HIGHLAND Council has voiced “strong opposition” to Scottish Government proposals to introduce Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs).
The local authority has the longest coastline in Scotland, accounting for 21% of the Scottish total, followed by Argyll and Bute and the Western Isles.
The plans, part of the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens, would set limits on activity in certain marine environments, such as fishing, and have also been described as “ocean recovery zones”.
READ MORE: Tories to debate SNP transparency while refusing to release member figures
The Scottish Government’s plans would see 10% of Scotland’s seas designated as HPMAs by 2026, putting an end to the majority of human activities that can have a negative environmental impact.
And now, Highland Council, an SNP-independent administration, has joined local authorities Argyll and Bute, Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles in voicing opposition to the proposals.
The local authority said they have concerns over potential significant socio-economic impacts that proposals may result in.
In its response to the Scottish Government consultation, councillors noted: “Introduction of HPMAs presents a risk of substantial socio-economic impacts on coastal communities.
“However, they also intended to mitigate risk of further loss of marine biodiversity.
“The topic is therefore somewhat contentious and polarising, attracting substantial media attention and as such brings with it reputational risk. This is particularly the case should there be a failure to actively engage in the process.”
SNP councillor Ken Gowans, chair of Highland’s economy and infrastructure committee, said: “The Highland Council recognises the need to take action in response to the biodiversity crisis, but we have serious concerns over the potential for unacceptable socio-economic impacts that the currently proposed HPMA policy framework may have especially on our fragile coastal communities.
“It is unclear to what extent Highland would be affected at present as no sites have yet been publicly identified.
“However, we have been contacted by aquaculture, commercial fishing sectors and local communities who have voiced their concerns over the proposals and how their livelihoods could be negatively impacted.
READ MORE: Talks to get UK back into Horizon Europe are Union benefit, MP claims
“Our response captures these valid points and draws attention to key concerns we have. We have stressed that we feel it is critical that full socio-economic considerations and robust community engagement must be embedded at an early point in the process.
“The suggested timelines appear far too short to allow proper evaluation to take place for all stakeholders to fully engage. We also believe that the 10% target needs clearer definition in relation to inshore and offshore regions.”
It comes as Net Zero Secretary Mairi McAllan met with coastal MSPs on Tuesday to discuss HPMAs.
Speaking after the meeting, she said: “I was pleased that so many elected members from across Scotland accepted my invitation to discuss proposals to introduce Highly Protected Marine Areas. It was a very useful meeting for me, and – I hope – for them too.
“There was widespread agreement that protecting our marine natural environment is vital. It is an unavoidable truth that we are in the midst of a climate and nature crisis and we must be prepared to take action commensurate with the scale of that challenge.
“However it is also true that, as we tackle the climate emergency, we must do so via a fair and just transition which empowers communities and shares in the benefits of a green economy.
“It is important to remember the proposals are at a very early stage and no specific sites have been selected – and both I and the First Minister have been clear that we have no intention of imposing HPMAs on communities against their will.
“The recent initial consultation we undertook has received thousands of responses, and we are now carefully analysing these as we consider our next steps.”
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