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

383 page PDF

4.7 MB

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

8.1 Offshore Wind

8.1.1 Quantification of Potentially Significant Impacts

Table 48 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 OWNE1 and OWNE2. Quantified cost estimates have been developed for carbon capture and storage, 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 49. Present value ( PV) costs (and GVA for fisheries) in £millions for Offshore Wind in the North East Region (costs discounted over assessment period, 2012 prices, numbers rounded to nearest £0.01m)

Activity Description of Measurement Scenarios
Low Central High
Carbon Capture and Storage Additional costs of constructing cable crossings 1.85 4.32 9.27
Commercial Fisheries Value of potentially lost landings 0.18 0.43 0.92
Recreational boating Additional fuel costs - 0.66 0.81
Shipping Additional fuel costs - 48.57 98.61
Total costs 2.03 53.98 109.61

Carbon Capture & Storage

Draft Plan Option areas OWNE1 and OWNE2 lie inshore of possible CCS storage sites and should not interact with potential future storage areas. However, the offshore wind farm export cable corridors have the potential to overlap with possible future CCS pipeline routes. This may give rise to additional costs to the CCS sector to construct cable crossings where CCS pipelines traverse offshore wind farm export cables. The costs associated with these cable crossings are estimated to range between £1.85m ( PV) for the low scenario to £9.27m ( PV) for the high scenario reflecting the increased number of cable crossing associated with higher installed capacities within the Draft Plan Option areas.

Commercial Fisheries

For OWNE1 and OWNE2 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 East Region was £0.18m GVA for the low scenario, rising to £0.43m GVA for the central scenario and £0.92m GVA for the high scenario (over the whole assessment period, discounted. These impacts arise predominantly from OWNE2 and mainly accrue to the over-15m sector, and mainly to dredgers, potters, demersal whitefish trawlers and Nephrops trawlers. Provisional ScotMap data indicate that the under-15m sector activity is mainly concentrated closer to the coast than the Draft Plan Option areas, and is therefore unlikely to be affected.

Recreational Boating

The potential overlap of recreational boating within the OWNE1 Draft Plan Option area within the North East SORER will occur in the central and high scenarios where medium cruising routes will be impacted. The presence of offshore wind arrays in all Draft Plan Option areas have the have the potential to deter investment in the region resulting from changing attitudes to navigating in areas with increased hazards i.e. resulting in changes in starting and end points to cruises. The largest costs are associated with the need for craft to deviate and due to the high usage in this area these costs will range from £0.66m PV for the central scenario and £0.81m PV for the high scenario. The relative risk of development sites on recreational boating has been assessed qualitatively, and has concluded that increased risks are apparent, especially for development sites located in sea areas which are already challenging to navigate. This increased risk is mitigated through passage planning and awareness, plus the update and circulation of up to date navigational information via charting publications. An additional qualitative assessment was also carried out to identify the Draft Plan Option area for each technology which could influence marina access and the potential for lost revenue through dissuasion of attempting certain passages or holiday routes. This concluded that potential for lost revenue existed from the OWNE1 and OWNE2.

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 the OWNE2 Draft Plan Option area in this region, namely Aberdeen to Kirkwall and Aberdeen to Lerwick. These together with the high density of shipping generally in this region give rise to high cost impacts under the central and high scenarios of £48.57m PV and £96.61m PV respectively.

8.1.2 Other Costs not Quantified

Aviation

There is the potential for overlaps between the siting for offshore wind turbines and helicopter routes for the OWNE2 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.

The OWNE1 and OWNE2 Draft Plan Option areas are within the line of sight of at least one of the primary surveillance radar used or operated by NATS, and in addition these sites fall within 15nm of the safeguarding zone around the secondary surveillance radar around the nearest airport. OWNE1 also 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.

Commercial Fisheries

Wind area OWNE1 is predominantly outside of the major fishing navigation routes, being located slightly further south, however, wind area OWNE2 is located in the area of the highest concentration of 'steaming' pings and major navigation routes. The development of wind arrays in this area would have a significant impact on navigation routes for fishing vessels, and cause a significant number of vessels and of individual fishing trips to have to deviate around any arrays located here. This implies a cost to the fishing industry in terms of increased steaming time and 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 Fraserburgh (52 under-15m vessels and 72 over-15m vessels are registered here as their home port) and Peterhead (42 under-15m vessels and 47 over-15m vessels), two of the most important ports for the Scottish fishing fleet ( 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 potential for OWNE1 and OWNE2 to compete for transmission capacity.

Military Interests

There is a potential overlap between OWNE2 Draft Plan Option area and all cable routes with military practice and exercise areas within the North East Region. 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

No significant interactions between offshore wind 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 & 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.

Power Interconnectors

The assessment indicates that all current planned/proposed power interconnectors, except the UK-Norway NorthConnect, are likely to be consented prior to the leasing of the OWNE1 and OWNE2 Draft Plan Option areas or cable corridors and hence no interactions with this sector are anticipated for future interconnectors. Although the NorthConnect interconnector route has not been finalised it is believed unlikely to intersect (and therefore need to deviate around) either OWNE1 or OWNE2 indicating that it is unlikely that there will be a significant cost impact to this sector. Should offshore wind farm export cables cross over existing power interconnector cables, it has been assumed that the costs would be borne by the offshore wind developer. While the power interconnector asset owner/operator 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.

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

Water sport activities of scuba diving, windsurfing and surfing in the North East Region, are carried out mainly within the potential cable route areas between OWNE1 and OWNE2 Draft Plan Option areas and landfall. Most of the diving activities are associated with areas of interest and in particular wrecks in OWNE2 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 assessed as negligible. Access restrictions to surfing and wind surfing sites may occur during the construction phase and careful siting of these routes is necessary to avoid changes in the shoreline. Careful siting of the location of arrays is also needed to prevent significant changes to the local wave climate. However, the impact of these restrictions or changes in wave quality due to cables is assessed as negligible.

While recreational angling is an important activity within the North East Region, no significant cost impacts have been identified. It is recognised that there is some uncertainty surrounding the potential environmental impacts of offshore renewables development on fish populations, but it is considered that sufficient management mechanisms are in place to limit such impacts and therefore that no significant socio-economic impacts to recreational angling interests should occur. Therefore the cost to water sports activities associated with offshore wind developments within the Draft Plan Option areas is assessed as negligible.

Social Impacts

Each of the above effects could have social impacts. Table 50 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 carbon capture and storage (mainly due to additional costs of rerouting pipelines, such that the social impacts might be minimal) 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 51 and 52 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 recreational boating could affect marinas near to cable routes. 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 50. Identification of the social impacts and their significance

Offshore Wind (North East)

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

Additional costs of constructing cable crossings

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)

Low: £1.85

Central: £4.32

High: £9.27

Spatial planning should avoid any impacts under low scenario. May be significant costs for pipeline routing (especially in OWNE2), 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: £0.18

Central: £0.43

High: £0.92

xx

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

High: 1.4 to 1.5 jobs affected

x

Obstruction of navigation routes

Employment (increased costs)

Environment (increased emissions)

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)

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

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

Power interconnectors

Draft Plan Option areas and/or cable routes intersect proposed interconnectors

Employment (increased costs and/or delays result in reduced investment)

Impacts not quantified

Planned/proposed interconnectors are likely to be consented prior to leasing Draft Plan Option areas, hence interactions can be avoided

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)

Low: none

Central: £0.66

High: £0.81

x

x

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: £48.57

High: £98.61

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)

Impacts not quantified

xx

x

Water sports

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, 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. 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 51. 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

xx

Aberdeen, Buckie, Fraserburgh,

Peterhead

x

xx

x

xx

Fishermen more likely to be male

x

Obstruction of navigation routes

0

xx

xxx

OWNE2 (Fraserburgh and Peterhead)

x

xxx

x

xxx

Fishermen more likely to be male

x

Consequential impacts to fish processors

x

xx

xx

Aberdeen, Buckie, Fraserburgh,

Peterhead

x

xx

x

x

xx

Processors more likely to be female

Recreational boating

Additional fuel costs

0

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

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

0

x

xx

Peterhead, Banff and Whitehills marinas could be affected

0

x

x

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

0

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

Table 52. 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

0

Not relevant in NE

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

xx

xx

xx

0

Not relevant in NE

xx

0

Unlikely to be employed in fisheries

xx

Dredgers, potters

x

Demersal, pelagic sectors, Nephrops

xx

Vessels >15m

xx

Vessels <10m

x

Vessels <15m

Obstruction of navigation routes

xxx

xxx

xxx

0

Not relevant in NE

xxx

0

Unlikely to be employed in fisheries

xxx

Dredgers, potters

xxx

Demersal, pelagic sectors, Nephrops

xxx

Vessels >15m

xxx

Vessels <10m

xxx

Vessels <15m

Consequential impacts to fish processors

xx

xx

x

0

Not relevant in NE

x

0

x

x

Recreational boating

Additional fuel costs

0

Unlikely to own boat

x

x

0

Not relevant in NE

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

0

Not relevant in NE

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

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


Contact