The Cooperative Participatory Evaluation of Renewable Technologies on Ecosystem Services (CORPORATES): Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 7 No 1

Appendix 3: Detail of Discussion in Workshop 2 Exercise 3a

I. Conservation Driver (Summary)

Recreation & Tourism

• Increase aspects of tourism/recreation
• May be managed more (but limited - difference per type of activity - not always clear cut)
• MSFD acts at large scale - what is local impact?

Offshore wind

• Additional assessments resulting from new designations decrease
• Individual species impacts (collision, displacement)

Fisheries

• How to achieve more productive inshore fisheries?

Example of detailed discussion from Conservation Driver group:

Participants were initially confused on what they were asked to do so we examined conservation policy drivers. Clarifications was needed by participants whether this only includes governmental policies of sector-driven policies.

Discussion around recreation & tourism

Overall, it is expected to bring indirect positive relations by increasing the health of the seas, subsequently increase the naturalness and as a result increase the benefits to the recreational sector.

Participants decided to focus on the Forth MPA complex and the proposed offshore SPA.

An opinion was presented that there will be no direct impact on the sector. There are possibilities for positive relations e.g. through recreational angling. Activities are believed to be compatible with the conservation objectives of the MPAs in the area.

All benefits to the recreational sector will be indirect and will in fact prevent other future activities from happening which could potentially impact the sector. There is no clear impact on the sector.

Forth MPA is way offshore so it is not affecting that much.

Many times, governmental policy drivers are following actions that are already happening through local actions/ initiatives e.g. SFF sustainable fishing objectives.

Another benefit of conservation policies can be that things could become worse if action is not taken. It is not expected that conservation policies will make such a big difference to the recreational sector.

It is assumed that existing recreational activities are compatible and essentially protects from future activities.

Assuming that existing conservation policies do not have a direct benefit to the sector but only indirect, what conservation measures would you take to increase on tourism and recreation? Good examples would be to allow for a more productive inshore fishing industry from smaller vessels which in return will provide local delicacies to restaurants.

MSFD legislation applies to larger areas. Debate followed whether it is appropriate to be considered as relevant.

New Scottish MPAs' management measures are currently unknown. Only after they will be published it can be assumed that existing activities are compatible.

Discussion around offshore wind

It is likely that any new conservation policy can change the type of assessments against all new conservation objectives. This will be fed into the consenting process.

Proposed offshore windfarms require assessments both on the area but also against the conservation objectives of applicable MPAs (Habitat Appraisal)

Strong debate around the ecological impacts of offshore wind. Agreed that there will be definitely some impacts but left the discussion on the level of the impact out. There will also be a trade-off between offshore wind and wilderness of an area (visual impacts).

II. Climate Change Driver (Summary)

Offshore wind

• Increase in renewables (short term)
• Decrease in naturalness (short term & long term)
• Recreation decrease short term (during construction) but increase long term (trips to windfarm)
• Decreased fishing catch short term (displacement of fish), but increase long term (windfarm acts as protected area for fish)
  → Joined up policy/regulation needed

III. Common Fisheries Policy Driver (Summary)

The group felt this impacted upon cards:

11 (fishing catch),

13 (tourism).

16 (offshore wind) and

17 (number and size of MPAs.)

Example of detailed discussion from Common Fisheries Policy Driver group:

The landing obligation was identified by the fishing participant as a good example of how it impacts:

No one knows what is going to happen, how this is going to work in practise. It was felt that it threw out all the previous work that had been undertaken under the previous regulation. The landing obligation was identified as having a huge impact upon the previous work for example on fishing gear and methods that had been developed. It was felt this was going to be a negative impact. Ultimately it would increase uncertainty.

Conservation methods which had already been adopted could become redundant. People were already selling up and leaving the industry. Another participant asked if there were exemptions. The fishing participant explained that initially under the landing obligation non quota species were exempt from the landing obligation but by 2019 all species would be included.

As fishing catch (card 11) was going down it was felt that tourism (card 13) could/would be increasing through diversification. People were leaving the fishing industry and going into other industries. This meant that crews were changing. However it was not always possible for vessels to diversify into becoming guard vessels. The process for converting fishing boats to guard vessels was believed to be prohibitive albeit not entirely restrictive.

The landing obligation could also impact upon species diversity for example sea gannets did well out of discarded fish. This landing obligation could have a negative impact on the species although on the other hand others may see this more as returning to a natural state.

The landing obligation was believed to impact upon local economies and could also impact upon the quality of MPAs. For example the landing obligation could put pressure upon other areas outside MPAs, which in turn could impact upon the quality of the MPA through changes in larval supply. Furthermore it was felt that MPAs still have total uncertainty surrounding the management measures that will be introduced. One participant stated that management plans for SPAs would be coming out this year.

It was believed that linking fishing catch (11) to card 5 (carbon sequestration) and fishing catch to habitat formation (card 1) could also lead to further MPAs being designated in the feature and by linking fishing catch (11) to primary production (3) and to 5 (carbon sequestration). This could impact upon local economic benefits (15) as communities dependent upon fishing are more vulnerable to change; this also linked to personal wellbeing (14). It could also impact upon the cultural heritage and identity as either communities move away and or change through diversification.

Fishing catch was also linked to fish quantity - adding in discards to TACS. The impact of this is uncertain, it is still not known how this will work in practise or what impact it will have. Fish stocks have benefitted from the measures that were previously adopted, this has increased diversity - the impact of the landing obligation is totally unknown.

Example of Flip Chart notes from Common Fisheries Policy Driver group

Recreation/Tourism	May increase if less fisheries Discard benefit may influence birds such as gannets negatively, but this could also be seen as going back to a more natural balance/state (populations not kept artificially high by feeding them with discard) People might move from fisheries into recreation/tourism related work because of uncertainty about CFP
MPAs	If more pressure on fish stocks outside the MPAs maybe there will also more pressure on the overflow fish & larva coming out of the MPAs? Maybe new future MPAs if less fishing leads to new/enhanced habitats
Off-shore energy	People might move from fisheries into energy related work because of the uncertainty about the CFP
Fisheries	The big impact is the landing obligations and the uncertainty created by not knowing how the policy will be Uncertainty means that many fisher people are selling up/may sell up Previous investment in gear may be lost if new regulation has different requirements Uncertain how the CFP will influence fish quantity The landing obligation may mean that fishers will be less selective regarding species
Cultural heritage & identity	Communities may move away from fishing to other things which will change them
Communities	More vulnerable to change due to impacts of increased uncertainty on local economic benefits and personal well-being