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 landing statistics, nephrops trawls, pelagic trawls, whitefish trawls and seines (over-15m vessels) and nephrops trawls, pelagic trawl and other seines (under-15m vessels) operate within the WFL proposed MPA. The value of catches from the WFL area was £896,000 (over-15m vessels) and £49,700 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m vessels were predominantly into Fraserburgh (78% by value), Peterhead (16%) and Ijmuiden, The Netherlands (4%). For the over-15m fleet, nephrops trawlers in particular are active across the whole proposed MPA and the area of burrowed mud.

VMS ping data indicate that 16 non- UK vessels were active in the WFL area in 2012: 6 from the Netherlands; 4 from Norway; 2 from Sweden; 2 from Germany, 1 from Denmark and 1 from the Faroe Islands. The majority fish with pelagic gear (pelagic trawls and purse seines) and therefore are unlikely to be affected by the proposed management scenarios. One Danish vessel fishes with bottom trawl and therefore may be affected by the proposed 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 WFL 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 WFL 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.

Burrowed mud (seapens and burrowing megafauna) covers the whole 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 cost impacts expected.

• Reduce mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) pressures by 50% across the MPA area.

• Closure to mobile bottom-contact gear (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, 2012 prices):
• Whitefish trawls (0.005);
• Whitefish seines (0.001);
• Nephrops trawls (0.399).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.020);
• Other affected gears (<0.001).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Whitefish trawls (0.011);
• Whitefish seines (0.002);
• Nephrops trawls (0.798).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.040);
• Other affected gears (0.001).

• None.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (1 vessel), possible Norway (4 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 (1 vessel), possible Norway (4 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.

There are three known hydrocarbon fields and six currently licensed blocks within the WFL proposed MPA boundary that overlap with the burrowed mud

Feature extents show that 19 oil and gas pipelines overlap with burrowed mud within the MPA proposal boundary under all scenarios, and a further 3 within the 1km buffer zone. Some sections of these pipelines (Ivanhoe/Rob, Roy) are currently going through decommissioning as part of a wider decommissioning programme, expected to be completed by the end of 2016. No platforms overlap with any of the MPA features proposed for designation, although one (14/09a CAP/CPP) is within 1km of burrowed mud under all scenarios.

67 wells overlap with burrowed mud (all scenarios) within the MPA proposal boundary, and a further 59 are within 1km.

Under the 26 ^th and 27 ^th UK licensing rounds, a further five licence awards were granted; 4 in the 26 ^th round and 1 in the 27 ^th round. All of these licence blocks overlap with burrowed mud feature extents within the MPA proposal boundary under all scenarios. All of the licence awards partially overlap the MPA proposal boundary.

There are significant oil discoveries within two of the 26 ^th round awards in the WFL 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 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).

• 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);
• Micro-siting in areas of reduced seapen density using data held by JNCC and collected by operators;
• 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 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);
• Micro-siting in areas of reduced seapen density 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.

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2014), 2 wells, (2016) and 1 well (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2022));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (2 wells (2022)); and
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2022)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2014), 2 wells, (2016) and 1 well (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2022));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (2 wells (2022));
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2022));
• Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells (2018), 1 well (2020) and 2 wells (2022));
• Re-routing of new pipelines for Phases 4 - 6 - £2m per additional km of pipeline (10% of distance); and
• Survey costs for additional pipeline length - £580k per well.

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2014), 2 wells, (2016) and 1 well (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2022));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (2 wells (2022));
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2022));
• Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells (2018), 1 well (2020) and 2 wells (2022));
• Re-routing of new pipelines for Phases 4 - 6 - £2m per additional km of pipeline (10% of distance);
• Survey costs for additional pipeline length - £580k per well; and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings - £650k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells (2018), 1 well (2020) and 2 wells (2022)).

• 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: £0.065 - 7.769m

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

Xx

North-East West North-West

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Fraserburgh (73%), Peterhead (9%), Buckie (9%), Belfast (2%), Scarborough (2%)

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

0-10 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 Macduff

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.

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports