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

Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura ( SJU)

Site Area (km 2): 795

Site Summary

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Protected Features, Data Confidence and Conservation Objectives [ SJU]
Proposed protected features
Biodiversity Features
Common skate.

Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - glaciated channels/troughs (other features to be confirmed by SNH).

Site Description
The Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura MPA proposal extends northwards from the Sound of Jura, covering the Firth of Lorn and the south-western part of Loch Linnhe. The proposal site extends through the Sound of Mull and into Loch Sunart.
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
Common skate *Lower: 795.04
Intermediate: 795.04
Upper: 795.04		 Yes (Marine Scotland Science trawl data, 1975 - present; MSS tagging, 2011 - 2013) Yes Not known Conserve
Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - glaciated channels/troughs (other features to be confirmed by SNH) 87.74 Yes (Nature conservation work) Partial - need to define additional components Not known Conserve
Key: * Estimated area based on best available data References:
Area of Feature: GeMs
Confidence in feature presence and extent: SNH (2012g)

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) [ SJU]
Human Activity Cost Impact on Activity
Lower Estimate (£Million) Intermediate Estimate (£Million) Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Economic Costs (Discounted)
Aquaculture (Finfish) 0.018 0.076 0.076
Aquaculture (Shellfish) See national costs See national costs See national costs
Commercial Fisheries* 0.000 1.447 3.437
Energy Generation 0.037 0.229 0.229
Military See national costs See national costs See national costs
Ports and Harbours 0.053 0.053 0.053
Total Quantified Economic Costs 0.108 1.804 3.794
Non-Quantified Economic Costs
Aquaculture (Finfish)
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment
Aquaculture (Shellfish)
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment
Commercial Fisheries
  • None.
  • Displacement impacts.
  • Displacement impacts.
Energy Generation
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
Military
  • See national assessment.
  • See national assessment.
  • See national assessment.
Ports and Harbours
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

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) [ SJU]
Description Public Sector Costs
Lower Estimate (£Million) Intermediate Estimate (£Million) Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Public Sector Costs (Discounted)
Preparation of Marine Management Schemes 0.024 0.024 0.024
Preparation of Statutory Instruments None 0.004 0.004
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 0.009* 0.009* 0.009*
Total Quantified Public Sector Costs 0.033 0.037 0.037
Non-Quantified Public Sector Costs
None identified.
* Regulatory and advisory costs of finfish and shellfish aquaculture assessed at national level.
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) [ SJU]
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: 3 jobs
Upper: 5 jobs		 West
West		 Oban
Campbeltown		 Impacts concentrated in urban and rural coastal areas Nephrops trawls
Dredges		 Lower: N/A
Upper: >15m		 No Impact. No breakdown of fisherman employment by ethnic origin. No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.
If any energy generation developments do not proceed as a result of designation (due to additional costs, project delays, loss of investor confidence), there may be significant social impacts due to job losses (non-quantified).
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) [ SJU]
Benefit Description
Ecosystem Services Benefits (Moderate and High Benefits) Relevance Scale of Benefits
Non-use value of natural environment Moderate. Protected features are endangered species and wrecks, and contribution of the site to MPA network has non-use values. Wrecks are protected by virtue of designation under what are soon to become Historic MPAs. Minimal - Moderate
Other Benefits
Tourism Higher biodiversity due to designation, and presence of designations, may attract more tourism activity to local economy.
Contribution to ecologically coherent network See report Section 7.5.
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 [ SJU]
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
Common skate - L/I/U L/I/U - - - L/I/U L/ I/ U L/I/U - L/ I/ U L/I/U L/I/U - - L/I/U L/I/U
Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - glaciated channels/troughs (other features to be confirmed by SNH) Not considered to be sensitive at the levels of exposure expected from human activities; thus, not considered in the context of management.

Note: L = Lower Scenario; I = Intermediate Scenario; U = Upper Scenario. Normal font indicates that there is an overlap between the activity and proposed designated feature under that scenario, bold indicates that the overlap results in a potential interaction between the activity and proposed designated 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. Aquaculture (Finfish) [ SJU]
There are 21 finfish farms Ardmaddy, Bagh Dail Nan Cean, Bloody Bay, Camas Glas, Eilean Coltair, Fishnish (A), Fishnish (B), Glencripesdale, Invasion Bay, Kames Bay (east), Kames Bay (west), Kerrera A, Kerrera B, Lismore West, Lunga East Side, Poll Na Gille, Port Na Cro, Scallastle, Shuna Castle and Site 10 Rubha a'Mhothair, Walters (East Lismore) within the SJU proposed MPA boundary. All 21 sites directly overlap with the feature Common Skate under all scenarios (lower, intermediate and upper). There are three additional finfish farms within 1km of the proposed MPA boundary under all scenarios (Ardifuir, Dunstaffnage and Site 9 Camas Nathais).

There is one pending finfish farm (Ardmaddy fish farm) within the boundary of the proposed MPA and will directly overlap the Common Skate feature under all scenarios. This site is assessed assuming it is fully licensed by 2014.

There is no public information on potential future development within the proposed MPA. In the absence of information on potential future developments, no site specific assessment has been possible. A national assessment of the costs of obtaining planning permission for new developments is provided separately.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features.
  • Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features; and
  • Additional survey costs incurred once every 10 years (2019 & 2029) to inform new CAR licence applications.
  • Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features; and
  • Additional survey costs incurred once every 10 years (2019 & 2029) to inform new CAR licence applications.
Description of one-off costs
  • Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application.
  • Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application; and
  • Additional baseline visual survey costs -£1.6k per CAR licence application
  • Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application; and
  • Additional baseline visual survey costs -£1.6k per CAR licence application
Description of recurring costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of non-quantified costs
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.025 0.105 0.105
Average annual costs 0.001 0.005 0.005
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.018 0.076 0.076
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%.
Table 4b. Aquaculture (Shellfish) [ SJU]
There are 21 shellfish farms (Acairseid Mhor, Ardfad, Ardshellach, Aros Estuary, Balvicar, Camas Inas, Cutter Rock, East Balvicar, Gigas, Liddesdale, Lismore Seafoods, Melfort, Oitir Mhor Bay, Port Na Coite, Rhuda Aird Beithe, Sgeir Liath, Sgeir Liath - Mhor, Site 1 and Tobermory Bay) within the SJU proposed MPA boundary . All 21 sites directly overlap with the feature Common Skate under all scenarios (lower, intermediate and upper). There are three additional shellfish farms within 1km of the proposed MPA boundary under all sceneraios (Husky, Loch Crinan and Portmor).

There is no public information on potential future development within the proposed MPA. In the absence of information on potential future developments, no site specific assessment has been possible. A national assessment of the costs of obtaining planning permission for new developments is provided separately.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • N/A
Description of one-off costs
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • N/A
Description of recurring costs
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • N/A
Description of non-quantified costs
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) See national costs See national costs See national costs
Average annual costs See national costs See national costs See national costs
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) See national costs See national costs See national costs
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%.
Table 4c. Commercial Fisheries (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) [ SJU]
According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, Dredges, nephrops trawls, whifefish trawls, hand fishing and other gears (over-15m) and pots, nephrops trawls, dredges and other gears (under-15m vessels) operate within the SJU proposed MPA. The value of catches from the SJU area was £710,000 (over-15m vessels) and £490,000 (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 Oban (51% by value), Crinan (16%) and Cuan (8%). For the over-15m fleet, dredgers and nephrops trawlers operated in particular over the whole proposed MPA and across the common skate feature.

Provisional ScotMap data indicate that the annual average earnings from the SJU proposed MPA was £1,153,800, with over 80% of this from pots, and 13% from diving, neither of which are expected to be affected by management measures assessed under the scenarios. The spatial distribution of value from Nephrops trawls indicates that the majority of value from the relevant ICES rectangles (41E4, 42E3 and 42E4) is derived from the area outside the SJU proposed MPA. It is likely that the ICES rectangle estimate for the cost impact on <15m nephrops trawls is an over-estimate. ScotMap data would indicate an annual cost impact of around £0.04 million on <15m Nephrops trawls under the Upper Scenario. Provisional ScotMap data also indicate minimal dredge activity within the SJU area, suggesting that the estimate from ICES rectangle data for dredges is also an over-estimate. The coverage for ScotMap interviews in the region was 63.8% (total value of reported landings from the Fisheries Information Network for those vessels included in the ScotMap value analysis expressed as a percentage of the total reported landings for all vessels <15m). Therefore the ScotMap estimate is likely to under-represent the value of fishing by under-15m vessels, and the spatial representation of the value of fishing is less robust than in regions where coverage is higher.

VMS data indicate that there were 4 non- UK vessels within the SJU proposed MPA (3 Irish and 1 Norwegian), but these vessels will not have been actively fishing within the proposed MPA, which is within 6nm, and is more likely to have been transiting the area.

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 SNH recommendations. Common skate are distributed throughout the proposed MPA area and although there is no targeted fishery for skate (retention of common skate on board is prohibited), skate may be caught as bycatch in other fisheries.

The Clyde Fishermen's Association have indicated that the value of the scallop fishery in the area is likely to be greater than the value indicated for dredges in the Upper scenario and would increase if the Firth of Lome area were to reopen to scallop dredging.

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 cost impacts expected.
  • Reduce mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) pressure by 50% across the MPA area.
  • Closure to mobile bottom-contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across full extent of MPA.
Description of one-off costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of recurring costs
  • None.
  • Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • Dredges (0.139);
  • Other affected gears (0.050).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • Nephrops trawls (0.036);
  • Dredges (0.007);
  • Other affected gears (0.001).
  • Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • Dredges (0.277);
  • Other affected gears (0.100).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • Nephrops trawls (0.073);
  • Dredges (0.014);
  • Other affected gears (0.002).
Description of non-quantified costs
  • None.
  • 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.
  • 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 4.647 9.294
Average annual costs 0.000 0.232 0.465
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.000 3.418 6.835
Economic Impacts(£Million)
Total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.000 1.967 4.673
Average annual change to GVA 0.000 0.098 0.234
Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.000 1.447 3.437
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment 0.0 jobs 2.6 jobs 5.3 jobs
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
Table 4d. Energy Generation [ SJU]
There are no energy generation activities currently operating within the SJU proposed MPA boundary or corresponding buffer zones. Thus, economic costs and management measures associated with energy generation in this proposed MPA are described in light of known possible future developments. Two possible export cable routes (north and south of the Isle of Mull) for the potential Argyll Array Windfarm (ScottishPower Renewables, project currently on hold, up to 1800 MW capacity) overlap the OSPAR and BAP designated MPA mobile species feature 'Common Skate' under all scenarios. Note, only one of these export cable routes will be chosen upon application. Three potential future export cable routes from offshore wind, wave and tidal energy Areas of Search (AoS) overlap the MPA feature Common Skate extents under all scenarios. Additional assessments of potential impacts to Common Skate feature will be required for all of these potential future developments under all scenarios. While Common Skate may be sensitive to electromagnetic fields ( EMF) associated with live power cables, it has been assumed that no additional mitigation measures would be required beyond existing good practice (burial to 1-2m in sediment habitats). Therefore, no additional mitigation costs would be attributable to the designation of the proposed MPA. However, additional post-licence monitoring costs may be incurred for intermediate and upper scenarios.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to Common Skate within 1km of proposed activities.
  • Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to Common Skate within 1km of proposed activities; and
  • Additional post-licence monitoring of any features within 1km of development footprint in year 3 following construction.
  • Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to Common Skate within 1km of proposed activities; and
  • Additional post-licence monitoring of any features within 1km of development footprint in year 3 following construction.
Description of one-off costs
  • Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 4 in total). Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2015 (Argyll Array Windfarm) and 2024 (wind, wave and tidal energy AoS).
  • Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 4 in total). Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2015 (Argyll Array Windfarm) and 2024 (wind, wave and tidal energy AoS); and
  • Additional post-licence monitoring costs - £5k per linear km of development in year 3 following construction (20km).
  • Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 4 in total). Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2015 (Argyll Array Windfarm) and 2024 (wind, wave and tidal energy AoS); and
  • Additional post-licence monitoring costs - £5k per linear km of development in year 3 following construction (wind, wave & tidal energy AoS export cable route, 20km).
Description of recurring costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of non-quantified costs
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.048 0.348 0.348
Average annual costs 0.002 0.017 0.017
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.037 0.229 0.229
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%.
Table 4e. Military [ SJU]
Fifteen military practice areas (Jura Sound (X5623), Linnhe (X5624), Staffa (X5627) and Mull (X5628); and 11 submarine exercise areas) overlap with the feature common skate of the SJU proposed MPA under all scenarios (lower, intermediate and upper).

The features and associated habitats which overlap with military activities have not been described as vulnerable to MOD activities in this proposed MPA. It is assumed that management relating to MOD activity will be coordinated through the MOD's Maritime Environmental Sustainability Appraisal Tool ( MESAT) which the MOD uses to assist in meeting its environmental obligations. This process will include operational guidance to reduce significant impacts of military activities on MPAs. It is assumed that the MoD will incur additional costs in adjusting MESAT and other MoD environmental assessment tools in order to consider whether its activities will impact on the conservation objectives of MPAs and also incur additional costs in adjusting electronic charts to consider MPAs. However, these costs will be incurred at national level and hence no site-specific cost assessments have been made.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • See National Assessment.
  • See National Assessment.
  • See National Assessment.
Description of one-off costs
Description of recurring costs
Description of non-quantified costs
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) See national costs See national costs See national costs
Average annual costs See national costs See national costs See national costs
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) See national costs See national costs See national costs
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%.
Table 4f. Ports and Harbours SJU
There are 11 ports/harbours (Ardnamurchan, Balvicar, Cuan, Luing, Oban NLB Base, Oban North Pier, Oban Railway Pier, Salen, Tayvallich, Tobermory and Toberonochy) within the SJU proposed MPA boundary that all overlap with feature extents for common skate under all scenarios. Therefore, management costs may be incurred under the assumption that small ports/harbours will undergo one new development within the relevant time frame (2014-2033), assumed for the year 2024.

There are 14 anchorages/mooring areas within the SJU proposed MPA boundary, all of which overlap the feature common skate under all scenarios.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • Additional licensing costs for small port developments (up to11 in total).
  • Additional licensing costs for small port developments (up to 11 in total).
  • Additional licensing costs for small port developments (up to 11 in total).
Description of one-off costs
  • Additional assessment costs for licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application estimated for submission in 2024 (Ardnamurchan, Balvicar, Cuan, Luing, Oban NLB Base, Oban North Pier, Oban Railway Pier, Salen, Tayvallich, Tobermory and Toberonochy).
  • Additional assessment costs for licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application estimated for submission in 2024 (Ardnamurchan, Balvicar, Cuan, Luing, Oban NLB Base, Oban North Pier, Oban Railway Pier, Salen, Tayvallich, Tobermory and Toberonochy).
  • Additional assessment costs for licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application estimated for submission in 2024 (Ardnamurchan, Balvicar, Cuan, Luing, Oban NLB Base, Oban North Pier, Oban Railway Pier, Salen, Tayvallich, Tobermory and Toberonochy).
Description of recurring costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of non-quantified costs
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.074 0.074 0.074
Average annual costs 0.004 0.004 0.004
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.053 0.053 0.053
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 [ SJU]
Activity Description Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Tourism Coastal areas are well represented when considering the locations of various tourist related sites within Scotland with a range of site types present in all regions including the West. Where significant impacts to recreational boating or water sports have been identified for the site, there could also be consequential impacts on tourism. Tourism may benefit from the designation of the MPA as an added attraction to the destination. In addition, there may also be indirect benefits to tourism as a result of benefits to some water sports activities, for example, recreational angling and diving. The intermediate management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower estimate. The upper management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower and intermediate estimates.
Water Sports - Scuba Diving There are 42 dive locations within the SJU proposed MPA, ten scenic dive sites, ten shore dive sites and 22 wreck dive sites. All 42 dives sites overlap with the 'Common Skate' under all scenarios. No management restrictions upon this activity are required. The added protection offered by an MPA designation and management measures placed upon sector activities may increase the aesthetic attraction of the dive sites through an improved marine ecosystem and a reduction in degradation to the wreck sites. The intermediate management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower estimate. The upper management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower and intermediate estimates.
Water Sports - Sea Angling Sea angling is carried out along most of the Scottish coastline within 6nm ( SSACN). The SJU proposed MPA is a coastal site and is located wholly within 6nm of the UK coastline. Therefore sea angling overlaps with all features and there corresponding extents within the proposed MPA. No management restrictions upon this activity are required. Sea anglers could benefit from any on-site positive effects resulting from the MPA designation and corresponding management restrictions on sector activities including an increase in the size and diversity of species which in turn is expected to increase the attraction of a site for anglers (Fletcher et al. 2012). The intermediate management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower estimate. The upper management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower and intermediate estimates.

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 [ SJU]
Activity Description
Coastal Defence There is one artificial coastal protection within the boundary of the SJU proposed MPA which overlaps with the common skate under all scenarios. This development is assessed as having no impact upon this feature and so the activity will be unaffected by the designation of the MPA.
Power Interconnectors 11 existing power interconnectors overlap with the SJU proposed MPA. All power interconnectors overlap with common skate (all scenarios). An additional power interconnector is also within 1km of the common skate feature of the MPA (all scenarios). No cost impacts are foreseen, as it is assumed that there will be no review of the existing consents
Recreational Boating There are eleven recreational boating cruising routes that intersect the SJU proposed MPA with traffic ranging from light to heavy, although cruising routes are not expected to incur any management or assessment costs. There are 16 recreational boating anchorages and 148 and 26 Crown Estate mooring points and areas respectively within the SJU proposed MPA boundary that overlap with features proposed for protection (feature extents show that all anchorages and associated 100m buffer zones overlap with the common skate under all scenarios). However, no specific management measures are assessed as being necessary. Relocation of anchorages/moorings to another area within the MPA will likely have no significant benefits, as the feature extent for common skate - as a mobile species - encompasses the whole of the proposed MPA site. Common skate are also expected to be sufficiently mobile to avoid any direct impacts arising from recreational boating anchorages such as surface and sub-surface abrasion. Furthermore, there is uncertainty regarding interaction with common skate egg cases and the areas and depths at which they are laid. It should be noted that the number of crown estate mooring points may be an underestimate. A number of additional individual mooring points are located within the larger mooring areas, although it is expected that more will be present that are not represented by the data.
Water Sports - Sea Kayaking Kayaking is popular around the coast of Mull including areas within SJU proposed MPA. Water sports activities including kayaking are not assessed as requiring any additional management measures. It is also considered that no additional benefit to kayaking from management measures applied to other activities will occur.

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 [ SJU]
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: £0.23m
Upper: £0.47m

Annual Average Loss in GVA (direct and indirect)*:
Lower: £0.00m
Intermediate: £1.44m
Upper: £3.44m		 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: 2.6 jobs
Upper: 5.3 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.
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
Energy Generation Additional operational costs Quantified Cost Impact (2014-2033):
£0.037 - 0.229m		 Future employment opportunities - if increased operational costs associated with management measures render projects unviable or restrict project size there will be a negative impact on economic activity and job creation in this sector. 0
Costs associated with delays during the consenting process

Loss of investor confidence (developments do not proceed)		 Not Quantified Future employment opportunities - if the delays deter investents there will be a negative impact on economic activity and future job creation in this sector.

Environment - possible negative impact in relation to climate change and the ability of the Scottish Government to meet its 2020 renewables targets, decarbonisation targets and climate change targets. There would also be consequent financial implications of climate change impacts.

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.
* 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 [ SJU]
Sector/Impact Location Age Gender
Region Ports* Rural, Urban, Coastal or Island Children Working Age Pensionable Age Male Female

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

xx

West

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Oban (84%), Campbeltown (4%)

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

0-5 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

West
North-West

x

Oban
Crinan
Cuan
Tobermory Luing
Mallaig
Ardnamurchan

x

Coastal

Urban and Rural

 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 [ SJU]
Sector/Impact 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

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

 Lower: N/A
Upper: >15m		 Nephrops trawls
Dredges		 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 [ SJU]
Feature Name Representation Replication Linkages Geographic Range
and Variation		 Resilience
Common skate Provides representation for the only MPA search area identified for common skate in OSPAR Region III; where large, mature individuals are believed to be resident. Represents the only area in which common skate have been identified. Represents the only MPA search area in which common skate are believed to reside. Listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining. The MPA area may increase resilience.
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 [6] [ SJU]
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, Skate endangered Nil Low, impact of preventing bycatch on populations of Skate and other species uncertain Moderate. Common Skate is potentially a commercial species Nil - Low Low
Fish for non-human consumption Stocks reduced from potential maximum
Gas and climate regulation Nil - Low Nil - Low Nil Low Low Moderate Nil - Minimal High
Natural hazard protection Low Low Nil, would not affect stability of coastline Low Nil High
Regulation of pollution Low Low Nil Nil - Low, maintained by protecting seabed features Low - Moderate, for recreational use of waters Nil - Minimal High
Non-use value of natural environment Moderate - protected feature is endangered species, wrecks (designated under future Historic MPAs) and contribution of the site to MPA network, have non-use value. Non-use value of the site may decline Minimal, no change in key characteristics of site Low - Moderate, protection of key characteristics of site from decline, and/or allowing some recovery of values Moderate Minimal - Moderate Low
Recreation Moderate 42 active dive sites, boating anchorages, sea angling Nil Low, slightly higher biodiversity encountered by divers and boating Moderate, important contribution to halting loss of one species Nil - Low Moderate
Research and Education Moderate Biological feature has research value, and has few substitutes Nil, no change in characteristics of site Low - Moderate, protection of key characteristics of site from decline, improving future research opportunities Low Nil - Low Low
Total value of changes in ecosystem services Nil for lower scenario, Low - Moderate for upper scenario Nil - Low Low

Human Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura

Fishing Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura

Contact

Back to top