Highly Protected Marine Areas - policy framework and site selection guidelines: socio-economic impact assessment – methodology

Appendix B Sector Considerations and Assessment Methods

This appendix provides definitions of the various marine sectors in Scotland that have been scoped into the assessment and outlines the methods to assess the impacts of potential HPMAs (pHPMAs) on each sector. The sectors are:

• Aquaculture – Finfish
• Aquaculture – Shellfish and Seaweed
• Carbon Capture and Undersea Storage
• Coast Protection and Flood Defence
• Commercial Fisheries
• Energy Generation
• Military and Defence
• Oil and Gas
• Ports and Harbours
• Power Interconnectors and Transmission Lines
• Recreational Fishing
• Recreational Boating
• Seabed Mining
• Shipping
• Telecommunication Cables
• Tourism
• Water Sports

1 Aquaculture – Finfish

B.1.1 Sector Definition

For the purposes of this assessment, finfish aquaculture relates to the production of marine finfish species within sea-based aquaculture installations. Marine finfish species cultivated in land-based production systems or freshwater finfish species cultivated in freshwater installations have been excluded.

B.1.2 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

• Aquaculture of any form, will not be permitted within HPMAs, therefore consents for new aquaculture sites will not be granted within HPMAs and, in the event of overlaps, any existing sites within HPMAs will need to relocate. Activity in areas above MLWS will not be affected as these areas will not be included within HPMAs.

The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Removal of existing sites and associated infrastructure;
• Costs associated with relocation, including shore-based infrastructure;
• Additional assessment costs to support marine licence determinations for new development proposals and renewals adjacent to HPMAs;
• Sterilisation of potential development sites;
• Cost of uncertainty and delays.

B.1.3 Assessment Methods

Removal of Existing Sites and Associated Infrastructure

Removal of existing sites and associated infrastructure may incur costs associated with:

• Removal of infrastructure and materials located on the water;
• Licensing costs for removal of infrastructure;
• Business closures and loss of employment (potentially associated with local coastal and rural communities).

Lease areas from Crown Estate Scotland will be used to identify the number of lease areas within a pHPMA that may be affected. On a per lease area basis, the costs associated with the above impacts will calculated using existing available information, as well as via consultation with the finfish aquaculture sector and relevant statutory bodies. It is recognised that the costs are likely to vary between lease areas, and may be higher or lower than the estimated cost. The potential for business closures and loss of employment may only be possible to assess qualitatively. The likelihood of the risk will depend on the scale of impacts as well as site-specific factors. It is noted that the industry is set up in a way which encourages single company management areas which is better for biosecurity. The implication is that in a given area it is likely that the fish farms present might all be owned by the same company.

Costs associated with Relocation, including shore-based infrastructure

The costs associated with relocating a finfish aquaculture site depends on a wide range of variables, in particular, on the availability of suitable alternative locations, the size of the enterprise, and the distance between existing and new locations. Furthermore, even if relocation may be technically feasible, it may not be financially viable for aquaculture businesses. Where there is potential for sites to be relocated outside of HPMAs, there will be costs associated with this process, including:

• Availability of suitable relocation sites outside of HPMAs;
• Marine licence applications and associated impact assessments and management plans for relocation sites;
• Transportation of mobile infrastructure and materials from previous site (including set-up at relocation site);
• Construction/purchasing/leasing of new onshore infrastructure at relocation site (roads, slipways, access, shorebase).

The finfish aquaculture sector will be consulted with regarding the feasibility, viability and costs involved in relocating an aquaculture site. It is assumed that any production cycles will be allowed to finish prior to relocation, so that existing fish stocks do not need to be transported between sites.

New Development Proposals and Marine Licence Renewals adjacent to HPMAs

There would be a requirement for public authorities to consider whether a proposed new activity taking place outside of a HPMA is capable of affecting the ecosystem within the HPMA. Any new information would either be reported within the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) if required, or as a separate HPMA assessment. It is assumed that the additional assessments will fall between 2030 and 2040 and the cost to the applicant of each assessment will be £5,600^[71] at 2019 prices (uprated to current prices).

Sterilisation of Potential Development Sites

• The designation of pHPMAs may result in the sterilisation of potential development sites, precluding development of new sites. This would represent an opportunity cost for the sector, which is not readily quantified. Lease option areas are not made public by Crown Estate Scotland until a developer has decided to progress a site and obtain the necessary licences and permissions. Such potential constraints are therefore recognised qualitatively in the assessment; it is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

Cost of Uncertainty and Delays

The designation of HPMAs has the potential to increase the time taken to determine planning or marine licence applications and to negatively affect investor confidence. It is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

B.1.4 Limitations

• The number and location of future planning applications is uncertain;
• The size of current sites (and therefore costs of removing and relocating infrastructure) is uncertain, and in some cases relocation may not be possible;
• The potential for businesses to absorb costs may differ (e.g. large multinational companies vs small family-run enterprises), and may affect whether the impact results in a cost to business, or a loss of business.

2 Aquaculture – Shellfish and Seaweed

B.1.5 Sector Definition

For the purposes of this assessment, shellfish and seaweed aquaculture relates to the production of marine shellfish or marine algae within aquaculture installations excluding cultivated shellfish beds which are covered under commercial fishing. It includes long-line cultivation of mussels and seaweeds and intertidal oyster cultivation.

B.1.6 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

• Aquaculture of any form, will not be permitted within HPMAs, therefore consents for new aquaculture sites will not be granted within HPMAs and, in the event of overlaps, any existing sites within HPMAs will need to relocate. Activity in areas above MLWS will not be affected as these areas will not be included within HPMAs.

The following potential impacts will require assessment:

• Removal of existing sites and associated infrastructure;
• Costs associated with relocation, including shore-based infrastructure;
• Additional assessment of new development proposals and marine licence renewals adjacent to HPMAs;
• Sterilisation of potential development sites;
• Cost of uncertainty and delays.

B.1.7 Assessment Methods

Removal of Existing Sites and Associated Infrastructure

Removal of existing sites and associated infrastructure may incur costs associated with:

• Removal of infrastructure and materials located on the water;
• Removal of infrastructure and materials located onshore (if in an unsuitable location);
• Licensing costs for removal of infrastructure;
• Business closures and loss of employment (potentially associated with local coastal and rural communities).

Lease areas from Crown Estate Scotland will be used to identify the number of lease areas within a pHPMA that may be affected. On a per lease area basis, the costs associated with the above impacts will calculated using existing available information, as well as via consultation with the shellfish aquaculture sector and relevant statutory bodies. It is recognised that the costs are likely to vary between lease areas, and may be higher or lower than the estimated cost. The potential for business closures and loss of employment may only be possible to assess qualitatively. The likelihood of the risk will depend on the scale of impacts as well as site-specific factors.

Costs associated with Relocation, including shore-based infrastructure

The costs associated with relocating a shellfish or seaweed aquaculture site depends on a wide range of variables, in particular, on the availability of suitable alternative locations, the size of the enterprise, and the distance between the existing and new locations. Furthermore, even if relocation may be technically feasible, it may not be financially viable for aquaculture businesses.

Where there is potential for sites to be relocated outside of HPMAs, there will be costs associated with this process, including:

• Availability of suitable relocation sites outside of HPMAs;
• Marine licence applications and associated impact assessments and management plans for relocation sites;
• Transportation of mobile infrastructure and materials from previous site (including set-up at relocation site);
• Construction/purchasing/leasing of new onshore infrastructure at relocation site if required (roads, slipways, access, shorebase).

The shellfish and seaweed aquaculture sectors will be consulted with regarding the feasibility, viability and costs involved in relocating an aquaculture site. It is assumed that any production cycles will be allowed to finish prior to relocation, so that existing stocks do not need to be transported between sites.

New Development Proposals and Marine Licence Renewals adjacent to HPMAs.

There would be a requirement for public authorities to consider whether a proposed new activity taking place outside of a HPMA is capable of affecting the ecosystem within the HPMA. Any new information would either be reported within the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) if required, or as a separate MPA assessment. It is assumed that the additional assessments will fall in 2030 and 2040 and the cost of each assessment will be £5,600^[72] at 2019 prices.

Sterilisation of Potential Development Sites

• The designation of pHPMAs may result in the sterilisation of potential development sites, precluding development of new sites. This would represent an opportunity cost for the sector, which is not readily quantified. Lease option areas are not made public by Crown Estate Scotland until a developer has decided to progress a site and obtain the necessary licences and permissions. Such potential constraints are therefore recognised qualitatively in the assessment; it is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

Cost of Uncertainty and Delays

The designation of pHPMAs has the potential to increase the time taken to determine planning applications and to negatively affect investor confidence. It is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

B.1.8 Limitations

• The level and location of future planning applications is uncertain;
• The size of current sites (and therefore costs of removing and relocating infrastructure) is uncertain, and in some cases relocation may not be possible;
• The potential for businesses to absorb costs may differ (e.g. large multinational companies vs small family-run enterprises), and may affect whether the impact results in a cost to business, or a loss of business.

3 Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage

B.1.9 Sector Definition

Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) is a carbon abatement technology that will enable fossil fuels to be used with substantially reduced carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. CCUS combines three distinct processes: capturing the CO₂ from power stations and other industrial sources, transporting it (usually via pipelines) to storage points, then injection of the CO₂ into deep geological formations (e.g. deep saline formations or depleted oil and gas fields) for long term storage.

B.1.10 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

Construction of new infrastructure associated with carbon capture utilisation and storage will not be permitted within HPMAs.

Existing oil and gas pipelines (which may be repurposed for CO₂ transportation in future) will be considered as part of the HPMA selection and assessment process, to avoid unnecessarily scoping out areas which may be suitable for designation as HPMAs. In the event of any overlap with proposed HPMAs, decisions on whether to include these areas within sites will be taken on a case-by-case basis, with advice from Nature Scot and JNCC. This could include consideration of the spatial extent of infrastructure within a proposed site (particularly in relation to more sensitive elements of the marine ecosystem) and the level and environmental impact of activity required for repairs and maintenance.

The following potential impacts pHPMAs may require assessment:

• Additional assessment costs to support marine licence determinations for new development proposals and repair and maintenance to carbon-capture-associated infrastructure within HPMAs;
• Obstruction/deviation of new pipeline routes;
• Sterilisation of potential development sites;
• Cost of uncertainty and delays.

B.1.11 Assessment Methods

Additional Assessment to Support Marine Licence Determinations

It is assumed that additional assessment will be required to determine the environmental impact of new CCUS sites outside of HPMAs, and for existing infrastructure within HPMAs. This will be necessary to support marine licence applications, as is the case for MPAs under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This information would either be reported within the EIA if required, or as a separate HPMA assessment. It is assumed that the cost of this additional assessment will be £5,600 (at 2019 prices).

Deviation of CCUS Pipelines to Avoid HPMAs

There may be potential for new CCUS pipelines to link into existing networks, however, pipeline routes and networks may need to deviate in order to avoid HPMAs. If deviation is required, there will be costs associated with consenting and the purchase, installation, and maintenance of such pipelines. The cost will be calculated based on an average cost per km of pipeline, using input from CCUS or the NSTA.

Sterilisation of Potential Development Sites

• Further consideration will be given to the potential socio-economic impacts of sterilisation of potential development sites in consultation with the Carbon Capture & Storage Association (CCSA). For sterilisation of seabed, the development potential of the saline aquifers, based on studies such as ACT Acorn (2008)^[73], depleted oil and gas reservoirs (if spatial data are available), and additional data on the spatial extent of saline aquifers, potential CCS reservoirs and planned location of development will be considered. This will take into account the HM Government and OGA initial review of offshore assets which have the potential to be reused^[74] and the British Geological Society CO₂ Stored database^[75] of potential offshore CO₂ storage sites around the UK.
• Cost of Uncertainty and Delays

The designation of pHPMAs has the potential to increase the time taken to determine planning or marine licence applications and to negatively affect investor confidence. It is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

B.1.12 Limitations

• The number and location of CCUS pipelines and installations that may be constructed during the assessment period is unknown. BEIS (2018)^[76] sets out the ambition to deploy CCUS at scale during the 2030s, subject to the costs coming down sufficiently. However, there are no commercial-scale CCUS projects in the UK and uncertainty remains regarding the economic viability and the future location and scale of CCUS activity in the UK.
• CCC (2022)^[77] noted the carbon capture, (use), and storage business model is showing initial signs of delay and progress on developing CCUS in manufacturing is now a year behind the Government’s deployment pathway.

4 Coast Protection and Flood Defence

B.1.13 Sector Definition

This sector includes coastal defence measures used to prevent or reduce flood risk and coastal erosion^[78]. Examples of coastal and flood defences include groynes, sea walls and embankments (termed ‘hard engineering’) and beach replenishment, managed retreat and coastal realignment (termed ‘soft engineering’).

B.1.14 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

Coastal protection and flood defences are considered critical infrastructure, therefore associated activities will be permitted within HPMAs. Such activities may include maintenance or repair of existing infrastructure, as well as construction of new flood protection and coastal defences. The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Additional assessment costs to support planning and licence applications for maintenance of existing/construction of new flood defence or coastal protection within pHPMAs;

B.1.15 Assessment Methods

Additional Assessment to Support Planning and Licence Applications

Location of existing flood defences and coastal protection are identified from the Coastal Protection and Flood Defence Database layers on NMPi^[79]. These layers show point data indicating the approximate location of the works rather than their full extent^[80]. A buffer will be applied around the pHPMAs so that coastal and flood defences that lie above MLWS but adjacent to pHPMAs are identified.

It is assumed that each asset requires maintenance or construction works once every 20 years. It is assumed that these applications will require additional assessment of the potential environmental impacts on the HPMA, as required for MPAs under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This information would either be reported within the EIA if required, or as a separate HPMA assessment. The cost of undertaking the additional assessment to support each planning application is estimated at £5,600 (at 2019 prices, uprated to current prices). For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that these assessments are carried out in 2035.

The location of future coastal protection and flood defence schemes is not known and therefore it is not possible to estimate the additional assessment costs for future defences. Where a pHPMA is in the inshore area and adjacent to the MWLS line, this will be recognised qualitatively as a potential cost.

B.1.16 Limitations

• Spatial data on the location of coast protection and flood defence structures is of poor quality;
• Uncertainty concerning future maintenance and new construction requirements.

5 Commercial Fisheries

B.1.17 Sector Definition

For the purpose of this study, commercial fisheries relate to all commercial fishing activity within Scottish waters and includes the subsequent handling and processing of catches. In this study, commercial fishing activity includes wild salmon and sea trout fisheries.

B.1.18 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

Commercial fishing of any kind will not be permitted within HPMAs. This includes fishing with static gear, mobile gear and hand collection by divers.

Transit of HPMAs by fishing vessels will be permitted. Fishing gear will need to be lashed and stowed on board while the vessel is within an HPMA boundary. There may be additional requirements at the individual site level for the purposes of monitoring and enforcement, such as minimum speed requirements for transiting sites.

The following potential impacts will require assessment:

• Exclusion of commercial fishing activity from HPMAs;
• Minimum speed requirement for transiting sites;
• Restriction on fixed engines and net and coble fisheries.

B.1.19 Assessment Methods

Exclusion of Commercial Fishing Activity from HPMAs.

There will be a loss of access to existing fishing grounds as a result of being unable to fish within HPMAs, which may lead to a reduction in, or loss of, landings. There will be a need to take into account any restrictions on commercial fishing activity that have already been brought forward through NCMPA and SAC management measures to avoid double counting. Assessment of the cost to the commercial fisheries sector in terms of the loss of the value of landings is as follows:

Step 1: Estimating the costs arising from proposed management scenarios – value of landings affected. Due to the differences in data availability, this is carried out separately for under-12 m and over-12 m vessels.

For vessels over 12 m in length, this is assessed using Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) ping data linked to landings declarations for pelagic, demersal and shellfish species groups. Recorded landings for a vessel in a day are allocated across all of the vessel’s VMS fishing pings on that day, where a ‘fishing ping’ is defined as one where the average speed since the previous ping is greater than zero and up to and including 5 knots for all gear types. VMS ping data are extracted by Marine Scotland and are estimates of landings value by area of capture. The ping data are then intersected with the pHPMA areas to calculate the value affected for each gear type.

For vessels 12 m and under, ICES rectangle landings data are used, pro-rated based on area or another measure that reflects the proportion of activity within the HPMA area compared with the whole ICES rectangle, derived by Marine Scotland from FISH1 forms (under10m vessels not in a Producer Organisation) or paper logbooks (10-12m vessels)..

For both under-12 m and over-12 m vessels, five years of data are used (the most recent five-year period for which data are available^[81], excluding 2020 to avoid the effect of the coronavirus pandemic and Brexit market disruption to fishing activity), uprated to the assessment year prices using predicted GDP deflators and an annual average value calculated. A static baseline is used, assuming the same value of landings in each year of the assessment period.

The datasets include all UK-registered vessels. Impacts are attributed to Scottish vessels and Scottish ports through the analysis of Home District and Port of landing.

For non-UK vessels, value of landings and gear type information are not available. VMS ping data can be used to identify nationalities affected, the number of vessels in each case, and the average time fishing in each pHPMA (based on VMS pings within the pHPMA).

Step 2: Displacement test. The assessment of the potential for displacement of fishing effort is based on the criteria in McLeod (2014)^[82], which applied a step-wise process of displacement tests comparing landings affected to landings in surrounding ICES rectangles and (Clean and Safe Seas Evidence Group, CSSEG) region. Should alternative specific guidance on assessing displacement in a quantitative and proportionate manner become available this will be considered as a potential alternative.

Step 3: Convert value of landings to direct GVA impact. Where there is a reduction in landings value, the impact on direct gross value added (GVA) is calculated for UK vessels based on fleet segment-specific GVA as a percentage of fishing turnover from the Seafish fleet economic performance dataset^[83]. These will be calculated for relevant vessel lengths and gear types based on the most recent Seafish data at the time.

Step 4: Calculate indirect and induced GVA, and employment effects. A reduction in landings and direct GVA in the fishing sector can have knock-on effects on the sector’s supply chain (indirect GVA impacts). This effect is estimated by applying the Type I GVA multiplier for sea fishing from the Scottish Government's Input-Output Tables and Multipliers^[84]. The knock-on impacts of a change in household consumption (induced GVA) is estimated by applying the Type II GVA multiplier for sea fishing from the Scottish Government's Input-Output Tables and Multipliers. Reductions in direct and indirect employment, and in direct, indirect and induced employment, ae estimated by applying the Type I and Type II employment effects, respectively, for sea fishing from the Scottish Input-Output Tables and Multipliers.

Step 5: Calculate the present value of impacts over the assessment period. The average annual value of landings affected is assumed to be constant throughout the 20-year period of the assessment. Costs are calculated in current prices, discounted over the assessment period at a rate of 3.5%^[85].

Step 6: Disclosure analysis. It is not permitted, for reasons of confidentiality, to disclose data on annual landings values that represent five or fewer vessels. In these cases, the value of affected gear types are aggregated together for presentation of results.

Step 7: Consequential impacts to seafood processors: Any significant impacts on seafood processors would arise from a change in the availability of landings, and therefore is dependent on the outcome of the assessment of the loss of access to traditional fishing grounds. The potential impact on seafood processors is identified for individual pHPMAs based on the landings ports that affected landings are made to. In addition, the impact across all pHPMAs on individual ports will be assessed based on the reduction in the value of landings to each Scottish port, in relation to the total value of landings to each port. This enables the analysis to reflect the fact that a reduction in a certain tonnage of landings to a small island port may have a greater impact on any associated processing activities at that port compared to a loss of the same value of landings to a larger port.

Step 8: Identify and document other non-quantified costs and benefits. Other costs and benefits that may arise from the management scenarios, but that have not been quantified, are identified and recorded in the Site Reports, such as impacts of displacement of fishing effort leading to increased costs and conflict with other fleet segments.

Minimum speed requirement during HPMA transit.

Fishing activity generally takes place at speeds below 6 knots, therefore the restriction of vessel speeds only has the potential to affect steaming time. For a vessel travelling at 6 knots rather than 10 knots, this implies an additional 40 minutes steaming time on a one hour traverse.

The potential impact on steaming times is assessed based on the location of pHPMAs in relation to fishing ports. Travelling at lower speeds also reduces fuel consumption and will reduce fuel costs.

Restriction on fixed engines and net and coble fisheries

The impact on fixed engines and net and coble fisheries will be assessed based on the recorded locations of these fisheries (from NMPi), coupled with catch data, to estimate the potential reduction in landings values from these fisheries.

B.1.20 Limitations

• Spatial resolution of data on under-12 m vessels is not sufficient for an accurate assessment of cost impacts to this fleet segment. Where Scotmap data, which relate to under-15 m vessels activity in 2007, are used to pro-rata the ICES rectangle landings value for under-12 m vessels to the pHPMA areas, this assumes that the pattern of activity of under-12 m vessels currently is similar to that for under-15 m vessels in 2007. If the distribution of effort differs significantly between these two vessel size groups, or has changed over time, this may over- or under-estimate the value of landings affected for under-12 m vessels. The Scotmap ‘All gears’ value layer was used to derive the proportions, which may over- or under-estimate the value for specific gears in some sites. Additionally, Scotmap was based on a survey which had low coverage in some regions.
• VMS pings occur at least every two hours, and therefore do not provide a complete picture of fishing activity. However, by using data over a five-year period this limitation is minimised. The process of averaging landings data across pings may result in landings values being over- or under-estimated for individual pings.
• The classification of gear types relies on the information reported in logbooks. Some gears may be wrongly classified, in particular mechanical dredges (DRB) may be classified as mechanised (suction) dredges (HMD).
• The extent to which displacement of fishing activity will occur (rather than loss of the value of landings), and the nature of displacement (areas or gear types to which effort might be displaced) is uncertain. The knock-on impacts in terms of environmental impacts, impacts on vessels affected and impacts on other vessels, are also uncertain. Displacement could result in additional environmental impacts, impacts on the vessels displaced, and on other vessels.
• As the value of future landings cannot be forecast, it is assumed that the value of landings is constant over time. The average value of landings per year estimated for each pHPMA is therefore assumed to be the same in each of the 20 years covered by the quantified assessment period. In reality, it is likely that the value of landings in each site would fluctuate over time, depending on regulations, quotas, and environmental influences, and hence the estimated loss in landings may underestimate or overestimate the true future value of landings. As the GVA and employment estimates are based on the value of affected landings the same limitation applies.
• Fishing patterns may have changed compared to the period from which data are used for the assessment, due to the introduction of fisheries management measures in MPAs and SACs, and the construction of offshore wind farms in particular.
• The quantification of cost impacts to the sector is restricted to UK vessels, as data on non-UK vessels are not available to allow assessment of impacts.

6 Energy Generation

B.1.21 Sector Definition

The energy generation sector includes energy generation from conventional sources (coal, gas, nuclear, etc.) as well as offshore renewables (offshore wind, wave and tidal) and potential associated hydrogen production. Note, the extraction of oil and gas is considered under ‘Oil and Gas’ sector.

B.1.22 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

Existing renewable energy developments, as well as any areas with option agreements or consents already in place for future renewable developments, will be excluded from the HPMA selection process so that overlaps do not occur. New developments will not be permitted within HPMAs.

In general, the construction of new subsea cables within HPMAs will not be allowed, with the following exceptions:

• The laying of new cables in relation to lifeline services to remote and island communities, such as, for example, power distribution cables or cables related to broadband/telecommunication services;
• The laying of new cables which are permitted in accordance with international law (UNCLOS).

For the limited instances where the laying of new cables are consented, the repair and maintenance of those cables can also be allowed on a case by case basis.

Existing active cables would not be compatible with HPMAs due to the infrastructure and activities associated with maintaining and repairing them. Existing active cables are excluded from the HPMA selection process as it would not be practical to move them.

Water abstraction (for example required for power station cooling) would not be allowed in HPMAs.

The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Additional assessment costs to support marine licence determinations (for impacts of maintenance, repair, or removal, of existing infrastructure within pHPMAs, or for new developments within a buffer of pHPMAs);
• Deviation of cable routes to avoid HPMAs;
• Cost of uncertainty and delays.

B.1.23 Assessment Methods

Additional Assessment to Support Marine Licence Determinations

It is assumed that additional assessment will be required to determine the environmental impact of new renewable energy sites within a buffer of pHPMAs, and for any existing infrastructure (cables) within HPMAs. This will be necessary to support marine licence applications, as is the case for MPAs under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This information would either be reported within the EIA if required, or as a separate HPMA assessment. It is assumed that the cost of this additional assessment will be £5,600 (at 2019 prices).

Deviation of Cable Routes to Avoid HPMAs

It will be assumed that the cost to of having to deviate future cables around HPMAs is:

• Length of deviation (km) × Average cost cable laying per km (£/km)

The average cost of cable laying is assumed to be £1.06m per km (2013 prices) (based on Annex H14 of Defra, 2012), which will be uprated to current prices for the assessment.

Sterilisation of Potential Development Sites

The designation of pHPMAs may result in the sterilisation of potential development sites, precluding development of new sites. Whilst Scotwind and INTOG lease areas are expected to be scoped out of the site selection process, it is not yet clear whether draft plan option areas for wave and tidal energy will also be scoped out. Sterilisation of potential development sites would represent an opportunity cost for the sector, which is not readily quantified. Such potential constraints are therefore recognised qualitatively in the assessment; it is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

Cost of Uncertainty and Delays

The designation of pHPMAs has the potential to increase the time taken to determine licence applications and to negatively affect investor confidence. It is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

B.1.24 Limitations

• Uncertainty concerning scale and location of future development for offshore renewables, particularly the location and scale of offshore wave and tidal development within the Option Areas.

7 Military and Defence

B.1.25 Sector Definition

Military and defence activities are a reserved matter under the responsibility of Ministry of Defence (MoD). The military and defence sector makes use of the Scottish coastline for the location of bases and training and use of the sea for training, test and evaluation activities and the surveillance and monitoring of waters to detect and respond to potential threats. In this assessment, military interests comprise the use of the coast and seas by the Royal Navy (submarine bases, jetties and exercise areas), Army (training camps and firing ranges), Royal Air Force (bases, coastal Air Weapon Ranges and Danger Areas) and Ministry of Defence (MOD) (Defence Test and Evaluation Ranges to trial weapon systems)^[86].

B.1.26 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

HPMAs will not be designated in some areas where Ministry of Defence (MoD) activities are carried out, such as areas of MoD estate and other infrastructure, and areas where it is possible to define the type and extent of activities at a suitable scale to allow their exclusion.

MoD activities relating to national security may need to go ahead within HPMAs. Where activities do need to go ahead, operators and planners will need to follow relevant environmental protection guidelines.

The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Revision of Marine Environment and Sustainability Assessment Tool (MESAT) (and other MoD environmental tools) and additions to electronic charting by the Hydrographic Office; and
• Subsequent compliance with MESAT revisions.

B.1.27 Assessment Methods

Revisions To MESAT And Hydrographic Electronic Charts

Revisions to MESAT and hydrographic charts may be required with respect to undertaking military activities within or in proximity to HPMAs. The costs to MoD are assessed at a national level. It is assumed that the following costs are incurred:

• Initial revision of MESAT (and other MoD environmental tools) and additions to electronic charting by the Hydrographic Office are estimated to cost £25k at 2012 prices^[87] (to be uprated to current prices). This cost would be incurred in 2026; and
• Additional annual maintenance costs are estimated to be £5k at 2012 prices^[88] (to be uprated to current prices). This cost would be incurred annually from 2027.

Compliance with MESAT Revisions

As MoD is operational throughout Scottish waters and as HPMAs are likely to be extensive, it is assumed that consideration of HPMAs will be undertaken as part of planning for all MoD maritime activities. It is estimated that the costs to MoD will be £11,100 per year in the first four years of the assessment period, reducing to £5,600 p.a. from year 5 onwards (at 2019 prices, to be uprated to current prices for the assessment)^[89].

B.1.28 Limitations

• Uncertainty concerning the location and scale of current or future activity.

8 Oil and Gas

B.1.29 Sector Definition

This sector relates to the extraction of oil and gas in the sub-sea environment largely from offshore reserves. Oil reserves include both oil and the liquids and liquefied products obtained from gas fields, gas-condensate fields and from the associated gas in oil fields. Gas reserves are the quantity of gas expected to be available for sale from dry gas fields, gas-condensate fields and oil fields with associated gas. For this assessment, activity within this sector includes exploration, production, interconnectors and gas storage (i.e. the ‘upstream’ oil and gas sector).

B.1.30 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

The regulatory regime for licensing offshore petroleum installations and pipelines for oil and gas exploration and exploitation of oil and gas in the Scottish inshore and offshore regions is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5, Section D2. More generally, the authorisation and operation of oil and gas installations takes place in a complex regulatory environment, involving a mix of reserved and devolved responsibilities and authorities.

Activities associated with oil and gas exploration, extraction and storage, including any exploratory activity and the construction of new infrastructure should be avoided within HPMAs. The Scottish Government will work with the UK Government to avoid, wherever possible, these activities taking place within a HPMA.

Existing active oil and gas developments will be excluded from the HPMA selection process so that overlaps do not occur. New activity will not be consented, so any exploratory activity or construction of new infrastructure will therefore be excluded from the HPMA selection process so that overlaps do not occur. However, areas where there are existing active oil and gas pipelines, inactive pipelines and other inactive infrastructure such as plugged and abandoned wells will be considered as part of the HPMA selection and assessment process to avoid unnecessarily scoping out areas. In the event of any overlap of inactive infrastructure with proposed HPMAs, decisions on whether to include these areas within sites will be taken on a case-by-case basis, with advice from Nature Scot and JNCC.

The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Additional assessment costs to support licensing determinations (new development proposals, repair and maintenance, and decommissioning);
• Deviation of new pipelines around HPMAs;
• Sterilisation of potential development sites (i.e. exploration sites);
• Costs of uncertainty and delays.

B.1.31 Assessment Methods

Additional Assessment Costs to support Licensing Determinations (new development proposals, repair and maintenance, and decommissioning)

It will be assumed that additional assessments may be required to determine the potential environmental impact (as required under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 for MPAs) by new oil and gas developments, decommissioning of existing infrastructure, and maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure within HPMAs. This information would either be reported within the EIA if required, or as a separate HPMA assessment. It is assumed that the cost of this additional assessment will be £5,600 (at 2019 prices, uprated to current prices).

The guidance notes for oil and gas surveys and shallow drilling (2005) state that an EIA is required for the following activities:

• Seismic surveys in sensitive sea areas such as Cardigan Bay, the English Channel, the Moray Firth, the St George’s Channel and deep-water areas to the west and north of the United Kingdom.
• High resolution seismic site surveys, in sensitive areas as in bullet 1, above.
• Any other survey using airguns, waterguns or vibroseis in sensitive areas as in bullet 1, above.
• Any survey or shallow drilling that could have an effect on the integrity of a relevant site or other sensitive area, e.g. shallow drilling operations on a shallow sandbank habitat or seabed sampling operations near a reef habitat.
• Oil and gas licences specify the duration of time permitted to undertake exploration and extraction. These deadlines are used in the assessment to estimate the years in which each activity (such as geophysical surveys or drilling) are likely to occur and hence, when the EIA is required.
• The “Innovate” licence comprises three terms: the Initial term (which covers exploration; Second term (which covers the appraisal and field development planning); and the Third term (which covers development and production). The lengths of the first two terms are flexible, with a maximum duration of 9 and 6 years respectively. The Third Term is granted for 18 years with potential extensions.

There are three Phases during the Initial Term:

• Phase A: For carrying out Geotechnical Studies and Geophysical Data Purchase and Reprocessing;
• Phase B: For Shooting New Seismic and acquiring other Geophysical Data (i.e. proprietary data);
• Phase C: For Drilling Exploration and/or Appraisal wells.

Deviation of Pipelines Around HPMAs.

• It is unlikely that any new export pipelines would be constructed; rather any new developments would be likely to tie in to existing infrastructure. However, should new pipelines be required and have to deviate around pHPMAs, the cost will be assessed based on a cost per km of pipeline (to be obtained from consultation with industry), and the length of the deviation required.
• Sterilisation of Potential Development Sites
• The designation of pHPMAs may result in the sterilisation of potential development sites, precluding the development of new sites. This would represent an opportunity cost for the sector, which is not readily quantified. Such potential constraints are therefore recognised qualitatively in the assessment; it is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

Cost of Uncertainty and Delays

The designation of the HPMAs has the potential to increase the time taken to determine licence applications and to negatively affect investor confidence. It is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

B.1.32 Limitations

• Uncertainty concerning the location, scale and timing of future development activity, particularly in later years of the assessment period; and
• Uncertainty concerning the cost impact of project delays associated with additional assessment requirements.

9 Ports and Harbours

B.1.33 Sector Definition

Ports provide the modal interchange points by which goods and people are transported from land to sea. Harbours are, by definition, safe havens for vessels to reside and are often commensurate with port areas. Navigation channels and approaches undergo regular maintenance dredging to ensure safe navigation, and dredge material is often disposed of at sea in defined disposal sites. In addition, anchorage areas outside port areas provide areas for vessels waiting to access berths in the port.

B.1.34 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

In the event of overlaps, it would not be feasible to relocate existing ports and harbours within HPMAs. HPMAs will therefore not be designated in areas that overlap with existing ports and harbours. This will include associated infrastructure and any associated areas which are dredged for navigational purposes and associated dredge deposit sites.

Development and construction of new ports, harbours and marinas will not be permitted within HPMAs. Disposal of waste from dredging associated with ports and harbours will not be permitted within HPMAs.

The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Additional assessment costs for marine licence determinations (new development proposals, maintenance dredging and disposal);
• Cost of uncertainty and delays.

B.1.35 Assessment Methods

Additional Assessment Costs for Marine Licence Determinations (New Development Proposals, Maintenance Dredging and Disposal)

Costs are assessed on the following assumptions:

• New development proposals and maintenance dredging and disposal will require additional assessment of impacts to protect the environment, as required for MPAs under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This information would either be reported within the EIA if required, or as a separate HPMA assessment;
• Additional assessment costs for a licence application are estimated to be £7,600^[90] (at 2019 prices, uprated to current prices);
• Costs are incurred by all major ports within 5km of pHPMAs or all non-major ports within 1km of pHPMAs; and
• All major ports submit development applications every 5 years starting in 2028 and all other ports submit development applications every 20 years starting in 2036.

Cost of Uncertainty and Delays

The designation of pHPMAs has the potential to increase the time taken to determine licence applications and to negatively affect investor confidence. It is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

B.1.36 Limitations

• The location, nature and timing of future port development activity is uncertain.

10 Power Interconnectors and Transmission Lines

B.1.37 Sector Definition

This sector is concerned with the transmission of power through submarine cables, including international, national and inter-island links. This assessment excludes power cables to/from individual developments (e.g. power supplies to oil and gas installations, export cables from offshore wind farms).

B.1.38 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

In general, the construction of new subsea cables within HPMAs will not be allowed, with the following exceptions:

• The laying of new cables in relation to lifeline services to remote and island communities, such as, for example, power distribution cables or cables related to broadband/telecommunication services;
• The laying of new cables which are permitted in accordance with international law (UNCLOS).

For the limited instances where the laying of new cables are consented, the repair and maintenance of those cables can also be allowed on a case by case basis.

Existing active cables would not be compatible with HPMAs due to the infrastructure and activities associated with maintaining and repairing them. Existing active cables are excluded from the HPMA selection process as it would not be practical to move them.

The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Additional assessment costs to support marine licence determinations;
• Deviation of new cable routes to avoid HPMAs;
• Cost of uncertainty and delays.

B.1.39 Assessment Methods

Additional Assessment Costs to Support Marine Licence Determinations

• It is assumed that additional assessment will be required to provide information to the regulator concerning the potential environmental impact of new interconnectors and transmission projects, as required for MPAs under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This information would either be reported within the EIA if required, or as a separate HPMA assessment. It is assumed that the cost of this additional assessment will be £5,600 (at 2019 prices, uprated to current prices).

Deviation of Cable Routes to Avoid HPMAs

If deviation of cable routes is requires, it is assumed that the cost to of having to deviate future power interconnectors and transmission lines around HPMAs is:

• Length of deviation (km) × Average cost cable laying per km (£/km)

The average cost of cable laying will be assumed to be £1.06m per km (2013 prices) (based on Annex H14 of Defra, 2012), which will be uprated to current prices for the assessment.

Planned power interconnectors and any information on known/planned routes will be used to assess potential overlap with pHPMAs.

Cost of Uncertainty and Delays

The designation of HPMAs has the potential to increase the time taken to determine licence applications and to negatively affect investor confidence. It is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

B.1.40 Limitations

• The number and location of interconnectors that may be constructed up to 2040 is uncertain and beyond 2040 is unknown.

11 Recreational Fishing

B.1.41 Sector Definition

Recreational fishing is undertaken for the purposes of pleasure, tourism or sport, and it is illegal to sell any catch from this activity^[91]. It takes place throughout Scottish waters and can be considered a year-round sport. It includes fishing from the shore and by boat (both private and charter). Scotland does not require licences for recreational fishing^[92]; however, there may be restrictions on certain target species (e.g. sea bass).

B.1.42 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

It is intended that recreational fishing of any kind will not be allowed within HPMAs. This will include all fixed engine fisheries, net and coble fisheries, creel fisheries, rod and line fisheries (including catch and release) and hand gathering operating in areas below MLWS.

Recreational fishing in areas above MLWS will not be affected as these areas will not be included within HPMAs.

The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Restriction on sea fishing in HPMAs (below MLWS), including restriction on catch and release;
• Restriction on shore fishing below MLWS, including restriction on catch and release.

B.1.43 Assessment Methods

Restriction on sea fishing in HPMAs (below MLWS)

The potential economic cost of the loss of marine space for recreational sea fishing can be estimated based on the total reduction in expenditure/loss of income. This can be roughly calculated by multiplying the percentage loss of area within 6 NM, by the estimated value of boat-based sea fishing in the relevant region (derived from Radford et al., 2009^[93], and uprated to current prices). If more specific information about sea fishing locations within HPMAs are known, then more accurate analysis may be possible of the scale of activity within the site and, based on the availability of alternative locations, the potential for it to relocate.

Potential impacts on other types of recreational fishing which can occur around Scotland’s coast, including fixed engine fisheries, net and coble fisheries, and creel fisheries, will also be considered.

Restriction on shore fishing below MLWS

The potential economic cost of the loss of shoreline space for recreational sea fishing can be estimated based on the total reduction in expenditure/loss of income. However, the nature of restrictions on shore fishing into waters above or below MLWS is unclear, as only the latter would be restricted by an HPMA. This could be roughly calculated by multiplying the percentage loss of mainland shoreline by the value of shore-based fishing in the relevant region (derived from Hyder et al., 2021^[94]). If more specific information about shoreline sea fishing locations within HPMAs are known, then more accurate analysis may be possible of the scale of activity within the site and, based on the availability of alternative locations, the potential for it to relocate.

B.1.44 Limitations

• In general, data on the distribution and intensity of marine water sport activities (including recreational fishing) is limited. In the Scottish Marine Recreation and Tourism Survey^[95], it was noted that the survey was not a random survey of the whole population, and therefore, the survey results may be biased and should be treated with caution. Furthermore, the smaller number of responses covering remoter parts of Scotland means that spatial information for areas such as the Western Isles and Shetland is likely to be partial.
• If recreational fishing is not permitted in an area, there may be implications for health and wellbeing which will be taken into account in the ecosystem services assessment.

12 Recreational Boating

B.1.45 Sector Definition

For the purpose of this study, recreational boating is considered to include recreational activities undertaken in medium and large sailing vessels, yachts, powerboats and motorboats. Information on small sailing boat activity such as dinghies (usually taken out of water at end of use) and other types of water sports are covered under water sports. It is possible that general tourism values may overlap with values specifically associated with recreational activities. General tourism is described separately in Appendix B.16. There is some possibility of a degree of double counting using this approach but not to the extent that it materially affects the results of the study.

B.1.46 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

Recreational motor and sail vessels (excluding those partaking in recreational fishing), personal watercrafts and windsurfing will be permitted within HPMAs at ‘non-damaging levels’, therefore, there may be restrictions to minimise impact on HPMAs. HPMAs may also impact future marina developments. The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Restrictions on anchoring (spatial, at ‘non-damaging’ levels, or anchor size/type);
• Vessel number restrictions (at ‘non-damaging’ levels);
• Additional assessment costs for marine licence determinations for marinas.

B.1.47 Assessment Methods

Vessel Speed Restrictions

It is assumed that RYA (Scotland) is required to disseminate information regarding any speed restrictions at a cost of £1,000 per site. It is assumed that compliance with speed restrictions does not impose any significant cost on recreational boaters or the supply chain.

Restrictions on Anchoring

Restrictions on anchoring may be spatial, restrictions on numbers of vessels allowed to anchor in an area, or restrictions on the size/type of anchor allowed in an area. If vessels have to change to a different anchor type, the cost to individual operators could be assessed based on the cost per anchor and an estimate of the number of vessels potentially affected. If anchoring is not permitted in an area (and assuming that other alternatives such as eco-moorings are not permitted to be installed), it is not possible to quantify the impact of this, although the implications for health and wellbeing will be taken into account in the ecosystem services assessment.

Vessel (and/or People) Number Restrictions

Restrictions on the numbers of vessels that can use an area will be noted qualitatively; it is not possible to quantify this impact.

Additional Assessment Costs to Inform Marine Licence Determinations for Marinas

It will be assumed that additional assessment will be required to provide information to the regulator concerning the potential environmental impact of new marinas, as required for MPAs under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This information would either be reported within the EIA if required, or as a separate HPMA assessment. It is assumed that the cost of this additional assessment will be £5,600 (at 2019 prices, uprated to current prices). The location of existing marinas in relation to pHPMA sites and a 1 km buffer will be assessed using spatial data, and assumptions on the number of licence applications during the assessment period will be developed.

B.1.48 Limitations

• Future trends in recreational boating activity are uncertain.

13 Seabed Mining

B.1.49 Sector definition

This sector relates to the extraction of minerals from the seabed and novel chemicals derived from the genetic diversity of marine life^[96]. This can include seabed mining in the deep sea, which is defined as oceans that are more than 500m deep. Valuable minerals can be found at or near the surface of the seabed with a potential to yield economic benefits

B.1.50 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

Seabed mining is a reserved matter, so cannot be regulated by the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government intends to work with the UK Government to avoid these activities taking place in HPMAs.

The timing and location of any future mining developments is unknown. However, the Government Office for Science recently suggested that commercial exploitation in the UK EEZ is uncertain. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that seabed mining is unlikely to occur in the short-term, but exploration activities may occur towards the end of the assessment period. The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Additional assessment costs for marine licence determinations;
• Sterilisation of potential development sites.

B.1.51 Assessment Methods

Additional Assessment Costs for Marine Licence Determinations for New Seabed Mining Activities Outside of HPMAs

It will be assumed that additional assessment will be required to provide information to the regulator for any licence applications concerning the potential environmental impact of seabed mining, as required for MPAs under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This information would either be reported within the EIA if required, or as a separate HPMA assessment. It is assumed that the cost of this additional assessment is £5,600 (at 2019 prices, uprated to current prices).

Mining within UK waters is considered unlikely, given the exploration costs. However, given that there are potential opportunities in UK waters, it is assumed that one exploration licence application will be made at the end of the assessment period. This location of the application is considered based on the location of potential mineral deposits found.

Sterilisation of Potential Development Sites

• The designation of pHPMAs may result in the sterilisation of potential development sites, precluding the development of new sites. This would represent an opportunity cost for the sector, which is not readily quantified. Such potential constraints are therefore recognised qualitatively in the assessment; it is not possible to quantify these potential impacts.

B.1.52 Limitations

• The potential for domestic UK EEZ seabed exploration and mining activities is unknown;
• The timing and location of any exploration activities is unknown.

14 Shipping

B.1.53 Sector Definition

Shipping provides for the transport of freight and passengers both within Scottish waters and internationally. Commercial shipping routes can be split into two distinct types; transiting vessels passing through Scottish waters and vessels with either their origin or destination port within Scotland. Anchorages are covered under Ports and Harbours.

B.1.54 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

Shipping and ferries will not be impacted by HPMAs. Right of innocent passage and freedom of navigation is enshrined in international law (UNCLOS). Therefore, there will not be a need for deviation of shipping routes. The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Restrictions on discharge of waste material and ballast water

15 Telecommunication Cables

B.1.55 Sector Definition

This sector relates to fibre optic submarine telecommunication cables, which carry telephone calls, internet connections and data as part of national and international data transfer networks utilised for the majority of international communication transmissions.

B.1.56 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

Wherever possible activities associated with subsea cables (including telecommunication cables) should be avoided within HPMAs. In general, the construction of new subsea cables within HPMAs will not be allowed, with the following exceptions:

• The laying of new cables in relation to lifeline services to remote and island communities, such as, for example, power distribution cables or cables related to broadband/telecommunication services;
• The laying of new cables which are permitted in accordance with international law (UNCLOS).

For the limited instances where the laying of new cables are consented, the repair and maintenance of those cables can also be allowed on a case by case basis.

Existing active cables would not be compatible with HPMAs due to the infrastructure and activities associated with maintaining and repairing them. Existing active cables are excluded from the HPMA selection process as it would not be practical to move them.

The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Additional assessment costs to support marine licence determinations for laying new telecommunication cables (to provide critical infrastructure or lifeline services) within HPMAs;
• Deviation of telecommunication cable routes to avoid HPMAs.

B.1.57 Assessment Methods

The timing and location of telecom cable replacements is uncertain. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that 50% of existing cables will require replacement at some point in the assessment period. For reasons of simplicity, it is assumed that all replacements will be initiated in 2030 and that the costs for replacement at each site (comprising additional assessment costs for marine licence determinations, and deviation of cable routes to avoid pHPMAs) will be halved (to account for not all telecom cables requiring replacement during the assessment period). While this approach ensures that the national total cost is consistent with the assumptions, for individual sites the costs will be over or underestimated depending on whether cable replacement or repair and maintenance takes place at those specific sites.

Additional Assessment to Support Marine Licence Determinations

It is assumed that additional assessment will be required to provide information to the regulator concerning the potential environmental impacts of telecom cable activities, as required for MPAs under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This information would either be reported within the EIA if required, or as a separate HPMA assessment. It is assumed that the cost of this additional assessment will be £5,600 (at 2019 prices, uprated to current prices). It is assumed that these assessments are carried out in 2030.

Deviation of Telecommunication Cable Routes to Avoid HPMAs

Where telecommunication cables require replacement, it is assumed that the new cable will need to deviate around the HPMA. The average cost of cable laying is assumed to be $90,000 per km (2014 prices) (based on IBT, 2014), which will be uprated to current prices and converted to GBP for the assessment. For any pHPMA scoped into the assessment, the cost to the sector of having to ‘detour’ a future telecom cable around a site is assessed as:

Length of deviation (km) × Average cost cable laying per km (£/km)

It is assumed that half of cables will require replacement; consistent with assumptions above, the cost for each site will be halved. While this approach ensures that the national total cost is consistent with the assumptions, for individual sites the costs will be over or underestimated depending on whether cable replacement takes place at those specific sites.

B.1.58 Limitations

• The number and location of new telecom cables is uncertain; and
• The timing and location of cable replacements is uncertain.

16 Tourism and Leisure

B.1.59 Sector Definition

Tourism can be defined as ‘a stay of one or more nights away from home for holidays, visits to friends or relatives, business/conference trips or any other purposes excluding activities such as boarding education or semi-permanent employment’ (VisitScotland). Tourism and leisure is defined to also include day trips of more than 3 hours (door to door), in line with definitions used in work for ONS^[97]. They cover any recreational activity that makes use of the marine environment and intertidal coastal zones^[98].

Both non-motorised (walking/picnicking) and motorised (boat-based tourism e.g. wildlife viewing) activities can be included in marine and coastal tourism. Recreational boating and water sports activities are considered as separate sectors (see B.12 and B.16). For this assessment, tourism is defined as relevant activities not already included within recreational boating and water sports, to avoid double counting.

Local water-based recreation activity is included under water sports. Local land-based coastal recreation, which can include a range of activities such as walking along the sea-front to sea-side based horse riding, are assumed to be excluded from this analysis as they would either take place above MLWS, and/or be captured under recreational boating or water sports.

B.1.60 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

Many marine tourism activities are low impact and will be able to continue within HPMAs, with management measures potentially needed to ensure this is at ‘non-damaging’ levels. The following potential impacts may require assessment:

• Vessel speed restrictions, restrictions on numbers/frequency/size of vessels for Marine wildlife watching;
• Comply with codes of practice/best practice.

B.1.61 Assessment Methods

Vessel Speed Restrictions, Restrictions on Numbers/Frequency/Size of Marine Wildlife Watching Vessels Within HPMAs

Given that vessels related to tourism activities are often intending to seek out and view wildlife, it is expected that speeds are unlikely to be considerably more than 6 knots, and that the distances travelled will not usually be large, therefore vessel speed restrictions will have minimal impact. Therefore, there is assumed to be little or no additional cost to tourism activities associated with this vessel speed restrictions.

Restrictions on numbers of vessels, or frequency of visits may affect the level of wildlife watching activity. If this has the effect of reducing current levels, the cost impacts will be assessed in consultation with operators. If restrictions are above the current level, this will reflect a potential future opportunity cost that is not possible to quantify.

If vessel size restrictions are introduced that would have the effect of excluding existing operators’ vessels, the potential cost impacts will be assessed in consultation with operators.

There could also be a positive impact that HPMAs allow recovery of marine ecosystems and increase the opportunities for visitors to observe marine species, thereby expanding the locations/ marine capacity for wildlife-watching activity. This will be assessed through the ecosystem services assessment.

Comply with Codes of Practice/Best Practice

This relates principally to wildlife tour operators who it is assumed are already following Codes of Practice/Best Practice

B.1.62 Limitations

• Uncertainty surrounding impact of reducing speeds, and limitations on numbers/frequency/size of vessels to wildlife tour operators.

17 Water Sports

B.1.63 Sector Definition

Water sports are recreational activities undertaken on or immersed in a body of water. The main marine water sports undertaken in Scotland are surfing, windsurfing, sea kayaking, small sail boat activities (such as dinghy sailing) and scuba diving^[99]. Recreational boating activity by larger vessels such as yachts is covered separately in Appendix B.12, recreational fishing is covered in Appendix B.11, and tourism is covered in Appendix B.16).

B.1.64 Sectoral Considerations for HPMAs

The majority of water sports will be permitted within HPMAs at ‘non-damaging’ levels. Potential impacts may require assessment and introduction of restrictions of water sports to ‘non-damaging’ levels. For example through:

• Restrictions to ‘non-damaging’ levels and vessel speed restrictions;
• Follow existing codes of practice/best practice.

There could also be a positive impact that HPMAs allow recovery of marine ecosystems and increase the opportunities for recreational enjoyment of marine species, thereby increasing benefits from marine recreation. This will be assessed through the ecosystem services assessment.

B.1.65 Assessment Methods

Restrictions of Water Sports to ‘Non-Damaging’ Levels and Vessel Speed Restrictions in HPMAs

Where spatial restrictions are implemented on activities, or restrictions on numbers of vessels/people participating in activities within HPMAs, this may result in reduced water sports activity. If this has the effect of reducing current levels, the cost impacts will be assessed based on assumptions about how much the activity might reduce by, and estimates of the value of recreational activities. Where this affects individuals’ voluntary participation in activities, the implications for reduced recreational enjoyment, health and wellbeing will be taken into account in the ecosystem services assessment. If restrictions are above the current level, this will reflect a potential future opportunity cost that is not possible to quantify.

Vessel speed and/or noise restrictions may be required in some areas. For some water sports vessels it is expected that noise or speeds are unlikely to be considerably more than 6 knots, and therefore this will have minimal impact. For vessels that travel faster (e.g. boats taking scuba divers to dive sites), the speed restriction will increase the transit time, but travelling at lower speeds also reduces fuel consumption and will reduce fuel costs. It is therefore assumed that there is little or no additional cost to these water sports activities associated with this restriction. For water sports that rely on higher vessel speeds (e.g. waterskiing, jetskis), they may not be allowed to continue, and will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Follow Existing Codes of Practice/Best Practice including Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code (SMWWC) and Wildlife Safe (WiSe) Scheme

This relates principally to commercial operators who are already assumed to be following best practice, therefore there is no additional cost associated with this.

B.1.66 Limitations

• In general, data on the distribution and intensity of marine water sports activities is limited. In the Scottish Marine Recreation and Tourism Survey^[100], low response rates to the survey for a minority of activities mean that some spatial information is incomplete. Furthermore, the smaller number of responses covering remoter parts of Scotland means that spatial information for areas such as the Western Isles and Shetland is also likely to be partial.
• Participation rates and location of future water sports activities are uncertain.