Publication - Progress report

Draft Sectoral Marine Plans for Offshore Renewable Energy in Scottish Waters: Socio - Economic Assesment

Published: 25 Jul 2013
Part of:
Marine and fisheries
ISBN:
9781782567509

The study reported here provides a high level socio-economic appraisal of the potential costs and benefits to activities that may arise as a result of offshore wind, wave or tidal development within the Draft Plan Options as part of possible future Scotti

383 page PDF

4.7 MB

383 page PDF

4.7 MB

Contents
Draft Sectoral Marine Plans for Offshore Renewable Energy in Scottish Waters: Socio - Economic Assesment
7. Assessment for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Draft Plan Option Areas - North Region

383 page PDF

4.7 MB

7. Assessment for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Draft Plan Option Areas - North Region

7.1 Offshore Wind

7.1.1 Quantification of Potentially Significant Impacts

Table 36 presents quantified estimates of impacts (Present Value ( PV) costs and GVA (fisheries)) for activities potentially affected by offshore wind development within Draft Plan Option areas OWN1 and OWN2. Quantified cost estimates have been developed for angling, commercial fisheries, recreational boating, shipping and tourism. Comments are also provided on activities for which quantified cost estimates could not be provided. No significant benefits have been identified for activities. The impacts of each activity highlighted are briefly described below and further the detail can be found in Appendix C.

Table 37. Present value ( PV) costs (and GVA for fisheries) in £millions for Offshore Wind in the North Region (costs discounted over assessment period, 2012 prices, numbers rounded to nearest £0.01m)

Activity Description of Measurement Scenarios
Low Central High
Commercial Fisheries Value of potentially lost landings 0.74 1.8 3.9
Shipping Additional fuel costs - 7.11 14.22
Tourism Reduction in expenditure - 0.22 0.59
Water sports - Sea Angling Reduction in expenditure - - 0.47
Total costs 0.74 9.13 19.18

Commercial Fisheries

For OWN1 and OWN2 Draft Plan Option areas, the area that would be occupied by arrays was calculated as being 4.8%, 11.6% and 25.1% for the low, central and high scenarios respectively. The total impact on commercial fisheries from offshore wind development in the North Region was £0.74m GVA for the low scenario rising to £1.8m GVA and £3.9 GVA for the central and high scenarios respectively (over the whole assessment period, discounted), providing the highest value of impact of any of the regions. These impacts mainly accrue to the pelagic trawlers (predominantly impacting on mackerel catches), demersal whitefish trawlers, and potters. The over-15m sector is most affected, but impacts on under-10m vessels are also significant. ScotMap data do not cover OWN2, but indicate that for OWN1, the estimate is likely to be an over-estimate, as the majority of earnings from the relevant ICES rectangles come from closer inshore and between the islands ( Figure B4.2).

Shipping

The shipping costs have considered the costs to commercial shipping including ferry routes. The assessment has considered the additional fuel costs associated with the route deviation for an average number of shipping movements based on the shipping density within the Draft Plan Option area. There are two ferry routes within OWN2 namely Lerwick to Hanstholm and Aberdeen to Lerwick. The costs impacts are estimated to be £7.11m PV for the central scenario increasing to £14.22m PV for the high scenario. There are no costs associated with the low scenario.

Tourism

The shoreward boundaries of OWN1 and OWN2 Draft Plan Option areas are within 10km of land and the visual impact has been assessed on a conservative basis as having some minor potential to affect tourism expenditure within the affected area . For the low scenario it has been assumed that spatial planning can be used to locate arrays within the Draft Plan Option areas so as to avoid impacts to tourism. Most of the impacts for the central and high scenarios will be associated with OWN1 (Orkney) where 7.56% of the VisitScotland Area is within the Zone of Influence (10 and 13km of land), while the OWN2 Draft Plan Option area (Shetland) this value is only 0.001% based on impact factors derived from Riddington et al (2008) resulting in an estimate of £0.59m PV for the high scenario.

It has not been possible to estimate the impact of the potential landside works that might be associated with development within the Draft Plan Option areas (operation and maintenance activity, onshore substations), as the locations of these activities are not yet known.

Water Sports - Sea Angling

Under the high scenario, around 1.3% of the area fished by boat based sea anglers within the North Region could be subject to offshore renewables development. The cost impact is based on the estimated potential reduction in expenditure in the Region as a result of loss of access to fishing grounds within offshore wind Draft Plan Option areas within 6nm of the territorial baseline. For the low and central scenarios it has been assumed that spatial planning can be used to locate arrays within the Draft Plan Option areas so as to avoid impacts to angling. For the high scenario, the cost impact is estimated to be £0.47m PV.

7.1.2 Other Costs not Quantified

Aviation

There is the potential for overlaps between the siting for offshore wind turbines and helicopter routes for the OWN2 Draft Plan Option area, however where these occupy less than 5% of the area, as in the low scenario, it has been assumed that spatial planning will avoid any significant impacts to the industry. Impacts are potentially more significant for the central and high scenarios however it is difficult to quantify the costs associated with changes to routeing as a result of the turbine locations. Helicopter services businesses were not able to respond within the timescales of this assessment. Impacts are anticipated on radar systems, affecting both primary and secondary surveillance radar and possibly navigation aids, and these will need to be addressed at site level. The costs of mitigation measures would be borne by the developer.

In addition OWN2 falls within 15nm of the safeguarding zone around the secondary surveillance radar around the nearest airport, and the site intersects with the suggested 17km CAA consultation around airports. NATS has advised that depending on the size, numbers and relative proximity of the turbines within the proposed developments, there is the potential for interference with any of the scenarios. The costs of mitigation measures would be borne by the developer.

Carbon Capture and Storage

Draft Plan Option area OWN2 lies inshore and overlaps possible carbon and storage sites and in addition the cable corridors have the potential to overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas. However arrays for the low scenario occupy <5% of the Draft Plan Option area and it has been assumed that spatial planning can be used to avoid significant impacts under this scenario. Under the central and high scenarios placement of the array and more particularly any deviation in the pipeline routeing could potentially introduce significant cost to the industry, should there be a requirement to install pipelines to offshore storage areas. However, there are currently no plans for such developments within the region, nor are such developments considered likely within the time scales of the assessment owing to the distance from major carbon emission sources.

Commercial Fisheries

Wind areas OWN1 and OWN2 both overlap significant navigation routes, and up to 25% of the areas would be occupied by arrays in the high scenario. This may be expected to impact on navigation routes, particularly for OWN2, whereas location of devices in the northern part of OWN1 may avoid interaction with the most significant navigation routes. Nevertheless, some deviation would be expected to be required, implying a cost to the fishing industry in terms of steaming time and increased fuel costs to reach fishing grounds, and additional impacts on fishing time available for those vessels limited by days-at-sea regulations. This is most likely to affect vessels from Scrabster (52 under-15m vessels and 1 over-15m vessel are registered here as their home port) and Kirkwall (63 under-15m vessels and 5 over-15m vessels) for OWN1, and from Lerwick (58 under-15m vessels and 17 over-15m vessels) for OWN2 ( MMO, 2013). No significant interactions with cables were identified. It is expected that cables would be laid in consultation with the fishing industry, and a Memorandum of Understanding is being developed between the fishing industry and Subsea Cables UK (see Appendix C4.2.4). Where fishing vessels' effort is displaced to new areas, rather than lost (as assumed in the worst-case impact assessed quantitatively), there may be impacts in terms of conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.

Energy Generation

There is a significant degree of overlap between Draft Plan Option areas OWN1 and WN2 which could result in competition for space between the different technologies. Energy generation from differing forms of technology will also lead to competition for transmission capacity which would affect all Draft Plan Option areas.

Military Interests

There is a potential overlap between all cable routes and military practice and exercise areas and all Draft Plan Option areas have the potential to interfere with underwater communications. In addition in OWN1 there is the potential for overlap with the Low Priority Military Low Flying Area. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation ( DIO) stated that it was not possible to quantify the economic cost impact that would arise from the loss of military testing facilities, should activity be displaced through wind, wave or tidal arrays. At the time of writing no further information had been received regarding any specific areas of concern in relation to interference with radar or underwater communications.

Oil and Gas

No significant interactions between development in the Draft Plan Option areas and oil and gas interests are anticipated Where potential renewable development areas or cable corridors overlap with existing infrastructure, the width of 'corridors' required to enable maintenance activity will need to be determined on a case by case basis. Should offshore wind farm export cables cross over existing oil and gas pipelines or cables, it has been assumed that the costs would be borne by the offshore wind developer. While the oil & gas industry's interests will largely be protected by the relevant cable crossing agreements, it is currently unclear whether all of the industry's liabilities may be covered by such agreements.

Ports and Harbours

The main identified impact to ports and harbours associated with offshore wind developments within the Draft Plan Option areas relates to increases in marine risk, specifically the temporary collision risk while cable laying or maintenance is being carried out. However the assessment considers that it would be possible to avoid conflict with port access routes and channels through careful planning of cable laying and maintenance activities.

Recreational Boating

The potential impact of future offshore wind energy development within the Draft Plan Option area on investment in recreational boating supply chains has been assessed qualitatively. It is recognised that development in areas which are already challenging to navigate may deter sailors and reduce expenditure in the Region. The risk can be mitigated to some extent through passage planning and awareness, plus the update and circulation of up to date navigational information via charting publications.

Water sports

Surfing and windsurfing occur within the area of OWN1 where the impacts to seascape and setting could reduce the number of surfers using the area however as the wave devices would only be up to a maximum of 10m above sea level these structures are expected to cause a minimal disruption to this activity.

Scuba diving occurs within OWN1 Draft Plan Option area and is mainly associated with areas of interest and in particular wrecks and where these are known it is highly unlikely that arrays will be placed on or in proximity to wrecks due to potential turbine damage or boat navigation risk. Therefore costs associated with the impacts of offshore wind are negligible.

Windsurfing and surfing and scuba diving are also undertaken within the potential cable route areas between the Draft Plan Option areas and landfall. Most of the diving activities are associated with areas of interest and in particular wrecks and where these are known it is highly unlikely that arrays will be placed on or in proximity to wrecks due to potential turbine damage or boat navigation risk. Therefore costs associated with the impacts of offshore wind are negligible. Access restrictions to surfing and wind surfing sites may occur during the construction phase and careful siting of these routes to avoid changes in the shoreline and to the location of the arrays to prevent significant changes to the local wave climate however the economic and social cost these restrictions or changes in wave quality due to cables is negligible.

Social Impacts

Each of the above effects could have social impacts. Table 38 identifies the areas of social impact that could be affected, with main impacts likely to be on employment (as a result of the impact of increased costs or reductions in turnover) and the environment (mainly due to increased emissions or changes in environmental quality). In most cases, it has not been possible to quantify the impacts, although employment impacts for fisheries are estimated (based on use of multipliers, which are uncertain, see also Section 2.5). Other impacts, such as on access to services, health, and culture and heritage could largely be mitigated, although there may be some noticeable impacts, such as on sea anglers or recreational boaters.

Those impacts identified as being slightly significant or greater are carried forwards for assessment in the distributional analysis. Five different aspects are assessed:

  • location;
  • age;
  • gender;
  • income; and
  • social group (covering minorities and special interest groups).

Tables 39 and 40 summarise the results of the distributional analysis, showing where impacts are likely to be greater for a particular social group, equal, or lower than the overall impact. For example, impacts on sea anglers could fall disproportionately onto males (although this will depend on the local make-up of sea anglers). For carbon capture and storage, there could be larger effects for local businesses and people of working age if investment were to go elsewhere due to competition for space. However, these are likely to be similar businesses and employees involved in renewable energy, so the impacts may be negligible. For most groups, though, the impacts are likely to be minimal.

Table 38. Identification of the social impacts and their significance

Offshore Wind (North)

Sector

Direct effects

Area of social impact affected

Costs ( PV £ million or GVA for fisheries)

Mitigation

Significance of social impact

Access

Experience

Aviation

Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and helicopter routes: height obstruction of commercial navigation routes (helicopters)

Employment (reduced turnover)

Health (increased risk)

Environment (increased emissions)

Impacts not quantified

Spatial planning should avoid any impacts

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Carbon capture and storage

Draft Plan Option areas overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas: competition for space

Cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas: competition for space

Education (reduced opportunity for research and development of technology)

Employment (reduced opportunity for future development)

Environment (reduced opportunity for carbon storage)

Impacts not quantified

Spatial planning should avoid any impacts under low scenario. May be significant costs for pipeline routing, which could minimise the attractiveness of the area for investment

x

(where investment is reduced)

x

(where investment is reduced)

Commercial fisheries

Value of potentially lost landings

Employment (reduced turnover)

Culture and heritage (impact on traditions)

Health (increased risks due to moving to lesser known areas)

Low: £0.74

Central: £1.80

High: £3.90

xxx

Low: 0.8 to 0.9 jobs affected

Central: 4.2 to 4.6 jobs affected

High: 9 to 10 jobs affected

x

Obstruction of navigation routes

Employment (increased costs)

Environment (increased emissions)

Health (increased navigation risks)

Impacts not quantified

Impacts should be minimised through careful location of devices, although there may be some risks in OWN2 in particular

x

Potentially 0

Fouling of fishing gear on cables or seabed infrastructure

Employment (increased costs to replace gear)

Environment (impacts of fouled gear)

Impacts not quantified

Expected that cables would be laid in consultation with the fishing industry

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Consequential impacts to fish processors

Employment (reduced turnover)

Culture and heritage (loss of connection of places with sea and history of area)

Impacts not quantified

x

0

Energy generation

Competition for space and transmission capacity

Employment (reduced opportunity for future development)

Environment (reduced opportunity for use of renewable energy)

Impacts not quantified

Potential to collaborate rather than compete for grid connection, minimising impacts

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Oil and gas

Increased competition for space

Employment (increased costs leading to reduced investment)

Impacts not quantified

Potential overlaps need to be taken into account on case-by-case basis

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Ports and harbours

Reduced development opportunities

Access to services (if number of ferry services were to be reduced or routes were changed)

Employment (reduction in jobs associated with ports due to loss of investment)

Impacts not quantified

Devices should seek to minimise impacts on ferries through spatial planning

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Spatial overlap between cable routes and maintained navigation channels: competition for space

Employment (reduced turnover)

Impacts not quantified

Cables routes will need to be located to avoid navigation routes

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Recreational boating

Increased deterrent to access in sites that are already challenging to navigate

Access to recreational opportunities

Impacts not quantified

Passage planning and awareness, plus the update and circulation of up to date navigational information via charting publications

x

x

Shipping

Additional fuel costs

Access to services (increased costs passed onto users, especially ferries)

Environment (increased emissions)

Low: none

Central: £7.11

High: £14.22

Arrays should seek to be sited to avoid hindering ferry services

Additional emissions unlikely to be significant in terms of climate change, and will be offshore so should not affect air quality

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Reduced turnaround times due to increased steaming times for vessel routes

Access to services (if number of ferry services were to be reduced)

Employment (reduction in jobs associated with ferries)

Impacts not quantified

Arrays should seek to be sited to avoid hindering ferry services

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Displacement of anchorage areas

Access to services (if ferry routes are changed)

Environment (increased emissions)

Impacts not quantified

Arrays should seek to be sited to avoid hindering access to anchorages

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Tourism

Reduction in expenditure

Culture and heritage (may affect cultural interpretation of coastline and seascapes)

Employment (negative impacts on numbers of tourists affecting income of tourism businesses) Wind only

Health (impacts may affect recreational trips taken by locals, affecting their health)

Low: none

Central: £0.22

High: £0.59

Spatial planning used to locate arrays to minimise impacts, but maybe some impacts on medium and high scenarios

0

x

Water sports - Sea Angling

Reduction in expenditure

Health (reduction in recreational opportunities)

Employment (impacts on services if anglers choose to relocate their sports activities to elsewhere due to loss of fishing grounds)

Low: none

Central: none

High: £0.47

xx

x

Water sports

Impacts to seascape / setting (surfing and windsurfing)

Culture and heritage (may affect cultural interpretation of coastline and seascapes)

Employment (negative impacts on numbers of tourists affecting income of tourism businesses)

Health (impacts may affect recreational trips taken by locals, affecting their health)

Impacts not quantified

Care needed when siting arrays to minimise impacts on wave climate and avoid changes in the coastline. The only impacts may be during construction and are likely to be minimal over that period

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and water sport activity (scuba diving)

Health (reduction in recreational opportunities)

Employment (impacts on services if boat owners choose to relocate their water sports activities to elsewhere)

Impacts not quantified

Unlikely that arrays will be placed close to dive sites, such that impacts should be minimised

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Spatial overlap between cable routes and water sports activity (surfing and windsurfing, scuba diving)

Health (reduction in recreational opportunities)

Employment (impacts on services if boat owners choose to relocate their water sports activities to elsewhere)

Impacts not quantified

Unlikely that arrays will be placed close to dive sites, such that impacts should be minimised. Care needed when siting arrays to minimise impacts on wave climate and avoid changes in the coastline. The only impacts may be during construction and are likely to be minimal over that period

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Notes: The likely areas of social impact are based on the key areas identified by the GES/ GSR Social Impacts Taskforce

Definition of ratings: x x x : significant negative effect; x x : possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected x x x : significant negative effect

Table 39. Distributional analysis (location, age and gender)

Sector

Impact

Location

Age

Gender

Urban

Rural

Settlement

Children

Working age

Pensionable age

Male

Female

Carbon capture and storage

Competition for space: Draft Plan Option areas and/or cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas

0

x

Could have impact on rural economy if investment goes elsewhere

0

Unlikely to affect specific locations

0

x

Could have impact on employment opportunities if investment goes elsewhere

0

x

x

Commercial fisheries

Value of potentially lost landings

0

xx

xxx

Orkney, Scrabster, Shetland

x

xxx

x

xxx

Fishermen more likely to be male

x

Obstruction of navigation routes

0

x

xx

Orkney, Scrabster, Shetland

x

xx

x

xx

Fishermen more likely to be male

x

Consequential impacts to fish processors

x

xx

xxx

Orkney, Scrabster, Shetland

x

xxx

x

x

xx

Processors more likely to be female

Recreational boating

Increased deterrent to access in sites that are already challenging to navigate

0

x

xx

Bressay, Lerwick and Pierowall could be affected

0

x

x

x

x

Tourism

Reduction in expenditure

0

x

No specific settlements affected

x

x

x

x

x

Water sports- Sea Angling

Reduction in expenditure

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

Impacts: x x x : significant negative effect; x x : possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected

Table 40. Distributional analysis (income and social groups)

Sector

Impact

Income

Social groups

10% most deprived

Middle 80%

10% most affluent

Crofters

Ethnic minorities

With disability or long-term sick

Special interest groups

Other

Carbon capture and storage

Competition for space: Draft Plan Option areas and/or cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas

xx

economic impacts could affect this group more than others

x

x

x

Unlikely to be employed in this industry (but may be for extra income)

x

0

Unlikely to be affected, economic impacts likely to be small

0

None likely to be affected

xx

Local businesses that might otherwise have been involved

Commercial fisheries

Value of potentially lost landings

xxx

xxx

xx

xxx

Where fishing provides additional income

xx

0

Unlikely to be employed in fisheries

xxx

Pelagic, demersal sector

xx

Shellfish

xxx

Vessels >15m

xxx

Vessels <15m

Obstruction of navigation routes

x

x

x

xx

Where fishing provides additional income

x

0

Unlikely to be employed in fisheries

xx

Pelagic, demersal sector

x

Shellfish

xx

Vessels >15m

xx

Vessels <15m

Consequential impacts to fish processors

xx

xx

x

x

x

0

x

x

Recreational boating

Increased deterrent to access in sites that are already challenging to navigate

x

Where employed in this area

x

x

0

Unlikely to be employed in this area

x

xx

Could affect ability to support trips for disabled/ sick

xx

Could mean they need to relocate to maintain services

No other specific group identified

Tourism

Reduction in expenditure

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

No other specific group identified

Water sports - Sea Angling

Reduction in expenditure

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

Level of sea angling activity may be lower for sick

xxx

No other specific group identified

Impacts: x x x : significant negative effect; x x : possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected

7.2 Wave

7.2.1 Quantification of Potentially Significant Impacts

Table 40 presents quantified estimates of impacts (Present Value ( PV) costs and GVA (fisheries)) for activities potentially affected by wave development within Draft Plan Option areas WN1, WN2 and WN3. Quantified cost estimates have been developed for angling and commercial fisheries. Comments are also provided on activities for which quantified cost estimates could not be provided. No significant benefits have been identified for activities. The impacts of each activity highlighted are briefly described below and further the detail can be found in Appendix C.

Table 41. Present value ( PV) costs (and GVA for fisheries) in £millions for Wave Energy in the North Region (costs discounted over assessment period, 2012 prices, numbers rounded to nearest £0.01m)

Activity Description of Measurement Scenarios
Low Central High
Commercial Fisheries Value of potentially lost landings 0.03 0.08 0.17
Water sports - Sea Angling Reduction in expenditure - - 0.10
Total costs 0.03 0.08 0.27

Commercial Fisheries

The total impact on commercial fisheries from wave energy development in the North Region was £0.03m GVA for the low scenario, rising to £0.17m GVA for the high scenario (over the whole assessment period, discounted). These impacts mainly accrue to the over-15m sector and to demersal (whitefish) trawlers, and to a lesser extent, the pelagic trawlers and potters. Provisional ScotMap data for WN1 and WN2 confirm that there is little under-15m activity in these areas; the data do not cover the WN3 area.

Water Sports - Sea Angling

Under the high scenario, around 1.3% of the area fished by boat based sea anglers within the North Region could be subject to offshore renewables development. The cost impact is based on the estimated potential reduction in expenditure in the Region as a result of loss of access to fishing grounds within wave energy Draft Plan Option areas within 6nm of the territorial baseline. For the low and central scenarios it has been assumed that spatial planning can be used to locate arrays within the Draft Plan Option areas so as to avoid impacts to angling. For the high scenario, the cost impact is estimated to be £0.10m PV.

7.2.2 Other Costs not Quantified

Commercial Fisheries

Wave area WN1 overlaps with the navigation route along the north coast of Scotland. Impacts may be avoidable since less than 1% of the area would be occupied by arrays under the high scenario. No significant interactions with cables were identified. It is expected that cables would be laid in consultation with the fishing industry, and a Memorandum of Understanding is being developed between the fishing industry and Subsea Cables UK (see Appendix C4.2.4).

Energy Generation

There is a significant degree of overlap between Draft Plan Option areas WN2 and OWN1 which could result in competition for space between the different technologies. Energy generation from differing forms of technology will also lead to competition for transmission capacity which would affect all Draft Plan Option areas.

Military Interests

There is a potential overlap between all cable routes and military practice and exercise areas. In addition all Draft Plan Option areas have the potential to interfere with underwater communications. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation ( DIO) stated that it was not possible to quantify the economic cost impact that would arise from the loss of military testing facilities, should activity be displaced through wind, wave or tidal arrays. At the time of writing no further information had been received regarding any specific areas of concern in relation to interference with radar or underwater communications.

Ports and Harbours

The main identified impact to ports and harbours associated with wave developments within the Draft Plan Option areas relates to increases in marine risk, specifically the temporary collision risk while cable laying or maintenance is being carried out. However the assessment considers that it would be possible to avoid conflict with port access routes and channels through careful planning of cable laying and maintenance activities.

Recreational Boating

The potential impact of future wave energy development within the Draft Plan Option area on investment in recreational boating supply chains has been assessed qualitatively. It is recognised that development in areas which are already challenging to navigate may deter sailors and reduce expenditure in the Region. The risk can be mitigated to some extent through passage planning and awareness, plus the update and circulation of up to date navigational information via charting publications.

Water Sports

Sea kayaking is undertaken in all wave Ares of Search while scuba diving is known to take place at WN2, however this Draft Plan Option area is not considered to be in the top ten sites for sea kayaking and as they are highly manoeuvrable therefore wave devices are unlikely to physically displace this activity. Based on these factors it is unlikely that sea kayakers will be displaced due to overlap with a Draft Plan Option area and so economic and social impacts are expected to negligible. Scuba diving is mainly associated with areas of interest and in particular wrecks and where these are known it is highly unlikely that arrays will be placed on or in proximity to wrecks due to potential turbine damage or boat navigation risk. Therefore costs associated with the impacts of offshore wind are negligible.

Windsurfing and surfing and scuba diving are also undertaken within the potential cable route areas between the Draft Plan Option areas and landfall. Most of the diving activities are associated with areas of interest and in particular wrecks and where these are known it is highly unlikely that arrays will be placed on or in proximity to wrecks due to potential turbine damage or boat navigation risk. Therefore costs associated with the impacts of offshore wind are negligible. Access restrictions to surfing and wind surfing sites may occur during the construction phase and careful siting of these routes to avoid changes in the shoreline and to the location of the arrays to prevent significant changes to the local wave climate however the economic and social cost these restrictions or changes in wave quality due to cables is negligible.

Social Impacts

Each of the above effects could have social impacts. Table 42 identifies the areas of social impact that could be affected, with main impacts likely to be on employment (as a result of the impact of increased costs or reductions in turnover) and the environment (mainly due to increased emissions or changes in environmental quality). There may also be impacts on education (specifically research and development) if opportunities for carbon, capture and storage are minimised (although it is likely that investment would move elsewhere if competition for space was a deciding factor). In most cases, it has not been possible to quantify the impacts, although employment impacts for fisheries are estimated (based on use of multipliers, which are uncertain, see also Section 2.5). Other impacts, such as on access to services, health, and culture and heritage could largely be mitigated, although there may be some noticeable impacts, such as on sea anglers, sea kayakers and recreational boaters.

Those impacts identified as being slightly significant or greater are carried forwards for assessment in the distributional analysis. Five different aspects are assessed:

  • location;
  • age;
  • gender;
  • income; and
  • social group (covering minorities and special interest groups).

Tables 43 and 44 summarise the results of the distributional analysis, showing where impacts are likely to be greater for a particular social group, equal, or lower than the overall impact. For example, impacts on sea anglers could fall disproportionately onto males (although this will depend on the local make-up of sea anglers). Sea kayakers may also be impacted, although this will depend on sea kayaking routes and the level of overlap between those routes and the location of devices. For carbon capture and storage, there could be larger effects for local businesses and people of working age if investment were to go elsewhere due to competition for space. However, these are likely to be similar businesses and employees involved in renewable energy, so the impacts may be negligible. For most groups, though, the impacts are likely to be minimal.

Table 42. Identification of the social impacts and their significance

Wave (North)

Sector

Direct effects

Area of social impact affected

Costs ( PV £ million or GVA for fisheries)

Mitigation

Significance of social impact

Access

Experience

Carbon capture and storage

Draft Plan Option areas overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas: competition for space

Cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas: competition for space

Education (reduced opportunity for research and development of technology)

Employment (reduced opportunity for future development)

Environment (reduced opportunity for carbon storage)

Impacts not quantified

Spatial planning should avoid any impacts under low scenario. May be significant costs for pipeline routing, which could minimise the attractiveness of the area for investment

x

(where investment is reduced)

x

(where investment is reduced)

Commercial Fisheries

Value of potentially lost landing

Employment (reduced turnover)

Culture and heritage (impact on traditions)

Health (increased risks due to moving to lesser known areas)

Low: £0.03

Central: £0.08

High: £0.17

xx

Impacts on jobs not quantified as regional effects do not exceed 5% threshold

x

Obstruction of navigation routes

Employment (increased costs)

Environment (increased emissions)

Health (increased navigation risks)

Impacts should be minimised through careful location of devices, although there may be some risks in OWN2 in particular

x

Potentially 0

Fouling of fishing gear on cables or seabed infrastructure

Employment (increased costs to replace gear)

Environment (impacts of fouled gear)

Expected that cables would be laid in consultation with the fishing industry

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Consequential impacts to fish processors

Employment (reduced turnover)

Culture and heritage (loss of connection of places with sea and history of area)

Impacts not quantified

x

0

Energy generation

Competition for space and transmission capacity

Employment (reduced opportunity for future development)

Environment (reduced opportunity for use of renewable energy)

Impacts not quantified

Potential to collaborate rather than compete for grid connection, minimising impacts

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Oil and gas

Increased competition for space

Employment (increased costs leading to reduced investment)

Impacts not quantified

Potential overlaps need to be taken into account on case-by-case basis

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Ports and harbours

Spatial overlap between cable routes and maintained navigation channels: competition for space

Employment (reduced turnover)

Impacts not quantified

Cables routes will need to be located to avoid navigation routes

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Recreational boating

Increased deterrent to access in sites that are already challenging to navigate

Access to recreational opportunities

Impacts not quantified

Passage planning and awareness, plus the update and circulation of up to date navigational information via charting publications

x

x

Shipping

Displacement of anchorage areas

Access to services (if ferry routes are changed)

Environment (increased emissions)

Impacts not quantified

Arrays should seek to be sited to avoid hindering access to anchorages

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Water sports - Sea Angling

Reduction in expenditure

Health (reduction in recreational opportunities)

Employment (impacts on services if anglers choose to relocate their sports activities to elsewhere due to loss of fishing grounds)

Low: none

Central: none

High: £0.1

xx

x

Water sports

Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and water sport activity (sea kayaking, and scuba diving)

Health (reduction in recreational opportunities)

Employment (impacts on services if boat owners choose to relocate their water sports activities to elsewhere)

Impacts not quantified

Unlikely that arrays will be placed close to dive sites, such that impacts should be minimised

x

(sea kayaking)

x

(sea kayaking)

Spatial overlap between cable routes and water sports activity (surfing and windsurfing, scuba diving)

Health (reduction in recreational opportunities)

Employment (impacts on services if boat owners choose to relocate their water sports activities to elsewhere)

Impacts not quantified

Unlikely that arrays will be placed close to dive sites, such that impacts should be minimised. Care needed when siting arrays to minimise impacts on wave climate and avoid changes in the coastline. The only impacts may be during construction and are likely to be minimal over that period

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Notes: The likely areas of social impact are based on the key areas identified by the GES/ GSR Social Impacts Taskforce

Definition of ratings: x x x : significant negative effect; x x : possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected x x x : significant negative effect

Table 43. Distributional analysis (location, age and gender)

Sector

Impact

Location

Age

Gender

Urban

Rural

Settlement

Children

Working age

Pensionable age

Male

Female

Carbon capture and storage

Competition for space: Draft Plan Option areas and/or cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas

0

x

Could have impact on rural economy if investment goes elsewhere

0

Unlikely to affect specific locations

0

x

Could have impact on employment opportunities if investment goes elsewhere

0

x

x

Commercial fisheries

Value of potentially lost landing

0

xx

xx

Orkney, Scrabster, Shetland

x

xx

x

xx

Fishermen more likely to be male

x

Consequential impacts to fish processors

x

xx

xx

Orkney, Scrabster, Shetland

x

xx

x

x

xx

Processors more likely to be female

Recreational boating

Increased deterrent to access in sites that are already challenging to navigate

0

x

x

0

x

x

x

Increased deterrent to access in sites that are already challenging to navigate

Water sports - Sea Angling

Reduction in expenditure

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

Water sports

Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and water sport activity (sea kayaking)

0

x

No specific settlements affected

x

x

x

x

x

Impacts: x x x : significant negative effect; x x : possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected

Table 44. Distributional analysis (income and social groups)

Sector

Impact

Income

Social groups

10% most deprived

Middle 80%

10% most affluent

Crofters

Ethnic minorities

With disability or long-term sick

Special interest groups

Other

Carbon capture and storage

Competition for space: Draft Plan Option areas and/or cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas

xx

economic impacts could affect this group more than others

x

x

x

Unlikely to be employed in this industry (but may be for extra income)

x

0

Unlikely to be affected, economic impacts likely to be small

0

None likely to be affected

xx

Local businesses that might otherwise have been involved

Commercial fisheries

Value of potentially lost landing

xx

xx

xx

xx

Where fishing provides additional income

xx

0

Unlikely to be employed in fisheries

xx

Demersal, pelagic sector

x

Shellfish

xx

Vessels <10m

xx

Vessels <15m

Consequential impacts to fish processors

xx

xx

x

x

x

0

x

x

Recreational boating

Increased deterrent to access in sites that are already challenging to navigate

x

x

x

xx

May be more likely to have smaller boats

x

x

xx

Could mean they need to relocate to maintain level of access for recreational boating

xx

Potentially greater impact on less affluent sailors with smaller, less powerful boats without electronic aids. They may be more likely to reduce activity if navigation risks increase

Water sports - Sea Angling

Reduction in expenditure

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

Level of sea angling activity may be lower for sick

xxx

Sea anglers will be most affected

No other specific group identified

Water sports

Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and water sports activity (sea angling)

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

Sea kayakers could have to change routes or look for alternatives

No other specific group identified

Impacts: x x x : significant negative effect; x x : possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected

7.3 Tidal

7.3.1 Quantification of Potentially Significant Impacts

Table 44 presents quantified estimates of impacts (Present Value ( PV) costs and GVA (fisheries)) for activities potentially affected by tidal development within Draft Plan Option areas TN1, TN2, TN3, TN4, TN5, TN6 and TN7. Quantified cost estimates have been developed for angling, commercial fisheries, recreational boating and shipping. Comments are also provided on activities for which quantified cost estimates could not be provided. No significant benefits have been identified for activities. The impacts of each activity highlighted are briefly described below and further the detail can be found in Appendix C.

Table 45. Present value ( PV) costs (and GVA for fisheries) in £millions for Tidal Energy in the North Region (costs discounted over assessment period, 2012 prices, numbers rounded to nearest £0.01m)

Activity Description of Measurement Scenarios
Low Central High
Commercial Fisheries Value of potentially lost landings 0.06 0.13 0.25
Shipping Additional fuel costs - - 9.33
Water Sports -Sea Angling Reduction in expenditure - - 0.35
Total costs 0.06 0.13 9.93

Commercial Fisheries

For the low scenario, the percentage coverage varied between 0.8% for Draft Plan Option areas TN1 and TN4, 1.5% for TN2, 2% for TN3 and TN5, 2.2% for TN7, and 2.5% for TN6. The area to be developed under the central and high scenarios was 2.6% and 5.1% respectively all sites. The total impact on commercial fisheries was £0.06m GVA for the low scenario rising to £0.25m GVA for the high scenario (over the whole assessment period, discounted). These impacts are mainly on shellfisheries (45% of the value of landings affected), on pelagic trawlers targeting mackerel and herring, and on demersal whitefish trawlers. The over-15m sector is most affected, but provisional ScotMap data (see Figure B4.2, Appendix B) show that areas TN1 and TN2 overlap with important fishing grounds for the under-15m sector, and if these areas are taken forward for development, the location of arrays should be planned in close consultation with the fishing industry in order to minimise any potential impacts.

Shipping

The shipping costs have considered the costs to commercial shipping including ferry routes. The assessment has considered the additional fuel costs associated with the route deviation for an average number of shipping movements based on the shipping density within the Draft Plan Option area. There are a number of ferry routes within the Draft Plan Option areas in this region. These include three Orkney ferries in TN1 and two in TN2, Kirkwall to Lerwick in N2 and N4 and Kirkwall to Stronsay in N2, and Toft to Yell in TN6. The cost impacts are restricted to the high scenario due mainly to the footprint of the arrays where these are estimated to be £9.33m PV.

Water Sports - Sea Angling

Under the high scenario, around 1.3% of the area fished by boat based sea anglers within the North Region could be subject to offshore renewables development. The cost impact is based on the estimated potential reduction in expenditure in the Region as a result of loss of access to fishing grounds within tidal energy Draft Plan Option areas within 6nm of the territorial baseline. For the low and central scenarios it has been assumed that spatial planning can be used to locate arrays within the Draft Plan Option areas so as to avoid impacts to angling. For the high scenario, the cost impact is estimated to be £0.35m PV.

7.3.2 Other Costs not Quantified

Carbon Capture and Storage

Tidal energy Draft Plan Option areas TN1 and TN4 overlap or lie inshore of possible future carbon capture and storage sites. However, there are currently no plans for such developments within the region, nor are such developments considered likely within the time scales of the assessment owing to the distance from major carbon emission sources. Should such developments proceed, the relatively small areas that would be occupied by tidal energy developments within the Draft Plan Option areas would not be expected to significantly compromise future CCS development.

Commercial Fisheries

Tidal area TN1 overlaps with the navigation route along the north coast of Scotland, and TN2 overlaps with the navigation route through Westray Firth. TN5 and TN6 also overlap significant navigation routes around Shetland. This is most likely to affect vessels from Scrabster (52 under-15m vessels and 1 over-15m vessel are registered here as their home port) and Kirkwall (63 under-15m vessels and 5 over-15m vessels) ( MMO, 2013). Up to 5.1% of these Draft Plan Option areas would be occupied by arrays under the high scenario; careful consideration of the location of devices may make it possible to avoid the most significant impacts. No significant interactions with cables were identified. It is expected that cables would be laid in consultation with the fishing industry, and a Memorandum of Understanding is being developed between the fishing industry and Subsea Cables UK (see Appendix C4.2.4).

Energy Generation

Energy generation from differing forms of technology will lead to competition for transmission capacity which would affect all Draft Plan Option areas.

Military Interests

There is a potential overlap between all cable routes and military practice and exercise areas. In addition all Draft Plan Option areas have the potential to interfere with underwater communications. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation ( DIO) stated that it was not possible to quantify the economic cost impact that would arise from the loss of military testing facilities, should activity be displaced through wind, wave or tidal arrays. At the time of writing no further information had been received regarding any specific areas of concern in relation to interference with radar or underwater communications.

Oil and Gas

TN1, TN2, TN3 and TN4 Draft Plan Option areas lie inshore the existing hydrocarbon fields. However, no significant interactions are anticipated. Where potential renewable development areas or cable corridors overlap with existing infrastructure, the width of 'corridors' required to enable maintenance activity will need to be determined on a case by case basis. Should offshore wind farm export cables cross over existing oil and gas pipelines or cables, it has been assumed that the costs would be borne by the offshore wind developer. While the oil & gas industry's interests will largely be protected by the relevant cable crossing agreements, it is currently unclear whether all of the industry's liabilities may be covered by such agreements.

Ports and Harbours

The main identified impact to ports and harbours associated with tidal developments within the Draft Plan Option areas relates to increases in marine risk, specifically the temporary collision risk while cable laying or maintenance is being carried out. However the assessment considers that it would be possible to avoid conflict with port access routes and channels through careful planning of cable laying and maintenance activities.

Recreational Boating

The potential impact of future tidal developments within the Draft Plan Option area on investment in recreational boating supply chains has been assessed qualitatively. It is recognised that development in areas which are already challenging to navigate may deter sailors and reduce expenditure in the Region. The risk can be mitigated to some extent through passage planning and awareness, plus the update and circulation of up to date navigational information via charting publications.

Water Sports

Sea kayaking occurs within all Draft Plan Option areas while scuba diving also overlaps with the TN3 Draft Plan Option area. None of the Draft Plan Option areas are considered to be in the top ten sites for sea kayaking and as they are highly manoeuvrable therefore wave devices are unlikely to physically displace this activity. Based on these factors it is unlikely that sea kayakers will be displaced due to overlap with a Draft Plan Option area and so economic and social impacts are expected to negligible. Most of the diving activities are associated with areas of interest and in particular wrecks and where these are known it is highly unlikely that arrays will be placed on or in proximity to wrecks due to potential turbine damage or boat navigation risk. Most of the impacts will result during the construction of the cable routing and will be short lived, any changes in climate regime will also impact on the suitability of these areas to sea kayaking and surfing however any changes are considered to be insignificant and therefore costs associated with the impacts of tidal energy are negligible.

Windsurfing and surfing are also undertaken within the potential cable route areas between all Draft Plan Option areas and landfall except for TN6 and TN7. Most of the diving activities are associated with areas of interest and in particular wrecks and where these are known it is highly unlikely that arrays will be placed on or in proximity to wrecks due to potential turbine damage or boat navigation risk. Therefore costs associated with the impacts of offshore wind are negligible. Access restrictions to surfing and wind surfing sites may occur during the construction phase and careful siting of these routes to avoid changes in the shoreline and to the location of the arrays to prevent significant changes to the local wave climate however the economic and social cost these restrictions or changes in wave quality due to cables is negligible.

Social Impacts

Each of the above effects could have social impacts. Table 46 identifies the areas of social impact that could be affected, with main impacts likely to be on employment (as a result of the impact of increased costs or reductions in turnover) and the environment (mainly due to increased emissions or changes in environmental quality). There may also be impacts on education (specifically research and development) if opportunities for carbon, capture and storage are minimised (although it is likely that investment would move elsewhere if competition for space was a deciding factor). In most cases, it has not been possible to quantify the impacts, although employment impacts for fisheries are estimated (based on use of multipliers, which are uncertain, see also Section 2.5). Other impacts, such as on access to services, health, and culture and heritage could largely be mitigated, although there may be some noticeable impacts, such as on sea anglers, sea kayakers and recreational boaters.

Those impacts identified as being slightly significant or greater are carried forwards for assessment in the distributional analysis. Five different aspects are assessed:

  • location;
  • age;
  • gender;
  • income; and
  • social group (covering minorities and special interest groups).

Tables 47 and 48 summarise the results of the distributional analysis, showing where impacts are likely to be greater for a particular social group, equal, or lower than the overall impact. For example, impacts on sea anglers could fall disproportionately onto males (although this will depend on the local make-up of sea anglers). For carbon capture and storage, there could be larger effects for local businesses and people of working age if investment were to go elsewhere due to competition for space. However, these are likely to be similar businesses and employees involved in renewable energy, so the impacts may be negligible. For most groups, though, the impacts are likely to be minimal.

Table 46. Identification of the social impacts and their significance

Tidal (North)

Sector

Direct effects

Area of social impact affected

Costs ( PV £ million or GVA for fisheries)

Mitigation

Significance of social impact

Access

Experience

Carbon capture and storage

Draft Plan Option areas overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas: competition for space

Cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas: competition for space

Education (reduced opportunity for research and development of technology)

Employment (reduced opportunity for future development)

Environment (reduced opportunity for carbon storage)

Impacts not quantified

Spatial planning should avoid any impacts under low scenario. May be significant costs for pipeline routing, which could minimise the attractiveness of the area for investment

x

(where investment is reduced)

x

(where investment is reduced)

Commercial fisheries

Value of potentially lost landings

Employment (reduced turnover)

Culture and heritage (impact on traditions)

Health (increased risks due to moving to lesser known areas)

Low: £0.06

Central: £0.13

High: £0.25

xx

Impacts on jobs not quantified as regional effects do not exceed 5% threshold

x

Obstruction of navigation routes

Employment (increased costs)

Environment (increased emissions)

Impacts not quantified

Impacts should be minimised through careful location of devices

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Fouling of fishing gear on cables or seabed infrastructure

Employment (increased costs to replace gear)

Environment (impacts of fouled gear)

Impacts not quantified

Expected that cables would be laid in consultation with the fishing industry

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Consequential impacts to fish processors

Employment (reduced turnover)

Culture and heritage (loss of connection of places with sea and history of area)

Impacts not quantified

x

0

Energy generation

Competition for transmission capacity

Employment (reduced opportunity for future development)

Environment (reduced opportunity for use of renewable energy)

Impacts not quantified

Potential to collaborate rather than compete for grid connection, minimising impacts

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Oil and gas

Increased competition for space

Employment (increased costs leading to reduced investment)

Impacts not quantified

Potential overlaps need to be taken into account on case-by-case basis

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Ports and harbours

Obstruction of maintained navigation channel(s)

Access to services (if number of ferry services were to be reduced or routes were changed)

Employment (reduction in jobs associated with ports)

Impacts not quantified

Devices should seek to avoid navigation channels through spatial planning

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Reduced development opportunities

Access to services (if number of ferry services were to be reduced or routes were changed)

Employment (reduction in jobs associated with ports due to loss of investment)

Impacts not quantified

Devices should seek to minimise impacts on ferries through spatial planning

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Spatial overlap between cable routes and maintained navigation channels: competition for space

Employment (reduced turnover)

Impacts not quantified

Cables routes will need to be located to avoid navigation routes

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Recreational boating

Additional fuel costs

Health (reduction in recreational opportunities)

Employment (impacts on boating services if boat owners choose to relocate their boating activities to elsewhere)

Impacts not quantified

Passage planning and awareness, plus the update and circulation of up to date navigational information via charting publications

x

x

Increased deterrent to access in sites that are already challenging to navigate

Access to recreational opportunities

x

x

Shipping

Additional fuel costs

Access to services (increased costs passed onto users, especially ferries)

Environment (increased emissions)

Low: none

Central: none

High: £9.30

Arrays should seek to be sited to avoid hindering ferry services

Additional emissions unlikely to be significant in terms of climate change, and will be offshore so should not affect air quality

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Reduced turnaround times due to increased steaming times for vessel routes

Access to services (if number of ferry services were to be reduced)

Employment (reduction in jobs associated with ferries)

Impacts not quantified

Arrays should seek to be sited to avoid hindering ferry services

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Water sports - Sea Angling

Reduction in expenditure

Health (reduction in recreational opportunities)

Employment (impacts on services if anglers choose to relocate their sports activities to elsewhere due to loss of fishing grounds)

Low: none

Central: none

High: £0.35

xx

x

Water sports

Impacts to seascape / setting (sea kayaking)

Culture and heritage (may affect cultural interpretation of coastline and seascapes)

Employment (negative impacts on numbers of tourists affecting income of tourism businesses)

Health (impacts may affect recreational trips taken by locals, affecting their health)

Impacts not quantified

Care needed when siting arrays to minimise impacts on wave climate and avoid changes in the coastline. The only impacts may be during construction and are likely to be minimal over that period

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and water sport activity (sea kayaking)

Health (reduction in recreational opportunities)

Employment (impacts on services if boat owners choose to relocate their water sports activities to elsewhere)

Impacts not quantified

x

x

Spatial overlap between cable routes and water sports activity (surfing and windsurfing, scuba diving)

Health (reduction in recreational opportunities)

Employment (impacts on services if boat owners choose to relocate their water sports activities to elsewhere)

Impacts not quantified

Unlikely that arrays will be placed close to dive sites, such that impacts should be minimised. Care needed when siting arrays to minimise impacts on wave climate and avoid changes in the coastline. The only impacts may be during construction and are likely to be minimal over that period

Potentially 0

Potentially 0

Notes: The likely areas of social impact are based on the key areas identified by the GES/ GSR Social Impacts Taskforce

Definition of ratings: x x x : significant negative effect; x x : possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected x x x : significant negative effect

Table 47. Distributional analysis (location, age and gender)

Sector

Impact

Location

Age

Gender

Urban

Rural

Settlement

Children

Working age

Pension able age

Male

Female

Carbon capture and storage

Competition for space: Draft Plan Option areas and/or cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas

0

x

Could have impact on rural economy if investment goes elsewhere

0

Unlikely to affect specific locations

0

x

Could have impact on employment opportunities if investment goes elsewhere

0

x

x

Commercial fisheries

Additional fuel costs

0

xx

xx

Orkney, Scrabster, Shetland

x

xx

x

xx

Fishermen more likely to be male

x

Consequential impacts to fish processors

x

x

x

Orkney, Scrabster, Shetland

x

x

x

x

xx

Processors more likely to be female

Recreational boating

Alterations to informal cruising routes

0

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Increased deterrent to access in sites that are already challenging to navigate

0

x

xx

Pierowall and Kirkwall, plus pontoons could be affected

0

x

x

x

x

Water sports - Sea Angling

Reduction in expenditure

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

(may be more likely to be involved in sea angling)

x

Water sports

Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and water sport activity (sea kayaking)

0

x

No specific settlements affected

x

x

x

x

x

Impacts: x x x : significant negative effect; x x : possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected

Table 48. Distributional analysis (income and social groups)

Sector

Impact

Income

Social groups

10% most deprived

Middle 80%

10% most affluent

Crofters

Ethnic minorities

With disability or long-term sick

Special interest groups

Other

Carbon capture and storage

Competition for space: Draft Plan Option areas and/or cable corridors overlap or lie inshore of potential storage areas

xx

economic impacts could affect this group more than others

x

x

x

Unlikely to be employed in this industry (but may be for extra income)

x

0

Unlikely to be affected, economic impacts likely to be small

0

None likely to be affected

xx

Local businesses that might otherwise have been involved

Commercial fisheries

Additional fuel costs

xx

xx

xx

xx

Where fishing provides additional income

xx

0

Unlikely to be employed in fisheries

xx

Shellfish

x

Demersal, pelagic sectors

xx

Vessels <15m

x

Vessels >15m

Consequential impacts to fish processors

xx

xx

x

x

x

0

x

x

Recreational boating

Alterations to informal cruising routes

0

Unlikely to own boat

x

x

x

x

x

xx

Boat users

No other specific group identified

Increased deterrent to access in sites that are already challenging to navigate

x

x

x

xx

May be more likely to have smaller boats

x

x

xx

Could mean they need to relocate to maintain level of access for recreational boating

xx

Potentially greater impact on less affluent sailors with smaller, less powerful boats without electronic aids. They may be more likely to reduce activity if navigation risks increase

Water sports - Sea Angling

Reduction in expenditure

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

Level of sea angling activity may be lower for sick

xxx

No other specific group identified

Water sports

Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and water sport activity (sea kayaking)

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

Sea kayakers could have to change routes or look for alternatives

No other specific group identified

Impacts: x x x : significant negative effect; x x : possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected


Contact