Sound of Gigha Special Protection Area: business and regulatory impact assessment

Consultation

Within Government

Consultation has been undertaken with policy colleagues within Marine Scotland, including aquaculture, nature conservation, marine renewables, fisheries and fresh water fisheries, and with Transport Scotland.

Historic Environment Scotland and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency have also been consulted. Meetings were held with policy officials within these public bodies to discuss the development of these SPAs. We have also been working with Defra and other UK Departments on the join up between the Scottish MPA network, which includes SPAs, and the wider UK contribution to the OSPAR MPA network.

Public Consultation

A full public consultation took place in Autumn 2016. Further consultation took place in Autumn 2018 on a Network Assessment for the proposed set of sites and the SEA. An update to the SEA was consulted on in the summer of 2019.

Business

Routine updates are provided to the Marine Strategy Forum and are supplemented with bilateral meetings across sectors including the fishing industry, environmental NGOs, tourism and recreation, nature conservation, renewable energy, aquaculture, ports and harbours, defence and local community groups.

A National Workshop attended by a wide range of stakeholders was held in March 2016 to present the proposals and gather feedback on the proposed consultation package^[3].

Options

Option 1: Do nothing

Option 1 is the 'Do nothing' option; this is the baseline scenario. Under this option, the proposed Sound of SOGha site is not classified. Accordingly, no additional management measures would be required.

Option 2: Classify site as a Special Protection Area

Option 2 involves the formal classification of the Sound of SOGha site. Classification would provide recognition and protection to the natural features of the site while also contributing to the wider Scottish and UK SPA network. Requisite management would be required to maintain the status of the site.

Sectors and groups affected

The following sectors have been identified as present (or possibly present in the future) within the proposed Sound of SOGha site and potentially interact with one or more of the features:

• Aquaculture (Finfish)
• Aquaculture (Shellfish)
• Commercial fisheries (GVA)
• Energy generation
• Military
• Ports and harbours
• Telecom cables
• Public Sector

Affected sectors may be impacted to a greater or lesser degree by classification depending on which scenario is pursued and which management option is preferred.

Benefits

Option 1: Do nothing

No additional benefits are expected to arise from this policy option.

Option 2: Classify site as a Special Protection Area

The extent and quality of habitat and available food around Scotland's coast supports huge numbers of different species of seabirds. Few countries can match this and we have an international responsibility to protect what we have around Scotland. Therefore the appropriate action is to protect and maintain Scotland's seabird and water bird populations and meet the requirements of the EU Wild Birds Directive.

SPAs are created to meet international commitments under the EU Wild Birds Directive, which promotes the conservation of wild birds. SPAs are managed to safeguard the birds and avoid significant disturbance and deterioration of their habitats. This means that proposed activities likely to affect an SPA are assessed for their potential to cause such disturbance or deterioration. The relevant consenting authority must ensure beyond reasonable scientific doubt that any impact is not significant before permitting the activity.

While it may not be possible with current levels of research to monetise benefits with a satisfactory degree of rigour, it is clear that many of the benefits relate to aspects of our lives that we take for granted and for which it is good practice and common sense to maintain through protection measures such as SPAs.

Contribution to an Ecologically Coherent network

Scotland's seas support a huge diversity of marine life and habitats, with around 6,500 species of plants and animals, with plenty more no doubt to be found in the undiscovered deeps of the north and west of Scotland. Our seas account for 61% of UK waters and remain at the forefront of our food and energy needs, through fishing, aquaculture, oil and gas, and new industries such as renewables, as well as recreation activities and ecotourism. This SPA is a contribution to a wider network of Marine Protected Areas designed to conserve and regenerate our seas. This in turn will help ensure that ecosystem goods and services continue to support current and future generations. It is likely that an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas is likely to provide greater benefit than the sum of its individual components.

Ecosystem Services Benefits

Ecosystems are very complex, and it is thought that the more complex an ecosystem is the more resilient it is to change. Therefore, if it is damaged or if a species or habitat is removed from that ecosystem, the chances of survival for those services reduce as the ecosystem becomes weaker. However, by conserving or allowing the species and habitats that make up that ecosystem to recover, we can be more confident of the continuation of the long term benefits the marine environment provides.

Non-Use Values

Non-use value of the natural environment is the benefit people get simply from being aware of a diverse and sustainable marine environment even if they do not themselves use it. We take for granted many of the things we read about or watch, such as bright colourful fish, reefs and strange shaped deep sea curiosities, to lose them would be a loss to future generations that will not be able to experience them. It is challenging to put a precise value on this, but the high quality experience derived from Scotland's seas can be better preserved through measures such as SPAs.

It is expected that non-use value will be attained as a result of classification and the support of wider conservation objectives. Whilst ecosystem services benefits at an individual site level cannot be readily calculated, the one-off non-use value to Scottish households of marine conservation in Scottish waters generated by the additional 14 SPAs is estimated to be in the region of £74 million.^[4] This figure uses valuation evidence across several sites with similar features and characteristics and highlights the significant positive non-use value that divers and anglers within the Scottish marine environment place on securing the quality of the marine resources they use as a result of protection against degradation.

Use Values

There could be a major transformative effect on inshore habitat and a significantly enhanced flow of environmental goods and services. We know the inherent capacity of the system and the flora and fauna that it could support. Achieving that could see the expansion of recreational activities such as diving, sea-angling, and other tourism alongside sustainable methods of fishing.

Research by Kenter et al^[5] has been used to estimate the use benefits to divers and anglers specifically, as a result of classifications safeguarding the total recreational value of the sites. The additional increase in recreational value as result of implementing management measures for the 14 new SPAs has an estimated total present value of £2.1-6.2 million over the 20 year assessment period.^[6]

In addition there is likely to be increased activity for businesses in the marine wildlife and tourism sector. This includes those directly involved (e.g. operating boat trips) and those benefiting indirectly (e.g. accommodation providers). The scale of this increase across the proposed sites cannot be quantified, but it can be expected to be some increment of the existing value of these activities. Given the marine wildlife tourism market is currently estimated to be worth £100's of millions per year, an increment of this could be expected to be worth in the region of £10 million per year across the network to the Scottish wildlife tourism market.^[7]

Summary of Benefits

The uncertainties in each of the benefits assessed result in a large range of estimated values. Based on the available evidence, the combined total present value of the benefits for the new network (based on the additional benefits of the 14 new proposals) is tentatively estimated to be between in the region of £80 million over the 20 year assessment period. This is comprised of a one-off non-use value attained at designation to Scottish households of marine conservation in Scottish waters generated by the additional 14 SPAs of £74 million and an additional use value as result of implementing management measures for the 14 new SPAs of £2.1-£6.2 million.

For a qualitative summary of anticipated benefits to ecosystem services in this particular site see appendix A.

Costs

Option 1: Do nothing

This option is not predicted to create any additional costs to the sectors and groups outlined above.

However failure to classify the "most suitable territories" as SPAs would leave the Scottish Government exposed to a high risk of EC infraction proceedings, which may result in substantial one off and recurring fines.

In addition it should be noted that the societal cost of not designating could be both large and irreversible relative to the current condition of the marine environment. The absence of management measures to conserve the identified features may produce future economic and social costs in terms of increased marine habitat and biodiversity degradation. The option to not classify holds the potential to undermine the overall ecological coherence of the Scottish SPA Network. This potentially large and irreversible societal cost avoided is presented within the benefits section of the 'do classify' scenario (option 2) to avoid double counting the same impact.

Option 2: Classify site as a Special Protection Area

Costs have been evaluated based on the implementation of potential management measures. Where feasible costs have been quantified, where this has not been possible costs are stated qualitatively. All quantified costs have been discounted in line with HM Treasury guidance using a discount rate of 3.5%. Discounting reflects the fact that individuals prefer present consumption over future consumption.

Aquaculture (Finfish)

There are three finfish aquaculture sites within the boundary of the SOG SPA. These are South Drumachro, Druimyeon Bay and East Tarbert Bay. There are a further seven additional finfish farms within 1km of the SPA. These are Larval Rearing Unit, Liath Eillean Loch Caolisport, Ormsary Broodstock Unit, Ormsary Family Unit, Ormsary Hatchery, Ormsary Smolt Unit, Quarantine Facility.

Economic Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as an SPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	Additional assessment to support planning applications; and Additional assessment to support CAR Applications.	Additional assessment to support planning applications; and Additional assessment to support CAR Applications.	Additional assessment to support planning applications; Additional assessment to support CAR Applications; and Additional bird surveys.
Description of one-off costs	Under all scenarios: SSPO estimates that there will be a 12 planning applications across the SPAs in the next five years. For the purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed that similar rates of application occur in subsequent periods of the impact assessment and the distribution of planning applications is in proportion to the number of existing sites in each SPA. It is assumed that the additional assessments will fall in 2017, 2022, 2027 and 2032 and the costs of each assessment will be £5.2k; and It has been assumed that additional assessment will be required to support CAR licence applications at a cost of £5.2k per licence application incurred once every 10 years for each finfish farm installation within 1km of a new marine SPA where these installations are not already within an existing site (SAC, SPA or MPA). The CAR licence applications are assumed to be in 2020 and 2030 for all installations. For upper scenario only: It is assumed that a condition of the licence for each of the 12 planning applications will be to provide annual monitoring returns of bird entanglement at a cost of £0.5k per site per year starting in the year following submission of the planning application.
Description of recurring costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of non-quantified costs	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.

Quantified Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as an SPA (£millions)
Total costs (2015–2034)	0.031	0.031	0.050
Average annual costs	0.002	0.002	0.003
Present value of total costs (2015–2034)	0.023	0.023	0.035

Aquaculture (Shellfish)

There are four shellfish aquaculture sites within the boundary of the SPA. These are East Tarbert Bay, Loup Bay, Kilchamaig Bay and Traigh Bhan. There is an additional shellfish site within 1km of the SPA (Loch End).

Economic Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as an SPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	Additional assessment to support planning applications.	Additional assessment to support planning applications.	Additional assessment to support planning applications.
Description of one-off costs	Under all scenarios: It has been assumed that there will be 15 planning applications (new installations or extensions) that may be submitted at a national level in the next five years within or adjacent (within 1km) to new SPA proposals. For subsequent periods of the IA, it has been assumed that this number will reduce to 10 planning applications within new SPAs every 5 years. The total number of planning applications in each five year period has bene assigned to individual new SPAs based on the relative number of existing installations within each new SPA. It is assumed that the additional assessments will fall in 2017, 2022, 2027 and 2032 and the costs of each assessment will be £5.2k.
Description of recurring costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of non-quantified costs	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.

Quantified Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as an SPA (£million)
Total costs (2015–2034)	0.021	0.021	0.021
Average annual costs	0.001	0.001	0.001
Present value of total costs (2015–2034)	0.015	0.015	0.015

Commercial Fisheries:

According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, dredges, nephrops trawls and other gears (over-15m) and nephrops trawls, pots, hand fishing, dredges, other trawls and other gears (under-15m vessels) operate within the SOG SPA. The value of catches from the SOG area was £760,000 (over-15m vessels) and £655,000 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2009–2013, 2015 prices). Landings from the over-15m vessels are predominantly into Tayinloan (52% by value), West Loch Tarbert (22%) and Girvan (6%). For the over-15m fleet, a total of 205 UK vessels operated in the SOG area in the period 2009-2013, comprising mainly nephrops trawls (106) and dredges (99). Dredges mainly operate across a central band and nephrops trawls mainly operate in the northern half of the proposed SPA.

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.

Uprated ScotMap data (under-15m vessels) indicate that the annual average earnings from the SOG SPA were £1,229,000 for the period 2007-2011, with nephrops trawls contributing the highest value. The coverage for ScotMap interviews in the region was 61% (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); the spatial representation of the value of fishing is more robust in regions where coverage is higher.

Non-UK VMS ping data indicate that 1 non-UK vessels was active in the SOG area in 2011 to 2013, from Norway. No information on gear types used by the Norwegian vessel was available.

Economic Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as a SPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	No change to existing	10% reduction in mobile bottom gear effort across the site 10% reduction in pelagic gear effort across the site	30% reduction in mobile bottom gear effort across the site 25% reduction in pelagic gear effort across the site
Description of one-off costs	None	None	None
Description of recurring costs	None.	Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ k): - dredges (49.6); - all trawls (24.7). Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ k): - nephrops trawls (32.0); - dredges (5.3); - all other trawls (<0.1);	Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ k): - dredges (148.8); - all trawls (74.0). Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ k): - nephrops trawls (95.9); - dredges (15.8); - all other trawls (0.1);
Description of non-quantified costs	None.	Loss of value of catches from non-UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the SPA (possibly Norway (1 vessel)); and Displacement impacts (additional fishing pressure on other areas, potential conflict with other vessels, additional steaming time/fuel costs, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs).	Loss of value of catches from non-UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the SPA (possibly Norway (1 vessel)); and Displacement impacts (additional fishing pressure on other areas, potential conflict with other vessels, additional steaming time/fuel costs, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs).

Commercial fisheries costs are presented below in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA). GVA more accurately reflects the wider value of the sector to the local area and economy beyond the market value of the landed catch. Stating costs purely in terms of landed value would overstate the true economic cost of not fishing. If fishermen are prevented from catching fish they forgo the landed value of those fish but subsequently forgo the payment of intermediate costs such as fuel (it is assumed that no fishing activity is displaced). Costs are also presented in terms of the reduction in full-time equivalent (FTE) employment. It is also possible that effort not continuing in the area could be transferred to other locations resulting in no or reduced loss of income.

Quantified Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as a SPA (£Million)
Total change in GVA (2015–2034)	0.000	0.983	2.950
Average annual change to GVA	0.000	0.049	0.148
Present value of total change in GVA (2015–2034)	0.000	0.723	2.170
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment	0.0 jobs	1.7 jobs	5.1 jobs

These estimates represent a worst-case scenario, based on the assumption of zero displacement of fishing activity. In reality, it is likely that some commercial fishing activity will be displaced to other grounds and hence it is likely that the impacts on employment are likely to be lower than those estimated. A recent Marine Scotland study on fisheries displacement in relation to the 2015 Nature Conservation MPA classifications^[8] indicated that a significant proportion of fishing effort affected by the classifications was likely to relocate elsewhere. In reality, vessels are likely to react to any management measures in place in order to maintain profitability (i.e. by changing target species/gear type) but this could add to their costs (i.e. the extra fuel cost associated with fishing elsewhere). This uncertainty surrounding the change in behaviour is the reasoning behind not attempting to quantify this cost impact. Other non-quantified costs include: potential conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental consequences of targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.

Energy Generation:

There are no energy generation developments within the SOG SPA boundary (or 10 km buffer); thus economic costs and management measures associated with energy generation in this SPA are described in light of known possible future developments.

The Mull of Kintyre (3 MW) tidal energy generation development, consented in May 2014, is planned to be located within 10 km of the SOG SPA boundary. There are currently no offshore wind or wave energy generation developments within the SOG SPA boundary (or 10 km buffer).

Economic Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as an SPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	Additional assessment (HRA) of new wave and tidal development.	Additional assessment (HRA) of new wave and tidal development; and Additional monitoring of SPA features for new tidal developments.	Additional assessment (HRA) of new wave and tidal development; and Additional monitoring of SPA features for new wave and tidal developments.
Description of one-off costs	Additional assessment for licence application – £12,650 per licence application. Applications estimated for one tidal development (Mull of Kintyre) to be submitted in 2016.	Additional assessment for licence application – £12,650 per licence application. Applications estimated for one tidal development (Mull of Kintyre) to be submitted in 2016; and Additional monitoring of SPA features - £20k per development every three years following installation. Monitoring estimated for one tidal development (Mull of Kintyre) to be installed in 2016, thus monitoring conducted in 2019, 2022, 2025, 2028, 2031 and 2034.	Additional assessment for licence application – £12,650 per licence application. Applications estimated for one tidal development (Mull of Kintyre) to be submitted in 2016; and Additional monitoring of SPA features - £20k per development every three years following installation. Monitoring estimated for one tidal development (Mull of Kintyre) to be installed in 2016, thus monitoring conducted in 2019, 2022, 2025, 2028, 2031 and 2034.
Description of recurring costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of non-quantified costs	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.

Quantified Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as an SPA (£Million)
Total costs (2015–2034)	0.013	0.133	0.133
Average annual costs	0.001	0.007	0.007
Present value of total costs (2015–2034)	0.012	0.094	0.094

Possible social impacts may flow from the economic costs resulting from classification. There may be reduced future employment opportunities if additional costs are significant and render development projects economically unviable or if delays arising from classification impact on potential investment opportunities. It is not possible to assess potential cost impacts relating to potential future development areas, such as the Sectoral Marine Plan options, that could be affected due to the uncertainty surrounding the location and nature of future development.

Military

3 military practice areas (Earadale (X5533), Jura Sound (X5623) and SOGha (X5534); All firing danger areas) overlap with the SOG SPA.

The features which overlap with military activities have not been described as vulnerable to MoD activities in this SPA. 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 SPAs. 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 SPAs and also incur additional costs in adjusting electronic charts to consider SPAs. However, these costs will be incurred at national level and hence no site-specific cost assessments have been made.

Ports and Harbours

There are eight minor ports/harbours (Ardminish, Gallochoille, SOGha, Kennacraig, Machrihanish, Muasdale, Tayinloan and West Loch Tarbert) located within the SOG SPA boundary or within the 1km buffer. Therefore, management costs may be incurred under the assumption that minor ports/harbours will undertake development every 10 years (starting in 2025) within the assessment period (2015-2034).

There are no open disposal sites within the SOG SPA boundary (or 1km buffer).

Economic Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as an SPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	Additional assessment of new port/harbour developments in or adjacent to SPA to support licence applications.	Additional assessment of new port/harbour developments in or adjacent to SPA to support licence applications.	Additional assessment of new port/harbour developments in or adjacent to SPA to support licence applications.
Description of one-off costs	Additional assessment of new port/harbour developments – £7.1k per application. Assessment estimated for eight minor ports (Ardminish, Gallochoille, SOGha, Kennacraig, Machrihanish, Muasdale, Tayinloan, West Loch Tarbert) to be submitted in 2025.	Additional assessment of new port/harbour developments – £7.1k per application. Assessment estimated for eight minor ports (Ardminish, Gallochoille, SOGha, Kennacraig, Machrihanish, Muasdale, Tayinloan, West Loch Tarbert) to be submitted in 2025.	Additional assessment of new port/harbour developments – £7.1k per application. Assessment estimated for eight minor ports (Ardminish, Gallochoille, SOGha, Kennacraig, Machrihanish, Muasdale, Tayinloan, West Loch Tarbert) to be submitted in 2025.
Description of recurring costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of non-quantified costs	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.

Quantified Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as an SPA (£Million)
Total costs (2015–2034)	0.057	0.057	0.057
Average annual costs	0.003	0.003	0.003
Present value of total costs (2015–2034)	0.040	0.040	0.040

It should be noted that additional cost impacts could also arise as a result of consenting delays. The cost impacts and uncertainty associated with SPA classification may impact on potential investment opportunities.

Telecom Cables

There are two telecom cables (BT-HIE Segment 1.8 and Craighouse to Ormsary (BT-HIE Segment 1.9)) located within the SOG SPA boundary. Therefore, management measures associated with the replacement of telecom cables (additional assessment) during the assessment period could lead to cost impacts.

Economic Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as an SPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	Additional assessment to inform marine licensing for telecom cable replacement.	Additional assessment to inform marine licensing for telecom cable replacement.	Additional assessment to inform marine licensing for telecom cable replacement.
Description of one-off costs	Additional assessment to inform marine licensing – £2.6k per licence application. Applications estimated for two telecom cables (BT-HIE Segment 1.8, Craighouse to Ormsary) to be submitted in 2025.	Additional assessment to inform marine licensing – £2.6k per licence application. Applications estimated for two telecom cables (BT-HIE Segment 1.8, Craighouse to Ormsary) to be submitted in 2025.	Additional assessment to inform marine licensing – £2.6k per licence application. Applications estimated for two telecom cables (BT-HIE Segment 1.8, Craighouse to Ormsary) to be submitted in 2025.
Description of recurring costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of non-quantified costs	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.

Quantified Costs on the Activity of Classification of the Site as an SPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014–2033)	0.005	0.005	0.005
Average annual costs	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Present value of total costs (2014–2033)	0.004	0.004	0.004

It should be noted that additional cost impacts could also arise as a result of consenting delays. The cost impacts and uncertainty associated with SPA classification may impact on potential investment opportunities.

Public Sector:

The decision to classify the Sound of SOGha site as a SPA, would result in costs being incurred by the public sector in the following areas:

• Preparation of Marine Management Schemes
• Preparation of Statutory Instruments
• Development of voluntary instruments
• Site monitoring
• Compliance and enforcement
• Promotion of public understanding
• Regulatory and advisory costs associated with licensing decisions

Some of these costs will accrue at the national level and as such have not been disaggregated to site level.

Site-specific Public Sector Costs (£Million, 2015-2034)
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Preparation of Marine Management Schemes	0.000	0.000	0.000
Preparation of Statutory Instruments	0.000	0.004	0.004
Development of voluntary measures	0.000	0.000	0.000
Site monitoring	0.088	0.088	0.088
Regulatory and advisory costs associated with licensing decisions	0.009	0.009	0.009
Total Quantified Public Sector Costs	0.097	0.101	0.101

Total Costs

Total quantified costs are presented in present value terms. Commercial fisheries costs are presented in terms of GVA.

Total Present Value of Quantified Costs (£Million, 2015-2034)
Sector	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Aquaculture (Finfish)	0.023	0.023	0.035
Aquaculture (Shellfish)	0.015	0.015	0.015
Energy generation	0.012	0.094	0.094
Military	See National Costs	See National Costs	See National Costs
Ports and harbours	0.040	0.040	0.040
Telecom cables	0.004	0.004	0.004
Public Sector	0.097	0.101	0.101
Total Present Value of Costs	0.191	0.277	0.289

GVA Impacts (£million 2015-2034)
Commercial Fisheries	0.000	0.723	2.170

Total Non-Quantified Costs
Scenario	Low	Intermediate	Upper
Sector/Group
Aquaculture (Finfish)	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.
Aquaculture (Shellfish)	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.	Cost of uncertainty and delays in planning applications.
Commercial fisheries	None	Loss of value of catches from non-UK vessels and Displacement impacts	Loss of value of catches from non-UK vessels and Displacement impacts
Energy generation	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.
Ports and harbours	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.
Telecom cables	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.	Costs of project delays during consenting; potential impact on investment opportunities.