Marine conservation group claims damage to seabeds is a ‘national scandal'
Marine campaigners have accused Scottish ministers of continuing to allow 'destructive' fishing practices to be carried out in protected areas – claiming this not only breaches international obligations but is a 'national scandal'.
The conservation charity Open Seas made the comments as it published its Ocean Witness report, a major survey of seabeds within Scotland's marine protected areas (MPAs).
The report – published in the run-up to the global UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France in June – is based on more than 300 seabed surveys that were carried out during a five-month period, with the work done in collaboration with Greenpeace UK.
It found that while habitats like maerl beds – which are formed by special seaweeds in shallow seabeds – and seagrass meadows are 'crucial parts of our biodiversity', it claimed in some areas these 'remain unprotected from destructive fishing practices'.
Open Seas – which successfully took the Scottish Government to court in 2023 – said while MPAs had been brought in 'to safeguard Scotland's most vulnerable marine ecosystems', it added that 'numerous MPAs lack effective management measures'.
As a result, it claimed this allowed 'harmful fishing practices', such as bottom trawling and scallop dredging to persist within their boundaries.
'This ongoing damage not only undermines the intended conservation goals but also threatens the very habitats these MPAs were established to protect,' the report stated.
Open Seas said its surveys 'uncovered clear evidence that in many cases these so-called 'protected' areas are merely lines on a map with little real world impact on marine conservation'.
One of the examples given was the Papa Westray MPA, which is located at the north end of the island of Papa Westray in Orkney.
The group said that despite the area being designated as an MPA 'there are still no restrictions against trawling and dredging within or even near the area'.
This, the report said, made it 'yet another example of a protected area that exists in name and not in practice'.
The Open Seas research found that marine habitats in areas such as Papa Westray as well as Loch Creran in Argyll and Bute and the Sound of Jura on the west of Scotland are 'actively degraded'.
Open Seas accused the Scottish Government of failing to meet international targets under the UN convention on biological diversity and the global biodiversity framework.
The campaigning charity also claimed Scottish ministers have 'broken their own promises to protect the most sensitive and important' marine habitats.
Open Seas director Phil Taylor said: 'Scotland's marine protections are failing by design.
'Despite public statements and legal commitments, the Scottish Government is allowing destructive fishing inside supposedly protected areas.
'These failures are not only national scandals – they breach Scotland's international obligations to halt biodiversity loss and restore the health of our seas.
'We have heard repeated promises to deliver for our seas and the coastal communities who rely on them from Scottish ministers – sadly those promises have been broken just as regularly.'
Mr Taylor continued: 'These are not just technical oversights – they are policy choices that carry environmental, legal and reputational risks.
'Scotland likes to be seen as a leader on the environment. But, as this report shows, we are still dragging our heels while the seabed is being dragged into decline. That must change, starting now.'
Will McCallum, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: 'The lessons learnt in Scotland must be applied in all UK waters – allowing destructive industrial fishing practices like bottom trawling in marine protected areas is causing damage to fragile marine ecosystems and results in severe ecosystem degradation which is bad for everyone.'
However, he said the research had also shown that 'where areas are meaningfully protected, marine life can recover and flourish' – adding that this 'should give us hope for the oceans'.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Management measures for the most vulnerable sites in the MPA network were implemented in 2016.
'Putting in place the remaining fisheries management measures for MPAs and further measures for the 11 Priority Marine Features most at risk from bottom trawling outside MPAs remains a top priority for this Government.
'Fisheries management measures will be implemented in 2025 for Offshore MPAs and as soon as possible for Inshore sites following the completion of the required statutory assessments and public consultation.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
27 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Perth and Kinross councillor calls for urgent review of national planning policy on retail developments
The Planning and Placemaking Committee convener believes the current policy on retail developments "lacks coherence" and risks "stifling competition" Perth and Kinross Council's (PKC) planning convener has written to the Scottish Government saying there is an "urgent need" for a review of national planning policy regarding retail. SNP councillor Ian Massie - who wrote to Public Finance Minister Ivan McKee on behalf of PKC's Planning and Placemaking Committee - said the current policy "lacks coherence" and "will not strengthen town centre High Streets". Cllr Massie's committee requested he write the letter after councillors approved a new Lidl supermarket on Perth's Crieff Road, going against the council officers' recommendation of refusal which was based on national policy. On Wednesday, March 12 councillors voted by nine votes to two to grant Lidl permission to invest £10 million building a second Perth store and creating over 30 jobs. They rejected council officers' recommendation to refuse the application, arguing the development would give residents "more choice" and supported the National Planning Framework 4's (NPF4) 20-minute neighbourhoods. The only objector to the application was Tesco, which has a store on the other side of McDiarmid Park from the proposed Lidl site. At the March meeting, convener Ian Massie pledged to write to Scotland's Public Finance Minister raising the committee's concerns about the conflicting national planning policy. In response to a request from the Local Democracy Reporting Service, PKC this week shared both Cllr Massie's letter and the response he received from Ivan McKee MSP. In his letter, Cllr Massie said the current policy could result in "stifling competition". Referring to the committee's decision over the Lidl application, he wrote: "The officers' recommendation was for refusal on the grounds that it did not meet Policy 28: (a) and (c) as it was not located in an existing city, town or local centre, nor was it in an edge of centre area, or an allocated site within the LDP; (b) was not applicable as it did not meets the terms of (a); and also (c) Small scale neighbourhood development because the proposal could not be classed as small scale. "Whilst the committee agreed the criteria for Policy 28 (a) and (c) had not been met they went against officers' advice and granted permission stating that the application should be supported because it would provide over 30 jobs in the local area, help families on limited income afford more with what income they have and aligns with the Scottish Government's approach to 20-minute neighbourhoods , as outlined through Policy 15 of NPF4." He called for planning policy to meet the "specific needs of our communities". The Perth City North ward councillor added: "Currently, the framework for Policy 28 lacks coherence on several crucial aspects, including the balance between High Street regeneration, out-of-town developments, and the promotion of sustainable practices within retail. However fundamentally, there is the lack of a specific reference to what floorspace thresholds should be deemed to define what is small scale neighbourhood development. "Unless there is an early review of the retail policy of NPF4 the likelihood is that the current policy will result in the planning system in Scotland stifling competition in this sector. This will favour those operators who secured consents for out-of-town centre sites over the last 20 years to the detriment of newer and possibly more innovative operators. It will not strengthen town centre High Streets. This is not 'good planning'. " Ivan McKee thanked Cllr Massie for his letter and said the intent of the national planning policy was "to encourage, promote and facilitate retail investment to the most sustainable locations that are most accessible by a range of sustainable transport modes". The Minister for Public Finance said there were a "range of factors" which need to be considered in planning assessments and there were no plans to review the policy. Mr McKee said: " There is no scheduled review of NPF4 at this time, however it is helpful to have your input on the effectiveness of NPF4 policies and I am grateful to you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with us."
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
From Tesla tequila to Iron Man inspiration: 7 things you may not know about Elon Musk
The name Elon Musk is perhaps one of the most recognisable in the modern day. The richest man in the world is known for being the owner of various companies including electric vehicle maker Tesla and Space X, his takeover of social media company Twitter - which he renamed X - and, until most recently, his work within the US government. After nearly 130 days as head of the Department of Government Efficiency - known as DOGE for short - Musk announced he is leaving his role within Donald Trump's administration. His work within the department and his close relationship with Mr Trump led to Musk being in the headlines more than ever, but there is much to the billionaire businessman that is rarely reported. Here are seven things you may not know about Musk. Child video game creator In the early 1980s, at the age of 12, Musk created the video game Blastar. He created the game, which tasks players to use their keyboards to shoot at alien fighter spaceships, through his knowledge of coding and programming, which he picked up at the age of nine, according to Ashlee Vance's 2015 biography of the tech mogul. By 1984 the game was so good, Musk sold it to PC and Office Technology magazine for $500 (£371), where it featured in the publication's December issue. First big pay cheque From the get-go, it was clear Musk had a talent for business. In 1995, age 24, he set up his first company, Zip2 with his brother, Kimbal. The pair set up the company, which created online city guides for newspapers, for around $28,000 (£20,000). It was sold for around $300m (£222m) four years later in 1999. Before cashing in on the success of Zip2, Musk said he and his brother were pretty much broke and both slept in the office where they worked - a behaviour he reportedly replicated in the early days of Tesla. From the sale of the company, Musk walked away from Zip2 with a cool $22m, and the first thing he bought was a McLaren F1. He told CNN at the time: "Just three years ago I was sleeping on the office floor, and now I've got a million-dollar car." Musk's musk Despite having huge success, some of Musk's ideas have not proved to be as long-lasting. In 2022, he launched a perfume called Burnt Hair, which is described on his The Boring Company website as "the essence of repugnant desire". The scent, which cost $100 (£74) a bottle, was a smash hit, according to Musk, who said it had sold 10,000 bottles in just a few hours, earning him a million dollars. "With a name like mine, getting into the fragrance business was inevitable - why did I even fight it for so long!?" Musk said at the time. It is unknown if the product was serious, and (sadly) is no longer available on The Boring Company website. In addition to perfume, Tesla launched its own tequila in 2020, and in the same year, Musk followed through on a joke to sell limited edition pairs of Tesla short shorts as a way to prove investors who bet against the electric vehicle maker wrong. The original PayPal Long before Twitter became X, Musk created an online banking and financial services company. The platform quickly attracted a large customer base, and in the year 2000, it merged with Confinity, which was co-founded by tech entrepreneurs Peter Thiel and Max Levchin. The platform was later renamed PayPal. Musk went on to become chief executive of PayPal, but was later ousted from the position as arguments over the company's name and overall direction emerged. In 2002, the banking site was bought by eBay for $1.5bn (£1.4bn). Years later, in 2017, eBay sold the domain back to Musk. Inspiration for Iron Man Musk's life as a billionaire entrepreneur sounds like the start of a Hollywood blockbuster. And in reality, Musk's personality and accomplishments were partly used as inspiration for Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of Iron Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In a 2022 interview, Iron Man screenwriter Mark Fergus said his version of Tony Stark was based on a culmination of Musk, Mr Trump and Apple creator Steve Jobs. "Musk took the brilliance of Jobs with the showmanship of Trump. He was the only one who had the fun factor and the celebrity vibe and actual business substance," Mr Fergus told New York Magazine. Musk's unusual connection to the fictionalised billionaire was played out on camera when he made a cameo in Iron Man 2 in 2010. The real Tesla founder? Contrary to belief, Musk did not start Tesla. He was actually an early investor in the company and was the fourth chief executive when he took over the role in 2008 - shortly after the company released its first car - the Roadster sports car. It was in fact, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning who founded the company in 2003, albeit Musk was the one to propel it on to a global stage. Desire for the 'everything app' After taking over social media platform X for $44bn in 2022, Musk became one step closer to achieving his goal of creating an "everything app". 13:05 The tech mogul has previously said he wishes for X to become similar to WeChat - a Chinese app that offers a wide range of features beyond messaging, including payments, ordering taxis, sharing social media posts and conducting business - think of it as a mix between Facebook, Apple Pay, WhatsApp and Google. Musk's vision of this "super app" seems to be shared by those at X, including chief executive Linda Yaccarino, who said at the end of last year that 2025 would be the year that X "connect[s] you in ways never thought possible. X TV, X Money, Grok and more". And this appears to be somewhat coming true. In January, Musk announced X had partnered with payment giant Visa, which will allow users to move funds between traditional banks and a digital X wallet and make payments to friends.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
60% of voters back two-child cap - so why is Labour set to scrap it?
Her comments came after Nigel Farage said he would scrap the limit, but there were already signs Labour was preparing to move on it, having delayed the publication of their much-anticipated child poverty strategy until the autumn. Farage's move, targeting Labour supporters, just adds to the pressure ministers were already under. What Labour did about this Conservative policy was always going to be the key left-wing virility test of Keir Starmer's government. It speaks to Labour's values like no other policy, at a time when there's growing confusion and disquiet about what the party stands for. If Labour jettisoned the two-child limit – at an estimated annual cost of £3.5bn – it would help placate backbench critics dismayed by disability benefit cuts and the scrapping of the winter fuel payment. More importantly, it would give voters a clearer picture of what this government is really about. Read more But the politics of it is not straightforward. Labour would be abolishing a policy that around 60 per cent of voters support. Some Labour strategists are thought to be opposed on the grounds it would be a big spend for little political gain. If Labour didn't abolish the limit, however, the fall-out could eventually be much worse for the party, as child poverty rose and hardship increased. The Scottish election, up against an SNP First Minister who is committed to mitigating the two-child limit, could be a toe-curling affair. The threat of humiliation is a powerful political spur. Introduced in 2017, the two-child limit prevents families from claiming means-tested benefits for third or subsequent children. The universities of Oxford, York and LSE published a study in 2023 describing it as a 'poverty-producing' measure. The Resolution Foundation estimates that lifting it now would take 470,000 children out of hardship. Labour in opposition were widely understood to oppose the limit, though insisted abolition had to be affordable. They announced they would set up a taskforce to produce a child poverty strategy once in power, which they duly did, the first serious focus on child poverty since the last Labour government. As one children's campaigner told me two years ago, there is 'no way' Labour could have a credible child poverty strategy if the two-child limit remained in place. This activist was confident the policy would go because how could Labour possibly allow it to remain? The last 11 months may have sorely tested old assumptions like that, but it has always been hard to imagine a Labour government standing by a policy that ministers themselves have variously described as 'obscene and inhumane' (Angela Rayner, 2020), worthy of being 'binned' (Jonathan Reynolds, business secretary, 2021) and something that must go to help tackle 'vast social injustice' (Starmer himself, 2020). Nigel Farage called for the benefit cap to be lifted (Image: free) And so it looks as though its days are numbered. The Prime Minister has apparently asked the Treasury to find the cash to scrap it. It would raise eyebrows now if an announcement on the policy didn't feature in autumn's budget. But what of voter opposition? Labour voters are less likely than Tory, Reform and Lib Dem voters to support the limit, but 50 per cent still do. Voters have tended to see the issue as one of fairness. The Tories sold it on the basis that people supporting themselves solely through work have to make decisions about how many children they can afford and people drawing benefits should have to as well. It was portrayed as a policy that would incentivise work and make people think harder before having big families. But the 2023 study found the two-child limit had only a 'very small effect' on family size. There was no evidence at all of increased employment among families subject to the limit. Many people didn't even know the two-child limit existed until after their child was born; in some cases, conception was the result of failed contraception or an abusive relationship. There is an exemption for children born as the result of rape or domestic abuse (the hated 'rape clause'), but most people eligible for this were not getting it. Sixty per cent of affected children are in households where a parent works, with illness, redundancy and lack of childcare typical drivers of poverty. The research found the two-child limit and the attendant benefit cap were causing 'extreme hardship'. Child poverty is at a high of 4.5m already and will rise to 4.8 million by 2029 if nothing is done. A mountain of research reveals that millions of children are affected and how: having no beds to sleep on, in homes where their parents can't afford to fix broken appliances or even provide enough food. Understandably, three quarters of Britons believe this to be 'morally wrong'. Read more The Government can argue robustly that the policy has failed in its aims and only succeeded in creating hardship. They can make the economic argument for abolition, since child poverty costs billions in lost potential, poor health and earning capacity in adulthood. If the government does away with it, ministers will hope to stem the flow of support from their left flank to parties like the SNP and Greens. Paying to abolish it now, within tight spending limits, is a strong statement of values and leaves time for poverty reduction to be seen before the next election. Nigel Farage is making the political calculation easier by supporting the idea. He can try and portray Labour as apeing his policies but it will be Labour that get to claim credit for actually funding and delivering it. Labour's first year has left many voters wondering what their new UK government really cares about. Abolishing the two-child limit would be a powerful answer. Rebecca McQuillan is a journalist specialising in politics and Scottish affairs. She can be found on Bluesky at @ and on X at @BecMcQ
