REGIONAL SW INSHORE MPA MANAGEMENT FORUM
SCOTTISH YOUTH THEATRE GLASGOW
02 and 03 October 2014
TRESHNISH ISLES SAC
1. This SAC has been designated since 2005. No management as yet due to relatively
low fishing effort in this area.
2. Only 1 approach proposed; prohibit trawling and dredging (mobile gear)
throughout the whole site as sedimentation is a concern. No creel management
proposed. *AP Include assessment of creel fishing in consultation document
for every site.
3. The data suggests low economic impact of a full closure. However the protected
features do not cover the whole area so zonal management may be possible with
more fisheries data was available.
4. These figures are disputed as local knowledge of at least 1 <10m vessel (no VMS or
logbook data) which has used these sheltered grounds in the winter months for 30
years with an estimated value of £10000-£20000 per year for the catch from this
area alone. This vessel would be unable to move into more open waters at these
times as it would be too exposed placing it in danger. *AP Need supporting
evidence to be presented in consultation response*
5. Correlation between scotmap and VMS data allows reasonable assumptions that
the u15m and o15m vessels have similar fishing patterns.
6. A zonal management approach could allow fishing in the areas which do not have
stony reef i.e. down the SW and NE edges of the SAC. *AP industry must present
more plotter data before consultation before zonal management would be
considered.*
7. Zonal management would be more difficult to monitor, however technology such
as VMS could be used. VMS is already a legal requirement for vessels >12m.
8. Every commercial vessel should have VMS; workable example of the Isle of Man.
VMS is only one of the tools available for monitoring could have CCTV cameras on
drum of boat to evaluate activity more accurately.
LOCH SUNART TO SOUND OF JURA
1. Proposing no suction dredging, longlining or bottom set-nets.
2. No demersal mobile in deeper areas to protect common skate and no tickler chains
in the whole site to reduce common skate by-catch.
3. Marine Scotland Science have recommended the conservation objective be
conserve which is why there is not a complete ban on trawling in the whole area.
Focus is to reduce skate mortality through by-catch avoidance.
1
4. Marine Scotland Science have recommended the ban on tickler chains through
extensive discard research and specific studies on the interaction of common skate
with the tickler chain.
5. Reports from a nephrops twin-rig demersal trawler of extensive common skate bycatch in the Firth of Lorn. This is the subject of a SAMS study. There is still a risk
of by-catch in more shallow areas as common skate have been recorded at depths
as shallow as 40ft.
6. Could possibly protect more of the shallow areas in the Sound of Mull, however
there is not a huge amount of data about common skate abundance and
distribution at shallow depths of this area. *AP Add another option to join the
three areas together in the Sound of Mull with no mobile gear allowed.
7. The decline in fishing effort (38%) on the west coast over the last few years should
be taken into consideration when deciding final management measures.
8. Suggestion that the new option could be extended. However this area is frequently
fished and there is a lack of common skate records here.
9. Suggestion that the conservation objective for common skate should be recover
and not conserve due to the species poor status at global level. Some stakeholders
would like to see the whole area closed to demersal mobile gear because of this.
10. In the future when more data is collected then the management plans can be
reviewed and changed accordingly.
LOCH SUNART
1. Proposal to prohibit the use of anchors in Loch Teacius. Use of mooring would be
allowed so long as maintenance was carried out in an appropriate manner.
2. The fishing industry requested the small area of burrowed mud (not a protected
feature here) at the mouth of Loch Sunart remain open but support the protection
measures further up the Loch.
SUMMARY




4 areas closed to mobile gear could join three together in the Sound of Mull to
offer more protection over shallow areas for common skate.
Marine Scotland will consider further collection of common skate data for the
shallow areas around the Sound of Jura.
If public feel that mobile gear should be banned from the whole MPA they can
respond to the public consultation accordingly.
Loch Sunart proposal shall stay as it is.
2
LOCH CRERAN
1. Believed to be the 2nd most important site in the world for serpulid reefs.
2. There is already management measures in place for this site and the proposals are
designed to enhance there
3. There is only 1 u10m trawler operating in the loch at the moment.
4. A zonal management plan was developed when the site was first designated as a
SAC. The continuation of this zonal plan with the addition of protected areas for
flame shell beds would be supported locally.
5. Another option would be to use a Marine Conservation Order to create a permit
scheme for that 1 vessel to continue fishing with revised zones to protect flame
shell beds.
LOCH SWEEN
1. Option 1 deals with the ‘remove/avoid’ pressure habitats first by prohibiting the
use of suction and hydraulic dredging, all mobile/suction gear at the head of the
loch, and in Linne Mhurrich, as well as hand gathering of shellfish. Further
measures would have to be considered in the 2nd round. If option 1 is selected then
the final outcome RE management after the 2nd round of measures may be different
to what is proposed under option 2 at the moment.
2. Option 2 is to prohibit suction and hydraulic dredging as well as hand gathering of
shellfish, no mobile gear in the body of the Loch and scallop dredging would only
be allowed from 7am-9pm Monday-Friday in the rest of the MPA to ‘reduce/limit’
pressure.
3. A feeling that option 1 would not be accepted by the local community. However
the maerl beds are sparse in this area and so it is very difficult to design a
management plan around them.
4. Hand gathering would be banned in certain areas (zonal management) to prevent
collection of native oysters. *AP Clarify if the hand gathering prohibition
applies to Scallop Dredging.
5. There are other local areas available for fishing. The local communities need the
fishing industry to survive but are also keen to see greater protection of the area.
SOUTH ARRAN
1. Three key areas for maerl bed recovery. A high level of protection from any
physical disturbance is proposed. These areas have more than 5% live maerl.
The maerl gravel beds are also important habitats for associated species and may
also facilitate the recovery of the live maerl beds in the future.
2. Monitoring will continue and overtime the size/shape of the areas which need
protected may need to change according to the maerl recovery status. 5%
considered a reasonable amount of coverage to facilitate recovery.
3
URGENT MARINE CONSERVATION ORDER FOR THE SOUTH ARRAN MPA.
3. Local creel fishermen feel that the areas they set creels in does not affect maerl
beds and therefore they should not be excluded under the MCO. Creel boats do
work in the extended protected areas for maerl beds, this is a very productive
area for lobsters, crabs etc. there can be over 1000 creels in the water in these
areas during the week.
4. The MCO will be replaced by the permanent order agreed upon throughout the
public consultation process.
5. Seagrass beds located in Whiting Bay: one of the largest seagrass beds in the
Clyde. Anchoring would be prohibited in this area and current moorings could
be moved to just outside the seagrass beds to the east.
MANAGEMENT OPTION 1
6. Does not provide full protection therefore burrowed mud would have to be
considered in 2nd batch of options. Demersal mobile gear would only be allowed
outside the purple line.
7. No demersal gear in MPA was suggested for the recovery of whiting stocks (not a
protected feature of the MPA). This would cause significant displacement and
cause environmental issues in the Firth of Clyde. Consideration of matters like
this would be more appropriate through the Clyde 2020 project.
MANAGEMENT OPTION 2
8. Burrowed mud protected so management measures not needed in 2nd batch.
9. A permit scheme will be put in place to allow scallop dredging in certain areas.
10. 900 hours fishing effort averaged over the last 7 years, so the introduction of a
permit scheme will inevitably cause a reduction in effort as <15m vessels data
not considered yet.
11. Maerl gravel habitat is data deficient and so amending the line to cover a wider
area would allow for assessment of these habitats to take place. *AP MPP will
liaise with SNH and MSS to see if further research can be done on gravel
habitats before closures.*
12. There has been a growing trend of bigger boats fishing in the Clyde; if there are
vessel size restrictions implemented in an area the fishermen would prefer that
it be based on tonnage instead of engine size or vessel length.
13. An option for consultation could be to combine spatial elements of option 1 and
2 to enhance habitat protection and reduce the footprint of scallop dredging
further. *AP Marine Scotland to consider this after the workshop.
14. Option 2 is acceptable to fishing industry representatives.
15. In 2018 there will be a network review where ministers report to parliament
about the status of the MPAs. The permit scheme, if implemented, would be
reviewed at this time.
4
UPPER LOCH FYNE AND LOCH GOIL MPA
1. Fireworks anemones are the key biotope of the Burrowed mud MPA feature.
2. Flame shell recovery likely to be an expansion of existing beds rather than
colonisation of separate areas.
3. Some stakeholders felt there was a case for complete closure of the whole MPA
to mobile gear. However industry noted that these lochs were of high
importance to a small number of operators. Upper Loch Fyne is used in bad
weather and Loch Goil is used when the Navy has operations in Loch Long.
4. Loch Shira: Could move the line out to the spit at Loch Fyne hotel, this will offer
protection to the breeding area for large nephrops. There is already a voluntary
agreement not to fish in the shallow areas and the trawl sector would prefer the
line drawn here. (The proposed line effectively splits the difference!)
5. Separate areas (zonal management) wouldn’t work as fishermen are not going to
haul nets to cross from one allowable patch to another. It would be better to
restrict all mobile gear in all areas.
6. Although both options achieve the same outcome closed zones appeared to be
more favoured.
7. Permit scheme could be viable.
LOCH GOIL
1. Approaches are similar to Loch Fyne, both approaches for this area have the
same outcome.
2. Queens harbour master only issues licences to 4 vessels for fishing in Loch Long
/ Loch Goil. This limits pressure considerably.
3. The mouth of Loch Goil is a high value area and closure would have a significant
economic impact on a small number of vessels.
LUCE BAY AND SANDS SAC
1. Subject to seasonal closure 8 months out of the year at the moment.
2. Local perspective:
 The bay is closed more often than stated.
 Kelp is destroyed by bad weather in closed area proposed in the blue box
anyway, so pointless to close it?
 Supportive of the protection of maerl beds but the two outer edges of the bay are
essential for bad weather working (static and scallop gear).
 Not supportive of a zonal management approach as this will most likely cause
gear conflict issues.
 Scallop fishing has been taking place in this area for 60 years and some members
of the local community feel that this practise is not destroying the protected
features.
5


Extremely important economically; Industry suggest that local shellfish
processors can earn £1.5 million from 1000 Tonnes of landed catch.
*AP Marine Scotland to request VMS data for all vessels fishing in this area
from Isle of Man Government.*
3. An alternative management option could be to close area from 22nd Dec-3rd Jan
and have a permit system in line with western waters regulations to limit u15m
vessels to the same number of days allocated as over 15m vessels have.
4. Habitat advice for this area has recently been refined following a research
survey. The survey found no evidence of existence of horse mussel beds in the
west side of the bay. Found historic maerl beds in the outer bay.
5. Bedrock/boulder reef and kelp beds located in the SW corner of the bay, which is
why this area has been classified as high sensitivity. These features act as
nursery ground and so damage may not always be physical but can be
population decimation by loss of larvae etc.
6. The survey mapped in detail the area on the east side of the bay, marked on the
map with the honeycomb effect, scallop dredging does not take place in this area.
7. Kelp grow in areas of high wave exposure, are fast growing in summer and shed
fronds in the winter months, which may be giving the impression of destruction
in the bad weather. Damage through fishing cannot be proven so assumed
favourable condition at the time of designation.
8. The queen scallop (QSC) fishery also needs control measures. At the moment any
UK boat can fish for QSC and Isle of Man boats do not need any certification. This
increase in effort from foreign boats in turn reduces the effort available for the
historic scallop fishermen in the Luce bay area.
9. The maerl beds may have has greater coverage in the bay before scallop
dredging started in the bay (>60 years ago). However there is no evidence to
back this assertion up.
SUMMARY
 *AP Marine Scotland to contact MSS regarding Solway data in SCOTMAP.*
 Options going forward are; whole site management, the addendum area and a
new third option which will be finalised in time for the public consultation.
6