Hansard

I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

Marine ecosystems worldwide store and cycle an estimated 93 per cent of the earth’s CO₂. Sea grass sequestration of carbon is 35 times faster than that of the rainforest, and it also provides a fantastic renewable food source that must be managed properly if we are to maintain food security. However, the poor launch of the Scottish Government’s HPMA consultation has highlighted the need to look in more detail at our blue economy with respect to a just transition. We needed direct consultation with communities and to allow those communities their say. It is obvious that coastal communities and Scottish industries within the blue economy feel left behind and that the Scottish Government is not delivering on its promise of a just transition.

It is disappointing that the Scottish Government does not take a more direct approach when consulting communities on policies that would directly impact their livelihoods and viability, and it is easy to see that an online consultation with online workshops was a poor choice for that engagement.

Instead of bringing parties together, the Scottish Government has managed to pit non-governmental organisations and fishing and coastal communities against one another. Industry, NGOs and community groups have called for better spatial management plans to take advantage of local historical knowledge, and to better balance industry with the need for conservation and nature-based solutions. Many of those stakeholders cite inadequate funding, unclear objectives and a lack of data as key barriers to the proper implementation of marine spatial planning.

Much of the Scottish Government’s current marine policy is, I think, driven by Scottish Green Party ideology and misleading international comparators, rather than by science-based evidence. The Scottish Government has admitted as much in response to portfolio questions, stating that it does not have the data to validate its policy choice. Rather, it has policies that are based on

“how best ... we can develop policy in the absence of science and data”.—[Official Report, 25 January 2023; c 4.]

Similarly, “Scotland’s Marine Assessment 2020” explicitly stated that

“There are insufficient data to allow detailed assessment”.

That is no way to approach such important legislation that could have such a detrimental impact on communities that are reliant on a robust and sustainable blue economy. Those communities are being offered Scottish Government guesswork. Proposing HPMAs with very little evidence on their impact in temperate waters is not just ridiculous—it is hugely irresponsible.

Our fishermen must be part of the solution to the dual nature and climate crises, but only if we create the policy context for them to participate. Our fishing sector and our coastal communities have unique local knowledge, passed down over generations, that is invaluable to the formation of policy. For example, the Clyde Fishermen’s Association has been in operation since 1934; the association, like many local fishers, understands its role in ensuring the long-term viability of the industry. The CFA has, for instance, advocated for a weekend fishing ban in its local area and engaged proactively with Marine Scotland in the formation of the Clyde MPAs to support healthy fishing stocks. The association’s practical knowledge is instrumental to its advances in gear selectivity on significantly reduced bycatch. We must draw on an extensive knowledge base from across the industry. The people who best understand the sustainability of our seas are those who gain their livelihoods from them, as they have been doing for decades.

Furthermore, there is a body of evidence to suggest that investment in the seaweed sector can help us to achieve our net zero goals and improve our marine habitats. That is similar to Scotland’s forestry sector and its approach to tree cultivation to lock in carbon as we proceed with other projects. During their cultivation, the farms can also produce a temporary habitat that has been shown to act comparably with wild nursery habitats.

Special consideration must be given to the spatial squeeze on our marine environment. It is important to note that there is scope to grow seaweed alongside existing industries such as salmon and shellfish farming, integrating multitrophic aquaculture and even renewable energy installations. In some cases, the presence of seaweed may improve environmental quality by reducing the negative impacts of traditional fish farming practices, thereby helping to maintain and grow fish stocks.

The Scottish Government seems to be intent on pursuing an ideological policy without considering the ecosystem and climate solutions as a whole, and it is doing so with no meaningful data or research. That is why there has been such pushback and alarm from our fishing and coastal communities against the Scottish Government’s proposals on HPMAs. There is a lack of any clear scientific basis for the proposals, and a significant lack of any relevant data pertaining to soft-bed ecosystems.

Comparing Scotland’s inshore coastal waters to tropical waters such as the Great Barrier Reef is ridiculous. The Scottish Government must halt its current direction of travel and its plans for HMPAs, and work with coastal and fishing communities, NGOs and academia to collate the appropriate data to deliver a comprehensive, cohesive and effective policy—[Interruption.]