Acronyms

1. Introduction

1.1. Project Background

1. Berwick Bank Wind Farm Limited (the “Applicant”) is proposing to develop the Berwick Bank Wind Farm (hereafter “Berwick Bank”). Berwick Bank comprises of up to 307 wind turbines and will be located in the outer Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay, within the former Round 3 Firth of Forth Zone.
2. Berwick Bank will include both offshore and onshore infrastructure including the array, offshore export cables to landfall and onshore transmission cables leading to an onshore substation with electrical balancing infrastructure, with subsequent connection to the electricity transmission network. The array will be located approximately 47.6 km offshore of the East Lothian and 37.8 km from the Scottish Borders coastline within the Scottish offshore region (greater than 12 nautical miles) offshore. The export cable forming part of the Application will run between the array and the landfall at Skateraw on the East Lothian coast. The offshore components of Berwick Bank seaward of Mean High Water Springs are referred to as the Proposed Development.
3. The Scottish Ministers are the primary Regulatory Authority in respect of the necessary consents and licences required for the construction and operation of an Offshore Wind Farm project in Scotland and in Scottish waters (i.e. Scottish territorial waters and the Scottish offshore region). To allow the Scottish Ministers to properly consider the development proposals, developers are required to provide information which demonstrates compliance with the relevant legislation and allows adequate understanding of the material considerations.
4. Consent is required under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, as well as Marine Licences obtained under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) consent is also required under The Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, each as amended (together referred to as the “Habitats Regulations”). Where an offshore energy project, such as an OWF, requires Section 36 Consent and a Marine Licence, MS-LOT, on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, can process both consent applications jointly.
5. The Applicant has provided information to support a HRA of the Proposed Development, specifically to support an Appropriate Assessment (AA) decision as documented in the Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment (the RIAA).
6. Information provided in the RIAA enables an assessment of each relevant Special Protection Area (SPA) listed in Table 1.1 of the Derogation Case. The evidence presented within the RIAA concluded there is the potential that the Proposed Development could have an Adverse Effect of Integrity (AEoI) for several SPAs, alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
7. The Applicant therefore accepts that the application of the HRA Derogation Provisions (as outlined in section 1.3 of the Derogation Case) may be necessary, because there is potential for an AEOI of the SPAs in Table 1.1 of the Derogation Case; and has therefore provided, with reference to the comments made for the decision on preceding OWF derogation, the information necessary to support a clear and overriding HRA Derogation Case for the Proposed Development, which could be relied upon by the Scottish Ministers if required.
8. As such, the Applicant has proposed a derogation case including identifying compensatory measures which could be delivered to secure the overall coherence of the National Site Network, if necessary.  Relevant measures were identified and consulted upon with key stakeholders in the area. The proposed compensatory measures are detailed in the Derogation Case and comprise of the following:

• Management of SA4 sandeel fishery;
• Rat eradication: Handa; and
• Dunbar Castle wardening role.

9. This document, the Implementation and Monitoring Plan, has been produced as part of the Derogation Case for the Proposed Development. This document should be read alongside the Colony Compensatory Measures (CCM) Evidence Report and the Fisheries Compensatory Measures (FCM) Evidence Report which provide detail of the evidence base behind each of the compensatory measures and information regarding the anticipated compensation benefits, quantifying these wherever possible based on the best available data.

1.2. Purpose of this Document

10. This document provides information on how each of the compensatory measures proposed by the Applicant can be implemented and monitored, if required by the Scottish Ministers.
11. This document provides information to enable the Scottish Ministers to be satisfied that compensatory measures proposed by the Applicant can be delivered in a timely manner and can be relied upon to secure the overall coherence of the National Site Network. Information about monitoring, reporting, programming, and management are included throughout this document.
12. The Applicant is confident that each compensatory measure can be secured, implemented and monitored to ensure the overall coherence of the network This document provides an indicative programme for the implementation of each compensatory measure alongside the key milestones in the construction and operation of the Proposed Development as well as information on how each measure will be funded and delivered to offset impacts from the Proposed Development throughout its operational lifetime.
13. The Applicant has had detailed discussions with key stakeholders (including Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT), Marine Scotland Science (MSS), NatureScot, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Historic Environment Scotland (HES), East Lothian Council (ELC), Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) and Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF)) with regards to the compensatory measures and the implementation of these. Further information regarding consultation can be found in the Consultation Log in Appendix 1 of the Derogation Case.
14. Whilst this document provides information on the proposed approach to implementing, and monitoring the compensatory measures, further detailed plans specific to each compensatory measure will be produced in consultation with key stakeholders for approval by Scottish Ministers. Further information regarding this is presented in section 6.5.  

1.3. Structure of this Document

15. This document outlines the proposed approach to implementing and monitoring each compensatory measure in turn in the following structure:

• Securing and Implementing the Compensatory Measure;
• Implementation Mechanisms;
• Monitoring and Reporting;
• Programme for Implementation and Delivery; and
• Adaptive Management.
  

2. Management of SA4 Sandeel Fishery

2.1. Introduction

16. The objective of this compensatory measure is to increase productivity and survival of seabirds (namely Kittiwake, Guillemot, Puffin and Razorbill) associated with SPA colonies in proximity to the Proposed Development. The most precautionary estimates of annual benefit for each species in the impacted SPA colonies are presented in Table 1.24 of the FCM Evidence Report which details the number of additional adult birds in each SPA population as a result of the increase in adult survival and productivity predicted to occur from the increase in sandeel Total Stock Biomass (TSB). The explanation and justification for these benefit calculations are also included in the FCM Evidence Report.
17. Current management of sandeel stocks in the North Sea, and in SA4 specifically, has reduced sandeel stocks and this has had a negative effect on seabird populations, as outlined in the FCM Evidence Report submitted alongside this document.
18. The fishery that developed off the Scottish east coast in the early 1990s was associated with declines in the breeding success of some seabirds at adjacent colonies (Rindorf et al., 2000). A sandeel exclusion zone was established on the east coast of Scotland in 2000, where fishing for sandeel is prohibited aside from an allowance of up to 5000 tonnes for monitoring (currently fished by the Danish fleet).The EU (EU Regulation 227/2013) closed this area of the fishery as a precaution whilst allowing a commercial catch to monitor changes in sandeel abundance, this closed area can be seen in Figure 1   Open ▸ .
19. The closure has been maintained following reviews of the effectiveness of the closure (STECF, 2007), which show a decrease in mortality of age 1 and older sandeel and improved kittiwake breeding success following the closure (Greenstreet et al., 2006).  However, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) takes no account of area closures when advising on Total Allowable Catch (TAC), so current advice on SA4 catches does not consider that around half of the sandeel habitat in the stock region is closed to fishing.
20. Despite the introduction of these management measures aimed at increasing the resilience of sandeel stocks, there is limited evidence of either the recovery of the relevant stocks or the wider ecosystem as a result of these measures (Marine Scotland, 2020). This is hindering the UK’s ability to reach Good Environmental Status of seabirds and marine food webs within the UK Marine Strategy (Defra, 2019). As a result, urgent additional action is required to protect stocks and the wider ecosystem from these increasing pressures. This is recognised by the UK Fisheries Administrations in their recent call for evidence on future management of sandeel and Norway pout (Defra, 2021).
21. Recent modelling that explored the impact of a reduction or cessation of sandeel fishing effort on other marine species using an ecosystem model (Ecopath with Ecosim) suggests that the ecosystem benefits of such actions may spread across many trophic levels, from certain fish species to baleen whales and seals (Natural England, 2021). It is evident that improved management is required to ensure sustainability of the sandeel stock, ensuring appropriate levels for seabirds and that catch levels are adequate to support commercial and/or recreational fisheries in the long term.
22. The Applicant considers there are two options which could be taken to increase sandeel stocks as well as delivering the required level of compensation for the Proposed Development:

• Option 1: Closure of the SA4 sandeel fishery and monitoring of seabirds and sandeel; or
• Option 2: Ecosystem-based approach for management of SA4 and monitoring of seabirds and sandeel

23. From an ecological and environmental perspective closing the SA4 fisheries would provide the greatest benefit for seabirds. Nevertheless, an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) has been adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organisation Committee on Fisheries as the appropriate and practical way to fully implement the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in order to sustain healthy marine ecosystems and the fisheries they support (Gullestad et al., 2017). Taking an ecosystem based, or ‘Blue Economy’ approach, is also specified within Scotland’s Future Fisheries Management Strategy (Scottish Government, 2020) which provides the framework for managing the co-existence of different marine interests in the same shared space.
24. The decision as to which option is taken to deliver this compensatory measure to offset impacts from the Proposed Development sits with the Scottish Ministers and is not within the Applicant’s control. Due to this, the Applicant has presented both options for consideration within this Implementation and Monitoring Plan. The Applicant considers that the implementation of either option would deliver the required level of compensation for the Proposed Development. Both options are discussed in turn below..

Figure 1 SA4 Sandeel Area and Sandeel Spawning Areas

2.2. Option 1: Implementing and Monitoring Closure of SA4 Sandeel Fishery

25. Due to the location of the Proposed Development and the potentially impacted SPA colonies being within or in proximity to SA4 this option proposes an extension of the existing sandeel prohibition zone, to include the whole of SA4. Fishing for sandeel would be prohibited within SA4 aside from an allowance of up to 5000 tonnes for monitoring.
26. In a recent prepublication study for Defra, Natural England have shown that full closure of the North Sea sandeel fishery would increase sandeel biomass by 40%. This was predicted to result in a 42% increase in seabird populations in the North Sea, and a 20% increase in predatory fish that feed on sandeel. Closure of SA4 sandeel fishery would go some way towards achieving this, increasing sandeel biomass and subsequent increases in seabird populations. Permanent and seasonal closures to various fishing methods have been previously implemented in several other locations in UK waters. These closures have been successfully implemented to protect certain fish stocks or marine features. These include suspension of Scallop fishing in UK waters of the North Sea around Dogger Bank and prohibition of fishing for sea fish within the Firth of Clyde, for example.
27. In order to implement this closure, an SA4 Closure Mechanisms Plan would be prepared which would provide information on how the proposed closure could be implemented, who would implement it as well as associated approaches to the monitoring of sandeel and seabirds. The Applicant would prepare a Closure Mechanisms Plan, which would be developed in consultation with stakeholders (including MS-LOT, MSS, Nature Scot, Natural England, RSPB, SFF, National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), Defra, Cefas and Marine Management Organisation (MMO)), and would be used to implement the closure of the SA4 fisheries by the relevant government agency (see section 2.3 below).
28. Since 2008, MSS has conducted an annual dredge survey in December at grounds off the Firth of Forth and Turbot Bank in SA4 (Marine Scotland, 2020). The surveys are undertaken in December as spawning mainly takes place in the period December to January (Macer, 1966; Bergstad et al., 2001). These surveys provide an index of numbers at age from 0 (young of the year) to age 4 and older. Since 2017 this survey has been used to tune an age based assessment for the SA4 stock. The assessment estimates the numbers at age, and with information on the weight and proportion mature at age, provides an estimate of spawning stock biomass (SSB) (Marine Scotland, 2020). As sandeel in SA4 mature both at a smaller size and later age compared to other sandeel stocks it is important to consider this in estimating SSB (Boulcott et al., 2007). A Sandeel Monitoring Protocol (within the Closure Mechanisms Plan) would expand the spatial extent of these dredge surveys and undertake a complementary programme of surveys starting in 2024 and running for the operational lifetime of the Proposed Development, for further information on the indicative programme see section 2.8. Areas to be monitored would be agreed with MSS (and MMO/Cefas as appropriate).
29. Data at the bank level is required to relate to sandeel availability and accessibility to seabirds. The data collected would complement existing sandeel distribution modelling which has been carried out by MSS (Langton et al, 2021), and sandeel modelling through the Offshore Wind Evidence and Change (OWEC) Programme. 
30. This approach to monitoring would give fishery-independent data which is consistent from year to year; whereas the data derived from commercial catches reflect the activities of the fleet which is likely to vary from year-to-year, depending on such factors as variation in fish behaviour and management measures (Lart, 2022a).
31. The Closure Mechanisms Plan would include a Sandeel Monitoring Protocol (to be consulted upon with stakeholders and approved by the Scottish Ministers as outlined in section 6.5), this would provide further information on the proposed locations for dredge surveys, the vessels to be used (including size and gear), the methodology to be followed as well as how data will processed, managed and shared.
32. A Seabird Compensation Monitoring Protocol would be developed by the Applicant (to be consulted upon with key stakeholders and approved by the Scottish Ministers) as part of the Closure Mechanisms Plan), to measure assumptions at relevant SPAs. Further information regarding proposed seabird monitoring is provided in section 2.7. Annual monitoring would involve various steps and stages considering diet, productivity, survival and population size. This would be undertaken throughout the operational lifetime of the Proposed Development. All reports and data would be shared with stakeholders as appropriate, and monitoring would be undertaken to complement any existing monitoring projects.
33. The Applicant would provide required resources for all associated sandeel monitoring (in addition to monitoring already undertaken) and seabird monitoring as well as provide sufficient resources to process and analyse data for the operational lifetime of the Proposed Development.

2.3. Option 1: Securing Closure of the SA4 Sandeel Fishery

34. As part of the Section 36 consent for the Proposed Development, licences will be issued by Scottish Ministers which will detail conditions which the Applicant must adhere to, or discharge. It is anticipated that a condition will be included by the Scottish Ministers with regards to securing compensatory measures. A draft condition has been provided by the Applicant in section 6.5.
35. Whilst the Applicant would facilitate the development of the Closure Mechanisms Plan through providing appropriate resources, the implementation of the closure must be delivered by the agencies which sit within the UK Fisheries Administrations. The principal options through which the closure could be secured include:

• Introduction of regulation of fishing activity via
  • an order for each of the Scottish and English inshore and offshore waters respectively under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967,
  • a combination of bye laws and order under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (for Scottish offshore and English inshore and offshore waters), and an order under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 (for Scottish inshore waters), or
  • a combination of the above options;
• Amendments to fishing licence conditions to close SA4 to sandeel fisheries, or
• A combination of certain of the above options to cover the required area.

36. Selection of the appropriate option in respect of Scottish and English waters would be the decision of the Scottish Ministers and the UK Government respectively, however the Applicant’s assessment is that the 1967 Act would offer the most straightforward mechanism, requiring the making of two orders, which would be pursued under consistent powers for each jurisdiction and could be made consistent in their terms.

2.4. Option 2: Overview of Ecosystem-Based Management of SA4 Sandeel Fishery

37. As an ecosystem-based approach to sandeel management has not yet been implemented in the UK, this section provides detail on what ecosystem-based fisheries management involves and an gives overview of how ecosystem-based management would be implemented in SA4.

Proposal for SA4 Ecosystem-Based Management

38. Option 2 proposes an ecosystem-based approach for management of the SA4 sandeel fishery through the implementation of an SA4 Sandeel Management Plan (SMP) and monitoring of seabirds and sandeel.
39. The implementation of an SA4 SMP would take an adaptive approach to manage fishing pressures by allowing the sandeel stock to recover to a Total Stock Biomass (TSB) which accounts for a ‘one-third for the birds[1]’ target, which for SA4 is approximately 300,000 tonnes. To begin with, a TAC of zero would be set for SA4 to allow for an initial recovery of the sandeel population. An ecosystem-trigger point of a TSB of 400,000 tonnes is proposed as a provisional starting point which would be re-adjusted subject to monitoring. This TSB is above the threshold of the one-third for the birds target as a precautionary approach, and is a reasonable starting point which accounts for the impact of sandeel prey availability on seabird demography. The evidence from Cury et al. (2011) is that stocks above one third of their historic maximum biomass is sufficient to provide forage fish for seabird populations. For the SA4 sandeel stock, this one third value is approximately 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes.
40. When sandeel monitoring shows the TSB reaches this ecosystem trigger point of 400,000 tonnes, and subject to a positive response from the seabirds in terms of increases in adult survival, adaptive measures within the SA4 SMP would be considered, and control measures implemented to manage fishing pressure at an appropriate level. The adaptive measures would consist of allowing fishing again in particular sub-areas of SA4 to a target that would allow preservation of the sandeel population to a minimum TSB of one third for the birds.
41. As the results of monitoring would be inherent in setting the ecosystem trigger point at which different fisheries management measures would be implemented, alongside the development of a Shadow SA4 SMP a monitoring protocol for monitoring sandeel and seabirds would be developed. The current approach to setting maximum annual catch levels protects the sandeel stock itself, but not the wildlife that depends on it. Even fishing in accordance with the scientific advice (or TAC) can lead to depletion of sandeel stocks to levels likely have a negative impact on seabirds. Therefore, a proposal of an ecosystem trigger point which indicates when different control measures can be implemented allows for a holistic, precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.
42. Management of SA4 would involve a wide-ranging set of tasks and tools, and Figure 2 outlines the process for developing and implementing a fisheries management plan (based on Figure 1.1 of the Fishery Manager’s Guidebook (Cochrane and Garcia, 2009). It’s important to note that the tasks in boxes 1 2 and 3 of this figure are already well progressed (as outlined within this document and the FCM Evidence Report) therefore the Applicant is in a strong position to facilitate a Fisheries Manager through these stages to allow timely delivery of an ecosystem-based approach to management of SA4.

Figure 2 Developing and Implementing a Fisheries Management Plan

43. Developing an SA4 SMP would establish a framework for developing an ecosystem-based fisheries management approach by providing a basis and various tools for prioritising various management measures to implement.  The UK Marine Strategy, (Defra, 2019) Fisheries Act 2020 and Scotland’s Environment Strategy (Scottish Government, 2020) also highlight the importance of taking an ecosystem-based approach to the management of fisheries and the wider marine environment.
44. This ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management would also seek to ensure the resilience of the marine ecosystem to impacts from offshore wind (including collision/displacement of seabird species).
45. An ecosystem-based approach would also provide a unique opportunity for collaboration with other offshore wind developments in the Forth and Tay region which could contribute to monitoring and sandeel management. This could provide a potential route to facilitate compensation for other offshore wind farms, if required, by allocating compensation available after that required for Berwick Bank (and as monitored and assessed on an ongoing basis as part of the compensation measures) to those other projects.
46. The ecosystem-based management approach proposed, which could be implemented in SA4, would be based on the Norwegian Spatial Management Plan which has been successfully implemented in the adjacent sandeel area, SA3r.  Due to the simplicity of the approach taken by Norway, and the flexibility of gradual development with increasing knowledge, this approach is also relevant for the management of SA4 with an overarching aim for collaboration and co-operation between marine interests and flexibility for other offshore wind farms to deliver compensation (as set out in paragraph 45 above) if required. Further information on the Norwegian approach provided below.

Norwegian Spatial Management Plan

47. The sandeel stock in SA3r was considered to be at reduced levels and an alternative approach to management was put forward by The Institute of Marine Research (IMR) in Norway. Consequently, the Norwegian spatial management plan was developed to address the sandeel stock reduction, this was trialled in 2010 and fully implemented from 2011 (ICES 2010). The plan was modified in 2014 (ICES 2017) and in 2017 after national reviews, however, the main principles of the management plan for SA3r have been constant since the beginning as outlined by Johnsen et al. (2021) below.

• Areas with known sandeel fishing grounds are divided into five areas based on the differences in sandeel population developments, differences in recruitment and size at age.
• An area is closed for fishing unless the abundance of sandeel is relatively high in the area (biomass estimated from acoustic surveys which are undertaken in April/May each year). There is no agreed definition of "high abundance", but no area has been open which has a biomass estimate of less than 20,000 tonnes.
• Each of the five areas are divided into sub-areas. If an area is open for fishing, one of the associated subareas is closed to prevent a total depletion of sandeel in the area. Typically, the closed subarea is opened the following year if fishing is allowed in the area.
• A preliminary stock assessment is carried out in January in the TAC year. IMR provides a conservative preliminary TAC advice, and a recommendation of which subareas in each of the five areas that should be open. One TAC advice is given for all areas combined.
• An in-season acoustic-trawl/dredge survey is carried out around 25th April – 15th May, which is used to estimate the abundance of age 1 and older sandeel. An updated assessment is carried out, and a final advice is presented no later than 15th May in the TAC year. The final TAC advice cannot be lower than the preliminary advice, and no open subareas can be closed. In other words, the TAC can only be adjusted upwards or remain the same, and closed subareas may be opened.
• To prevent fishing of lean individuals that have not started growth, the fishing season starts on 15th April. The individual weight may increase up to 100% in a few weeks.
• To avoid too high a percentage of juveniles (age 0) the fishery ends 23rd June. Typically, the 5-9 cm small juveniles aggregate on the sandeel grounds in late June for settlement.
• If the number of sandeel < 10 cm comprises more than 10% in a catch, the fishing ground is closed for seven days to prevent a fishery on 0-age fish. The fishing ground is re-opened automatically after one week.

48. Due to the proximity of SA4 to SA3r, the similar ecology of the areas and the fact that SA4 sandeel population is also at reduced levels, (as was SA3r before fisheries management was implemented), these comparative environmental circumstances mean that a similar approach to management is considered appropriate to implement in SA4.
49. In order to inform the implementation of an ecosystem-based management approach for SA4, a Shadow SA4 SMP would be prepared by the Applicant. This plan would detail various input and output control measures, which are accepted mechanisms for undertaking fisheries management, which is discussed further in section 2.6 below.

2.5. Option 2: Securing Ecosystem-Based Management of SA4 Sandeel Fishery

50. As part of the Section 36 consent for the Proposed Development, licences will be issued by Scottish Ministers which will detail conditions which the Applicant must adhere to, or discharge. It is anticipated that a condition will be included by the Scottish Ministers with regards to securing compensatory measures. A draft condition has been provided by the Applicant in section 6.5.
51. Whilst the Applicant would develop the Shadow SA4 SMP, the implementation of the SA4 SMP and associated control measures must be delivered by one of the agencies which sits within the UK Fisheries Administration (the Applicant would facilitate this and provide resources where appropriate). As the majority of SA4 lies within Scottish Waters, MS-LOT would be the appropriate agency to be the Fisheries Manager for the majority of SA4, working in coordination with MMO/Defra as required in respect of the remainder. 
52. MS-LOT and the MMO/Defra would implement and control the decision making as to the implementation of the SA4 SMP, however the Applicant facilitate all associated sandeel and seabird monitoring, as well as provide sufficient resources to process and analyse data, for the operational lifetime of the Proposed Development. Science and monitoring can support the design of the SA4 SMP through assessing the implications for stock sustainability and robustness under the precautionary approach. However, agreement to implement the SA4 SMP has to be made at a political level.
53. The Shadow SA4 SMP would include suggested pathways to authorise the various control measures detailed within it. The Applicant has identified possible ways for the UK Fisheries Administrations to deliver the measures below (section 2.6). 
54. Currently agreement on TACs is reached between the EU and UK on the basis of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The Specialised Committee on Fisheries monitors the implementation and functioning of the fisheries heading in the TCA.
55. The proposal for implementing the first stage of the SA4 SMP is through the setting of the TAC through the TCA (as detailed in section 2.5 below). The UK Government, supported by the Applicant and MS-LOT and MMO/Defra, should seek to agree a zero TAC via the specialised Fisheries Committee. Following the adoption of ecosystem-based management for SA4 fishery, MS-LOT and MMO/Defra would manage the fisheries and set the TAC for SA4 each year.
56. Other mechanisms could also be followed to secure the same outcome of no fishing (beyond that for commercial monitoring) in SA4. This could include

• Introduction of regulation of fishing activity via:

–      an order for each of the Scottish and English inshore and offshore waters respectively under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (the 1967 Act),

–      a combination of bye laws and order under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (for Scottish offshore and English inshore and offshore waters), and an order under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 (for Scottish inshore waters), or

–      a combination of the above options;

• Amendments to fishing licence conditions to close SA4 to sandeel fisheries, or
• A combination of certain of the above options to cover the relevant area.

57. Selection of the appropriate option in respect of Scottish and English waters would be the decision of the Scottish Ministers and the UK Government respectively, however the Applicant’s assessment is that the 1967 Act would offer the most straightforward mechanism, requiring the making of two orders, which would be pursued under consistent powers for each jurisdiction and could be made consistent in their terms.
58. The mechanism to secure the subsequent control measures outlined in the Shadow SA4 SMP would be dependent on which measure is to be applied and would likely involve one of the options outlined above. All of the control measures, and the decision as to which control measure should be implemented (as a result of outcomes from monitoring) would be the responsibility of MS-LOT and the MMO/Defra. In addition, control and surveillance for fishers’ adherence to the SA4 SMP would be the responsibility of MS-LOT and the MMO/Defra and this would remain throughout the duration of the SA4 SMP.

2.6. Option 2: Implementing and Monitoring Ecosystem-Based Management of SA4

59. A Shadow SA4 SMP, would be developed by the Applicant in consultation with stakeholders (including MSS, MS-LOT, Nature Scot, Natural England, RSPB, SFF, NFFO, ICES, Defra, Cefas and MMO), which would be used to inform the implementation of the SA4 SMP by the Fisheries Manager (as discussed above)
60. This transparency creates the basis for a constructive dialogue between all stakeholders and would increase the level of acceptance of the decisions made.
61. It is proposed the SA4 SMP would take a staged approach to ecosystem-based management and should be implemented for a pilot year in 2024, with the first management measure proposed to set TAC to zero for 2024, as it has been for 2022 (ICES, 2022).

Stage 1: Set Zero TAC

62. Scientific evidence shows that sandeel stocks in SA4 are below the level needed to secure future sustainable stock levels, further information detailing this is provided in the FCM Evidence Report. Setting TAC to zero in the first instance would be the quickest way to restore sandeel stocks to the required levels (an ecosystem trigger point of a TSB of 400,000 tonnes, as discussed in section 2.4) and would create the best possible conditions upon which to apply an ecosystem-based approach to management.
63. Whilst TAC would be set to zero there would be a commercial monitoring TAC of 5,000 tonnes of catch in order to obtain samples to assess the status of the stock. There would be an associated sampling/monitoring protocol in SA4 for which the Applicant would provide appropriate resources, complementing the surveys already undertaken by MSS. The results from the surveys would be provided to MSS, MMO/Cefas and ICES to further increase their scientific evidence base. Further information on the proposed monitoring protocol is discussed below.

Stage 2: Pilot Implementation and Monitoring

64. The next stage in developing the SA4 SMP would be implementation of the plan for a pilot year, similar to the approach taken in Norway. Whilst the detail would be confirmed when developing the Shadow SA4 SMP in 2023, it is proposed that known sandeel fishing grounds within SA4 would be divided into initial sub areas based on the differences in sandeel population developments, differences in recruitment and size at age, as shown in Figure 1   Open ▸ . These initial sub areas would be identified and agreed with MSS and MMO/Cefas to then undertake a programme of dredge and acoustic monitoring surveys (which would be undertaken by the Applicant).
65. A Sandeel Monitoring Protocol within the SA4 SMP would expand the spatial extent of existing dredge surveys currently undertaken in SA4 by MSS (as discussed in section 2.2) and undertake a complementary programme of surveys running for the operational lifetime of the Proposed Development. The data collected would complement existing sandeel distribution modelling which has been carried out by MSS (Langton et al, 2021) and by ABPmer. Areas to be monitored would be agreed with MSS (and MMO/Cefas as appropriate).
66. Alongside this, acoustic monitoring of specific locations identified as suitable sandeel habitat would also be undertaken, with the first acoustic survey to be undertaken in 2024 and these would also continue for the operational lifetime of the Proposed Development. Acoustic surveys, using sonar would be carried out to estimate the biomass of sandeel which would be used to estimate the abundance of age 1 and older sandeel.
67. These two approaches to monitoring would give fishery-independent data which is consistent from year to year; whereas the data derived from commercial catches reflect the activities of the fleet which is likely to vary from year-to-year, depending on such factors as variation in fish behaviour and management measures (Lart, 2022a). Data from both these sources should be shared by the Fisheries Manager (MS-LOT and the MMO) with ICES to be used in their stock assessments. This data would also be used by the Fisheries Managers to inform the control measure/tool to be implemented in the management of the whole fishery, which is discussed further below.
68. The SA4 SMP would include a Sandeel Monitoring Protocol (to be consulted upon with stakeholders and approved by the Scottish Ministers as part of the Shadow SA4 SMP , as outlined in section 6.5), this would provide further information on the proposed locations for dredge and acoustic surveys, the vessels to be used (including size and gear), the methodology to be followed as well as how data will processed, managed and shared. The Sandeel Monitoring Protocol would improve the transparency and awareness around the modelling processes currently used to inform stock assessment, and it is important to note this would be supplemented by local fishing knowledge where appropriate.

Stage 3: Identification of SA4 Sub-Areas for Management

69. The final stage in the development of the SA4 SMP would be to use the data collected during the pilot surveys in 2023 and 2024 to inform the finalisation of sub-areas for management. 
70. Geographical distribution of shoals is often very heterogeneous between and within a sandeel area (Johnsen et al., 2017). Even when it is buried, the amount of sandeel varies greatly between areas and also over distances as short as 10 to 100 metres (Harbitz and Johnsen, 2013), showing that having increased survey data across various areas is important to be able to define these management sub-areas and therefore manage the whole of SA4 appropriately. In addition, data at the bank level is required to relate to sandeel availability and accessibility to seabirds.

Stage 4: Implementing and Monitoring an Ecosystem Based Approach

71. Following the pilot year and identification of the SA4 sub-areas, the first phase of the ecosystem-based management approach would be implemented through selection of a control measure (a fisheries management tool) to manage the fishery.
72. As outlined within Lart (2022), input controls are designed to regulate the quantity and type of fishing ‘effort’. These input controls can be quantified in terms of:

• Vessel size; 
• Vessel power;
• Time at sea; or
• Days at sea regulations (where vessels of a given power and gear type are restricted to a certain number of days at sea in a given time period)

73. Technical measures can be considered a subset of input controls they directly control:

• Design and deployment of gear;
  • including selectivity devices and mesh sizes;
• Seasonal closures;
• Area closures; or
• Restrictions on zonal access to vessels of a given size or power
  • For example restricting the maximum power of vessels permitted to fish within the 12-mile limit.

74. Fishery closures can take the form of technical measures (specified constraints on gear use within a fishery; McClanahan et al. 2014, Campbell et al. 2018), periodic or seasonal closures (Cohen and Alexander 2013), or rights-based controls on access into the fishery.
75. Output controls are designed to control the quantity and composition of the catch setting the TAC based on data collected from monitoring.
76. It is likely that a combination of controls would be used as appropriate to the management objectives of the fishery.
77. Following the pilot year the first phase of the implementation of the ecosystem-based approach to management of SA4 should be selection of the output control measure of zero TAC. This zero TAC should be set for one year to allow the stock to recover following the pilot of the SA4 sandeel management plan as well as whilst year one dredge and acoustic surveys are undertaken.
78. It must be noted that this initial phase of ecosystem management of SA4 should be revisited annually and the decision as to the control measure(s) to be subsequently implemented would be based on the monitoring of the seabird population and how they are impacted by any changes in sandeel stock as a consequence of the TAC being set to zero (should this be the first control measure to be implemented. This would be defined as an ecosystem trigger point, set as a result of monitoring seabird populations. When sandeel monitoring (results from the annual dredge and acoustic surveys) shows the TSB reaches this ecosystem trigger point of 400,000 tonnes, and subject to a positive response from the seabirds in terms of increases in adult survival, adaptive measures within the SA4 SMP would be considered and control measures implemented to manage fishing pressure at an appropriate level
79. The decision as to which control measures to implement would be based on results of the annual dredge and acoustic surveys each year. The control measures could be implemented differently within each sub area and the Norwegian approach applied whereby a sub-area could be closed for fishing unless the abundance of sandeel is relatively high in the area (biomass would be estimated from acoustic surveys which would be undertaken in April/May each year). If an area is open for fishing, one of the associated subareas would be closed to prevent a total depletion of sandeel in the area. It would be likely that any the closed sub-area would be opened the following year if fishing is allowed in the area.
80. A preliminary stock assessment would be carried out in January in the TAC year. The SA4 fisheries manager would provide a conservative preliminary TAC advice, and a recommendation of which subareas that should be open.
81. The acoustic survey carried out in April/early May, would be used to estimate the abundance of age 1 and older sandeel. An updated assessment would be carried out, and final advice presented in late May in the TAC year.
82. If the number of sandeel < 10 cm comprised more than 10% in a catch, any fishing ground should be closed for seven days to prevent fishing of 0-age fish. The fishing ground would be re-opened automatically after one week.
83. Alternative measures could involve restrictions on vessel size or equipment to be used in certain areas/sub areas, timing of fishing in the areas/sub areas or seasonal restrictions.
84. There are often large local differences in the recruitment and density of sandeel, therefore using this sub-area based management model would allow for fishing effort to be spread so that a residual spawning stock could be ensured. This geographical spread of fishing in combination with a generally cautious take would mean that more individuals could reach a higher age and result in a more stable high spawning population and positive impacts on the wider marine ecosystem.