Offshore windfarms - monitoring impacts on the commercial fishing industry: good practice guidance

Appendix C Stakeholder Consultation

Stakeholder consultation events were held throughout April and July 2024 with members representing the fishing industry, offshore windfarm developers, and Scottish Government in four separate focus group meetings. Across all four focus groups, 18 people were consulted during the first stakeholder sessions in April and 13 in July during the second stakeholder engagement process. Due to project restraints, it was decided to consult commercial fisheries representatives rather than individual fishers. A set of five pre-defined question sets were disseminated before the meetings in each round of stakeholder engagement, to be discussed during the focus group meetings. The questions, pertaining to commercial fisheries monitoring (including practices and socio-economic considerations), OWFs and the Guidance itself, allowed for the collation of a diverse range of industry perspectives to help build and refine the Guidance. The second round of consultation allowed the stakeholder groups to discuss any queries and suggest information to be added after reviewing the initial draft guidance. The responses to the pre-defined question sets, as well as any general points raised were captured during the meetings for consideration within this Guidance. The specific questions asked can be found in Table 7‑8 below.

Table 7‑8 The individual questions discussed during the April focus group meetings.

Question Set 1: Current Situation

• How are potential impacts on fishers as a result of offshore wind currently monitored in Scotland, including socio-economic impacts?
• Does this process work well or are there any challenges/barriers to assessing impact on fishers?
• In your opinion, what should be monitored to assess potential impacts on commercial fishing industry?

Key points raised by focus groups

• Larger vessels (over 12 m) are currently monitored through spatial datasets (VMS, AIS). There is a lack of data for smaller vessels.
• Current ping frequency for VMS (every two hours) may not be detailed enough.
• Current data collection is localised and limited. The right level of monitoring (community, regional, national) should be considered.
• There is currently often no representation at local community level.
• The fishing industry has stakeholder fatigue.
• Fishing representatives can assist in finding the right individuals to help developers with their queries.
• Cumulative impacts, displacement of target species around structures and socio-economic impacts should be monitored.
• There is a need for a framework and streamlined way to disseminate information between different developers and the fishing industry.

Question Set 2: Monitoring Commercial Fisheries

• What kind of data do we need to look at to assess potential impacts on fishers?
• What data sets are you aware of and what is missing (e.g., do we need primary social research with fishers)?
• How should monitoring guidance account for the dynamic nature of fishing industry, e.g., nomadic vessels?
• In your opinion, what should be used as the commercial fisheries baseline for monitoring purposes?

Key points raised by focus groups

• At least five years’ worth of data should be used for the baseline.
• The baseline could coincide with the EIA baseline.
• Seasonality of the fishing industry should be considered.
• Datasets to consider for monitoring would be spatial datasets (VMS, AIS, iVMS) as well as direct engagement with fishers, scouting and guard vessel information, data collected from local representatives, MD surveys, ICES stock assessments.
• Socio-economic datasets to consider would include data via processors, number of active fishing vessels, number of local businesses, population statistics, labour data.
• Monitoring should be similar for all vessels, regardless of size (where possible).
• Monitoring findings should be quantified against natural stock changes, market demand and processing facilities.

Question Set 3: Offshore Wind Considerations

• In your opinion, should monitoring be equal throughout all development stages?
• Will there be differences between monitoring requirements between inshore (e.g., cable) and offshore (e.g., turbines) elements in your opinion?
• Should there be different monitoring requirements for fixed and floating wind farms in your opinion?
• What scale should be monitored in your opinion (project specific, regional, national, or strategic)?
• How can any potential impacts be attributed to offshore wind farms or other activities in your opinion?
• Should a baseline be created for each windfarm project (or assessed cumulatively) and how often it should be reviewed?

Key points raised by focus groups

• Monitoring should be consistent and constant to ensure nuances can be picked up.
• The baseline and monitoring should be project specific, however, regional data sharing should be considered to monitor displacement and cumulative impacts.
• Monitoring should occur throughout the whole project area, including cable corridor.
• Monitoring should be equal throughout the project stages.
• Monitoring should be equal for fixed and floating windfarms.

Question Set 4: Practical Considerations

• How frequently does the monitoring need to be re-assessed in your opinion? And the baseline?

Key points raised by focus groups

• The baseline should not be changed once it’s written. Additional data can be incorporated through addendums.
• The monitoring should be assessed and benchmarked every five years to ensure monitoring remains fit for purpose.
• Any large technological changes should be considered within the monitoring.

Question Set 5: Guidance

• In your opinion, how should the Guidance be developed to be user friendly?
• What would best practice for monitoring look like in your opinion?
• How often should the Guidance be re-assessed?

Key points raised by focus groups

• It should be clear when the guidance should be used, and by whom.
• The guidance should be assessed every five years.
• The guidance should be short, clear and concise to ensure user friendliness.
• The guidance should be made as short as possible whilst promoting best practice to promote easy access and user-friendliness in the document.

Final Question

• Is there anything that has not been considered during the previous questions that should be?

Key points raised by focus groups

• There should be connections with other monitoring systems, especially fish and ecosystems.
• Fishers need to get involved within the monitoring practices.

Table 7‑9 The individual questions discussed during the July focus group meetings.

Question 1: Additional Datasets

• Do you agree that these datasets are classed as additional (i.e., above and beyond the recommended datasets)?
• Do you think these datasets are worth pursuing?
• Are there any additional datasets that we’ve missed?

• Disagreement over datasets classed as additional – all datasets should be standard;
• Recommended not to use questionnaires as very few members of the fishing industry respond to them;
• Some data sources, such as aerial surveys or AIS/CCTV should only be used additionally to other datasets as they give an incomplete overview of the fishing industry;
• Caveat for monitoring harbour space as data may not be available;
• Changes in Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and/or fisheries regulations should be considered alongside the findings of the other datasets as these changes may change behaviour of fishers;
• Consider incorporation of vessel passage plans.

Question 2: Key Guiding Principles

• Do you agree with the best practice guidance principles listed?

• Broad agreement on the best practice guidance principles;
• Cumulative impacts need to be captured within guidance principles;
• Assuming stakeholder engagement will occur every five years due to potential resourcing concerns;
• Representatives can assist finding the correct individuals and meetings can be opened up to a wider community. Acknowledgement that stakeholder engagement will not be able to capture absolutely everyone; and
• Guidance should be applicable for all OWFs, regardless of the concluded significance. It should be noted that this is guidance and can therefore not be enforced.

Question 3: Monitoring Outputs

• Do you agree with the recommended outputs?
  • It is recommended that the findings of the monitoring would be summarised and published as PDF or Word reports. It is suggested that the reports would cover the following:
  • Purpose and aims of monitoring;
  • Relevant consent conditions;
  • Summary of key fisheries (as detailed in the EIAR, updated as required);
  • Relevant Project information for the monitoring period (e.g. construction methodology);
  • Fishing activity baseline over the monitoring period;
  • Socio-economic baseline over the monitoring period;
  • Discussion on any changes in fishing activity or socio-economic indicators during the monitoring period, as well as any long-term trends identified over the project lifecycle;
  • The findings from the monitoring should be updated and provided to MD-LOT at agreed intervals;
  • Monitoring reports published annually during pre-construction (after licence award) and construction and every five years during operation, maintenance and decommissioning; and
  • Data sharing in a national centralised database that is user friendly and accessible.

• Climate change should be mentioned within the guidance as this may change the behaviour of target species and/or fishers;
• The Section on publication of results should be expanded;
• Noted that commercially sensitive data such as plotter data should not be shared widely.

Question 4: Attribution of Data

Do you agree with the following statements?:

• There may be some level of attribution of impacts to OWFs:
  • e.g., through collecting primary data directly from fishers who explicitly attribute OWFs to their change in practices.
  • Or by comparing commercial fishing patterns and landings from a wider study area against the local area around the OWF.
• It is noted that it is difficult to attribute changes in commercial fishing patterns on a large scale to OWFs.

Key points raised by focus groups

• It may be easier to attribute changes in fishing patterns to floating OWF as it is expected that fishing will not be possible within a floating OWF. Attribution to fixed turbines may be more difficult as some fishing can return to fixed OWFs;
• However, this section should be updated as it will be possible to attribute some changes to OWF.

Question 5: Readability

Questions raised in this set:

• Is the current length of the Guidance manageable?
• Do you agree with the current guidance structure?
• Should we have two documents where the guidance is separate from all appendices?
• Is everything that is necessary for the guidance covered within the document?

Key points raised by focus groups

• Recommended adding an executive summary; and
• Two documents would be useful: one with the guidance and one with all the additional documents as appendices.

AOB

• Ensure that socio-economic indicators that are listed include how they can be obtained.