the clash | 199We will shortly return to the question of ocean warming and climate
change. For now, the focus remains on the merits of protecting chunks
of sea where seabirds concentrate. For example, in May 2014 the UK’s
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) set forth the case for
seven protected areas at sea off the coast of Scotland,^26 where great sea-
bird throngs gather in world- class colonies. Undoubtedly these offshore
areas, key feeding zones for several species such as Great Skua (in fast
decline) and Common Guillemot, would meet the criteria for Special
Protection Areas (SPAs).* What is far less certain is whether the conser-
vation designation would make any material difference to the well-
being of the seabirds. A friend, working for the RSPB, chides my scep-
ticism, “it’s worth noting that the first thing SPAs do is to stop things
getting worse. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive requires that any ‘plan
or project’ – and fishing counts as such – proposed in a site must not
have a significant impact on an SPA’s [seabird] population”. In other
words, designating sites would allow any future plans for fishing to be
squashed if the fishing posed any sort of risk to birds.
To sum up, fishing activities unquestionably cause distressing seabird
deaths. Common humanity demands that these be reduced to the abso-
lute minimum. But fishing of coastal waters and the high seas will con-
tinue for the foreseeable future. Sometimes this will have little impact
on seabirds. Elsewhere, because there is an inescapable tendency for
birds and fishers to gravitate towards common areas, often hotspots of
seabird activity, there is the potential for interaction, notably because
fishers exploit the very prey of seabirds. Since wholescale prohibition
of fishing is impossible and undesirable, seabird conservation in these
areas may often best be served by a focus on stock protection, in order
to provide full nets for fishers and full stomachs for seabirds. Only in a
carefully- identified proportion of cases is prohibition of fishing, with
all the political mayhem that entails, likely to be the best solution.
- (^) This is a designation required of European Union member states, under the EU Birds Direc-
tive, for the most important areas for birds. Frustrated by governmental inaction, the RSPB
took the lead in proposing the areas. My comments ignore the considerable complications aris-
ing from the UK’s imminent departure from the EU.