THE seas of Scotland are many things to many people. For some, they are daily livelihoods. For others, heritage, identity and belonging. They bring solace and wellbeing to many. And for all of us, they help create a safe and liveable climate. Regardless of which of these connections resonate most, none are trivial.
That is why the Scottish Government’s public consultation on ocean protection is not only welcome, but essential. A conversation is needed.
For this consultation, the Government is exploring banning or restricting bottom trawling in 20 of Scotland’s offshore marine protected areas. This particular fishing practice is a good place to start, since it is a pressing, but poorly understood issue. In fact, when we asked people about bottom trawling in a YouGov survey, 64% of UK adults thought the practice was already banned in protected areas, including 71% of those in Scotland.
READ MORE: Founder of a pro-Scottish independence group steps down
I suspect there is a reason most people are unaware that bottom trawling is allowed in our marine protected areas, and that is because it seems unbelievable.
Bottom trawlers drag heavy metal gear and nets – which can weigh several tonnes – over the seabed, often decimating habitats such as reefs, kelp forests and seagrass meadows that are vital for marine health. It also has an extremely high rate of bycatch – indiscriminately hoovering up untargeted wildlife. Honestly, I share that sense of disbelief: How can such destruction be permitted in a supposedly “protected” area?
Of those we surveyed, an overwhelming 83% felt it should be banned in marine havens.
What’s at stake TO pick just a few examples of the riches that the sites in the consultation harbour, let’s start around a hundred nautical miles off Cape Wrath.
Here lies an underwater world formed of “sand volcanoes” that are capped with thickets of ancient cold-water corals. These are the Darwin Mounds and it was here, just four years ago, that scientists first discovered cold-water coral reefs growing on sand, rather than rock.
Many of these volcanoes also have what is thought to be a globally unique feature – teardrop-shaped “tails” on the seabed, which are home to the world’s largest single-celled organisms – xenophyophores – a single cell that can grow up to 20 cm in diameter.
In other sites under consultation, you will find gulper sharks, only found in 17 places globally; or ocean quahogs, clams that can live for over 500 years – some living in Scottish seas today may have been alive in the time of Robert Burns, or even Mary Queen of Scots.
Going the whole quahog RIGHT now, for many of the protected areas in the consultation, the Government is deliberating between protecting only certain zones, like reefs, or protecting the whole site. There is a wealth of evidence to show that protecting these havens in their entirety is the best way to protect the ocean.
Research from Lyme Bay in Dorset, for example, showed that when reefs alone were protected, the abundance of marine life did increase – by 15%. But in areas where the entire sea bed was protected, that figure was an overwhelming 95%.
It is also worrying that if you look closely at the data on trawling in these Scottish MPAs, it becomes clear that under this partial protection option, restrictions would be almost entirely limited to places where bottom trawling doesn’t happen in any case, so industrial vessels can continue business as usual. In a time of nature and climate crises, business as usual is far from good enough.
Protecting only remnants of habitat, entirely encircled by an endless patrol of destructive fishing, prevents true regeneration. We must be clear and bold – bottom trawling should be banned in all marine havens.
Seas for communities RESTORATION of marine habitats also builds resilience into Scotland’s seas in a way that extends to coastal communities and livelihoods.
Banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas could deliver benefits worth between £2.57 billion and £3.5bn to the UK economy over a 20-year period, a recent study showed. It’s also cheaper to enforce – around three times cheaper according to the Scottish Government – so it’s a win-win for the taxpayer and for nature.
I hope that those who represent the Scottish fishing industry would agree that we must choose the long-term stability of jobs for coastal communities over short-term profits for a few corporations.
To safeguard resilience as our seas weather the storms and heatwaves caused by the climate crisis, we must create true havens where fish populations and wildlife are protected and nourished. Other countries, such as Greece, are now stepping up to kick bottom trawling out of their protected areas, but many are lagging. Scotland’s action on this issue could therefore be transformative for both the UK and EU.
The West of Scotland MPA, at more than 100,000 square kilometres, is one of the largest national MPAs in Europe. Freeing this ocean powerhouse from the destructive and wasteful practice that is bottom trawling would put Scotland’s international leadership firmly on the map.
Scotland’s seas are many things to many people but they are important to all of us. Proper protection will protect wildlife, boost the economy, and safeguard coastal communities.
Hugo Tagholm is executive director of Oceana UK
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel