Fisheries Management Measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) - Socio-Economic Impact Assessment

8. Cumulative and Combined Impacts

Economic Impacts on Fishing and Associated Supply Chains

Table 27 presents information on potential direct and indirect GVA impacts for commercial fisheries, where a change in the value of output (landings) may occur for the commercial fisheries sector. The estimated combined impact on direct GVA for the proposed management measures across all offshore MPAs for the commercial fisheries sector varies from £4.9–17.3 million (Option 1) and £30.7–50.7 million (Option 2) (present value, costs discounted over the 20-year assessment period, 2022 prices). These impacts arise as a result of reduced landings from the sites where fishing effort would be restricted under the assessed management options.

It should be noted that these impacts are based on data from 2015–2019. The actual impacts may differ, as there may be changes to the fleet as a result of Brexit, Covid recovery, fuel prices and the cost of living. Some impacts may be reduced (e.g. if some vessels have already ceased to operate), but some impacts may be magnified (e.g. if the effect of management options on top of other pressures make businesses unviable).

Considering direct and indirect GVA impacts, the total impacts for the proposed fisheries management measures across all sites is a reduction between £6.4–22.5 million (Option 1) and £40–66.0 million (Option 2) over the study period. Again, these values are the present value of total impacts over 20 years, and relate to the impacts on commercial fisheries as well as the knock-on impacts on their upstream supply chains (boat building, maintenance, insurance services etc).

These impacts correspond to a potential loss of jobs of between 10 and 106 full-time equivalents (direct, indirect and induced, lowest estimate for Option 1 to highest estimate of Option 2.

The impacts generally represent a small proportion of fishing activity in each CSSEG region (see Table 9 in section 6). Under the higher end of Option 1 (assuming loss of all landings and no displacement), the impact on value of landings represents less than 1% of the total value of landings from the region across all regions except for: East Scotland Coast (1.8% of landings from the region are affected); Rockall (4% of landings from the region are affected); Bailey (56% of landings from the region are affected); and Hatton (100% of landings from the region are affected). Under Option 2 (assuming loss of all landings and no displacement), the impacts are greater, with the highest relative impacts (compared to total landings from the region) in Forties (5%), Rockall (7%), East Scotland Coast (11%), Bailey (58%) and Hatton (100%).

At the level of individual vessels, and considering only over-12 m vessels (assuming loss of all landings and no displacement), under Option 1, five vessels have over £100 k of landings affected, rising to 21 vessels under Option 2. Comparing the value of landings affected to the total value of landings for each vessel, one vessel has over 10% of its landings affected under the higher end of Option 1, and a further seven vessels have between 5% and 10% affected. Under Option 2, 23 vessels have over 10% of their landings affected (rising to up to 36% of landings affected), and a further 47 vessels have between 5% and 10% affected. Losses of this scale might result in some vessels’ activity becoming unviable, with additional knock-on impacts on employment, ports and communities that have not been quantified in this SEIA.

Social Impacts

As well as the potential significant negative economic, employment and social impacts for three sites (discussed in Section 6), there is also a risk of negative social impacts as a result of the combined impacts of the sites on several Ports. This relates to both port of landing, and home port, although home port is not always a good indication of where vessels are crewed from or operate from.

The combined effect of the sites on fisheries employment at home ports is shown in Section 6, with Table 18 and Table 22 showing the combined effects of sites on home port district employment and landings at port landings, in percentage terms. Both show potential for significant consequential social impacts.

For employment, Fraserburgh, Orkney and Shetland show the highest percentage impacts, of up to 1.2%–3% of employment lost, at the higher end of the Option 1 estimate, whilst under Option 2, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, and Orkney have the highest percentage impacts (range 2.9% to 3.9%). A further five port districts (Ayr, Buckie, Lochinver, Shetland and Ullapool) show impacts of between 1.3 and 2.5% of employment under Option 2. The effect in absolute terms at Fraserburgh (between 9 and 30 jobs, under the highest estimates for Option 1 and Option 2 respectively), is also notable.

For port of landing (with potential knock-on impacts on the processing sector), three Scottish ports (Aberdeen, Cullivoe and Kinlochbervie) show impacts of more than 2% of total landings lost in the higher end of the Option 1 estimate, and higher impacts (of up to 3.7% – 13.8%) in the Option 2 estimate. In Option 2, a further four Scottish ports (Montrose, Fraserburgh, Ullapool and Scrabster) show impacts of more than 2% of landings (range: 2.4% – 4.8%), and a further two (Macduff and Peterhead) show impacts of between 1% – 2% of landings.

Potentially significant impacts are also identified for Londonderry in Northern Ireland, and there are also impacts on some English and non-UK fishing fleets, which could have consequential social impacts, although these have not been quantified.

Although not subject to the highest impacts in terms of landings or employment affected, three ports (Fraserburgh, Shetland and Ullapool) have notable effects in both categories, and therefore are at increased risk of adverse negative socio-economic consequences from the combined effects of the site management measures.

Public Sector

The estimated total costs to the public sector are assumed to be centralised and are mostly attributed to Scottish Government Compliance (although other fisheries administrations, or the vessels themselves, may take on some of the costs). Potential future monitoring and control (of fisheries activity) and enforcement costs comprise the public sector costs.

The total public sector costs under Option 1 were estimated at £9.7 million, and £3.2 million under Option 2 (present value over 20 years at 2022 prices).

Potential Benefits

Treating marine protected areas as a collection of individual and separate features providing separate ecosystem services potentially ignores any network effects that could occur from a set of MPAs. A number of adjacent marine reserves may demonstrate network effects, i.e. the benefit from the networks may be greater (or less) than the sum of the benefits from the individual MPAs. Some MPAs will protect replicates of habitats and features, and they may be connected through larval dispersal, thus making the MPA network more resilient to impacts. These effects are potentially of great importance in assessing the benefits of management measures in marine protected areas because of the lack of barriers and mobility of species.

Some ecosystem service benefits (genetic resources; cultural benefits stemming from spirituality, health and wellbeing, and creativity & art; and tourism and recreation) from the management options were not considered at a site level because of a lack of site specific data. However, they are considered relevant to the sites as a network, being benefits resulting from the health of marine ecosystems, which the site management measures would contribute to, but the impact of individual sites cannot be distinguished within the overall potential benefit.

For genetic resources, these are poorly measured for marine ecosystems, but are relevant - for example, Potts et al.^[91] identified medicines and blue biotechnology as an important marine service. Their future value cannot be quantified, but preserving them in Scottish waters is positively valued (Jobstvogt et al. ^[92]). There is potential a significant option value to preserving the genetic resources in offshore habitats, including where the extent and condition of habitats and species are poorly understood.

Marine tourism and recreation, and other cultural ecosystem services, can be very significant, but are predominantly concentrated in inshore areas. These services are not assessed for individual offshore sites. However, in improving the health of Scotland’s seas, the management options could increase the abundance of distinctive mobile fauna (e.g. seabirds, cetaceans) which use offshore and inshore areas. When in inshore areas, these species can attract significant recreation and tourism activity. Therefore, the management options could collectively contribute to enhancing this service.

Two other potential benefits from the collective contribution of the management measures to the health of marine ecosystems are notable:

• They could contribute to an increase in abundance of fish species, which as well as supporting commercial fisheries (discussed above) are also targeted by recreational anglers (from shore or boats, usually in inshore areas). They could therefore help maintain, and potentially enhance, the value of recreational sea-angling in Scotland.
• As discussed under tourism, the health of marine ecosystems helps support distinctive marine bird species. At the time of producing this analysis, the impacts of bird flu on Scotland’s seabirds are a source of significant concern. Since autumn 2021 the UK has experienced its largest outbreak of avian influenza to date, which has affected wild birds, including our internationally important seabird colonies. Addressing the disease amongst wild birds can pose significant challenges. The Scottish Government is taking the current situation very seriously and continues to work with partner organisations to monitor and report the situation where action can be taken. The avian influenza outbreak comes at a time when seabird populations in Scotland and globally are facing increasing challenges from a range of anthropogenic and natural pressures.

Avian influenza is a highly infectious disease, and while all the surveillance and research highlighted above is helping to improve our understanding of the spread and effects of the disease, transmission within and between seabird colonies is still to be fully understood, and extremely challenging to mitigate due to the highly mobile nature of many seabird species. However, action can be taken to improve the health of marine ecosystems the affected species rely on, and the management options under consideration would contribute to this. They would do so as one part of a wider set of protected areas, which include SPAs with offshore areas are being taken forward within the inshore programme.

Impacts on the Fishing Sector In Combination with Other Marine Developments

Demand for marine space from various sectors and from conservation interests is likely to intensify substantially over the next few decades, potentially resulting in an increase in spatial interactions with fisheries (NFFO & SFF, 2022^[93]). This section considers the economic impacts to the fishing industry in combination with other marine initiatives, in particular:

• Development of offshore wind farms based on the currently proposed, consented, contracted and under construction wind farms;
• Potential future offshore renewables development under the draft plan for wave and tidal energy developments in Scottish waters^[94], the lease areas for offshore wind under Scotwind)^[95], and the future Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas Decarbonisation (INTOG) leasing round (for which lease areas are not yet known);
• The impact assessment of the draft SPAs;
• The draft SEIA of proposed phase 2 fisheries management measures in inshore MPAs and SACs^[96], noting that these proposed measures are to be reassessed;
• The SEIA of four MPAs for mobile and benthic features (North-East Lewis, Sea of Hebrides, Shiant East Bank and Southern Trench).

The assessment of management measures for priority marine features (PMFs) has not yet been undertaken. In consequence, it is not possible at this stage to determine whether there may be cumulative effects arising from interactions between the proposed fisheries management measures in offshore MPAs and PMFs, although the location of PMFs predominantly in the inshore area, reduces the potential significance of any interaction.

There is potential for in-combination and cumulative effects on commercial fisheries, particularly with the potential for restriction on fishing areas due to existing, in construction and planned offshore wind farms, and offshore wind lease areas (Figure 4).

These impacts are expected to be greatest in:

• East Scotland Coast CSSEG region, where offshore MPA measures are predicted to affect between 1.8% and 11% of landings from the region by value (higher end of the estimates for Option 1 and Option 2). In this region, the impact of measures in Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA, combine with several offshore wind farms including the proposed 4 gigawatt (GW) Berwick Bank wind farm, and also additional offshore wind farm lease areas that extend into Forties region. The overlap between Berwick Bank offshore wind farm and Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA may reduce the additive nature of the in-combination impact, but the extent of potential future developments could increase the synergistic impact (vessels going out of business due to spatial constraints);
• North Scotland Coast CSSEG region, where offshore MPA measures are predicted to affect between 0.5% and 1.1% of landings from the region by value. In this region, the impact of measures in Solan Bank Reef SAC and West Shetland Shelf MPA combine with offshore wind lease areas for fixed, floating and mixed technologies;
• Fladen CSSEG region, where offshore MPA measures are predicted to affect between 0.5% and 3% of landings from the region by value. In this region, the impact of measures in Central Fladen MPA combine with several offshore wind lease areas anticipated to use floating technology;
• East Shetland CSSEG region, where offshore MPA measures are predicted to affect between 0.6% and 1% of landings from the region by value. In this region, the impact of measures in Pobie Bank Reef SAC combine with three adjacent floating offshore wind lease areas.

Table 28 summarises the annual average value of landings affected from Scotwind Draft Plan Option (DPO) areas, for each Scotwind region, excluding those DPOs that were not taken forward into lease option areas. The total offshore wind capacity assessed in these DPO areas was 24 GW, slightly below the 28 GW lease options issued. The Scotwind regions and the CSSEG regions do not align completely, therefore the corresponding CSSEG regions are indicated, and the total annual average value of landings affected from these regions under the proposed offshore MPA measures. The combined impact (of Scotwind DPOs and offshore MPA proposed measures) is then summed and compared to the total value of landings from each region.

Under the higher end of the Option 1 estimate, the North Scotwind region (corresponding to North Scotland Coast CSSEG region) is most affected in value terms. However, as a proportion of total landings from the region affected, the East Scotwind region is most impacted (corresponding to Forth, East Scotland Coast and Forties CSSEG regions), with 2% of the total landings from the region affected. Under the higher end of the Option 1 estimate, the in-combination impact on fisheries is considered minor.

Under Option 2, there is potential for more significant in-combination impacts on fisheries, particularly in the East Scotwind region (corresponding to Forth, East Scotland Coast and Forties CSSEG regions), where up to 8% of the total value of landings could be affected by the in-combination impact of offshore MPA measures and future offshore wind farms. Under Option 2, the region most affected in absolute terms is the North East Scotwind region (corresponding to Moray Firth, Fladen and East Shetland CSSEG regions), where up to 3% of total landings from the region could be affected. Within the Moray Firth CSSEG region, fisheries have already been affected by existing wind farms.

The INTOG leasing round for up to 5.7 GW of offshore wind is currently underway^[97]. Projects are likely to be developed in areas in the east of Scottish waters, and west of Shetland and there may be potential for in-combination impacts on fisheries. However, the details of lease areas and capacity are not yet known.

The marine SPAs that lie adjacent to or in proximity to the offshore MPAs under consideration also have the potential to result in in-combination impacts on commercial fisheries. This may be the case in Hebrides and West Shetland region. No management measures have yet been defined for the SPAs therefore it is not possible to assess the potential for in-combination impacts.

Overall, there is potential for in-combination effects on fisheries, which appear to be greatest in East Scotland Coast, North Scotland Coast, Fladen and East Shetland regions. The scale of the in-combination effect on fisheries is not yet clear, due to the lack of an assessment of the 28 GW Scotwind lease awards (the original SEIA assessed an upper scenario of 10 GW) and lack of detail on INTOG lease areas. The significance of this impact on the fishing industry at a regional scale, and on the operations of individual vessels, would therefore benefit from further analysis.

Figure 4. Spatial information on MPAs, SACs, SPAs and sectors with potential for cumulative effects on fisheries

IMGHERE

ALT Map showing Scottish waters, MPAs, SACs, SPAs and sectors with potential for cumulative effects on fisheries (wave energy, tidal energy, offshore wind farms and development areas, cables, carbon capture & storage, pipelines)