Official Report 509KB pdf
I welcome everyone back for the third and final item. Following on from last week’s stakeholder evidence-taking session, the committee will take evidence from the cabinet secretary, Richard Lochhead, on the Scottish Government’s designation of marine protected areas.
I welcome the cabinet secretary once again. I also say good morning to David Mallon, head of the marine environment branch, and David Palmer, acting head of division in marine planning and policy, both at the Scottish Government.
Cabinet secretary, if you wish to say something to start off with, please do so.
I thank the convener and the committee for the opportunity to discuss our work on marine protected areas in Scottish waters. I read the Official Report of last week’s evidence-taking session with interest—it is good to see that the committee continues to take a close interest in this innovative policy area.
Before I outline our work on the MPAs, I echo the remarks that the convener made at the beginning of the meeting—I, too, was very sorry to hear about Laurence Mee’s sudden death last week. Laurence was, of course, the director of the Scottish Association for Marine Science at Oban and was due to give evidence to the committee. He was a major figure in our marine science community in Scotland for many years and was very enthusiastic about, and closely involved in, what was being achieved in the country. His directorship of SAMS was characterised by energy and enthusiasm, and he helped to solve some of the big marine challenges for people and the environment in Scotland. He will be sorely missed, and I add my condolences to his loved ones, his colleagues at SAMS and his friends.
I will make a short opening statement about our work on the MPAs, which form a major part of our strategy for nature conservation.
Scotland’s seas are world renowned for their biodiversity and it is vital that we protect them. As I am sure the committee is aware, our seas are the fourth largest in the whole of the European Union and support many habitats and species, including cold-water coral reefs and 22 individual species of whales and dolphins. Scotland also has 5 million seabirds—one for every person in the country—and is home to almost half the European Union’s breeding seabirds.
Current and future generations should be able to continue to enjoy the vast array of marine species and habitats that depend on our seas. Only by protecting those seas can industry continue to benefit from the natural capital and services that they provide to our society.
The Scottish Parliament took the decision to recognise the importance of marine protected areas by including them as a key element of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. The Parliament placed a legal duty on ministers to create an MPA network and supported my call for offshore marine conservation to be devolved to Scotland.
After the act was passed in 2010, Marine Scotland initiated a project to identify the inshore and offshore MPAs to include in the network. Last month, I designated 13 marine protected areas in Scottish waters, which is why we are here today. We identified those MPAs because they represent our species and habitats, including flame shell beds, feather stars, common skate and ocean quahog, which is a large mollusc that can live for centuries. The MPAs will also protect sand eels, on which many seabirds and marine mammals depend for food, and black guillemot, the only seabird not currently protected under EU birds directive special protection areas.
The largest MPA, at approximately 23,000 km², which is almost the size of the whole of the Scottish Highlands, is the north-east Faroe-Shetland channel MPA. It is the largest MPA in the whole of Europe.
The MPAs bring total marine protected area coverage to 20 per cent of Scotland’s seas, which is within the 10 to 30 per cent targets that scientists have called for in international conservation agreements. When developing the network, we took account of a wide range of factors, including geographical range and variation; whether species and habitats were threatened or declining; and the need for replication and connectivity.
We outlined our proposed approach to Parliament in autumn 2010 and our progress in a report to Parliament in December 2012. We then consulted on the MPA proposals in 2013. As the committee is aware, we had an unprecedented response to the consultation from a wide range of interests, including many local communities around Scotland. In total, we received just under 15,000 responses, most of which were in favour of an MPA network. An independent review supported the scientific advice of Scottish Natural Heritage and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. We worked hard to outline in the consultation how we expected each MPA to be managed. That work must and will continue in dialogue with our marine industries and other interests to ensure that we get the appropriate management in place.
Last month, I announced new proposals to protect seabirds, basking sharks and marine mammals. We now plan a public consultation on those proposals to complete the network. I look forward to communicating progress on that to the Parliament in the near future.
I emphasise that, because we are very lucky in Scotland to have so many unique species and habitats, we have responsibility for 20 per cent of Europe’s waters. We should all take pride in the innovative and landmark legislation that has been passed by the Scottish Parliament in recent years, which has resulted in 30 marine protected areas being designated in Scottish waters.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. We will discuss the selection and designation process first.
First of all, I am very supportive of the designations, which are very much needed. I am particularly pleased that the industry in general is supportive of what is being done, too. That is quite an achievement, cabinet secretary—especially bringing the fishermen on board, although I note that not all fishermen are entirely happy.
I would like to pick up on a couple of points in relation to sand eels. First, on the Firth of Forth banks complex MPA, there appear to be competing interests between possible offshore wind developments and the conservation of sand eels. I note that the species has not been included as a feature on that particular site.
My second point about sand eels is broader. I note that they have been included in the broader network for conservation, rather than for recovery. Do you have any comments to make about sand eels, which are an important food species for many fish and birds? Should we be making any representations to Europe about fishing for sand eels? I know that some European countries fish for them, although we do not tend to do that here.
It was remiss of me not to say that I have with me from the Scottish Government the two Davids—David Mallon and David Palmer. They have both been in position since day 1 of this journey, which started a few years ago. They have been a huge support to me as a minister, and have played a huge role in getting us to where we are today. I may call on them to talk about their experience of dealing with stakeholders on some of the issues.
On sand eels, three inshore and offshore MPA proposals for sand eels were consulted on and have now been designated. I hope that that shows that we recognise the importance of protecting the species. As Dave Thompson said, they are food for important seabird species. We have also designated several MPAs for their sand and gravel habitats, which of course are critical for species such as sand eels. Those MPAs include the Firth of Forth banks complex, which Dave Thompson also mentioned.
The conservation of sand eels has been an on-going issue for many years. Danish vessels used to come in and fish our stocks just off Scotland’s shoreline. For the past few years, European restrictions on the sand eels fishery have been in place, and those have been renewed year on year. Some of the conservation and protection of sand eel populations at the moment comes through the common fisheries policy and wider European legislation. However, as we are going through the process of designating MPAs, we thought that it was important to listen to representations on the subject, which, as I said, has led to designation of areas where there are sand eels.
The gist of the question seems to be whether there is a need for further action to protect sand eels, and I am not sure that that is the case. I think that we now have adequate protection in place, although I am happy to take more scientific advice—perhaps my colleagues will interject at this point. Sand eel populations are influenced not just by predation but by climate change, and where the sand eel populations are better able to breed and so on is affected by the warming of our waters. To be honest, I am not sure whether any protection over and above the MPAs and existing European protection would make a material difference, but I am happy to take more scientific advice on that. My colleagues will be aware of any need for further protection.
The MPA designation proposals were designed to add value to the existing protection. As Mr Lochhead has outlined, action is already being taken by the European Union, on the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, to protect other sand eel populations in the North Sea, and we will continue to keep the ICES advice under review.
The original proposal for the Firth of Forth MPA was for one large bank to be an MPA that would encompass the three smaller banks that the MPA covers now. Last week, we heard that the energy sector is concerned about the Firth of Forth MPA being there at all, whereas the environmentalists are concerned that the MPA will not cover the original, larger Forth bank. How much has the decision for the MPA to cover the three smaller banks been driven by science and how much has it been driven by trying to keep everybody happy?
The decision to protect those banks in the Forth has been driven by science.
In our whole approach to the designation of MPAs we have had to work with all sectors although, in some cases, only a small proportion of an MPA will impact on any particular industry. In the designation of the Forth banks MPA, the impact on renewables was a concern—as you know, that is a key area that has been designated in the plans for offshore renewables that we are working on just now. Therefore, as you can imagine, the renewable energy sector is paying close attention to the designations for that area. We have had to be driven by the science to ensure that we cannot be accused of favouritism towards any particular industry. We are having to balance various interests.
Wherever we designate MPAs, we must ensure that we protect the features that need to be protected, but we should not designate areas that are larger than the science requires. Conversely, we do not want to ignore marine features that must be protected.
Although the area will be an MPA, it may well overlap with areas that have been zoned for renewable energy developments, which will now have to take that designation into account. However, the percentage of the MPA that will be affected is tiny and a management plan will have to be drawn up for that area, which will take into account where the features are within the MPA.
If an MPA has multiple features, different parts of that MPA will require different management options. MPA designation does not mean that everything that happens in the MPA will be affected by one decision or another within the management plan. Management will be tailored to the features in the MPA.
I hope that we have struck a balance that will allow the renewable energy developments to proceed. They will have to go through various processes and the management plan will have to be taken into account, but we can have that balance of interests.
We heard last week from Lloyd Austin of RSPB Scotland and Professor Bob Furness that the Firth of Forth is a very important place for sand eels and seabirds, as we have discussed this morning. Professor Furness’s work has produced many scientific papers on the subject. I seek clarification as to why sand eels have not been noted as a specific feature in the MPA. Concerns have been expressed about the fact that there is no replication of the protection that exists elsewhere.
A number of factors have been highlighted, such as climate change and fisheries. I acknowledge that there have been fisheries closures in the MPA, but people are still concerned about the issue. Indeed, those concerns have been expressed to me in the interim, between committee meetings. Can we look into the issue a bit further?
11:15
Given the clear interest in the sand eel populations, I am happy to arrange for a follow-up scientific note on sand eels to be sent to the committee. As far as the designations are concerned, all I can say is that, as I have pointed out, European legislation contains protections for sand eels, and we have designated on the basis of the habitats being conducive to them. I am not quite sure what you mean in relation to designating sand eels as a specific feature within that.
As I understand it—and I am speaking here as a layperson on the subject of sand eels—they have not been specifically designated in the MPA as a feature in need of protection and enhancement. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I will check that. I am not sure whether David Mallon wants to explain how he reached that particular position.
Claudia Beamish is correct to say that sand eels are not a protected feature of the Firth of Forth MPA. As Mr Lochhead said, protections for sand eels already exist in that area of the North Sea. We had long discussions with Marine Scotland scientists about the best mix of features that we should protect in the Firth of Forth and, given existing measures under the common fisheries policy and our wish to add value through the designations, it was felt that adding sand eels to the mix of protected features on that site was not necessary.
In response to Claudia Beamish’s comment about replication, I should point out that there is replication in relation to sand eels in the network and that they are a feature of multiple sites. However, under the legislation that Parliament passed, MPA networks take an adaptive approach that includes regular review. We will wish to keep the issue under review, and our special protection area proposals might also contribute to the broader protection of sand eels, given how much seabirds and other species depend on them.
You mentioned the common fisheries policy, and I acknowledge that there have been fisheries closures in the area that we are discussing and that there are other protections for sand eels. However, in light of the cabinet secretary’s comments about climate change, does the science show that sand eels do not have to be recognised as a specific protected feature in the MPA to ensure their future protection? If the science is not clear enough—and I am asking you to clarify whether you think that it is—can it be reviewed between now and 2016, which is when I think the first review will be carried out?
As I have said, we will ensure that the committee gets a note that sets out the scientific case.
Thank you.
However, the thrust of the MPA designation is that there are habitats that are important to sand eels. Because of the other factors affecting them and for the reasons that David Mallon has just given, the scientists advised that we should stick to the habitats. The perspective of the fisheries legislation is purely one of conserving fish stocks and nothing else, and protection under the common fisheries policy has been in place for some time now because of issues surrounding the conservation of sand eel stocks in the Firth of Forth. I will ensure that the committee gets a note to explain the basis of the scientific advice that we received.
That would be much appreciated.
Cara Hilton will now ask some questions about management principles.
Good morning, cabinet secretary.
I will start with a question about how marine protected areas will be managed and enforced. Given that you have just over two years to implement the MPA network, what are your priorities for the assessment, development and implementation of management measures? How will you ensure that MPAs are more than just lines on the map?
As you say, we have until the end of 2016 to put in place the management plans for the 30 MPAs. The work on that has already begun. A management handbook gives guidance on the options that are available for each MPA.
We are hopeful that a culture of compliance has been generated in Scotland. We all recognise that having 30 MPAs that cover 20 per cent of Scotland’s waters presents a challenge for traditional policing and enforcement. Given the nature of Scotland’s waters, that is quite a challenge, but our experience from speaking to all the stakeholders and industries concerned is that we all want to protect Scotland’s precious marine features. We have had a good process in Scotland because people are behind what we are trying to do.
For the past few months, the fishing industry has had a number of voluntary measures in place prior to the management plans being put in place. The fact that it has agreed to implement those measures is a hopeful sign. I am sure that we all welcome the fact that fishermen recognise that a voluntary change of activity should take place in certain MPAs while we wait for the official management plans to be put in place, which will happen before the end of 2016.
There will be enforcement measures. Marine Scotland is responsible for compliance in relation to not just fisheries protection but the MPAs. Our ships, our aircraft and our other resources will play a role in that, but it will not be achievable without a culture of compliance among all the users of Scotland’s seas.
The main protection against MPAs simply being lines on the map is the fact that they are designations. That means that all the licensing authorities that consider any future activities in our waters must take them into account. The fact that we have designated MPAs provides a copper-bottomed guarantee that things will be different, as it means that it will be a legal requirement for those designations to be taken into account when consideration is given to future developments. We hope that that will work well. Over and above that, we will have the management plans, which will lead to protective measures being put in place.
Angus MacDonald has a related question.
I want to pick up on the voluntary management measures that the cabinet secretary mentioned. As we have heard in evidence, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation and the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association, in conjunction with Marine Scotland, have implemented voluntary measures for the south Arran, Wester Ross and upper Loch Fyne MPAs. In due course, those voluntary measures are due to be replaced by statutory measures. Although good sense seems to be prevailing among the majority, does the cabinet secretary feel that fishermen who are members of other associations or unaffiliated bodies are likely to stick to those measures? If he does, how will that be monitored and policed?
We have done all that we can to work with all the relevant interests that use Scotland’s waters. Over the past few years, we have gone to great lengths to involve the fishing industry, and we have relied on its expertise to understand the impact on fishing patterns. Without the input of the fishermen, we would not have been able to deal with the issue properly, because they have given us intelligence on their fishing patterns and the crossover with the proposed MPAs. I welcome that co-operation.
We are a great deal further forward than we have ever been. The fact that we have a voluntary arrangement in place that is relevant to 11 separate locations across three of the newly designated MPAs is an extremely positive sign. I hope and I trust that all the fishermen, regardless of which organisations they are members of, will pay heed to the voluntary measures. There are examples elsewhere in Scotland where all sectors have heeded voluntary fishing measures. Those examples relate not to MPAs but to other issues, such as inshore fisheries. My point is that there is no reason to think that fishermen will not heed these voluntary measures, irrespective of which fishing organisation gets round the table to agree them.
The backstop is that the management plan will be put in place, with enforcement resources that will, I hope, ensure that the measures are heeded. However, I hope that, because everyone is behind the thrust of what we are trying to do, there will be a culture of compliance that works.
We all hope that every single fisherman will adhere to the voluntary measures.
This week, Scottish Environment LINK highlighted to the committee evidence of two MPAs—the small isles and Wester Ross—that shows the stark differences between the features needing protection and the management approach. That requires close examination. For example, LINK’s submission says:
“LINK members have received feedback from within their own memberships expressing concern that the new MPAs are simply ‘paper parks’, given that some damaging activities have been allowed to continue in newly-designated MPAs. There has already been disappointment amongst coastal community groups that scallop dredging will continue within areas of sites now designated for protection”.
I am keen to hear your views on that matter.
Let us return to the question of science. If there is scientific evidence that damage is being caused, the management plans will take that into account and respond to it because we do not want damaging activity that will harm our marine features. I am not saying that any one particular organisation is doing that; rather, I am just saying that the perception that damaging activities are taking place in different parts of Scotland is communicated to me by many communities, fishermen and organisations. We must always gather the scientific evidence first to see whether that is the case, because it is not the case that fishing activity per se causes damage. In many of the MPAs various fishing activities can continue without disruption because they do not cause damage but in other cases where there is evidence of damage the management plan must take that into account in order to stop such damage.
There is no broad-brush or one-size-fits-all approach to fishing in MPAs. Each case will be looked at on its merits. In some cases, certain fishing activities will continue without disruption while in other cases the fishing activities may have to move elsewhere to avoid causing damage. If there are examples of damage being caused, I want to hear about them. As we put the management plans together, I want to ensure that we prioritise the plans for those particular areas. Therefore, I urge any organisation or MSP, or the committee, to give me those examples and we will make sure that the management plans for those areas are prioritised.
Thank you. Convener, I have an issue to do with the existing fisheries closure areas. Should I raise it now?
Why not, if it follows on.
Are the seven fisheries closure areas and the features in them that are considered to be contributing to the network but are not designated as MPAs for nature conservation under Scottish or European legislation subject to the equivalent safeguards and requirements for monitoring, reporting and review as they would be if they were designated MPAs? There is concern that, because those areas are not designated as conservation sites under the definition of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, they will not be managed, monitored, reported on or reviewed in the same way as if they were fully fledged MPAs.
Are you asking about areas that are subject to restrictions?
Yes.
We have various levels of protection in place for Scottish waters. As you know, those usually emanate from Europe via the habitats directives, the common fisheries policy, special protected areas or designations. Those all form part of Scotland’s MPA network. The areas that we are designating are often multi-feature areas. That introduces a new form of designation, because those areas would not otherwise have been designated. However, the existing special protected areas and so on will form part of the overall network of areas in Scotland. Together, the designations that are in place already through Europe as well as the 30 MPAs that we are designating will provide a big network of protection in Scottish waters.
11:30In areas where there are already restrictions, no one should have any fear that there will be some sort of lighter-touch approach. They will be subject to the protection that exists at the moment. Earlier, we discussed the existing protection for sand eel populations in the Firth of Forth. Legislation to close the sand eel fisheries in those areas was passed by Parliament and is in place. That is not light touch—that is legislation that the Parliament passed to close those areas via the common fisheries policy. Of course, MPAs are more likely to be multi-feature areas and to address a much wider variety of features than designations under European legislation, which are usually specific to one species or, in the case of fisheries protection, one stock.
We move on to questions on management principles from Jim Hume.
My question leads on neatly from that answer. One of the key policies in the draft management handbook for MPAs is to use the “best available scientific information”. The cabinet secretary mentioned that scientific information has been used for the Forth banks and for decisions on whether to dredge for scallops. However, we heard from witnesses last week that the best available scientific information might not necessarily be good science. We also heard from one of the energy company representatives that the evidence is often produced by the energy sector when it does environmental assessments, which are then passed on to Government. Of course, some of those assessments are commercially sensitive, so they cannot be used more widely. What are your thoughts on the difference between the best available scientific information and good science? Is the best available scientific information robust enough to ensure that we meet good environmental standards?
As a society, we have more knowledge than ever before about what lies beneath the waves in Scottish waters. Huge progress has been made over the past few years alone, given the extra work that has taken place as a result of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, but there has also been progress over the past few decades. Scotland has a lot of expertise in marine science. We mentioned the good work that has been happening at SAMS. Marine Scotland science plays a crucial role, and we take advice from the JNCC.
SNH, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Marine Scotland science and other organisations in Scotland have been working together to build up Scotland’s scientific knowledge of our marine features. Of course, that knowledge is not complete and I am sure that there is still a long way to go. We are bringing forward for consultation four search locations for future MPAs or other designations for mobile species. We are still building our scientific knowledge in some areas, but we are confident that we have enough scientific knowledge and it is good enough to designate the 30 MPAs that I have mentioned.
There is always a debate on the accuracy of science, but we have to take a precautionary approach and base our decisions on the available scientific knowledge. The alternative is to take no decisions and make no designations. We are confident that we have enough scientific knowledge. Jim Hume mentioned the renewable energy sector—ironically, the offshore renewables industry has built up a fantastic knowledge base. That has gone into the mix and has helped our understanding greatly. Scotland has made huge leaps in marine scientific knowledge in the past few years and I am confident that we have a good basis on which to take decisions.
Obviously, it is not just the big energy companies that are doing science—we heard evidence that amateur naturalists are doing it, too. For example, they found out about the maerl beds off Arran. I wonder how quickly organisations such as the Government can react to new information that comes from the big energy companies or from amateur naturalists who find new information. For sure, we are more knowledgeable than we were yesterday but, as we all know, there is lot of sea out there.
We do take into account information that we get from local communities. One of the reasons why we were keen to have community-driven MPAs as part of the MPA designation process was that we wanted to hear the views of communities. Clearly, when we hear from communities about marine features that they want to protect and propose for MPAs, we have to have official scientific investigation to make sure that what we are hearing is accurate. However, we built into the process the possibility of communities bringing those special marine features to our attention. A number of the MPAs that were finally designated originated in proposals from third parties—not Government or our own scientific institutions but environmental organisations or, in the case of Arran, local communities. The process is very open, to allow proposals to come from outside of Government and outside of official channels. Clearly, we have to check to make sure that they are underpinned by verified science, but that process has worked.
You talked more about what has been and where we are now; I was thinking of future discoveries, if you like, on our sea bed. How quickly can the Government react to new discoveries of information regarding the sea bed?
In terms of the reporting mechanism to Parliament, we have to have the management plans in place by the end of 2016 and 2018 is the next deadline for reporting back to Parliament on progress with the MPAs.
A lot of work lies behind that. We have all our scientists in Scotland working together. They have open channels and liaison with communities and environmental organisations, so there is ample opportunity for people to feed in scientific discoveries or knowledge to that process. It is a very open process. As I said before, the evidence that it is working is that some of the MPAs that have been designated have originated from proposals from third parties.
Dave Thompson has a supplementary on that.
Thank you, convener. It is as much a comment as a supplementary. I agree with what Jim Hume is saying. If maerl beds, or whatever, are discovered, we need to make sure that they are protected. However, the very fact that they have been discovered shows that they have not been destroyed. I do not know how long it takes to establish such a bed, but if they are there just now, with all the commercial activity that is going on, the conservation is already happening, in the sense that our fishermen and others have not destroyed them. If they are there, that is a very positive thing. We need to be careful. We need to accept and realise that the folk who are fishing our seas have just as much interest in making sure that the environment is good, given how they make their living—although I am not saying that they are all perfect. We should not just go rushing in to designate something every time we find it, unless it is particularly precious. Remember that such features are there despite the commercial activity that has been going on for centuries.
That is a very good point, which links into the previous question from Jim Hume about how we take into account local knowledge and input into science. Often the users of our seas are the people with local knowledge; they know which areas to avoid so that they do not cause damage. Notwithstanding that, of course we are aware that there are areas that have been damaged, which is why there is a justification for this whole new approach to marine conservation. I guess we will never know what was there previously that is not there now. We can only work with the information that we have, but you are quite right to say that the fact that we have so many special marine features beneath our waves in Scottish waters shows that it is possible for marine activity and industries to work side by side with marine conservation.
Alex Fergusson has another supplementary question.
Thank you, convener. My question is about the robustness of the scientific evidence that is being used in drawing up the plans. Angus MacDonald mentioned quite rightly that LINK members have apparently received fairly damning feedback that some view the new MPAs as “paper parks”. That is quite robust opposition to what has been put in place.
I wonder whether some of that disquiet is brought about by situations in which the scientific evidence that is available has perhaps not been used to the fullest extent in drawing up maps of management zones. I refer you to Scottish Natural Heritage’s commissioned report 764, “Upper Loch Fyne and Loch Goil pMPA and Wester Ross pMPA—the identification of conservation management areas to support protected feature recovery”, which shows a fairly typical example of the point that I am trying to get at, which is an identified maerl bed that lies outwith the area that is targeted for management. That gives rise to concern that although there is scientific evidence for such a bed, it has not been taken into account when drawing up the area for management. Can you comment on that?
I will come back to that point in a second, but first I want to address the comment on MPAs as “paper parks”. I just want to recap the process of how we got to where we are today. The big feature of public policy in relation to marine conservation is designations. The most important aspect to bear in mind is that we are designating areas. That process is followed by management, but designation in itself is an acknowledgement that a feature is very important. Designation is the backdrop to everything that we are talking about. Society has investigated, discovered and now designated maerl beds, for example, as a special feature that we want to protect.
In some cases, there will be no activity in the MPAs. I do not know what the management plan will look like in those cases, but it will not be as detailed as the management plans for areas where there is a lot of activity. People might think that an MPA is designated on paper but that nothing will change. However, the mere fact that an area is designated protects it from future activities, which would have to be licensed—attention would have to be paid to the designation. Designation in itself is an important point to bear in mind. Many of the MPAs will not have much activity at all; many are far out to sea, with very little activity—not even any fishing activity. It is disparaging to describe them as “paper MPAs”; there will not be much evidence of a change in activity, because there was no activity in the first place.
In areas where there is activity, the management plans will be based on scientific advice. Someone looking at an area of sea that has been designated as an MPA and seeing some activity will think, “Hold on a minute, that’s an MPA but I can still see the activity”, so the challenge is to make sure that we have scientific evidence that the activity that has been witnessed is damaging the marine environment. Pelagic fisheries, for instance, do not damage marine features. A bystander may see a fishing vessel that is fishing for pelagic stocks, which swim near the surface of the water, and make the assumption that there is a lot of activity in that MPA, yet there is no scientific evidence whatever that the activity is damaging the marine features. Everything will be backed up by science.
I will ask David Mallon to respond to the question about features being identified that are not in the MPAs, because he has been closely involved in the process. The original approach was that, where several features were replicated in various sites, we had to make sure that the features were protected by designating at least one of those sites, so that the feature would be protected as an example of what is in our waters. If there were various locations all over the place with the same feature, it was built into the original process that the bottom line was that some of those areas had to be protected, but not necessarily all of them.
I understand that, but I merely gave an example of why some people have less faith in the scientific processes that have been used than you suggest. It is not I, but others who are calling them “paper parks”. I am giving an example of why people are questioning the science that is used in drawing up the management zones.
Maybe that is a question of getting the information out there during the decision-making process. Right back at the beginning of this journey, we recognised that our waters are used for all kinds of activities, including economic activity, so we had to strike a balance. No doubt there are some people who would like there to be no economic activity in our waters because it could cause pollution or damage. Society does not take that view: society takes the view that we need economic activity, but we must strike a balance and protect our marine environments. That is why we are now much further forward.
Okay. I am happy with that. Thank you.
11:45
At last week’s meeting, we heard from Lloyd Austin, of RSPB Scotland, which thinks that
“The MPAs designated are not yet ecologically coherent meaning that efforts must be redoubled to ensure this network delivers for the environment, industry and communities.”
To what degree is there an ecologically coherent network?
We also heard last week that there need to be management objectives for whole sites. If a whole site is not designated, I am puzzled as to how enforcement action can be taken to protect the features that need protection.
We will do our best to get this right. In 2018 we will report back to Parliament on progress. Lessons will be learned—of course they will be learned; this is the first time that we have designated MPAs. I hope that in 20 or 30 years people will be able to say that there is in place a great system that was developed over time.
MPAs can be relatively large areas of sea, with many different features. They will be mapped out and the co-ordinates will be available, which is how the areas will be policed and the system enforced. The management plan must address the various features in MPAs, and the measures in the plan will not necessarily apply to all parts of the MPA.
Let me put things in perspective. The Fladen fishing grounds are a huge area of the North Sea, about 1 per cent of which will be subject to measures. We must not get carried away and subject huge areas of sea to big restrictions. The management plans will take account of activities and the features that are to be protected in each MPA.
I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but I take it that you are reassuring me that even if the whole area is not managed, because it is very large or for other reasons, protection of the features and habitats in which species thrive in a protected area will still be enforceable.
Yes. As I said, we are on a learning curve. Until the management plans are in place and we are able to reflect on their success, we cannot fully answer such questions. The key point is that we are doing it, and for the first time. I am confident that the outcome will be greater protection.
How can an ecologically coherent network be developed, not just to prevent further degradation, but to enhance our marine environment and enable its recovery? We do not hear enough about enhancement and recovery in relation to the marine environment.
Defining “recovery” is one of the trickiest aspects. We clearly want some marine features to recover, but to what level? We hope and expect that some features in MPAs will recover naturally. It would be challenging to lay down rules and regulations on recovery in the management plans, because we would have to define “recovery”. We will be guided by the science, which is an on-going exercise. Recovery is an objective, but how we define it and lay down plans for recovery in a particular site is a bit more challenging.
What about enhancement of our marine environment, which is a commitment in the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010?
Again, all I can say is that the management plans will be guided by the science. They will be substantial documents that will apply to each MPA in Scotland. We will therefore have 30 management plans, which will be guided by the science.
We have heard evidence and received written evidence that suggest that, if the network is to be ecologically coherent, further MPAs or designations will need to be added. Do you agree with that? When the matter comes back to Parliament in 2018, will that allow an opportunity for further designations and areas to be added, if that is believed to be necessary to deliver what Parliament asked for under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, or is the proposed network it?
No, that is certainly not it. There is no doubt that we will continue to learn more about Scotland’s seas and our marine features. The more we build up that scientific knowledge, the more MPAs will, no doubt, be designated in due course. Who knows where they will be and how many there will be? I have already indicated that we are currently considering mobile species in some of the search locations that are being looked at. That will no doubt lead to future mobile species designations.
It is very likely that there will be more MPAs, and Parliament will have a duty to keep on reflecting and reporting. As I said, the next deadline for that is 2018.
Are adequate resources available to extend our knowledge and regulate, to underpin the roles of the regulators and scientists?
We have made huge progress with the science in the run-up to the designations. So far, the resources that we have put in to ensure that we can get the management plans in place have been adequate. Providing adequate resources is always a challenge, given the wider financial considerations. We will have to keep under review that we have ensured that we have the resources available. Even getting the 30 management plans in place by the end of 2016 is a huge challenge.
We have given extra funds to various surveys to get the designations in place, and future budget decisions will take into account the need to keep up momentum.
I am particularly interested in those decisions, because we have maintained to a laudable degree scientific research funding in the Scottish budgets, which is really important. However, the work of SAMS and the Environmental Research Institute in Thurso, which is looking at all aspects of life in the Pentland Firth in particular, requires a guarantee that there will be a flow of cash to them. Do you see an expanding role for the science and research that we can afford? Have we looked adequately at the costs that will be required to extend that knowledge?
Some of the decisions are very long term. I am content that adequate resources are currently being made available for what is required in the short term. As you indicated, we have done our best to protect the science budgets in the Scottish Government, despite the big cuts that we have had to take. There have been efficiency savings, and the budgets for Marine Scotland have not increased. There has been a reallocation of resources within Marine Scotland, but I will not sit here and say that we have increased its overall budget, because we have needed to make quite hard efficiency savings. However, in respect of overall budget cuts compared with what has happened elsewhere in the UK, we have managed to protect the budgets as far as we can.
A great boost to scientific knowledge in Scotland comes from the private sector, of course. We must remember that the oil and gas sector commissions a lot of environmental work and science. The offshore renewables sector has to go through environmental assessments for any of its projects and plans, and it has invested a lot in science. Many of our scientific institutions in Scotland are therefore benefiting from private sector investment.
The resources include those for the regulators. Now that Marine Scotland has responsibility for both fishing and marine protection, are the ships and aircraft that you have adequate for the task?
Before the advent of Marine Scotland, we used to have the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, but the changing role of Marine Scotland over the past few years has involved our vessels having a wider remit that is about not just fisheries protection, but marine responsibility for the designations and so on, so we have to keep the situation under review. In addition to our staff, we have three ships, two aircraft and various other smaller vessels—rigid inflatable boats—which are attached to the ships and are used more for inshore activity.
That emphasises that we are very reliant on the culture of compliance that we spoke about earlier. If we do not have everyone on board to make the policy work, it will be challenging. We will have to work with people to ensure that we are all going in the same direction and that all the users of Scotland’s seas want to protect our marine features. We cannot simply rely on hard enforcement all the time, because that is not the best way of delivering our objectives. As I said, we will keep the situation under review.
At last week’s meeting, Calum Duncan of the Marine Conservation Society spoke about “citizen science”. Clearly, there are a lot of very capable people around who observe all sorts of things and report them accordingly. Does the Government have any particular perspective on how that can be encouraged?
I am always open to suggestions about how that can be encouraged. Perhaps it is something that we should give a lot more thought to. All I would say is that, as I indicated, we have gone to great pains to ensure that our work to date has been very open and transparent, and we have invited contributions from outside the official channels and the Government. We must have an authoritative validation of the science, but when it comes to influencing the agenda, highlighting issues and inputting into the process, we are very keen on supporting what has been referred to as citizen science.
The process north of the border and the way in which we have approached our designations, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and everything around that have been highly commended compared with the approach of the rest of the UK. We have been very inclusive. I am not saying that everything is perfect, but we have had a lot of feedback and public comment that—as I think the committee has heard in the past week or two—the process that we have had in Scotland has been very inclusive.
I think that Graeme Dey wants to explore just how inclusive that process has been.
My question is on the practicalities that can arise in implementing MPAs. Mick Borwell of Oil & Gas UK raised a concern with the committee over a particular management measure at a site level. He read the recommendation that
“deposited material should meet local habitat type”
as meaning that no rocks can be placed on a mud or sand sea bed that is devoid of rocks. His point was that the industry uses rocks to stabilise pipelines to protect the content and as a safety measure for the fishing fleet. Is his concern warranted? Is there scope for commonsense solutions to be found for such specific circumstances?
The designations are there to protect, so if the scientific evidence is that using a particular material in a particular location would endanger a marine feature that we want to protect, it is clear that that will not be accepted and the licence will not be granted for the pipeline in the example that you gave. However, the system is also designed to ensure that we do not stop development at sea. It is about ensuring that developments are appropriate and in the right locations, and that a management plan is put in place for any development that takes place so that it takes into account the marine features.
MPAs are not about stopping developments; they are just about ensuring that they do not damage the marine environment. That may mean moving a development, doing it in a different way or whatever. That is why, once a designation and management plans are in place, anyone who wants to lay a pipeline on Scotland’s sea bed will have to apply for a licence, and the authority that grants the licence must refer to the designations.
So, in reality, for permission to be granted, a different means of securing a pipeline would have to be found.
Yes—if the feature in question was protected.
Thanks for the clarification.
Nigel Don has some points on further designations.
12:00
This is an issue that we picked up on last week. I understand that a further four marine protected areas have already been assessed but not designated. That is of particular interest to those who are concerned about dolphins, for example, which seem to be particularly covered by those areas. I am not sure—and I do not think that anybody else is—what the process is, whether those areas are being consulted on and when they will be designated. The question is broadly about timetables and uncertainty, cabinet secretary. Will you enlighten us, please?
We are lucky that, in Scottish waters, we have some special species of whales, dolphins and basking sharks, for instance. They are spectacular species and we want to do what we can to protect them when they are in Scottish waters but, by their nature, they are mobile species. Therefore, designating MPAs to protect them is a lot more challenging than designating MPAs for static features. That is why it is taking longer.
We hope to consult on those four MPAs in 2015, but the scientific justification for any particular MPA is taking longer because the species are mobile and we have to understand where their breeding grounds are. Once we are confident that we have that information and it forms the basis of designating MPAs for mobile species, we will consult.
I understand the point about the science. Clearly, if creatures move around, it is a tad difficult to work out where they prefer to be most of the time. I am sure that the scientific community accepts that. Is there any constraint other than good science on getting those MPAs designated as soon as possible?
It is August 2014 and I am saying that we will consult in 2015. Most people to whom I have spoken understand why it is taking a bit longer to get those MPAs in place. The consultation will be in 2015 and we will get the designations in place as soon as possible thereafter.
Claudia Beamish will ask a bit more about the process.
Paragraph 210 of Scottish planning policy states:
“Authorities should afford the same level of protection to proposed SACs and SPAs (i.e. sites which have been approved by Scottish Ministers for formal consultation but which have not yet been designated) as they do to sites which have been designated.”
Will you comment on whether the draft SPAs should be considered as proposed SPAs and treated as if they have been designated for the planning process?
That is quite a complicated question.
I know. The question is really whether, because the SPAs have been proposed, they can receive some protection while the consultation is going on until a possible designation.
At the moment, as you know, there are 14 proposed locations for SPAs. Again, we will consult on those in 2015. Are you saying that we should somehow put measures in place before the official designation?
I am asking a question. I understand that Scottish planning policy—I quoted the paragraph for you—highlights the issue that, once an area has been proposed for an SPA, it could have protection during the formal consultation, before it is designated.
I will reflect on that, because the process is already under way for the SPAs that we are talking about—as I said, there are 14 of them—and I will have to check with the authorities whether protection is in place at the moment, albeit not on a statutory footing. The processes that are being followed for those 14 SPAs are no different from those that were followed for the SPAs that are already in place in Scottish waters, so there is no difference in the way in which they are being treated. However, I will check the point and get back to the committee.
That would be helpful.
I have an even more difficult question on seabird protection, to which I certainly do not know the answer. Will the network and the seabird protection measures move towards completion once the areas that are going to be designated have been designated? Obviously, that will be done on the basis of the best available science at the moment; in the future, the situation might be different. Do you think that the network will be quite robust after the designations have been made?
Yes. It is always dangerous for me to say that something has been completed, but the 14 areas that we have proposed have been warmly welcomed, and we are quite confident that that will take us much further forward and address the concerns that have been expressed about a lack of protection in some areas.
As you said, we will be guided by scientific knowledge. As more science becomes available, we will have to respond to that in due course. David Mallon might want to comment on the process.
The experience with SPAs on land is that there is a need to keep under review whether the sites are sufficient to meet the needs of the bird species populations, and that is likely to be the case in the marine environment as well. The proposed sites are the ones that SNH and JNCC have been able to identify. We will have to keep that under review, as Mr Lochhead said, and the 2018 review will be the first opportunity to do that.
The position is similar on the other features that are contained in the network. There are some features that SNH and JNCC had sought to represent, for which data was not available, and we will keep those features under review as well.
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. It is obvious that we are on a kind of escalator: we learn more as we go along. We are at a point at which we have made the first major pioneering move, which has been warmly welcomed by many people, and we hope that the learning process will allow people to take on board the science that has been gleaned and apply it to ensure that the MPAs work.
The increased involvement of local communities will be very important, along with that of inshore fisheries groups and so on. We hope that you can make all those things work together and put the jigsaw together, so that we have clean seas and an improving environment.
I thank you and your officials very much for your evidence today. Before we close, I would like to say that this is our last committee meeting before the independence referendum. Although we have been back for only a short while, the committee has covered some important work on MPAs and tenant farming. I thank all those who have given evidence and worked with us, both in front of and behind the scenes.
Meeting closed at 12:08.