Publication - Impact assessment

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

Published: 19 August 2013
Topic: Marine and fisheries
ISBN: 9781782567585

This is Appendix E for the pMPA Impact and Sustainability Report containing the detailed site by site reports. Published separately due to size.

Supporting documents

South-east Fladen ( SEF)

Site Area (km ²): 416

Site Summary

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Protected Features, Data Confidence and Conservation Objectives					[ SEF]
Proposed protected features
Biodiversity Features Burrowed mud - seapens and burrowing megafauna. Geodiversity Features Seabed Fluid and Gas Seep - pockmarks. Site Description The South-east Fladen MPA proposal falls within the Fladen Grounds to the east of Scotland in the offshore waters of the northern North Sea. It encompasses areas of average and higher than average seapen densities by comparison to the wider Fladen Grounds based on available data. Potential Alternative Designations JNCC have identified South-east Fladen as a science-based alternative to the Central Fladen for representation of the seapens and burrowing megafauna burrowed mud habitat type. JNCC recommend that the southern part of the Central Fladen possible MPA - 'Central Fladen Core' - is still designated as it represents another type of burrowed mud (records of tall seapen).
Summary of confidence in presence, extent and condition of proposed protected features and conservation objectives
Proposed Protected Feature	Estimated Area of Feature (by scenario) (km ²)	Confidence in Feature Presence	Confidence in Feature Extent	Confidence in Feature Condition	Conservation Objective and Risk
Biodiversity Features
Burrowed mud	All scenarios: 415.81	Yes - (Marine Science Scotland surveys, 2008 - 2010; JNCC & Cefas survey data 2013; BGS data, 1980-1985)	Yes - (Marine Science Scotland surveys, 2008 - 2010; JNCC & Cefas survey data 2013; BGS data, 1980-1985)	Low	Conserve (uncertain)
Geodiversity Features
Seabed Fluid and Gas Seep - pockmarks	730.03	Yes	Yes	Low	Conserve (uncertain)
Key: * Estimated area based on best available data References: Area of Features: GeMS Confidence in biodiversity feature presence and extent: JNCC (2012j) Confidence in biodiversity feature condition: JNCC (2013) pers. comm. Confidence in geodiversity feature presence and extent: Brooks et al. (2012) Confidence in geodiversity feature condition: Brooks et al. (2012)

Summary of Costs and Benefits

Table 2a. Site-Specific Economic Costs on Human Activities arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (present value of total costs over 2014 to 2033 inclusive)			[ SEF]
Human Activity	Cost Impact on Activity
Human Activity	Lower Estimate (£Million)	Intermediate Estimate (£Million)	Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Economic Costs (Discounted)
Commercial Fisheries*	0.000	1.915	3.830
Total Quantified Economic Costs	0.000	1.915	3.830
Non-Quantified Economic Costs
Commercial Fisheries	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.
Note: For detailed information on economic cost impacts on activities, see Table 4. * These estimates (present value of total change in GVA) assume zero displacement of fishing activity and hence are likely to overestimate the costs.

Table 2b. Site-Specific Public Sector Costs arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive)			[ SEF]
Description	Public Sector Costs
Description	Lower Estimate (£Million)	Intermediate Estimate (£Million)	Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Public Sector Costs (Discounted)
Preparation of Marine Management Schemes	None	None	None
Preparation of Statutory Instruments	None	0.005	0.005
Development of voluntary measures	National assessment	National assessment	National assessment
Site monitoring	National assessment	National assessment	National assessment
Compliance and enforcement	National assessment	National assessment	National assessment
Promotion of public understanding	National assessment	National assessment	National assessment
Regulatory and advisory costs associated with licensing decisions	None	None	None
Total Quantified Public Sector Costs	0.000	0.005	0.005
Non-Quantified Public Sector Costs
None identified.

Table 2c. Summary of Social Impacts and Distribution of Quantified Impacts arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive)										[ SEF]
Key Areas of Social Impact	Description	Scale of Expected Impact across Scenarios, Average (mean no. of jobs affected)	Distributional Analysis
			Location			Fishing Groups Predominantly Affected		Social Groups Affected
			Region	Port	Rural/ Urban/ Island	Gear Types Most Affected	Vessels most affected	Crofters	Ethnic minorities	With disability or long term sick
Employment with consequent impacts on: Health, Crime, Environment, and Culture and Heritage	Commercial fisheries - Loss of jobs (direct and indirect)	Lower: 0 jobs Intermediate: 4 jobs Upper: 8 jobs	North East North East	Fraserburgh Peterhead	Impacts concentrated in urban coastal areas	Whitefish trawls, Nephrops trawls, Other gears	Lower: N/A Upper: >15m	No Impact.	No breakdown of fisherman employment by ethnic origin.	Unlikely to be employed in fisheries.
Note: For detailed information on socio-economic impacts by sector, see Table 7a. For more detailed information on distributional impacts of quantified costs by sector see Tables 7b and 7c.

Table 2d. Site-Specific Benefits arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive)		[ SEF]
Benefit	Description
Ecosystem Services Benefits (Moderate and High Benefits)	Relevance	Scale of Benefits
Non-use value of natural environment	Low	Low - Moderate
Other Benefits
None identified.
Note: For detailed information on ecosystem services benefits, see Tables 9 and 10. For detailed information on other benefits, see Table 5 (activities that would benefit) and Table 8 (contribution to ecologically-coherent network).

Summary of Overlaps and Interactions between Proposed Designated Features and Human Activities

Table 3. Overlaps and Potential Interactions between Features and Activities under different Scenarios, indicating need for Assessment of Cost Impacts on Human Activities from Designation of the Site as an MPA																	[ SEF]
	Aggregates	Aquaculture (Finfish)	Aquaculture (Shellfish)	Aviation	Carbon Capture & Storage	Coastal Protection	Commercial Fisheries	Energy Generation	Military Activities	Oil & Gas	Ports & Harbours	Power Interconnectors	Recreational Boating	Shipping	Telecom Cables	Tourism	Water Sports
Biodiversity Features
Burrowed mud	-	-	-	-	L/I/U	-	L/ I/U	-	-	L/I/U	-	L/I/U	-	-	-	-	-
Geodiversity Features
Seabed Fluid and Gas Seep - pockmarks	It is assumed that management put in place from the Scanner Pockmark SAC will be sufficient to also conserve the geodiversity feature.
Note: L = Lower Scenario; I = Intermediate Scenario; U = Upper Scenario. Normal font indicates that there is an overlap between the activity and proposed protected feature under that scenario, bold indicates that the overlap results in a potential interaction between the activity and proposed protected feature that has resulted in cost impacts under that scenario. For detail of management measures assessed under each scenario for each activity, and results of the cost estimates, see Table 4.

Human Activity Summaries

Human activities that would be impacted by designation of the site as an MPA

Table 4a. Commercial Fisheries (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity)			[ SEF]
According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, nephrops trawls, whitefish trawls and other trawls (over-15m) and nephrops trawls, whitefish trawls and other gears (under-15m vessels) operate within the SEF proposed MPA. The value of catches from the SEF area was £652,000 (over-15m vessels) and £24,500 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m vessels are predominantly into Fraserburgh (72% by value) and Peterhead (26%). For the over-15m fleet, nephrops and whitefish trawlers operate in particular across the proposed MPA and area of burrowed mud. Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 30 non- UK vessels were active in the SEF area in 2012: 16 from Denmark; 8 from Norway; 3 from the Netherlands; 2 from France and 1 from Sweden. The Swedish and Dutch vessels fish with pelagic gear (pelagic trawls) and therefore are considered unlikely to be affected by the management scenarios. Six Danish vessels and 1 French vessel fishes with bottom trawls or seines, 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. Information submitted by Copeche indicated that French vessels operate in the SEF proposed MPA, but no information was provided on numbers of vessels or value of catches. Provisional ScotMap data do not indicate any under-15m vessel activity in the SEF 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.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	No additional management.	Reduce mobile bottom contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls, and dredges) pressure by 50% across burrowed mud.	Closure to mobile bottom contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls, and dredges) across the whole proposed MPA extent.
Description of one-off costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of recurring costs	None.	Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices): Nephrops trawls (0.314); Other affected gears (0.012). Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices): Nephrops trawls (0.011); Other affected gears (<0.001).	Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices): Nephrops trawls (0.628); Other affected gears (0.024). Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices): Nephrops trawls (0.022); Other affected gears (<0.001).
Description of non-quantified costs	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 (8 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 bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (6 vessels), France (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (8 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.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033)	0.000	6.749	13.498
Average annual costs	0.000	0.337	0.675
Present value of total costs (2014-2033)	0.000	4.964	9.928
Economic Impacts (£Million)
Total change in GVA (2014-2033)	0.000	2.603	5.207
Average annual change to GVA	0.000	0.130	0.260
Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033)	0.000	1.915	3.830
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment	0.0 jobs	3.8 jobs	7.7 jobs
* Due to data confidentiality, the value of catches from the affected gear types has been summed together with other gear types that are not expected to be impacted by management measures. The cost impact is therefore an overestimate of the actual expected impact from the proposed management measures. Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs for the site summed over the 20 year period. Average annual costs = Total costs divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20). Present value of total costs = Total costs discounted to their current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%. Total change in GVA (2014-2033) = The change in direct GVA in the sector for the site summed over the 20 year period. Average annual change to GVA = Total change in direct GVA in the sector for the site divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20). Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033) = Total change in direct GVA in the sector for the site discounted to current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%. Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment = The average (mean) reduction in direct employment in the sector plus the indirect reduction in employment on the sector's suppliers.

Human activities that would benefit from designation of the site as an MPA

Table 5. Human Activities that would Benefit from Designation of the Site as an MPA			[ SEF]
Activity	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
None identified.

Human activities that are present but which would be unaffected by designation of the site as an MPA

Table 6. Human Activities that are Present but which would be Unaffected by Designation of the Site as an MPA [ SEF]
Activity	Description
Carbon Capture and Storage	There is currently no CCS activity which occurs within the boundaries of the SEF proposed MPA, nor within a 1km buffer zone. One potential hydrocarbon field (Britannia) overlaps with the southern area of the 'burrowed mud' feature of the SEF proposed MPA under all scenarios (lower, intermediate and upper). However, in the timescales of the project (2014-2033), it is considered that CCS will utilise existing oil and gas pipelines, where possible, between St Fergus and the Goldeneye hydrocarbon field and that possible new infrastructure (pipeline or shipping) will link the Firth of Forth to St Fergus and Teesside to an offshore hub at Goldeneye. None of these possible future CCS developments occur within the boundaries of the SEF proposed MPA, nor within a 1km buffer zone. Therefore, no cost impacts are expected.
Power Interconnectors	One future power interconnector ( UK-Norway NorthConnect) overlaps with the SEF proposed MPA for a distance of 19.3km in the northern half of the MPA. The future power interconnector overlaps with burrowed mud (all scenarios). However, no cost impacts are foreseen as the site is located beyond the 12 nautical mile threshold (within which licences are required for cables).
Oil and Gas	The SEF proposed MPA boundary encompasses 10 known hydrocarbon fields. All 10 fields overlap with MPA features under all scenarios. Feature extents show that there are 82 wells and 6 pipeline sections within the MPA proposal that overlap with MPA features. There are ten licensed blocks within the MPA proposal boundary that overlap with burrowed mud under all scenarios, and in one of these blocks is a significant oil discovery. As no new licence awards have been granted during the 26 ^th and 27 ^th rounds, no additional management or assessment costs are anticipated.

Social and Distributional Analysis of Impacts from Designation of the Site as an MPA

Table 7a. Social Impacts Associated with Quantified and Non-Quantified Economic Costs					[ SEF]
Sector	Potential Economic Impacts	Economic Costs and GVA ( PV)	Area of Social Impact Affected	Mitigation	Significance of Social impact
Commercial Fisheries	Loss of traditional fishing grounds with consequent loss in landings, value of landings and hence GVA	Annual Average Loss in Value of Landings: Lower: £0.00m Intermediate: £0.34m Upper: £0.68m Annual Average Loss in GVA (direct and indirect): Lower: £0.00m Intermediate: £0.13m Upper: £0.26m	Culture and heritage - impact on traditions from loss of fishing grounds.		Health: xx (for individuals affected who do not find alternative employment)
	If the loss in GVA significant enough, risk of job losses (direct and indirect)	Job Losses*: Lower: 0.0 jobs Intermediate: 3.8 jobs Upper: 7.7 jobs	A reduction in employment can generate a wide range of social impacts which, in turn, can generate a range of short and long term costs for wider society and the public purse: Healt h (increase in illness, mental stress, loss of self esteem and risk of depression); Increase in crime; and Reduction in f u ture emp lo y me n t prospects/future earnings.	Support to retrain those affected and for the promotion of new small businesses in fisheries dependent areas.
	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 (8 vessels))	Not Quantified	Employment - loss of foreign jobs from reduced landings.
	Displacement Effects	Not Quantified	Quantified impact on jobs assume worst case scenario ( i.e. no redistribution of effort). In reality displacement effects likely to occur with socio-economic consequences: 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.		xx
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected. * These estimates assume zero displacement of fishing activity and hence are likely to overestimate the costs.

Table 7b. Distribution of Quantified Economic Costs for Commercial Fisheries and Fish Processors (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) - Location, Age and Gender								[ SEF]
Sector/Impact	Location			Age			Gender
Sector/Impact	Region	Ports*	Rural, Urban, Coastal or Island	Children	Working Age	Pensionable Age	Male	Female
Commercial Fisheries Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment	xx North-East North-West (and Belfast)	xx Largest employment impacts in: Fraserburgh (67%), Peterhead (17%), Belfast (5%)	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 0-8 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	x Fraserburgh Peterhead	x Coastal Urban	0	0	0	0	0
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected. * Based on value of landings by home port affected under intermediate scenario.

Table 7c. Distribution of Quantified Economic Costs for Commercial Fisheries and Fish Processors (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) - Fishing Groups, Income Groups and Social Groups								[ SEF]
Sector/Impact	Fishing Groups		Income Groups			Social Groups
Sector/Impact	Vessel Category <15m >15m*	Gear Types/Sector*	10% Most Deprived	Middle 80%	10% Most Affluent	Crofters	Ethnic minorities	With Disability or Long-term Sick
Commercial Fisheries Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment	Lower: N/A Upper: >15m	Whitefish trawls Nephrops trawls Other gears	xx	xx	x Information only available on average incomes not the distribution of income. Therefore, not clear whether this group will be affected.	0	No breakdown of fisherman employment by ethnic origin.	0 No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.
Fish Processors Reduction in local landings at landing ports		Shellfish: xxx Demersal: xx Pelagic: 0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected. * Based on costs to gear types/sectors and vessel categories affected under the intermediate scenario.

Potential Contribution of the Site to an Ecologically-Coherent Network

Table 8. Overview of Features Proposed for Designation and how these contribute to an Ecologically Coherent Network of MPAs					[ SEF]
Feature Name	Representation	Replication	Linkages	Geographic Range and Variation	Resilience
Burrowed mud	Provides representation for one type of burrowed mud (seapens and burrowing megafauna in offshore waters of OSPAR Region II in Scotland's seas.	Provides one of at least three examples of this one type of burrowed mud to be protected in Scotland's seas.	Not well understood for burrowed mud.	Provides representation for one type of burrowed mud (seapens and burrowing megafauna) in offshore waters of OSPAR Region II in Scotland's seas.	Burrowed mud is considered to be Threatened and/or Declining by the OSPAR Commission in OSPAR Region II so the MPA is expected to help increase resilience for the feature.
JNCC (pers. comm.); SNH and JNCC. (2012). Assessment of the potential adequacy of the Scottish MPA network for MPA search features: summary of the application of the stage 5 selection guidelines. Available online from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/engagement/270612.

Anticipated Benefits to Ecosystem Services

Table 9. Summary of Ecosystem Services Benefits arising from Designation of the Site as an MPA ^[30]								[ SEF]
Services	Relevance to Site	Baseline Level	Estimated Impacts of Designation			Value Weighting	Scale of Benefits	Confidence
Services	Relevance to Site	Baseline Level	Lower	Intermediate	Upper	Value Weighting	Scale of Benefits	Confidence
Fish for human consumption	Low - Moderate, Habitats make contribution to food webs.	Stocks not at MSY	Nil	Minimal - Low - potential increase in fish populations in medium/long term. Features provide low level of supporting services to support recovery.		Low - Moderate	Nil - Low	Low - Moderate
Fish for non-human consumption	Low - Moderate, Habitats make contribution to food webs.	Stocks reduced from potential maximum	Nil			Low - Moderate	Nil - Low	Low - Moderate
Gas and climate regulation	Nil - Low	Nil - Low	Nil, or at best a very low level of protection of parts of ecosystem providing these services			Low	Nil - Low	High
Natural hazard protection	Nil - Low	Nil - Low				Low	Nil - Low	High
Regulation of pollution	Nil - Low	Nil - Low				Low	Nil - Low	High
Non-use value of natural environment	Low - features do not provide large non use values.	Low - Moderate	Nil	Low	Low - Moderate	Low - Moderate	Nil - Moderate	Low
Recreation	Minimal	Minimal	Nil	Nil	Nil	Minimal	Minimal	Moderate
Research and Education	Minimal	Minimal	Nil	Minimal	Minimal	Low	Low	Low
Total value of changes in ecosystem services			Fisheries likely to drive low benefits from intermediate and upper scenarios				Low	Low

Human Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA SE Fladen

Fishing Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA SE Fladen

Contact

The Marine Environment Team

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Was this helpful?

Yes

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Yes, but

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Information

South-east Fladen ( SEF)

Contact

There is a problem