Marine Just Transition - UK and international comparator countries: literature review

Final summary

These related literature reviews have presented a wealth of evidence from the UK and international comparator countries on a just transition for marine sectors and coastal communities. Although the UK based review has provided a broad focus on impacts and measures to support a marine just transition for Scottish coastal communities and marine sectors, the international review provided a depth of understanding regarding policies on marine renewable energy and fisheries in international countries which could provide further learning for Scotland.

Some key learnings have emerged from both reports:

• The concept of a marine just transition is relatively new and therefore there is limited focus on it in the existing academic and policy literature in the UK and internationally. However, it is likely to be of a growing focus as we move towards biodiversity and climate change goals and have to navigate how we reach these in a just way.
• There are significant evidence gaps in relation to a marine just transition in the UK and internationally. Some areas of interest that are likely to be affected as we move towards climate and biodiversity goals have had very limited research on their impacts on people (e.g. aquaculture/ marine tourism/ wave and tidal energy) or on measures which could mitigate these impacts. Both in the UK and internationally, there is a very limited amount of literature that evaluates policy practices.
• Marine sectors are deeply entwined, and as we move towards climate and biodiversity goals competition for marine space and increased use of the seas is likely to lead to greater entanglement. These sectors therefore need to be approached together in order to provide realistic and useful solutions for addressing any challenges that arise. Impacts or measures on one industry will likely affect another.
• Both reviews have found consensus on a range of policy measures which could help to enable a marine just transition. These include wealth building of local communities (community benefits, community ownership and fisheries compensation), co-location, and improved participation and communication. Although some of these topics have been explored further internationally than in the UK (e.g. community ownership and co-location), these reviews have highlighted that there are evidence gaps surrounding these potential measures and their impacts.
• Findings related to each of these potential policy measures are highlighted in turn:
  • Wealth building – providing opportunities for coastal communities to build their wealth (skills/ resources) could increase their resilience as changes affect them. Upskilling and supporting diversification of local communities could lead to greater resilience and adaptation. A range of community benefit schemes have been implemented in the UK and internationally. Fisheries compensation schemes have also been implemented. UK schemes may require greater guidance to ensure these lead to fair outcomes for coastal communities and marine sectors. Some academics within the international review suggest that a voluntary approach to community benefits is appropriate within the UK. Community ownership of offshore renewables has not been explored in the UK but international examples (e.g. in Denmark and Germany) could provide models for future UK actions.
  • Co-location – the UK literature highlights that co-location could enable multiple industries to co-exist in areas of the sea, helping to address concerns regarding competition for marine space, however there are considerable barriers stopping this from occurring (liability, insurance, and safety concerns). The government could support research into addressing these concerns, could make exploring co-location a requirement of licensing for offshore developments, and good practice guidance could be created to help inform developers. Co-location is required to be considered in the EU but firmer spatial restrictions regarding fishing in offshore windfarms prohibit co-location from occurring between fishers and offshore wind developments in most comparator countries.
  • Improved participation and communication – the UK review has highlighted that improved engagement and participation opportunities could improve the capacity and participation of a range of stakeholders in marine management, potentially leading to greater buy-in and trust in policy decisions. Co-management could provide benefits to marine governance, enabling fishers and other community members to participate in decisions that affect them. Sweden provides useful examples of a bottom-up approach to stakeholder participation, with communities of practice and fisheries local action groups providing additional insight to participation.