Seòmar agus comataidhean

Probably the more stark question is, will there be any compensation? No compensation will be given directly to fishing vessels, because we have assessed that the economic impact of the measures on those vessels will not be particularly high. That is because we have taken a zonal approach and we have not ruled out sustainable fishing.

In terms of Government—public—money that will be provided, it is important to recognise the amount of effort that is being made by, and the funding that will go in through, my portfolio and that of Mairi Gougeon in particular. That includes the support for all the evidence gathering that is associated with the decisions that we make, the money that we have put into the marine directorate and into the systems that it uses, and the funding that we give to universities that will be carrying out quite a lot of the studies that are associated with the marine environment, which will feed into the JNCC’s work as well.

There is a holistic, whole-Government approach in improving the data, adapting to the science, supporting the collection of that data, supporting the ability for everyone to feed into our consultations on the regulations, and having direct relationships with my officials when we look at measures and do our on-going monitoring of their efficacy.

I keep coming back to the fact that we will take cognisance of any static gear that might be available in the future that might not have an impact on the seabed or of any evidence to support that more activities can happen sustainably in MPAs. I would say that the Government support is holistic support to provide that evidence base, which will allow us to adapt our decisions as we go forward

First of all, I want to go back to what I said about the fact that the representatives from the static gear sector on your panel have been very innovative in this space, and I absolutely respect everything that they have done in that regard. However, it is not true to say that they were not able to access any of the fora that were available as this discussion took place. There was a series of meetings on the issue when we were in the EU, including regional advisory councils, in which every representative of the fishing industry could be involved. All parts of the fishing sector could attend that. Indeed, many representatives from the static gear sector from other EU countries were involved in them as well.

I want to talk about one of the areas that was mentioned. The west of Scotland MPA was designated only in 2020, and that was the point at which we reached out to have those meetings. John Mouat might be able to provide details on those meetings.

There were three substantial meetings with our colleagues in the Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation. It could have been involved in all the discussions that the SFF and the Scottish White Fish Producers Association were involved in as well. With the greatest respect to AFPO, it might have been working on an assumption that the measures would not affect it. However, as I said, data, science and evidence changes, so it is very important that it makes it voice heard.

Having said that, I would say directly to the organisation that, going forward, it should establish those relationships with my team and work shoulder to shoulder with all other stakeholders. The opportunities were there and those opportunities are there. It might feel like it was invited late, but we cannot track down absolutely everyone. The meetings are open to everyone who is a stakeholder in the marine environment. How many consultations do we put out over the years? There is an ability to feed back.

Indeed.

Before I hand over to John Mouat, I want to say that I feel that my portfolio has a constructive relationship with the fishing industry. I welcome the many offers that I get from the various parts of the industry, whether it be the pelagic sector or the inshore fisheries sector, to do more to gather evidence and provide data. There is a great willingness for fishers to be more involved in informing the decisions that are made. I welcome that and I can only see that happening more and more as we go forward. The engagement has been very constructive.

With regard to the monitoring of the MPAs in order to inform later reviews and decisions, I ask John Mouat to give you the details of that.

Some work has been done since we said that we would have that review, which is still on-going.

One of the pieces of work that has been done to inform that review has been a survey concerning the fishers’ behaviours and attitudes towards compliance and enforcement. That is informing a lot of the work that we are taking forward in relation to penalties. It is obviously in the interests of the fishing sector to make sure that members and the vessels that are associated with them comply with all the enforcement measures—and, indeed, everything that we are putting forward today and beyond—because, if we see vessels infringing on the measures or not taking them into account, there might be a need to increase the penalties. If we have compliance across the board, it is unlikely that we will have to go down that route.

Thank you very much, convener. I am very pleased to be here to talk about the Offshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing Methods) (Scotland) Order 2025. The management measures in the order mark the most significant step that we have yet taken to safeguard Scotland’s offshore marine environment and to address the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change in our marine area.

The order laid before the Parliament seeks to introduce site-specific restrictions on certain fishing gear types within 19 offshore MPAs. The measures, which were consulted on between August and October 2024, include sites designated under both the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Conservation of Offshore Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

Scottish ministers have a number of statutory duties in this area. Our goal is to ensure that the sites achieve their conservation objectives and support wider ecosystem health, while also recognising the realities for fishers and coastal communities, and we consider that the fisheries management measures are reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances.

For each site, management options were tailored on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and advice, including that from the JNCC as well as detailed evidence on how fishing gear affects the habitats that we are protecting. In 15 cases, that has allowed for zonal closures, with the remaining five taken forward as full closures. The measures are grounded in evidence and aim to support the achievement of conservation objectives at site while allowing sustainable use as appropriate.

I acknowledge that some sectors have concerns about the scope of these proposals, and that is why we have worked closely with the industry throughout the process and have published clear impact assessments. We recognise that there are concerns for the fishing industry, particularly around displacement and economic impact, and, as a result, we have sought to design targeted and proportionate measures. Our analysis shows that overall economic impacts are limited in scale, especially when set against the importance of meeting our legal duties in relation to the protection of the marine environment. We have taken a pragmatic and proportional approach.

I want to emphasise that these proposals reflect our statutory obligations, our environmental commitments, and our responsibility to manage Scotland’s marine resources in the interests of current and future generations. They are based on evidence, have been shaped by dialogue and collaboration and are essential to protecting our marine biodiversity in a changing climate. The measures are not about excluding fishing unnecessarily. They are about ensuring that protections are in place to allow our MPAs to achieve their conservation objectives, and they are essential if we are to safeguard the most sensitive offshore ecosystems—ecosystems that, of course, include nursery areas for fish stocks and that contribute to overall sea health.

I welcome the committee’s scrutiny of these measures, and I am more than happy to take questions.

It is important to put this in context. Obviously we have to take cognisance of the statutory advice that we get from the JNCC, and from NatureScot in the inshore areas, but we also have to balance that with the other assessments that we do, not least on the socioeconomic impact. As I said in my opening remarks, what we do has to be proportionate as well as evidence based.

The JNCC gives us advice based on its objectives and the data that it collects, but we are also taking evidence from the people affected by our decisions. I should mention that 94 per cent of MPAs will have no bottom trawling as a result of these measures, which I think conservationists, and people in Scotland generally, have been looking for. However, where there might be the possibility of, or the opportunity to have, sustainable fishing, why rule it out, as long as it is not having any impact on the features that we are wanting to protect? We have to recognise that marine protected areas do not have to be no-go zones when it comes to other aspects of the marine environment.

We wanted to take that pragmatic approach. I did not see all your previous witnesses—I saw some of the second evidence session—but, based on the feedback that we have been getting from environmental NGOs and those representing the fishing industry, I think that we have largely managed to achieve that sort of approach through collaboration and after dealing with all the available evidence and data, particularly through the JNCC, which uses all of that evidence and data, and taking into account the socioeconomic potential for loss and even job losses. We have tried to take that proportional approach, but we have also stated our aim to have, as we go forward, an adaptive approach.

The measures need time to bed in—this is not just some moment in time when we are saying, “We’ve done the measures, so that’s it.” They need to be analysed over time, because quite a lot of the ecosystems that we are talking about are very slow growing. Therefore, that sort of thing will not happen quickly. It will happen on the basis of the advice that we get from the JNCC and others about when it is best to review the measures, but we do have to be adaptive.

Moreover, the marine environment is very much impacted by climate change. Species and other things move and change in that environment, and we need to be fleet of foot in adapting to that.

I will answer that question, but I will also bring in John Mouat to give you some of the specific detail, because my team are steeped in the issue and know that sort of thing.

We wanted to use the best available advice to take a feature-based approach. Each MPA has a variety of features on the seabed, so it is the seabed itself that, by and large, is being protected. There are some areas in which particular ecosystems might be impacted more than others. In particular, with the full-site closures, there will have been an assessment that no fishing can be done in that area, because the evidence will have highlighted the impact that it would have on what might be particularly vulnerable areas. In others, however, there will be a mixed picture, and some activities might be sustainable because they are not having the same impact.

As for the criteria, we got scientific advice from the statutory nature conservation bodies, as you would expect, as well as from the chief scientific adviser for marine on the distribution of features and the level of protection required in each area. I guess that those are the criteria. We cannot have just blanket criteria, because it cannot just be a case of checking things off. After all, we are talking about complex marine environments that contain diverse ecosystems.

I will hand over to John Mouat, to give you a wee bit more detail.

We can argue over that. Obviously, the wording of a document has not made it into how I expressed myself but, hopefully, the meaning of what I said is in line with what you have just read out to me.

In an adaptive approach, which is the approach that we are taking, there is always a need to adapt and refine our methods. We also need to base our models on the best available data and science, and indeed the monitoring systems that may be available to us. Technology will adapt as well and something may present itself in the future that will allow us to get better data, or more data, or whatever it might be. I have given examples of what we have done in the past few years to enhance that data, and the JNCC is doing its level best to make sure that everything that it takes into consideration is the most up to date.

The answer to the final part of your question is yes. This is not a static moment in time that we do not revisit. It is the nature of nature—things change. It is also very important that we monitor the efficacy of the decisions that we have made in this area. If we are allowing sustainable fishing in certain MPAs, that has to be monitored to make sure that it is not having any impact on the features that we are trying to protect. It goes both ways.

Socioeconomic impacts are a very important factor and that comes back to the first question that I was asked, about why we went for a zonal approach over a blanket ban on any economic activity happening in MPAs. The zonal aspect is in reflection of the socioeconomic impacts that a blanket ban would have if we did not take a proportionate, pragmatic and evidence-led approach. That is my answer to that.