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 and seines and pelagic trawls (over-15m) and nephrops trawls and whitefish trawls (under-15m vessels] operate within the EGM proposed MPA. The value of catches from the EGM area was £227,000 (over-15m vessels) and £433 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m fleet were made predominantly into Peterhead (66% by value), Fraserburgh (20%) and Aberdeen (9%). For the over-15m fleet, nephrops and whitefish trawlers operate in particular in the south-east corner of the proposed MPA in the area of offshore deep sea muds.

Information submitted by Copeche indicated that French vessels operate in the EGM proposed MPA, but no information was provided on numbers of vessels or value of catches. Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 14 non- UK vessels were active in the EGM area in 2012: 5 from Denmark; 4 from Sweden; 2 from the Netherlands; 1 from Norway, 1 from Germany and 1 from the Faroe Islands. The Swedish, Dutch and German vessels fish with pelagic gear (pelagic trawls and purse seines) and therefore would not be affected by the management scenarios. One Danish vessel fishes with bottom trawl and therefore may be affected by the management measures assessed 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 EGM proposed MPA.

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.

• Closure to beam trawls and dredges (gears likely to impact on ocean quahog) across the ocean quahog feature extent (full extent of proposed MPA); and
• Reduce other mobile bottom contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines) pressure by 50% across the offshore deep sea muds feature.

• Closure to whitefish trawls, nephrops trawls, other trawls, beam trawls and dredges (gears the could possibly affect ocean quahog) across the ocean quahog feature extent (full extent of proposed MPA); and
• Closure to other mobile bottom-contact gears (whitefish seines, nephrops seines and other seines) across the offshore deep sea muds feature.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Whitefish trawls (0.018);
• Whitefish seines (<0.001);
• Nephrops trawls (0.028).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All gears (<0.001).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Whitefish trawls (0.082);
• Whitefish seines (<0.001);
• Nephrops trawls (0.142).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All gears (<0.001).

• None.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (1 vessel) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)); 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 bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (1 vessel) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)); 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.

The EGM proposed MPA encompasses 18 known hydrocarbon fields and four oil and gas installations. Under all scenarios, feature extents for ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels) overlap with all four installations present (Nordic Apollo FPSO; 21/25 GANNET A; 22/17 B and 22/17 A), while offshore deep sea muds overlap with only one (Nordic Apollo FPSO). A further 2 installations outside of the MPA proposal boundary are within 1km of ocean quahog aggregations under all scenarios.

Of the 204 wells present within the EGM proposed MPA, feature extents for ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels) overlap with all 204 and offshore deep sea muds overlap with 15 under all scenarios.

There are 128 sections of oil and gas pipeline present within the MPA proposal area that overlap with features proposed for designation, all of which overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels), and 19 of which overlap with offshore deep sea muds, under all scenarios. Additional lengths of pipeline outside of the MPA are within the 1km buffer area.

A number of licence awards have been granted under the 26 ^th and 27 ^th oil and gas licensing rounds which overlap with features proposed for designation within the MPA proposal boundary. Twelve awards were granted during the 26 ^th UK licensing round and a further 9 during the 27 ^th UK licensing round. Under all scenarios, all 21 of the licence awards overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels), while three of the 26 ^th round awards and five of the 27 ^th round awards overlap with offshore deep sea muds. Three of the awarded blocks have significant oil discoveries. Under all scenarios three of the discoveries overlap with ocean quahog aggregations and one with offshore deep sea muds.

Three of the awards from the 26 ^th round and three from the 27 ^th round lie wholly within the MPA proposal, while the rest overlap its boundaries.

• 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 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 ^th round awards).

• 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 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 ^th round awards);
• 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 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 ^th round awards);
• Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type;
• Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of more representative habitat types for offshore deep sea muds and offshore subtidal sand and gravels using data held by JNCC and collected by operators; and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings.

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (11 wells (2016) and 7 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024)); and
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (11 wells (2016) and 7 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024)); and
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (11 wells (2016) and 7 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
• Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (3 wells (2016), 11 wells (2018), 7 wells (2020), 3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
• Re-routing of new pipelines for Phases 4 - 6 - £2m per additional km of pipeline (10% of distance);
• Survey costs for additional pipeline length - £580k per well; and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings - £650k per well (3 wells (2016), 11 wells (2018), 7 wells (2020), 3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024)).

• 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.

Annual Average Loss in Value of Landings*:
Lower: £0.00m
Intermediate: £0.05m
Upper: £0.22m

Annual Average Loss in GVA (direct and indirect)*: Lower: £0.00m Intermediate: £0.02m Upper: £0.08m

• 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.

Quantified Cost Impact (2014-2033): £0.225 - 35.021m

Decommissioning assessed at national level

Future employment opportunities - reduced future employment opportunities if costs significant and render development projects unviable.

This impact is uncertain and is only likely to arise under the upper scenario. JNCC's current advice is that the intermediate scenario represents their best view on management requirements.

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

xx

North-East
North-West

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Buckie (51%), Peterhead (26%), Fraserburgh (11%)

xx

Coastal

Rural and Urban

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

0-2.6 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

North-East
North-West

x

Peterhead
Fraserburgh
Aberdeen
Grimsby

x

Coastal

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