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

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

• 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 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.

• 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, whitefish trawls and nets (over-15m) and whitefish trawls, pelagic trawls, nets and lines (under-15m vessels) operate within the NEF proposed MPA. The value of catches from the NEF area for over-15m vessels ( VMS data) cannot be disclosed as there were fewer than 5 vessels. The value of catches for under-15m vessels was £383,000 (indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m fleet are predominantly into Scrabster (36% by value), Kinlochbervie (24%), Ullapool (12%), Peterhead (11%) and Corunna, Spain (7%). For the over-15m fleet, trawlers operate in particular along the southern edge of the proposed MPA (along the continental shelf) across the area of deep sea sponge aggregations, and also line fishing occurs in the eastern corner in the area of subtidal sands and gravels.

Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 106 foreign vessels were active in the NEF area in 2012: 78 from Norway; 8 from the Faroe Islands; 8 from Germany; 7 from France; 2 from Spain; and 1 from each of Greenland, Ireland and the Netherlands. 3 French, 5 German and 2 Spanish vessels fish with bottom trawl and therefore would be affected by management measures under all three scenarios. 2 German vessels fish with lines and may be affected under the upper scenario. The Dutch vessel fishes with pelagic trawl and therefore would not be affected by the management scenarios. No information on gear types used by the Norwegian, Irish, Faroe Islands or Greenland vessels was available.

Information submitted by the French ministry indicated that 4 vessels fished in the proposed MPA area in 2011. They were predominantly demersal trawlers, with catches worth €0.013 million (in 2011). The vessels originated from Boulogne-sur-Mer and Guilvinec ports, but have their home ports at Boulogne-sur-Mer, Peterhead, Lochinver, Marbella, Hanstholm, Guilvinec and Boulmer. Less than 1% of their turnover is dependent on fishing in the proposed MPA area, and the vessels account for 48 FTE jobs on board.

Provisional ScotMap data coverage does not extend as far as Shetland, and therefore this data source does not provide any information on under-15m vessel activity in the NEF 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. Additionally, a lower scenario which excludes mobile bottom contact gear, but not static gear, on deep-sea sponge aggregations has also been included.

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.

• Closure to mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across the deep sea sponge feature extent.

• Reduce mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) pressure by 50% across the offshore subtidal sands and gravels and offshore deep sea muds feature extents; and
• Closure to all bottom contact gear (mobile and static) across deep sea sponge feature extent.

• Closure to mobile bottom-contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across 50% of the offshore subtidal sands and gravels and offshore deep sea muds feature extents; and
• Closure to all bottom contact gear (mobile and static) across deep sea sponge feature extent (400-600m depth).

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (fewer than 5 vessels; value not presented).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.005).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (fewer than 5 vessels; value not presented).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.088).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (fewer than 5 vessels; value not presented).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.225).

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (France (3 vessels), Germany (5 vessels), Spain (2 vessels), and possibly Norway (78 vessels), Ireland (1 vessel), Greenland (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 (France (3 vessels), Germany (5 vessels), Spain (2 vessels), and possibly Norway (78 vessels), Ireland (1 vessel), Greenland (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 (France (3 vessels), Germany (7 vessels), Spain (2 vessels), and possibly Norway (78 vessels), Ireland (1 vessel), Greenland (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.

There are 10 oil and gas wells that overlap with the proposed protected features within the NEF proposed MPA boundary. Three of these overlap with deep sea sponge aggregations under the upper scenario. Four and six wells respectively overlap with offshore deep sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels under all scenarios. One additional well is within 1km of with offshore subtidal sands and gravels under all scenarios.

A total of 50 licence awards granted under the 26 ^th and 27th UK oil and gas licensing rounds overlap with features proposed for designation within the NEF proposed MPA boundary. Of the 50 awards, 27 were awarded in the 26 ^th round and 23 in the 27 ^th round. Feature extents show that under all scenarios all 27 of the 26 ^th round awards overlap with offshore deep sea muds, and 8 overlap with offshore subtidal sands and gravels. Of the 27 ^th round awards, 13 and 15 of the awarded blocks overlap with feature extents for offshore deep sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels respectively (under all scenarios). Two of the 27 ^th round awards overlap with deep sea sponge aggregations under all scenarios and seven under the upper scenario only. Twenty-five of the awards from the 26 ^th round and 14 from the 27 ^th round lie wholly within the MPA proposal, while the rest overlap the MPA proposal boundary.

One of the licence blocks awarded in the 27 ^th round contains a significant gas discovery.

• 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 reduced sponge density, drawing on data held by JNCC and collected by operators ; 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 reduced sponge density, drawing on data held by JNCC and collected by operators; 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 outside of the area of deep sea sponge aggregations (the 400-600m depth contours);
• Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of more representative habitat types for offshore subtidal sands and gravels and offshore deep sea muds 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 (28 wells (2016) and 22 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2024));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (1 well (2024)); and
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2024)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (28 wells (2016) and 22 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2024));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (1 well (2024)); and
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2024)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (28 wells (2016) and 22 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2024));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (1 well (2024));
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2024));
• Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (28 wells (2018), 20 wells (2020) and 1 well (2024));
• Re-routing of new pipelines for Phases 4 - 6 - £2m per additional km of pipeline (10% of distance, 1 well (2024));
• Survey costs for additional pipeline length - £580k per well (1 well (2024)); and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings - £650k per well (28 wells (2018), 20 wells (2020) and 1 well (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.

• 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.

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.

Employment - reduced future employment opportunities if delays deter investments.

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
North-East
Nort-West
West (and Newlyn)

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Fraserburgh (72%), Kirkwall (22%)

xx

Coastal and Island

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

0.1-6 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
North-West
North East

x

Scrabster
Kinlochbervie
Peterhead
Ullapool
Fraserburgh
Lerwick
Marin

x

Coastal and Island

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.

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.