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.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Micro-siting of turbines; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• See national assessment.

• See national assessment.

• See national assessment.

According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, dredgers, otter trawls (nephrops, whitefish and other) and whitefish seines (over-15m vessels) and nephrops trawls, pots, dredgers, other trawls, whitefish trawls, hand fishing, lines and nets (under-15m vessels) operate within the FOF proposed MPA. The value of catches from the FOF area was £483,000 (over-15m vessels) and £248,000 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). For the over-15m fleet, dredgers operate in particular in the western component of FOF, with whitefish trawls and other trawls operating across the area.

The feature extents for ocean quahog and offshore subtidal sands and gravels extend across the whole proposed MPA boundary in the intermediate and upper scenarios. Dredging, trawling, seining and static gear use therefore overlap with both proposed protected features under both the intermediate and upper scenarios. Management 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 advice. Using this information, the potential cost impacts of management measures have been assessed for trawls and dredges.

Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 7 non- UK vessels were active in the FOF area in 2012, all from Denmark. Based on the EU vessel register, it appears that two of these vessels fish with bottom trawls and therefore would be impacted by the management measures assessed under the intermediate and upper scenarios.

Provisional ScotMap data indicate that the annual average earnings from the FOF proposed MPA was £191,800, with over 70% of this from pots (predominantly for lobster). The spatial distribution of value from the under-15m ScotMap data indicates that the majority of value in the FOF proposed MPA and surrounding area is derived from closer inshore in the Firth of Forth area, indicating that the estimates of value of landings from the ICES rectangle data is likely to over-estimate the impact on the under-15m sector. The coverage for ScotMap interviews in the region was 85.2% (total value of reported landings from the Fisheries Information Network for those vessels included in the ScotMap value analysis expressed as a percentage of the total reported landings for all vessels <15m). Therefore the ScotMap estimate is likely to slightly under-represent the value of fishing by under-15m vessels, but the spatial representation of the value of fishing is fairly robust due to the high level of coverage.

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 full extent of MPA;
• Reduce other mobile bottom contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines) pressure by 50% across MPA.

• Closure to mobile bottom contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across full extent of MPA.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million):
• Whitefish trawls (0.001);
• Dredges (0.410);
• Other affected gears (0.035).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million):
• All affected gears (0.075).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million):
• Whitefish trawls (0.003);
• Dredges (0.410);
• Other affected gears (0.071).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million):
• All affected gears (0.138).

• None.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (2 vessels)); and
• Displacement impacts (additional fishing pressure on other areas, potential conflict with other vessels, additional steaming time/fuel costs).

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (2 vessels)); and
• Displacement impacts (additional fishing pressure on other areas, potential conflict with other vessels, additional steaming time/fuel costs).

There are no energy generation activities currently operating within the FOF proposed MPA boundary or corresponding buffer zones. Thus, economic costs and management measures associated with energy generation in this proposed MPA are described in light of known possible future developments.

In 2012, Seagreen Wind Energy Limited (Seagreen) submitted separate applications to the Scottish Government for consent to construct two offshore wind farms (Project Alpha and Project Bravo, 525MW each) in the Firth of Forth Offshore Wind Zone (Phase 1). Project Alpha and Project Bravo overlap the western and northern parts of the FOF proposed MPA boundary, respectively. Buffer zones (1km) around possible export cable routes from these potential wind farm developments could overlap the FOF proposed MPA boundary. Nevertheless, any associated costs of Phase 1 are considered sunk as the application process has the potential to be concluded prior to 2014. Similarly, the consent application has been submitted for the Neart Na Gaoithe (Mainstream Renewable Power) wind farm development which lies within a 5km buffer zone around the proposed MPA, but any associated costs are effectively sunk (as above).

Seagreen's plans are ongoing regarding the development of two further areas of the Firth of Forth Offshore Wind Zone (Phases 2 and 3, up to 2.6GW combined capacity). Phase 2 is planned to comprise three wind farms (Seagreen Charlie, Seagreen Delta and Seagreen Echo) and Phase 3 is planned to comprise two wind farms (Seagreen Foxtrot and Seagreen Golf). The areas considered for Phases 2 and 3 overlap the southern and western parts of the FOF proposed MPA. Approximately 57.4km ² (6.2%) of Phase 2 would overlap the western and southern parts and approximately 502.8 km ² (67.2%) of Phase 3 would overlap the western part. Additional licence application costs may be incurred in order to assess potential impacts to MPA features (ocean quahog aggregations ( OSPAR listed) and offshore subtidal sands and gravels ( UK BAP listed)) for Phases 2 and 3 under all scenarios, as well as additional survey costs. Therefore, should Seagreen successfully obtain permission(s) to construct Phases 2 and 3 within the FOF proposed MPA boundary, additional management measures may be required. Buffer zones (1km) around possible export cable routes from Firth of Forth Offshore Wind Zone developments overlap ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within the FOF proposed MPA boundary.

The Inch Cape (Repsol Nuevas Energías UK) wind farm development (pre-application) lies within a 5km buffer zone around the proposed MPA and, therefore, may incur additional costs to assess the potential impacts to the proposed protected features (ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels) under the intermediate and upper scenarios.

It should be noted that additional cost impacts could also arise as a result of consenting delays. The cost impacts and uncertainty associated with MPA designation may affect investor confidence.

• Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within 1km of proposed activities.

• Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within 5km of proposed activities.

• Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within 5km of proposed activities;
• Additional survey costs incurred to inform new licence applications;
• Use of graded scour protection around turbine foundations; and
• Micro-siting of infrastructure in less sensitive areas using data held by JNCC on seabed habitat types and data collected by operators.

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 6 in total). Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2014 (Seagreen Charlie, Seagreen Delta, Seagreen Echo and Inch Cape) and 2016 (Seagreen Foxtrot and Seagreen Golf).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 6 in total). Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2014 (Seagreen Charlie, Seagreen Delta, Seagreen Echo and Inch Cape) and 2016 (Seagreen Foxtrot and Seagreen Golf).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 6 in total). Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2014 (Seagreen Charlie, Seagreen Delta, Seagreen Echo and Inch Cape) and 2016 (Seagreen Foxtrot and Seagreen Golf);
• Additional survey costs - £5k per km ² of development; and
• Costs of graded scour protection - £0.35m per Gravity Base Structure - Phase 2 (6.2% of 380 = 24) and Phase 3 (67.2% of 169 = 114) for Firth of Forth Offshore Wind Zone - assumed to be incurred in 2016 and 2017 (Phase 2) and 2019 and 2020 (Phase 3).

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Micro-siting of turbines; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

Two military practice areas: St Andrews (D609; sonobuoy, missile and firing) and area D609 (firing danger area) overlap with the northern part of the FOF proposed MPA. Both of these military practice areas overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (all scenarios) and offshore subtidal sands and gravels (all scenarios).

Three military practice areas: Firth of Forth (middle) (X5641), Firth of Forth outer (outer) (X5642) and a submarine exercise area overlap with the western component of the FOF proposed MPA. All three military practice areas overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (all scenarios) and offshore subtidal sands and gravels (all scenarios).

Five military practice areas: St Andrews (D609, sonobuoy, missile, firing), Firth of Forth (outer) (general practice area), X5642 (firing danger area), D609 (firing danger area) and a submarine exercise area overlap with the southern part of the FOF proposed MPA. All of these military practice areas overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (all scenarios) and offshore subtidal sands and gravels (all scenarios).

Although the proposed protected features are vulnerable to certain MoD activities, no management options are proposed. This is because it is assumed that management relating to MoD activity will be coordinated through the MoD's Maritime Environmental Sustainability Appraisal Tool ( MESAT) which the MoD uses to assist in meeting its environmental obligations. This process will include operational guidance to reduce significant impacts of military activities on MPAs. It is assumed that the MoD will incur additional costs in adjusting MESAT and other MoD environmental assessment tools in order to consider whether its activities will impact on the conservation objectives of MPAs and also incur additional costs in adjusting electronic charts to consider MPAs. However, these costs will be incurred at national level and hence no site-specific cost assessments have been made.

• See National Assessment.

• See National Assessment.

• See National Assessment.

• 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.

Costs associated with delays during the consenting process

Loss of investor confidence (developments do not proceed)

Future employment opportunities - if the delays deter investments there will be a negative impact on economic activity and future job creation in this sector.

Environment - possible negative impact in relation to climate change and the ability of the Scottish Government to meet its 2020 renewables targets, decarbonisation targets and climate change targets. There would also be consequent financial implications of climate change impacts.

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

x

North-East
North-West
East

x

Largest employment impacts in:

Ayr (56%),
Buckie (14%),
Peterhead (6%),
Poole (5%), Brixham (5%), Oban (4%), Milford Haven (3%), Scrabster (2%)

x

Coastal

Urban and Rural

xx

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

0

0-7.1 job losses

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

x

North-East
North-West
East

x

Aberdeen
Montrose
Peterhead
Fraserburgh
Buckie
Arbroath
Eyemouth

x

Coastal

Urban and Rural

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.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports