Planning Scotland's Seas: 2013 - The Scottish Marine Protected Area Project – Developing the Evidence Base for Impact Assessments and the Sustainability Appraisal Final Report - Appendix E - Marine Site Reports

• None.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels; and
• Displacement impacts.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels; and
• Displacement impacts.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

• Costs of mitigation measures;
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

• Costs of mitigation measures;
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, Nephrops trawls, whitefish trawls, whitefish seines, other trawls and pelagic trawls (over-15m) and nephrops trawls, whitefish trawls, pelagic trawls, other seines, and lines (under-15m vessels) operate within the CFL proposed MPA ( UK vessels). The value of catches from the CFL area was £1,120,000 (over-15m vessels) and £24,200 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m fleet are predominantly made into Peterhead (48% by value) (demersals and shellfish) and Fraserburgh (45%) (pelagics, shellfish and some demersals). For the over-15m fleet, nephrops and whitefish trawlers operate across the proposed MPA.

Information submitted by Copeche indicated that French vessels operate in the CFL proposed MPA, but no information was provided on numbers of vessels or value of catches. Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 31 non- UK vessels were active in the CFL area in 2012: 11 from Norway; 9 from Denmark; 7 from the Netherlands; 2 from Germany and 2 from France. The Dutch and German vessels fish with pelagic gear (pelagic trawls and purse seines) and therefore are unlikely to be affected by management measures. However, most of the Danish and French vessels fish with mobile bottom contact gear (6 Danish bottom trawl vessels; 1 French bottom trawl vessel) and therefore may be affected by management measures under the intermediate and upper scenarios. No information on gear types used by the Norwegian vessels was available.

Provisional ScotMap data do not indicate any under-15m vessel activity in the CFL proposed MPA. The cost estimates for the under-15m sector may be overestimates, as the 'under-15m' length group in the ICES rectangle landings data may include cases where information on vessel length and/or administrative port is missing from landings returns.

Management measures for the scenarios have been developed based on the sensitivity and vulnerability of the features to the pressures caused by different gear types and based on JNCC recommendations.

Unlike most other sectors, the potential cost of designation on commercial fisheries is a loss or displacement of current (and future) output, caused by restrictions on fishing activities. Any decrease in output will, all else being equal, reduce the Gross Value Added ( GVA) generated by the sector and have knock-on effects on the GVA generated by those industries that supply commercial fishing vessels. The costs estimates for this sector have therefore been estimated in terms of GVA.

GVA estimates have been generated by applying fleet segment-specific 'GVA/total income' ratios to the value of landings affected. The GVA ratios have been calculated using data on total income and GVA from the Sea Fish Industry Authority Multi-year Fleet Economic Performance Dataset (published March 2013). Further details on the GVA ratios and the methodology for estimating GVA and employment impacts applied are presented in Appendix C7.

It is important to note that all costs presented below assume that all affected landings are lost, that is, there is no displacement of fishing activity to alternative fishing grounds. In reality, some displacement is likely to occur and hence the cost, GVA and employment impacts presented in this table are likely to overestimate the costs.

• No additional management.

• Reduce mobile bottom contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls, and dredges) pressure by 50% across the burrowed mud (seapens and burrowing megafauna) feature.

• Closure to mobile bottom contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls, and dredges) across the whole proposed MPA extent.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Whitefish trawls (0.257);
• Nephrops trawls (0.286); and
• Other affected gears (0.006).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.007); and
• Other affected gears (0.002).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Whitefish trawls (0.514);
• Nephrops trawls (0.572); and
• Other affected gears (0.013).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.015); and
• Other affected gears (0.004).

• None.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using mobile bottom-contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (6 vessels), France (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (11 vessels)); and
• Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using mobile bottom-contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (6 vessels), France (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (11 vessels)); and
• Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.

Two pipelines (PL6N and PL7N) overlap with feature extents for seapens and burrowing megafauna under all scenarios within the CFL proposed MPA boundary. One well (14/04-1) overlaps with feature extents for seapens and burrowing megafauna under all scenarios.

One licence block, Block 7/30, awarded in the 26 ^th UK oil and gas licensing round, overlaps with seapens and burrowing megafauna under all scenarios (lower, intermediate, upper) within the CFL proposed MPA boundary. Another two blocks were awarded during the 27 ^th licensing round, two of which also overlap with feature extents for seapens and burrowing under all scenarios. None of the awarded blocks are wholly within the MPA proposal boundary.

• Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 ^th and 27 ^th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 only (as no significant discoveries present within awarded blocks).

• Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 ^th and 27 ^th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 only (as no significant discoveries present within awarded blocks);
• Micro-siting in areas of reduced seapen density using data held by JNCC and collected by operators;
• Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type; and
• Treat cuttings that use oil-based muds on site.

• Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 ^th and 27 ^th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 only (as no significant discoveries present within awarded blocks);
• Micro-siting in areas of reduced seapen density using data held by JNCC and collected by operators;
• Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type; and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings.

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2016) and 2 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2018) and 2 wells (2020)); and
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2018) and 2 wells (2020)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2016) and 2 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2018) and 2 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2018) and 2 wells (2020)); and
• Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (1 well (2018) and 2 wells (2020)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2016) and 2 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2018) and 2 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k 4k per well (1 well (2018) and 2 wells (2020));
• Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (1 well (2018) and 2 wells (2020)); and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings - £650k per well (1 well (2018) and 2 wells (2020)).

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

• Costs of some mitigation measures should be covered by industry best practice;
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

• Costs of some mitigation measures should be covered by industry best practice;
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

• Healt h (increase in illness, mental stress, loss of self esteem

• Increase in crime; and
• Reduction in f u ture emp lo y me n t prospects/future earnings.

• Empl o y m e nt - reduced employment due to changes in costs and earnings profile of vessels ( e.g. increased fuel costs, gear development and adaption costs, additional quota costs);
• Conflict/Loss of social cohesion - diminishing fishing grounds may increase conflict with other vessels/gear types, increase social tensions within fishing communities and lead to a loss of social cohesion among fleets. Could also lead to increased operating costs as a result of lost or damaged gear. Equally, gear conflict could reduce where gears are restricted/prohibited;
• Healt h - increased risks to the safety of fishers and vessels and increased stress due to moving to lesser known areas;
• E n v ironmental - increased impact in targeting new areas, longer streaming times and increased fuel consumption; and
• Cul t ur e a nd her i tag e - change in traditional fishing patterns/ activities.

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

xx

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Fraserburgh (48%), Peterhead (33%), Scarborough (6%)

xx

Coastal

Urban and Rural

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if parent loses job/becomes unemployed.

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if individuals lose job/become unemployed

xx

Potential negative effect if retirees own affected vessels or live in households affected by unemployment.

xxx

0-13 job losses

Potentially significant negative effect on individuals that lose job/become unemployed.

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if member of household loses job/ becomes unemployed.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

x

x

x

Coastal

Island and Urban

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

x

Information only available on average incomes not the distribution of income. Therefore, not clear whether this group will be affected.

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports