and that it will help to improve people’s understanding of the marine environment.
I think that there are gaps in our knowledge. I agree with Lindsay Leask and Mick Borwell and suggest that, over the years, the fishing industry has also contributed to the knowledge that is available. On that basis, I agree with Calum Duncan that we have a lot of knowledge, even though, as others have said, there are gaps.
We are building up much better data through all the processes that have been going on. It is also worth pointing out that we have a much better approach now to the co-ordinated collection of data and to surveying and monitoring, through a lot of different bodies working together. We are also better at making that data available through platforms such as the national marine plan interactive database, which is constantly being built up, along with the work that was done to produce “Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for The National Marine Plan”. We are getting better at sharing our approach to collecting the data and at making that data available to the public, developers and everyone who needs access to it. We are taking big steps forward in that regard.
The no-take zone in Arran and the proposed marine protected area have stimulated a lot of scientific debate, not just around Arran but across all the Clyde—and nationally, to a certain extent. Quite a lot of that has been pushed, or facilitated, by COAST.
I have a general observation with regard to the Orville and Dean analogy. I am sure that we agree that—
The Orville Wright analogy.
I cannot believe that I just said that. Can I give the official report 50 quid to have it struck from the record? [Laughter.]
And that remark, too.
With regard to the early aviators analogy, the reference may have been to the state of development of the technical kit for renewables rather than to the rest of marine planning. We live in the real world and things happen in the sequence that they happen in. However, marine spatial planning in Europe and on a national level is astern of where we would like it to be, given the number of developments that are happening very rapidly, specifically renewables and the MPA regime—but there we are.
A number of things flow from that. I am sure that you will all find a point to come in.
Many of our guests have mentioned science and how they have been in a good place to judge the data and so on from our seas. In some areas, the original documents regarding the proposed MPAs are quite different from the current proposals. For example, the Firth of Forth proposal was one large proposal, but it has been broken up into three smaller parts. The Firth of Forth is an important area for sand eels, which are important for the fishing industry and for nature. Also, the south of Skye proposal has been taken out altogether. I questioned Marine Scotland about that and it said that that was a result of developing knowledge. What are your opinions on that?
We will start with Cathy Tilbrook.
In developing the MPA proposals, the process started with areas of search and looking for the features that were of interest. We have collaborated with stakeholders right through the process. We were very open about the areas that we thought we wanted to investigate, which were large areas. Within those areas, we started to refine the boundaries of what might constitute an MPA proposal per se. We began with large-scale areas where we looked for the features of interest. Through a process of refinement, we came up with much more focused areas that were the subject of the advice that went to Parliament on where the MPAs should be. That is all that I want to say by way of explanation.
I would like to respond to that. The committee might be interested to learn that the general reception that has been given to the Scottish MPA process has been highly favourable and contrasts sharply with how some of the processes that are happening elsewhere, particularly south of the border, have been received. I say that as someone who sits on the north-western waters regional advisory council for fisheries management, in which the French and the Irish participate. I am sure that Sebastian Howell, who I think is sitting in the public gallery, will be happy to hear that the eminently sensible process of looking for the least-used, least-damaged areas in the first place and then talking to stakeholders has been an inclusive one.
Cathy Tilbrook described the process very well. It is good to hear Bertie Armstrong agreeing that it is a good process. The key issue is to underline that the process must be based primarily on science. That was part of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and it was agreed by all parties and all stakeholders as that act was passed and moved into implementation.
We will try to stick to the same general area before we move on to specifics.
I want to follow up on some of the things that Bertie Armstrong said. I reiterate that Scottish Renewables gives a commitment to continue to work as productively as we can and to be as constructive as we hope that we have been so far in the MPA process.
The key point for the oil and gas industry is uncertainty. I echo Lloyd Austin’s comment that we need all the areas, including the areas of search, to be included in the consultation so that we can have a proper discussion about them. That is important for the oil and gas industry.
I want to follow up on the process that we have been talking about. At last week’s meeting, we had a very useful discussion with three Marine Scotland officials, a certain amount of which was spent on what was called “conflict avoidance” in drawing up the proposals. If I were being cynical—which would be very unlike me—I would think that it would be difficult not to come to the conclusion that in some instances potential MPA sites have been put to one side for potential offshore wind farm development. In order to try to put that issue to bed, can the parties around the table say whether they feel that the right balance has been reached in drawing up the proposals?
We have been involved in the process since the outset. I think that it was Bertie Armstrong who referred to the least-damaged, more natural sites. The aim was first to find areas that were in a more pristine condition and to try to protect them, and then to look outwith those sites. We have been involved in that and have tried to offer as much scientific evidence as we can to shape the process. We are working through strategic environmental assessment processes and socioeconomic impact assessment processes for MPAs, so we are feeding in as much information as we can.
I think that we will just stick to the renewables stuff just now, before moving on to other, minor areas.
I have a relatively small coastline in my constituency, which is terribly important for seabirds. However, the seas off Carnoustie and Arbroath will—I hope—contribute hugely to renewable energy generation. I was particularly struck by the evidence from Phil Gilmour of Marine Scotland at last week’s meeting. He suggested that only six areas are currently designated for offshore wind development, with another six being looked at. He told us that, even then, only 10 to 25 per cent of the area would actually be utilised. If that is the case, is not the footprint of offshore renewables going to be relatively small in the grand scheme of things?
Yes. The new plans that Phil Gilmour spoke about last week have produced, for very large areas of search, a number of deployment scenarios, ranging from low to high. The footprint of the development that would take place in those very broad areas of search to meet the deployment scenarios varies significantly. Marine Scotland projects that the maximum deployment scenario for the areas of search for offshore wind would involve only a quarter of the site; for wave and tidal, about 1 per cent of the site would be taken up.
The simple answer to Graeme Dey’s question is, unfortunately, yes and no. A lot of what Lindsay Leask described is absolutely right, and we strongly support the Government’s climate change targets, with renewables as part of the response to those targets.
Lloyd Austin put the point very neatly that the impact of a development can vastly exceed its geographical footprint, and that applies not just to environmental impact. One thing that is sometimes forgotten in the discussion of marine protected areas is how those areas fit into the wider marine planning framework, which is a tool for managing conflicting demands on the marine resource. Demands can conflict with environmental necessity, but also with some of the established industries—such as oil and gas, ports and shipping—that already operate in the Scottish marine area.
Picking up on the reference to the areas that Phil Gilmour talked about at last week’s meeting, I make it clear that the timescale for those developments is pretty far into the future. The strategic environmental assessment report to which a number of us round the table are contributing is considering a likely build-out scenario for 2023. Therefore, although the plans are being developed at the moment, there is still a great deal of time for further assessment work to refine the option areas so that the most suitable areas for development are identified. Just because the plans are being prepared now, that does not mean that there will suddenly be a whole new tranche of wind farm developments in the next five years.
We totally believe in the whole thrust of the national marine plan—obviously, the marine protected areas fit within that—but we would like to think that marine planning is a bit more than just conflict management. Marine planning is a way of realising our vision for Scotland’s seas.
One area of the impact of offshore energy in which I feel our knowledge is deficient is the effect of electromagnetic forces on sharks and elasmobranch species. The impact of EMF is not understood, but it could have a major impact on species on the west coast of Scotland.
Does anyone have a concern or information about sharks and so on?
I do not have further information on that—Steve Bastiman has put that point forcefully and well in the SEA work that we have done to date—but I want to pick up on the point that Annie Breaden made. I should stress that we have in place what we call an iterative plan review process. The idea is that, when we set up the plans, we assess where we can increase our knowledge and where the knowledge gaps lie. We then go away and do the work, coming back in two years’ time to sit down and look at the plans again to see how we could refine them in light of the new research that we have undertaken.
I am afraid that I cannot help Steve Bastiman on sharks, other than by reiterating the call for more and better—and better co-ordinated—research. I agree with Lindsay Leask about the iterative approach to planning. Plans can be changed when more information becomes available, but we need to be a bit more careful when we grant consents. When the Government grants a consent, it needs to be sure that it is making the right decision. The recipient of a consent would be rather concerned if the certainty that Mick Borwell talked about was not there because there was an ability to iteratively vary consents.
We will hear further on this issue from Bertie Armstrong, Steve Bastiman, Calum Duncan and Claudia Beamish, but I then want to move on to a different area, so I ask people to be brief.
Briefly, we have talked about the footprint of renewables developments, but for completeness I want to mention the power transmission thereof. Getting the electricity ashore is itself a subject of planning—particularly for us in the fishing industry—about the routes of the cables and the siting of other parts, such as collection points. That is also important in the entire planning process.
Does Steve Bastiman want to make another comment?
I will pass, as the point that I wanted to make has already been made.
I echo what was said about the importance of having a national planning framework that delivers sustainable development. MPAs are an important component of that. I just want to reiterate that the historic context for that, as we have heard, relates to oil and gas expansion, the ambition for renewables, the aspirations to expand aquaculture and the plans to increase recreational tourism. All those things are very much welcome, but those ambitions highlight the importance of ensuring that we get a comprehensive network of MPAs. Although a lot of the discussion around MPAs has been about how activities can work around them and the possible constraints on activities, I want to make the point that MPAs are a key component of halting and helping to reverse the decline of our seas, so that we have healthier, more productive seas that we can all benefit from.
Claudia, do you have a question on that point?
The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 includes an obligation on us to enhance our seas. Do our witnesses have any comments on that? It is an on-going process, and it is not just about halting or preventing further decline.
I am sure that there will be quite a lot of comments on that. I thought that you were going to ask specifically about the renewables element.
I am sorry, convener. Perhaps people could bear my question in mind when they answer other questions.
We will certainly bring in that point. Angus MacDonald has a question. Let us hear your take on the MPAs and the issues around the 2010 act that Claudia Beamish has just raised, and get round-table responses on those matters.
Earlier, we heard about gaps in knowledge and the need for better co-ordinated research. As part of the announcement a couple of weeks ago about days at sea for prawn fishermen in the Western Isles, we heard that some local boats will be involved in scientific research, which will go some way towards helping to fill in the gaps in knowledge of the area, which was a point that Lloyd Austin made earlier. Panel members will be aware of local issues on Barra regarding plans for an SAC. What can be learned from events in Barra and what more should be done to encourage community engagement in areas such as the Sound of Barra, where SACs or MPAs could be contentious?
Those two questions go together. We will start off with Cathy Tilbrook, who is in the firing line.
On Claudia Beamish’s point, we welcome the duty to enhance our seas that is in the 2010 act. Marine protected areas will play a big part in that. Some sites have a conservation objective to recover the features within them, as it is felt that the features have been degraded in some way. We hope that, by bringing them up to a better standard through management, we will start to see some enhancement of our marine area.
Barra.
There are lessons to be learned from Barra, certainly with regard to how to bring the local community along with us in relation to MPAs. The Sound of Barra is covered by the EU legislation, and there is perhaps less flexibility in the involvement of stakeholders in those European sites. We have been keen to have good stakeholder involvement in the MPA process from the start. During the consultation process this summer, we will go out to all of the local areas that are affected by MPA proposals to talk to people and local communities and to discuss management options and ways in which we can involve local stakeholders in the management of sites. That is something that we would encourage.
There are a few interesting points there. It is apparent from the MPA literature from around the world that MPAs are much more likely to be successful if they have stakeholder buy-in from local communities and the various sectors. There are issues of scale. MPAs must mean something to the local community, and the local community must have the management capacity to manage them.
The Barra case is interesting. A lot has been made recently of local distrust of the process. Many years ago, we had a similar experience with the designation of the SAC in Loch Duich, Loch Long and Loch Alsh. Issues were raised to the extent that folk left public meetings in disgust.
I will echo some of what James Bromham and Cathy Tilbrook have said. As is clear in the guidelines, the MPA proposals are not for no-go areas or no-take zones. Community engagement is welcome to see off any fears to that effect early on. There is a presumption of sustainable use, provided that conservation objectives are met and activities are managed to ensure that those objectives are met.
I want to sharpen this up a bit, because I am conscious that we have not heard much from fishing interests, creelers and so on. I will give them a chance to speak in a minute, but first I just want to mention that, according to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea in 2006,
I welcome the opportunity to respond to that, convener.
That is important. I ask Alistair Sinclair to respond for the creel fishermen.
I agree entirely with Bertie Armstrong that, according to the science, there is more biomass. However, the biomass is small. The main reason that the fish are no longer able to grow to a takeable or marketable size that would be suitable for Steve Bastiman and the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network is that the prawn trawl takes juvenile fish with every sweep of the trawl and the fish are not being allowed the opportunity to grow on.
One or two people want to come in on that subject. Graeme Dey wants to raise a point with Bertie Armstrong.
I approach the subject with great respect, as I am a layman and you obviously understand the subject far better. Like many people, I watched a series on television recently in which Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall talked about fishing techniques. One programme showed an area that had been impacted on by bottom-trawling-like activity and contrasted it with an area that had not. As a layman, I thought that the damage that had been done was absolutely devastating.
That is a fundamental and serious point. There is a technique that is used almost continuously in television. Cue Wagnerian music and show a shot at 25m, in which everything is green, then select your footage showing some form of striation. Take away the Wagnerian music and cue spring music. Look at a piece of sea bed at 3m or 4m, where you can see the surface on which the sun is shining brightly. Show some coral and things. The public then think, “Oh, my God! That is not good.” We could do the same thing in the terrestrial world. You could have a shot of a spring flower meadow accompanied by light music, saying, “This is nice.” You could then have the Wagnerian music accompanying footage of horizontal rain at twilight and a plough. You could use words such as those that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall used and say, “These vicious metal blades are ripping their way through the surface of the earth, tearing all asunder.”
I take that point on board. How would you characterise the impact of such activities on the sea bed?
Are you talking specifically about scallop dredging?
Yes.
It happens only on the parts of the sea bed where scallops are sensibly available for that technique. That tends to be flat sand and gravel. The industry is not new; it is 40 or 50 years old. As long as it is properly regulated and everybody recognises that continued scallop dredging depends on sustainability, there is no problem. It is like ploughing the flood plains of Stirlingshire. There is no particular problem with modifying the topography temporarily. The activity does not devastate whole areas of sea bed.
Six people wish to contribute on this subject. In order, they will be: Lloyd Austin, Andrew Binnie, Alistair Sinclair, Calum Duncan, Lindsay Leask and Mick Borwell.
Calum Duncan comes later in that list, so I will leave him to talk about scallop dredging, sands and such matters.
A lot of people want to speak. We do not need to write theses about these things. We have heard much about them in detail before, but we can certainly get bullet points.
I will deal with some of the points and use a real example. Marine Scotland described the Clyde as being like
It is entirely wrong to compare scallop dredging with farmers ploughing their fields. There is a huge difference. A farmer can go back to his field and reseed it, but once what is in the sea is gone, it is gone.
I agree that there are parts of the sea bed in which it is inappropriate to carry out certain activities. Scallop dredging in the wrong place can be very damaging, but it is recognised that it is a legitimate activity in the right places. Obviously, there is a bigger debate about that.
We are going back a wee bit. Lindsay Leask and Mick Borwell can go next.
I will try to answer in bullet points. With regard to enhancement and environmental protection, the one thing that we have not discussed is climate change. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change on our marine environment, but figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that renewables displaced 8 million tonnes of carbon in 2011. Renewables have a huge role to play, and offshore renewables have a massive role to play and are central to any strategies for marine enhancement and protection of the marine environment.
We have had a lot of experience with oil and gas, so Mick Borwell may well have some useful things to say.
I will make two points, which both relate to improvement and enhancement to an extent. The industrial activities in the marine environment—apart from fishing, which is dealt with under the common fisheries policy—are subject to environmental impact assessment. Irrespective of whether there is an MPA in a certain area, we are looking after the marine environment through the EIA process, which is very vigorous for such activities. If there is to be any enhancement above holding the status quo, that is where it would happen.
Much of the discussion so far has focused on the enhancement or recovery of the commercial stocks, but there are more than 90 or 100 species of fish in Scottish inshore waters. The major problem is that we do not know what the baseline is now, so it will be difficult to measure any enhancement or recovery, but that is something that we should focus on.
First, I say to my colleagues from Scottish Environment LINK that I am pleased with our discussion so far, because there has been a balance. We have recognised the proper reasons for an MPA network and the approach that we are taking to it.
Marine Scotland made a point about developing “Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for The National Marine Plan” so that it is available in electronic form. What do you feel about material that is collected by firms working on new projects being shared for general use? Would that involve conflict? Would commercial confidentiality be involved? It is important for us to understand such matters.
Our experience in Highland is that the majority of fish farm applications are accompanied by environmental impact assessments. Some of the information that we get from those is of considerable use for our coastal plans, aquaculture framework plans and the like.
As part of our lease agreement with the offshore renewable developers, they are required to provide us with their environmental survey data. Once they are through a certain point in the consent process, we make the survey data available through the marine data exchange website. The information is publicly available and can be used by others.
Do you feed into the Marine Scotland database? Is there a link?
Yes. We have been discussing with Marine Scotland how the various mechanisms can work together. I think that we are looking at how there can be specific links between each of the various databases.
So we have not reached that point yet. How soon will we reach it?
I do not know, but we have been discussing the issue with Marine Scotland for the past few months. We are working on it together at the moment.
That is interesting. Thank you.
The oil and gas industry has a very large amount of survey data, which we release through the UK Benthos database and which goes back 20 or 30 years. We are discussing with Marine Scotland having that data imported into the marine atlas. We are doing a project to look at how we can manipulate the data to make it available as a layer.
Sure; I understand that. Patrick Jordan is next.
My points have just been made.
Some of the industry is slightly concerned about the problems of data bias. Large areas have not been surveyed as intensely as those that are proposed for development. The developers have done a lot of work and a lot of information is available, for example on MPAs, which can be used to drive up their processes. There is a conscious concern about issues around data bias, but we acknowledge the value of working, as we do, through the Crown Estate to share information as much as we can to help advance knowledge.
That has all been quite helpful to committee members and I think that we have got a fair flavour of the key issues. I hope that all members of the panel feel that they have had their say. We are always happy to receive in writing any afterthoughts that you might have.
Previous
Common Agricultural Policy