The Cooperative Participatory Evaluation of Renewable Technologies on Ecosystem Services (CORPORATES): Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 7 No 1

Appendix 4: Compilation of Individual Narratives in Workshop 2 Exercise 3b

Sector: Additional Relevant Stakeholders

Need to work with all sectors so all policies are significant

• Work by needing to inform sectors who are not directly affected
• Gives opportunity to bring sectors together
• Role is to facilitate the decision making rather than directly contribute
• Introduction of marine planning partnerships will change role of partnerships far more than any one policy
• Problem that lot of sectors I need to discuss with are external individuals e.g. dog walkers, canoeists etc.
• Problem that finance cuts means consultations being reduced to minimum

Sector: Conservation

Climate change drivers -

• Increased offshore wind energy = decreased habitats/species/wildness = decreased ecosystem health/resilience
• Increased offshore wind energy = increased climate change regulation = increased ecosystem health/resilience

Marine protected areas -

• Increased Ecosystem health/resilience = increased habitats/species/wildness = increased quantity of fish/shellfish (=increase fish catch), and increased marine tourism/recreation (= increased local economic benefits)
• Decreased offshore wind energy (?) = decreased climate change & stability = decreased ecosystem health/resilience = ….

For me, this is a mixed/complex picture! → But, we need to see the big picture (spatial plans) to see where (maybe) different activities can exist.

Sector: Conservation

Issues/changes in the marine environment

• Human exploitation of fish stocks
• Climate change → impacts on primary production etc.
• Pollution - oil spills,
• Impacts of renewables (wind, wave, tidal)
• Shipping traffic/other similar disturbance
• Only new factor is renewables → uncertain what the impacts are - hard to know what short term/long term effects - lack of evidence

Decision making

Lobbying through charities ( e.g. RSPB, NT, NTS)

Voting for political party who best reflect views (but none really do - lack of environment in manifestos)

Sector: Conservation

• Marine law & policy has created an incredible amount of new jobs for marine scientists/ecologists. I would say we are the winners in industry or in government or in academia. Is it sustainable?
• Outcome of trade of discussions depends on the scale, particularly temporal scales at which benefits are evaluated.
• Progress on both environmental/conservation issues and on (sustainable) development are hampered by bureaucracy and at the moment it feels like bureaucracy is going off the roof.
• This exercise seems largely to be based on 'generalisation' and yet the outcome in reality is specific - is there a risk of missing the point at times?

Sector: Conservation

We are at an historic juncture in the development of sustainable marine conservation and planning systems for Scotland's seas. The fundamental question from the perspective of myself (both individually and professionally) is the degree of ambition of the various processes: MPAs and marine planning. As a representative of an NGO we have an opportunity to engage at the heart of many of the processes and with that comes a responsibility to best reflect the concerns of the ecosystem itself (and the component species & habitats) which don't have a 'voice' (and therefore we are not a 'sector'). Even despite this opportunity, it is an ongoing challenge to counter the current paradigm which tends to find conservation as a constraint and tends to proceed in a non-precautionary basis.

A principal concern is the degree to which MPAs will be "well-managed". There is a concern that the non-precautionary approach risks losing this historic opportunity to enhance the health of our seas. The burden of proof should be on those whom wish to carry out an activity to prove as far as possible it won't have a deleterious affect on sites… conservation objectives. Currently, most particularly relating to fishing, the burden of proof is on having to prove damage rather than as if should be, to prove that an activity won't do damage. This adaptive management approach risks being non-precautionary.

We also need to have cross-sectorial acknowledgements of the current depleted baseline (as evidence with expert judgement set out in Scotland's Marine Atlas).

Sector: Fishing

Pre-supposing policy/regulation fishing activities

Existing dysfunctional regulation currently leading to marine spatial conflict - more integrated regulation would promote MSP → better use of the total resource (for everyone!)

Sector: Fishing

Fisheries Policy

Personally, I am long past retirement age but feel I can contribute (cannot read the writing) to the future of the industry I have been part of for almost 60 years.

The worry thing about the future is the way we are being railroaded into operating a policy that no one has a clue to what the side effects of such a policy.

People like myself who try to make representation to government on behalf of active fishermen are being snowed under by consultations after consultation,

Ever more restrictions are being introduced before the results of all previous restrictions have been assessed.

Huge areas of sea are being closed to fishers ( MPAs, Windfarms, Gravel extraction).

Sector: Renewables ( MRE)

Local benefit (economics) requires supply chain that will be dependent upon wind projects being built. This requires government to facilitate CFP process with more money

• Uncertainty around existing and predicted impacts from offshore has meant really conservative assessments. Current consents therefore take up existing 'head room' for ecological impact - Need targeted monitoring campaigners to establish actual impact, reduce conservation & allow reliable estimation of 'head room' will limit benefit.
• Management projections for MPA need to reflect conservation objectives to ensure effectiveness.

Sector: Renewables ( MRE) Key issues from CFP for offshore wind:

I expect few effects from the CFP. The following are possible:

• More former fishermen looking for work due to restrictions imposed by CFP. Therefore more specialised/knowledgable workforce i.e with greater knowledge of the local marine environment and conditions.
• Drop in seabird population for some species caused by CFP eg Gannets and a large gull populations will fall due to a lack of discards, which will coincide with the construction of the new offshore windfarms - which will get the blame!

Other policy impacts on offshore wind

• UK government funding. Without this, the delivery of Scottish government consents is redundant.
• Carbon and renewable targets
• Designations - new MPAs and SPAs - depending on the detail of management measures these could restrict offshore renewable developments
• MSP - if these are indeed 'spatial' this will have implications for locating renewable energy devices.

Sector: Renewables ( MRE)

Policy/regulatory change - EU/ UK/Scotland

• Uncertainty = political climate is very different now than 5 years ago. Future direction is currently uncertain (but the drivers remain)
• Policy/regulatory drivers in Scotland are very disjointed (within single body - e.g. Marine Scotland)
• = conservation v's offshore wind
• = regulatory processes are reactive, largely change coming too late - failure to understand a need to learn from terrestrial planning process
• = Future planning for offshore renewables scenarios has failed to acknowledge outcomes from decision making to date
• Opportunities to co-exist are being missed.
• Policy should seek to drive these by being coherent
• E.g. fishing exclusion = MPA = safe place for windfarm = wider, longer-term benefit for fishing
• Securing any benefit locally/nationally should be an important consideration.

Sector: Additional Relevant Stakeholders

Crown Estate Renewables Planning and Policy

• Potential benefits for those in the fishing sector to move into other industries.
• Changes to local communities and then change in local identity.
• Any increase in uncertainty in one sector is guaranteed to have knock on effects on other sectors. This may lead to more difficulty engagement with that sector.
• Climate change/low carbon drivers may have preference for specific sectors increasing effects on others.
• Increases in the total of MPAs may sterilise the marine area for others and make the opportunities for sectors such as fishery and renewables dependent on management measures.
• No coherent management of several policies may lead to consultative fatigue and confusion as to how all of the various policies will fit together.

Sector: Additional Relevant Stakeholders Fisheries management conservation

• Uncertainties about future stocks and it is unclear if the CFP will support or hinder sustainable fishery stocks.
• Will offshore developments impact fishery stock numbers, Can MPAs mitigate and provide a buffer of the developments. Trade -offs.
• Scotland has a strong fishing heritage and culture, it should be supported. Funding.
• Lack of stakeholder engagement in the decision making process. Any decision could impact upon a community, which could have a negative/positive impact on not only local economic benefits and personal wellbeing.
• Could restrict opportunities for future generations.

Sector: Additional Relevant Stakeholders

Comments on the process:

The links were classified as positive or negative. The scales of changes are essential information if trade-offs are to be… What scale of action would be needed to alter primary production to have significant effect on fisheries?

There is no mechanism to balance societal benefits against individual benefits

There are no mechanisms to handle factors… cultural identities, perceived wildness etc. These need to be quantified, and interactive, modelled in some way analogous to individual based models in biology (behaviour etc) and monte-carlo simulations. Some applies to impacts on fisheries, to benefits of increased tourism etc.