Hansard

I thank those members who signed the motion that allowed the debate to be brought to the chamber.

HPMAs are “a blunt instrument”. Those are not my words but those of Shetland’s only Green councillor. It is no exaggeration to say that the proposals for highly protected marine areas have struck fear and anxiety into coastal and island communities. Communication from the Scottish Government about its proposals has been poor and, had the Government engaged meaningfully with communities before now, it is possible that some of those concerns could have been alleviated.

A great many constituents have been in contact with me highlighting the potential impact on their livelihoods, and stakeholders across Scotland have raised concerns about the HPMA proposals. The three island-group councils have all come out in opposition to the plans, which once again raises questions over the degree to which Scottish Government policy is island proofed.

Around a third of Shetland’s economy depends on fishing and aquaculture. People in the supply chain, such as hauliers and marine engineers, rely on those businesses. Around three quarters of all Scotland’s mussels are produced in Shetland. Just last week, Salmon Scotland was promoting its global product at the seafood expo in Barcelona. All that could be seriously damaged by the HPMA proposals.

The HPMA policy appears to be out of step with the Scottish Government’s efforts in promoting Scotland’s food and drink sector around the world and with the strategy in ambition 2030. One producer said:

“The HPMA proposals are already doing damage to our business as we can no longer plan.”

I ask the Scottish Government to reflect on the damage that the proposals are already doing to the fishing and aquaculture sectors. Without plans, it will be difficult for businesses to expand and take advantage of opportunities.

My constituent goes on to say:

“The proposals could lead to our company being put out of business.”

Businesses fear closure and job losses, with a wider negative impact on the seafood supply chain. Those losses would have a devastating outcome for coastal and island communities. We cannot leave communities on the scrap heap, which has happened in previous decades.

It is important that the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change are addressed. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that we cannot wait. The need to address the climate emergency and protect our vulnerable coastal and island communities is not in doubt, but the response should be led by proportional and evidenced-based policy, not imposed by a top-down approach.

Effective local management and decision making have already been demonstrated in my constituency through the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999, which has been in place for more than 20 years. Efforts have been made to protect our seas through Scotland’s existing marine protected areas network, which was established in partnership with stakeholders. Each MPA is designed to protect vulnerable habitats, is based on evidence and includes restrictions where certain activities are permitted. That approach enables conservation and sustainable use to coexist.

If the Scottish Government put more money into investment and research, it could find out what conservation measures work best where. It would be interesting to know what the Scottish Government has learned from those networks and what can be developed. HPMAs could close an arbitrary 10 per cent of the seas to all but leisure activities by 2026.

A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Fishing has been a tradition for centuries for coastal and island communities. It is time to stop implying that fishermen do not care about our seas. The fishing sector relies on sustainable catches and it benefits from healthy seas. Who better understands our seas and how fragile they are than our fishermen, who want to ensure that there is a future for the next generation?

On proportionality, I point out that the fishing sector already faces spatial squeeze with increasing at-sea infrastructure, such as platforms, renewables, offshore wind farms and cables, as well as the network of existing marine protected areas.

HPMAs could have the cumulative impact of closing off 50 per cent of Scotland’s waters to fishing by 2050. When we consider that one third of all United Kingdom fish is caught within 50 miles of Shetland, that becomes extremely concerning. The concern is heightened when we consider that the consultation assumes that the designation of HPMAs beyond 12 nautical miles will be subject to the prior transfer of relevant powers by the UK Government to the Scottish ministers. If that is not agreed—which is a possibility—it is unclear whether the 10 per cent requirement will need to be made up of inshore waters alone.

We need a holistic approach to our seas to support all the interested stakeholders and sectors, which should include considering how the future conservation of our seas should work. The Scottish Government should rethink the policy now.