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, pelagic trawls and some otter trawls (over-15m) and nephrops trawls and other gears (under-15m vessels) operate within the NSP proposed MPA. The value of landings from the NSP area was £13,500 (over-15m vessels) and £2,200 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m vessels were into Peterhead (100%). For the over-15m fleet, there was sparse activity by various trawlers in the southern part of the proposed MPA.

Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 15 non- UK vessels were active in the NSP area in 2012: 12 from Denmark; 2 from Sweden and 1 from Norway. The Swedish vessels fish with pelagic gear (pelagic trawls and purse seines) and, therefore, are unlikely to be affected by the management scenarios. Six Danish vessels fish with bottom trawl and, therefore, may be impacted by the management measures assessed under the intermediate and upper scenarios. No information on gear types used by the Norwegian vessel was available.

Provisional ScotMap data do not indicate any under-15m vessel activity in the NSP 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 MPA).

• Closure to whitefish trawls, nephrops trawls, other trawls, beam trawls and dredges (the gears could possibly affect ocean quahog) across the ocean quahog feature extent (full extent of proposed MPA).

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• None.
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• None.

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

• None.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (6 vessels), possibly Norway (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 (6 vessels), possibly Norway (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 four known hydrocarbon fields present within the boundary of the NSP proposed MPA. Four licensed blocks are present within the MPA proposal boundary, and two licence awards were granted during the 26 ^th UK oil and gas licensing round; blocks 16/24c and 22/4c. A total of 56 wells are present within the NSP proposed MPA, and 8 pipeline sections.

All oil and gas infrastructure within the NSP proposed MPA overlaps with feature extent for ocean quahog aggregations under all scenarios.

Blocks awarded during the 26 ^th round partially overlap the MPA proposal. There have been no significant discoveries within the NSP proposed MPA 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);
• 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);
• 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 (2 wells (2016));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2018)); and
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2018)).

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

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

• 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.

Quantified Cost Impact (2014-2033):
£0.018 - 1.151m

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.

Costs associated with delays during the licensing and permitting process

Loss of investor confidence (developments do not proceed)

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

x

North-East

x

Largest employment impacts in

Peterhead (100%)

x

Coastal

Urban

xx

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

0

0-0.02 job losses

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

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