We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Set cookie preferences

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

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.

View supporting documents Supporting documents

West Shetland Shelf ( WSS)

Site Area (km 2): 4,047

Site Summary

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Protected Features, Data Confidence and Conservation Objectives [ WSS]
Proposed protected features
Biodiversity Features
Offshore subtidal sands and gravels.

Geodiversity Features
None.

Site Description
The West Shetland Shelf MPA proposal is located to the west of the southern Shetland Islands and northern Orkney in offshore waters. The proposal broadly encompasses the offshore Windsock Fisheries Area.
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
Offshore subtidal sands and gravels All Scenarios: 4045.30 Yes ( JNCC/Marine Scotland Science, 2011; BGS data, 1984 - 1988) Yes ( JNCC/Marine Scotland Science, 2011; BGS data, 1984 - 1988) Low Conserve (uncertain)
Geodiversity Features
N/A
Key: * Estimated area based on best available data
References:
Area of Feature: GeMS
Confidence in biodiversity feature presence and extent: JNCC (2012m)
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) [ WSS]
Human Activity Cost Impact on Activity
Lower Estimate (£Million) Intermediate Estimate (£Million) Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Economic Costs (Discounted)
Oil and Gas 0.025 0.025 2.172
Total Quantified Economic Costs 0.025 0.025 2.172
Non-Quantified Economic Costs
Oil and Gas
  • 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.
Note: For detailed information on economic cost impacts on activities, see Table 4.
Table 2b. Site-Specific Public Sector Costs arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive) [ WSS]
Description Public Sector Costs
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 None None
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 0.002 0.002 0.002
Total Quantified Public Sector Costs 0.002 0.002 0.002
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) [ WSS]
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
No social impacts are expected.
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) [ WSS]
Benefit Description
Ecosystem Services Benefits (Moderate and High Benefits) Relevance Scale of Benefits
Non-use of natural environment Low - Moderate 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 [ WSS]
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
Offshore subtidal sands and gravels - - - - - - L/I/U - - L/I/U - - L/I/U - L/I/U - -
Geodiversity Features
N/A
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. Oil and Gas [ WSS]

There are three abandoned wells within the WSS proposed MPA boundary and three licensed blocks awarded under the 27 th UK oil and gas round. All wells and awarded licence blocks overlap with feature extents for offshore subtidal sands and gravels under all scenarios.

The three 27 th round licence awards only partially overlap the WSS proposed MPA, and are not wholly within the MPA boundary.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • 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);
  • Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of more representative habitat types for offshore deep sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels using data held by JNCC and collected by operators;
  • Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type; and
  • Skip and ship drill cuttings.
Description of one-off costs
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2020)); and
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2020)).
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2020)); and
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2020)).
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2020));
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2020));
  • Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (3 wells (2020)); and
  • Skip and ship drill cuttings - £650k per well (3 wells (2020)).
Description of recurring costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of non-quantified costs
  • 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.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.030 0.030 2.670
Average annual costs 0.002 0.002 0.134
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.025 0.025 2.172
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%.

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 [ WSS]
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 [ WSS]
Activity Description
Commercial Fisheries

The WSS proposed MPA area is located within the 'Windsock' closure, implemented in 2001 as part of the cod recovery plan. The legislation prohibits the use of any demersal trawl, seine or similar towed net, any gill net, trammel net, tangle net or similar static net or any fishing gear incorporating hooks. Any management measures for the proposed protected features would apply to mobile demersal gear, which are already prohibited under the Windsock closure. Since there should therefore be no fishing within the WSS area from potentially-affected gears, no additional cost impacts are expected from designation of the proposed MPA.

VMS ping data indicate that 20 non- UK vessels were active in the WSS area in 2012: 6 from Ireland; 5 from the Netherlands; 4 from France, 2 from Germany, 2 from Norway and 1 from the Faroe Islands. The majority fish with pelagic gear (pelagic trawls and purse seines) and therefore would not be affected by the proposed MPA. One Danish vessel fishes with bottom trawl and therefore would be impacted by the management measures assessed under the intermediate and upper scenarios, but this is perhaps an anomaly in the data as it should not be fishing in the area due to the Windsock closure. No information on gear types used by the Norwegian of Faroese vessels was available. Information submitted by Copeche indicated that French vessels operate in the WSS 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 WSS proposed MPA.
Recreational Boating One light use RYA cruising route (from Stromoway Sailing Club) overlaps with the 'offshore subtidal sands and gravels' feature of the WSS proposed MPA. Under all scenarios (lower, intermediate and upper) the cruising route intersects the western extent of the feature for a distance of 19.5km under the lower and intermediate scenarios and a distance of 21.0km under the high scenario. However, it is unlikely there would be a significant interaction between the offshore subtidal sands and gravels feature and recreational boating; therefore, no cost impacts are expected.
Telecom Cables One telecom cable (Atlantic Crossing) overlaps with offshore subtidal sands and gravels (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).

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 [ WSS]
Sector Potential Economic Impacts Economic Costs and GVA ( PV) Area of Social Impact Affected Mitigation Significance of Social impact
Oil and Gas Additional operational costs associated with licence and permit applications for new exploration development and decommissioning

Quantified Cost Impact (2014-2033): £0.025 - 2.172m

Decommissioning assessed at national level

 Future employment opportunities -reduced future employment opportunities if increased costs affect the economic viability of projects and lead to some projects not proceeding. 0
Additional mitigation measures for new developments or decommissioning activities to support achievement of site conservation objectives Not Quantified

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.

 xxx (under the upper scenario only)

Costs associated with delays during the licensing and permitting process

Loss of investor confidence (developments do not proceed)

 Not Quantified

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.

 xxx (under the upper scenario only)
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected.
Table 7b. Distribution of Quantified Economic Costs for Commercial Fisheries and Fish Processors (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) - Location, Age and Gender [ WSS]
Sector Location Age Gender
Region Ports Rural, Urban, Coastal or Island Children Working Age Pensionable Age Male Female
None identified.
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected.
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 [ WSS]
Sector Fishing Groups Income Groups Social Groups
Vessel Category <15m >15m Gear Types/Sector 10% Most Deprived Middle 80% 10% Most Affluent Crofters Ethnic minorities With Disability or Long-term Sick
None identified.
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected.

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 [ WSS]
Feature Name Representation Replication Linkages Geographic Range
and Variation 		Resilience
Offshore subtidal sands and gravels Provides representation for a range of different types of offshore subtidal sand and gravel habitats on the continental shelf in OSPAR Regions II and III. West Shetland Shelf is a relatively data-rich area for the habitat. Provides one of at least two recommended examples to be protected on the continental shelf in OSPAR Regions II and III in Scotland's seas Not currently understood for offshore subtidal sands and gravels. Provides representation at the North-western extent of its range on the continental shelf in OSPAR Region II in Scotland's seas, and the North-eastern extent of its range on the continental shelf in OSPAR Region III. Offshore subtidal sands and gravels are widely recorded across offshore waters in Scotland's seas.
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 [33] [ WSS]
Services Relevance
to Site 		Baseline Level Estimated Impacts of Designation Value Weighting Scale of Benefits Confidence
Lower Intermediate Upper
Fish for human consumption Moderate. Habitats make contribution to food webs. Stocks not at MSY Nil Low - possible recovery of fish stocks in medium/long term. Features provide low level of supporting services to support recovery. Moderate - High fish populations, but windsock fishing closure Nil - Low Moderate
Fish for non-human consumption Stocks reduced from potential maximum
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 - Moderate Low - Moderate Nil Low Low - Moderate Low - Moderate Low - Moderate Low
Recreation Low Low Nil Nil Nil Minimal Minimal Moderate
Research and Education Minimal Minimal Nil Low Low Low Low Low
Total value of changes in ecosystem services Fisheries likely to drive benefits from scenario ranging from low to moderate benefits. Low - Moderate Low

Human Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA West Shetland

Fishing Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA West Shetland

Contact

Back to top