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

3 Good Practice Guidance

3.1 Guiding Principles

Good practice should be followed when conducting monitoring. Based on the results of the Literature Review, Dataset Analysis Report, and stakeholder engagement, the guiding principles that should be considered for monitoring are described in Table 3‑1.

Table 3‑1 Good practice key guiding principles

Purpose and objectives

• Monitor all different types of fishing activity identified within the EIA baseline (or during subsequent monitoring), regardless of size or target species;
• The purpose and objectives of monitoring should be clearly outlined in monitoring proposals at the application stage (or whenever monitoring commences for post-consent projects) and should be proportionate and specific to the predicted effects of the proposal; and
• Objectives should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (SMART).

Monitoring frequency

• Monitoring should be ongoing throughout the Project lifetime; the data utilised for monitoring should cover a constant timeframe;
• Monitoring of the datasets will be dependent on the frequency of publication, e.g., yearly for Vessel Monitoring System (VMS); and
• Data obtained through stakeholder engagement should be gathered before construction, and every two to three years post-construction, unless in the case of concern raised and instructed to do so by the Scottish Government.

Data analysis

• Analysis should aim to identify variations and trends across the various phases of a project (pre-construction, construction, operation and maintenance, decommissioning);
• Trends within a monitoring period should be identified and placed in the context of any previous trends and variations to take a holistic approach to improving the understanding of project impacts on the commercial fishing industry;
• The analysis should specifically address the monitoring objectives, whether this be to help predict impacts on fisheries, validate predicted impacts or to understand the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
• The available data should be analysed to observe patterns over temporal and spatial scales (i.e. within their appropriate study areas);
• Potential influences on catch, such as changes in quota or Total Allowable Catch (TAC) should be considered; and
• Any patterns or changes in activity should be rigorously analysed and justified by the developer in order to attribute the potential effects (e.g., singular or cumulative effects of a windfarm(s) leading to displacement).

Monitoring approach

• There should be an assessment and benchmarking of the monitoring every two years. This benchmarking should be led by the developer and through engagement with relevant stakeholders to ensure consistent approach across the industry; and
• The monitoring approach should be adaptive and reassessed at different stages of the project to ensure monitoring remains effective. Effective monitoring should aim, where practicable, for the identification and understanding of changes in fishing activity and socio-economic impacts. Furthermore, effective monitoring should achieve set objectives, such as to validate predicted impacts, understand the effectiveness of mitigation measures, or identify unforeseen impacts.

Scale

• Monitoring should be conducted on a project specific basis and should consider both the offshore (beyond 12 Nautical Miles (NM)) and inshore (out to 12 NM) aspects of the project (i.e., the Array Area and export cable routes);
• Monitoring should be conducted across the study area considered within the EIA, recommended as ICES rectangles overlapping or adjacent to the development. The study area for the socio-economic impacts will be different as outlined in Section 2.2;
• Cumulative impacts should be monitored, preferably through data sharing with other developers regionally; and
• Data should be shared nationally to ensure all developers can learn from the monitoring findings.

Consistency

• Monitoring is conducted at all project stages for both inshore (out to 12 NM and offshore project (beyond 12 NM) locations and include all infrastructure and activities associated with the project; and
• Congruently, monitoring fixed and floating OWFs should be conducted similarly.

Data attribution

• Any potential impacts by large events should be noted during publication of the monitoring results, such as events like Covid, Brexit, relocation of gear during construction, and cumulative impacts.

Stakeholder engagement

• To avoid fatigue among stakeholders with regard to engagement, collaboration between developers should be undertaken to streamline stakeholder engagement that is required;
• With regards to fisheries stakeholders, initiate contact through local representatives, such as associations, federations, or government-led fisheries groups (such as the Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs)) to ensure the correct audience can be targeted directly^[8]; and
• Targeted stakeholder engagement via meetings and surveys is generally preferred over mass questionnaires.

3.2 Step-by-Step Guidance

The following sections outline the key steps to be undertaken when planning and undertaking commercial fisheries monitoring which are shown in Figure 3‑1. These steps align with the guiding principles provided in Section 3.1.

• Steps 1 to 5 make up the ‘planning’ stage to formulate the monitoring plan and methodology and should first be considered when developing any outline monitoring proposals pre-consent, such as, within monitoring proposals set out within the EIAR or associated documentation (i.e., relevant fisheries monitoring plans). Any monitoring proposals at the pre-consent stage should then be further developed during subsequent stages of the project, through engagement with relevant stakeholders;
• Steps 6 and 7 represent the ‘monitoring’ stage and mainly pertain to data collection, analysis and reporting, and should be undertaken once the monitoring plan is finalised;
• Step 8 relates to ‘benchmarking’, which should be undertaken at agreed intervals once monitoring is underway to ensure the monitoring approach remains up to date (see Section 3.1); and
• Step 9 relates to ‘evaluation’ which should be undertaken at the same time as benchmarking to ensure the monitoring approach remains effective and to provide a holistic assessment of the fisheries and socio-economic impacts of the proposal based on the monitoring results and in the context of the monitoring objectives and purpose.

The steps outlined in this guidance should been seen as iterative. Each step will inform another, information will be built up over time, and some steps may be repeated or done in a different order. The inputs and outputs of each step should be continuously reviewed throughout the monitoring process.

3.3 Step 1: Define Monitoring Purpose and Set Objectives

The monitoring purpose and objectives should first be outlined at the pre-consent stage within relevant EIAR chapters, or in a relevant standalone document that supports a relevant application. When setting the monitoring purpose and objectives, fisheries-specific sensitivities, predicted impacts, project design and scale, as well as proposed mitigation measures, should be taken into account.

The specific objectives of monitoring may differ per proposal. However, in general, monitoring should identify and understand changes in fishing activity (e.g., catch and effort) that may be associated with the OWF, as well as the fisheries’ socio-economic impacts. Monitoring objectives can be broad ranging and may relate to understanding or validating project-specific impacts (i.e., validating EIA predictions), closing research gaps, identifying unforeseen impacts or understanding the effectiveness of mitigation. In all cases monitoring objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.

Relevant requirements such as marine licence conditions may stipulate that commercial fisheries monitoring is required. If so, the monitoring purpose, objectives and methodology should be refined in accordance with the relevant requirements and thorough engagement with the relevant regulatory authority and appropriate stakeholders.

Although the focus of the Guidance is on interactions with OWFs, monitoring can be undertaken in a variety of situations e.g., monitoring fishing activity in other marine spatial planning scenarios such as MPAs. The steps outlined below are also considered appropriate for these purposes and are beneficial for fishers, developers, regulators/policy teams and researchers.

3.4 Step 2: Determine the Study Area and Develop the Baseline

Monitoring should be conducted across the commercial fisheries study area considered within the EIA, recommended as ICES rectangles overlapping or adjacent to the development. The area should cover all aspects of the project including the generating station array area and export cable route(s).

The ICES rectangles overlapping the relevant area should be considered the ‘Local Study Area’, whereas those adjacent to the relevant area and those that fishing effort may be relocated to, should be considered the ‘Regional Study Area’. This will allow for a comparison of trends between the Local and Regional Study Areas to help understand the drivers of any change.

The study area for fisheries’ socio-economic impacts will be different and will likely be at a national and local authority scale, in line with the geographical scale of socio-economic datasets, as outlined in Section 2.2. Please refer to “Defining ‘local area’ for assessing impact of offshore renewables and other marine developments: guiding principles” (Scottish Government, 2022a) for further details in defining the impact area associated with socio-economic impacts of OWFs.

In order to robustly monitor the impacts of an OWF on commercial fisheries, up-to-date information on commercial fishing activity and fisheries’ socio-economic trends should be obtained to develop a baseline within the EIA Report (‘the EIA baselines’). It may be at least five years between submission of an application and construction. Therefore, it is important to collect monitoring data as soon as possible once the EIA baselines have been developed (pre-consent). Any monitoring data collected during any project phase should be compared against the EIA baselines.

Guidelines on the development of an EIA baseline for commercial fisheries is included within Section 5.2. of the “Assessing Fisheries Displacement by Other Licensed Marine Activities: Good Practice Guidance” (Scottish Government, 2022b) and are not repeated here. Currently, Socio-Economic Impact Assessments (SEIAs) submitted alongside the EIAR for an OWF focus on impacts on economy and society and do not cover socio-economic impacts on the commercial fishing industry. Fisheries’ socio-economic impacts and their baseline can be considered within the commercial fisheries chapter or as a standalone document. For monitoring purposes, the socio-economic baseline should be developed as early as possible in the project and, preferably alongside the commercial fisheries EIA baseline focused on impacts on fisheries. Any monitoring data can then be compared against such baselines. Data sources for SEIAs should utilise the same time period as commercial fisheries EIA baseline (typically recommended as five years, this may be shorter when engaging with local stakeholders or communities, recommended to be conducted every two to three years). The general steps to take for the socio-economic baseline based on SEIA should include (Marine Directorate, 2024):

1. Project plan development (i.e., economist and social research experts work with developers to develop a plan for the SEIA);

2. Description of the development;

3. Initial scoping;

4. Define potential impact areas;

5. Stakeholder mapping;

6. Stakeholder engagement;

7. Gather contextual information;

8. Scoping;

9. Baseline analysis;

10. Predict Impacts and assess significance; and

11. Development enhancement, mitigation strategy and complete SEIA report.

3.5 Step 3: Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement should be ongoing throughout the monitoring process and will inform all steps outlined within this Guidance. Stakeholder engagement will be crucial to informing any monitoring proposals or plans, the selection of monitoring datasets, and the monitoring data collection and analysis. Effective stakeholder engagement will be integral to effective monitoring.

3.5.1 Undertake stakeholder mapping

Stakeholder mapping is required to identify the people, groups, and stakeholders who may be affected by the proposal and is a first step in order to conduct effective stakeholder engagement. This exercise should be undertaken pre-application to inform the EIA baseline. Stakeholders are likely to include relevant local fishing representatives, such as associations, federations, and governmental led groups (IFGs), to ensure the correct audience can be targeted directly, as well as other stakeholders. Although it is recommended that engagement is initiated through local representatives, it is acknowledged that not all fishing vessels are a member of a representative body. Therefore, it is recommended to engage with individuals where required to ensure fishers that are not members of representative bodies are also represented.

An anonymised list of identified stakeholders to be engaged with during monitoring should be included within any monitoring proposals submitted at the consent application stage or in any later documentation outlining the proposed approach for commercial fisheries monitoring. The list of stakeholders to be engaged with when conducting monitoring should be agreed with the regulatory authority and relevant stakeholders.

3.5.2 Stakeholder engagement

The stakeholder engagement strategy for commercial fisheries monitoring may depend on whether the project is located in the proximity of others. There should be collaboration with developers to streamline stakeholder engagement, where possible (depending on project timelines and stages, this may or may not be feasible). In the first instance, local representatives, such as community representatives, associations, federations, and government-led groups (e.g., IFGs), should be contacted. Individual fishers and members of the community should also be approached, as they might have a different perspective than representatives. Any engagement should be led by the Fisheries Liaising Officer (FLO), fisheries and/or stakeholder manager. Targeted stakeholder engagement via meetings and surveys is generally preferred over mass questionnaires. General guidance on undertaking effective engagement with the commercial fishing industry is included in Section 6.2.1 of the “Assessing Fisheries Displacement by Other Licensed Marine Activities: Good Practice Guidance” (Scottish Government, 2022b). Guidance on effective engagement in social research is provided in the “Methods Toolkit for Participatory Engagement and Social Research” (Scottish Government, 2023c). A stakeholder engagement strategy across the various phases of an OWF could involve:

• Pre-consent phase:

As part of general engagement for the proposal, engagement with relevant stakeholders should be carried out to inform any monitoring proposals set out in the application;

• Post-consent/pre-construction phase:

In-person or virtual meetings with local representatives of associations, federations and IFGs to outline the monitoring proposals and to gather any updated information on the distribution of fishing activity by fishing method, key species, and seasonal trends (including any emerging fisheries that were not captured during consultation for the EIA Baseline);

In line with feedback from local representatives, individual vessel operators/owners are identified through local knowledge from harbour masters, fishery officers and local Fisheries Industry Representatives (FIRs). Engagement with these fishers may be led by the local representatives to provide a sample of fishers or led by the FLO with support from the FIR. Engagement should be conducted via in-person meetings at an appropriate location and time; and

Engagement with relevant socio-economic stakeholders such as relevant community organisations and representatives from relevant local authority areas.

• Construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phase:

The frequency of stakeholder engagement for monitoring during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases should be agreed during the pre-consent or post-consent/pre-construction phase;

Engagement with local representatives of the fishing industry and seafood processing sector via in-person, telephone, or virtual meetings to obtain feedback on any changes in fishing activity or any evidence of the socio-economic impacts. Where possible, evidence of these changes should be sought (e.g. plotter tracks);

Engagement with relevant socio-economic stakeholders, such as relevant community organisations and representatives from relevant local authority areas via in-person telephone or virtual meetings; and

Structured stakeholder interviews should contain targeted questions focussed to the monitoring objectives.

The stakeholder engagement strategy should first be outlined at the pre-application phase in any relevant monitoring or communication proposals submitted as part of the consent application and built upon in any later documentation outlining the proposed approach for commercial fisheries monitoring. This should be agreed with stakeholders and submitted to the regulator in line with regulatory process requirements.

3.6 Step 4: Determine the Monitoring Datasets

The following sections provide recommendations for monitoring datasets, including:

• Key existing datasets and recommended application during monitoring;
• Future data sets to be considered for monitoring when available; and
• Key existing data gaps.

It is important to note that no single data source can be used to comprehensively describe commercial fishing activity. There are inherent limitations to each monitoring dataset such as variations in spatial scales at which data is collected, fleet coverage (e.g., data for 10 m vessels is different from larger boats), etc. Analysis of key data gaps can be found in the Dataset Analysis Report (Appendix B). Therefore, it is recommended that a mixed-method approach is undertaken by considering multiple datasets to corroborate trends and validate data through triangulation. The Dataset Analysis Report (Appendix B) provides an assessment of the spatial and temporal scale, accessibility, robustness and confidence of each monitoring dataset.

When conducting scoping of monitoring datasets, appropriate monitoring datasets should be selected to ensure any monitoring purposes and objectives can be fulfilled. It should be noted that not all datasets may be available due to factors such as commercially sensitive data or accessibility issues. If any of the recommended datasets are being excluded from monitoring, developers should justify the omission within relevant monitoring proposals/plans. Feedback from EIA Scoping Opinions may also influence what datasets are considered. If a dataset only provides a limited amount of information, a level of pragmatism should be used to utilise the data as efficiently and effectively as possible whilst highlighting the value and/or limitations of data being used.

3.6.1 Recommended Data Types and Sources

Existing data

This Section describes the collection of data that can be used to assess the impacts of the commercial fishing industry. A distinction is made in the following sections between ‘fisheries data’ to assess fisheries impacts and ‘socio-economic data’ to assess fisheries’ socio-economic impacts.

‘Fisheries data’ represents datasets which can be used to identify and understand changes in fishing distribution, effort and catch. ‘Socio-economic data’ represents datasets which can be used to understand changes in fishers’ earnings, income, employment, and socio-economic effects on local communities (e.g., changes in revenue and employment as a result of impacts on fish processing facilities).

In conjunction with the impacts of OWFs on commercial fisheries and fisheries’ socio-economics, are the implications of climate change. The consequences of climate change for commercial fisheries will also result in indirect socio-economic effects due to changes in the availability or distribution of target species through shifting distribution patterns arising from factors such as temperature and salinity modifications. A recent Cefas (2024) publication^[9] and a 2019 paper from the Houses of Parliament^[10] discusses these climate change variables affecting stocks which include:

• Modifications to temperature and salinity;
• Acidification;
• Deoxygenation;
• Overfishing;
• Increased storms and sea level rise; and
• Population growth and increasing per capita consumption leading to growing demand.

The impacts of climate change must be considered in conjunction with the effects of OWFs on commercial fisheries and fisheries’ socio-economics (i.e., restricted space due to OWF presence, potential reduction in fish stocks due to climate change, and the indirect socio-economic effects from both).

Fisheries data

The key monitoring datasets useful for assessing changes in fishing distribution, effort and catch are included in Table 3‑2. These datasets are regularly maintained and updated and therefore represent suitable options for ongoing monitoring. Some of datasets can be obtained from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and/or the Marine Directorate websites, which provide different formats of the same data. The MMO collects and processes fishing data from vessels over 10 m in length all throughout the UK, whereas the data collected by Marine Directorate is more specific to Scotland and Scottish seas. A full description of these datasets, including their limitations, is included in the Dataset Analysis Report (Appendix B). Further information on available fisheries datasets is provided in the recently published Mendo et al. (2023) “Mapping fishing activities in the UK EEZ: a brief overview of data, methods, and tools”.

Presenting data spatially is a vital part of the monitoring process as some of the primary aims are analysing changes in the distribution of fishing activity. For larger vessels, the MMO and Marine Scotland VMS data is recommended as standard practice to spatially monitor changes in fishing activity, for vessels 12 m and over, while Automatic Identification System (AIS) can be used for vessels 15 m and over. VMS and AIS data can be considered alongside landings data (effort and weight) for a more complete picture of fisheries-specific changes in target species landings. Landings data can be interrogated on an annual or monthly basis to identify changes as a whole, as well as in seasonality of the catch throughout the project lifecycle. MMO surveillance sightings, MMO vessel lists, and primary data collected by the developer (e.g., FLO records and Marine Coordination Centre (MCC) records) should be used to corroborate the analysis of VMS, AIS, and landings data. Data can be overlaid as layers in maps generated using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to support the cross-verification of various datasets.

There is currently no requirement for VMS and AIS for smaller inshore vessels in Scotland (see Table 3‑2; Section ‘Future datasets’). Therefore, the key data sources for understanding changes in fishing distribution, catch and effort are landings data (e.g., derived from weekly Fish1 Forms in Scotland for vessels 10 m and under) and data gathered through stakeholder engagement (e.g., annotated maps and plotter data). It may also be useful to consider historical datasets which are no longer maintained or updated to identify changes in fishing activity. For instance, ScotMap^[11] (2014) and gridded fisheries data within Scottish waters for Scottish fishing vessels under 12 m overall length^[12] (2024).

It is highly recommended that users collect additional information (if possible and available) to the sources listed above to corroborate and cross-verify trends and monitoring results, adding robustness and confidence to the analysis. As monitoring is recommended at all stages of the project, data should be used responsibly to produce the required outputs to analyse patterns.

Table 3-2 Recommended fisheries datasets

Dataset: Landings data (effort and weight)

Source: MMO and Marine Directorate: Published annually. MMO: Data is available to download and publicly available at the MMO website. Marine Directorate: Data is available to download and publicly available at the MD website which is available via the NMPi (Marine Scotland, 2021).

Description: Landings by effort (days) and weight (tonnes) sourced from logbooks, dockside inspections, landings declarations (e.g., via Fish1 Forms in Scotland and sales notes in England and Wales). Landings are available for UK vessels at any port. For non-UK vessels, landings are counted at UK ports. Provides fisheries statistics by vessel size, fishing method, and species at ICES rectangle scale or by port, and can be analysed to determine annual and seasonal variation.

Use in monitoring: To identify changes in effort and catch by vessel length, gear type, and target species per ICES rectangle or port. Monthly and annual averages should be presented as bar graphs or plotted via GIS to understand seasonal and annual changes in catch. Factors such as changes to TAC, quota, fish stocks, and fisheries restrictions/ management measures must be considered in conjunction with landings data (see details below). TAC should be used when analysing landings.

Dataset: VMS

Source: ICES processed dataset available through MMO (UK wide) and Marine Directorate (Scotland specific). MMO: Data is available to download and publicly available at the MMO website. Marine Directorate: Data is available to download and publicly available at the MD website which is available via the NMPiNMPi (Marine Scotland, 2021).

Description: Data shows fishing effort (kilowatt (kW) per hour) and value (£) for UK vessels through satellite tracking equipment which is cross-referenced with landings, engine power, and logbook data. The data is anonymised and presented in a 0.05° by 0.05° grid. MMO: Data requires limited processing and is available for a range of gear types for vessels over 15 m in length. Marine Directorate: The data is provided in a web layer, and so processing is limited and covers a relatively long time period (2010 – 2016 for bottom trawls and dredges and 2009 – 2017 for bottom trawls targeting Nephrops and crustaceans). The VMS data is processed by ICES on behalf of the Oslo and Paris Conventions (OSPAR) committee and covers vessels over 12 m in length.

Use in monitoring: To identify changes in the distribution of fishing effort by gear type for vessels 12 m and over. Annual analysis/mapping of gridded gear-specific VMS data (effort and value) to understand changes in the distribution of fishing effort by vessels 12 m and over and the spatial overlap with the development area.

Dataset: AIS

Source: Publicly available (e.g., via EMODnet and the MMO (without the parameters needed to filter for speed). May be sourced directly via site-specific vessel traffic surveys undertaken by the developer (see below for more details).

Description: All European Union (EU) and UK fishing vessels 15 m and over in length are required to have an AIS transponder which transmits details of the vessel’s position, speed and course. These data provide an indication of the spatial distribution of fishing activity.

Use in monitoring: To identify changes in the distribution of fishing activity for vessels 15 m and over. Annual analysis/mapping of AIS data to understand changes in the distribution of fishing vessel activity for vessels 15 m and over.

Dataset: UK fishing vessel lists

Source: Available at the MMO website.

Description: Governmental statistics publication, an Excel spreadsheet detailing all registered fishing vessels throughout the UK, with information on administrative port, home port, vessel name, registry number, licence number, membership, organisation, overall length, tonnage, engine power, vessel capacity units, year built, hull, country of construction, category, shellfish license, and scallop licence

Use in monitoring: To identify the number of vessels registered within the local ports. Monthly comparison of the number and length of vessels registered to ports in the local and regional study area. Monthly vessel numbers should be presented in tables or bar graphs to understand monthly changes in the number of vessels registered to local ports.

Dataset: Surveillance sightings

Source: Accessed via requests under the FOIA to the MMO or Marine Directorate.

Description: The data gathered through these visual observations of fishing vessels provides an indication of the distribution of fishing activity, fishing methods, and nationality.

Use in monitoring: To identify changes in the distribution of fishing activity by gear type and nationality. Annual analysis/mapping of surveillance sightings to understand changes in the distribution of fishing vessel activity

Dataset: Stakeholder engagement, including survey and interview data

Source: Primary data collected by developer(s).

Description: Engagement with the fishing industry via the FLO, fisheries and/or stakeholder manager is recommended for OWF developments. This engagement may take the form of questionnaires, meetings/interviews and/or annotated charts. Data collected would most likely be confidential, and could include location of fishing gear, income and fishing patterns.

Use in monitoring: To identify and understand changes in fishing activity, fishing effort and value. Data obtained via engagement may include annotated maps and information on fishing patterns and seasonality, including any potential changes resulting from an OWF. With the correct permissions, it may be suitable to plot spatial data obtained via engagement such as annotated maps. However, a comprehensive description of information obtained during stakeholder engagement should also be described within the monitoring report. Developers should analyse and decide if any of their data is commercially sensitive and cannot be shared. Resource availability and the volume of data may also be a factor in the ability to disseminate this information.

Dataset: Records from Offshore FLO (OFLO) and/or Company FLO (CFLO), guard vessels and/or fisheries

Source: Primary data collected by developer(s).

Description: Relevant records relating to fishing vessel presence or activity. Information that could be recorded includes fishing vessel positions, static gear positions and any communications with fishing vessels, typically summarised in daily progress reports. OFLO, guard vessels or survey vessels may be present at the development site during construction and decommissioning, and periodically during the operation and maintenance phase

Use in monitoring: To corroborate trends related to changes in fishing activity.

Dataset: MCC records

Source: Primary data collected by developer(s).

Description: Relevant records from the MCC relating to fishing vessel presence or activity. The MCC may be the point of contact for fishing vessels present in the development area and will record communications and fishing vessels presence and activity, as required.

Use in monitoring: To corroborate trends related to changes in fishing activity.

Dataset: Marine traffic surveys

Source: Secondary data collected by developer(s).

Description: Surveys mainly done by placing AIS responders on local ‘infrastructure,’ such as a survey or construction vessel, offshore platforms or, if the project is near the shore, on land.

Use in monitoring: To identify changes in the distribution of fishing activity.

Dataset: Aerial surveys to spot static gear buoys

Source: Primary data collected by developer(s).

Description: Combine with spatial data for visualisation of static gear distribution (noting that any aerial surveys would only represent a snapshot in time). Conduct opportunistically during surveys or other contractor work (e.g., guard vessels) to save time and resources, e.g., when conducting aerial bird or marine mammal surveys. Cross-reference locations with interviews to improve accuracy, if applicable. The collected data could be confidential, so only trends would be summarised.

Use in monitoring: To corroborate trends related to changes in fishing activity.

Dataset: Fishing vessel surveys with input from fishers/usi ng scouting and guard vessels to monitoring fishing activity

Source: Primary data collected by developer(s).

Description: Surveys to record fishing vessel presence or activity. Information that could be recorded includes fishing vessel positions, static gear positions and any communications with fishing vessels. Best practice would include fishers within projects, as observers, for site surveys and guard vessels providing insight into certain fishing areas. Recommended to apply during primary data collection; and conduct opportunistically during contractor or surveying work to save time and resources, e.g., conduct during geophysical surveys.

Use in monitoring: To corroborate trends related to changes in fishing activity

Dataset: Monitor harbour space for any changes in traffic

Source: Primary data collected by developer(s).

Description: Conduct opportunistically during contractor or surveying work to save time and resource, e.g., in tandem with interviews with local fishers if this method is used. It is acknowledged that detailed information may not be available. Therefore, this data is recommended if it is available and necessary.

Use in monitoring: To identify changes in local ports which may affect the local fishing industry.

Dataset: Total Allowable Catch (TAC) changes

Source: Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics, available at Scottish Government website.

Description: Compare landing weights with changes in TAC to understand whether changes could be attributed to variations in TAC or were a result of offshore wind developments.

Use in monitoring: To understand other factors influencing fishing activity or socioeconomic indicators.

Dataset: Applying ClosedCircuit Television (CCTV) and/or AIS devices to active OWFs

Source: Primary data collected by developer(s).

Description: CCTV and/or AIS devices on active OWF could collect data on the number of vessels, their location and further vessel details. Developers should consider this method when developing monitoring plans. Combine with spatial data, where possible.

Use in monitoring: To corroborate trends related to changes in fishing activity.

Dataset: Plotter tracks

Source: Gathered through stakeholder engagement with fishing industry.

Description: Combine vessel routes with other spatial datasets. Contextualise changes in spatial fishing patterns e.g., notice alternate journey routes should an OWF restrict access directly to a fishing ground. This data would be classed as personal information and may consist of confidential information and therefore will need to be treated sensitively. If plotter data is shared with developers, it would be on a confidential basis and is not expected to be presented within the monitoring report. It is recommended that commercially sensitive datasets, such as plotters, are not shared widely.

Use in monitoring: To corroborate trends related to changes in fishing activity

Dataset: Market demand and impacts on processing facilities

Source: Gathered through stakeholder engagement with fishing industry and through a review of industry reports (e.g., data and reports published by Seafish on trends in the fishing industry).

Description: Conduct to understand the market demand and any potential changes processing facilities have experienced/expect to experience. Would be useful to crossreference with interviews with local fishers if this method is used during socio-economic analysis.

Use in monitoring: To understand other factors influencing fishing activity or socioeconomic indicators.

Dataset: Fisheries restriction s and management measures

Source: Available on Marine Directorate’s website. Also see UK Fishing Restrictions Map by Seafish.

Description: Consider changes in fisheries restrictions (e.g., closed areas or gear restrictions) or the implementation of management measures (e.g., within MPAs) and any potential influence on changes in fishing activity

Use in monitoring: To understand other factors influencing fishing activity or socio-economic indicators.

Dataset: Stock and fish density changes

Source: ICES Stock Information Database on the ICES website.

Description: Applied in conjunction with other surveys methods and/or data collection (e.g., eDNA) depending on target species. Generally covered in fish and shellfish EIA chapters.

Use in monitoring: To corroborate trends related to changes in fishing activity.

Dataset: Peer-reviewed publications

Source: Published journals.

Description: Scientific peer-reviewed publications with relevant use of or descriptions of commercial fisheries monitoring practices.

Use in monitoring: To understand potential changes in fishing activity/socio-economic trends.

Dataset: Non-peer reviewed data

Source: Relevant websites.

Description: Information from fishing association websites (such as gear locations), articles, publications etc.

Use in monitoring: To understand potential changes in fishing activity/socio-economic trends.

Dataset: Vessel Passage Plans

Source: Gathered through stakeholder engagement with fishing industry.

Description: Can be used to track vessel courses including any deviations to the planned course of vessels. UK law requires every skipper/navigator to prepare a suitable passage plan prior to putting to sea.

Use in monitoring: To corroborate trends related to changes in fishing activity.

Socio-economic data for commercial fisheries

The Dataset Analysis Report (Appendix B) identified a range of potential fisheries’ socio-economic datasets which can be used for monitoring, focusing on employment, economic output, demographic changes, local services (e.g., housing, health providers, education), socio-cultural impacts and distributional impacts that are dispersed throughout the society (e.g., processing factories). The key monitoring datasets to be considered to identify fisheries’ socio-economic impacts can be found in Table 3‑3. These datasets include:

Primary data:

• Surveys conducted with fishers, fishing representatives, members of the local communities, and local businesses; and
• Qualitative data collected through interviews with key stakeholders, the general public, local businesses, and members of communities;

Secondary data:

• Existing quantitative fishing activity data (including landings values^[13]);
• Data on fisheries employment and compliance (available from Marine Directorate^[14]); and
• Relevant information in Marine Social Attitudes survey (available from Marine Directorate^[15]).

The datasets utilised should be the most up-to-date versions available to inform the fisheries’ socio-economic trends observed within the fishing industry from project to project. Fisheries statistics, such as landings data can aid in building fisheries’ socio-economic analysis. It is recommended that landings weights (tonnes) and value by ICES rectangle and by port (or any data similar) are data used to track changes over time. Demographics can be used as a baseline for fisheries’ socio-economic impacts by analysing the number of vessels and/or fishers and employment details, if available.

It is acknowledged that values within fisheries’ socio-economic datasets (e.g., landings data) are likely to change due to inflation, and therefore, should be used alongside other statistical data (e.g., landings weights). Furthermore, within the context of socio-economic datasets, understanding the link and any changes in fishing-related economic outputs would likely require additional stakeholder and community engagement. This is because individual datasets are limited in their granularity to directly distinguish project-specific impacts in an area on wider economic activity and industry sector categories, as well as the potential compounding effects of inter-related and cumulative impacts from different development projects. Theory of change or logic modelling can be used to explore how impacts on fisheries impact specific areas, businesses and communities within those areas. Magenta Book^[16] provides an overview of these approaches, e.g., historic environmental data trends that influence fishing.

Socio-economic indicators that could be considered for fisheries’ monitoring purposes include:

• Percentage of working age population in work;
• Median income and range;
• Deprivation (Scottish Government’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD);
• GVA (Gross Value Added), turnover and employment of relevant and related sectors (e.g., businesses reliant on or connected to commercial fishing);
• Labour market conditions: employment/unemployment/skills shortages;
• Education levels and attainment and skills levels in the relevant areas;
• Demographics (age and gender split);
• Population change;
• House prices and housing availability;
• Job security;
• Crime and fear of crime; and
• Health and wellbeing.

Table 3‑3 Recommended socio-economic datasets

Dataset: Landings data (value)

Source: MMO and Marine Directorate

Description: Landings by value sourced from logbooks, dockside inspections, and landings declarations. Data includes UK vessel landings at any port and non-UK vessel landings at UK ports. Provides fisheries statistics by vessel size, fishing method and species at ICES rectangle scale or by port and can be analysed to determine annual and seasonal variation.

Use in Monitoring: To identify changes in landing value by vessel length, gear type, and target species at the ICES rectangle scale.

Dataset: Seafish – Fishing and Seafood Data and Insight

Source: Seafish Available at Seafish webpage or Seafish webpage.

Description: Seafish collect and analyse employment, landings and economic performance for the commercial fishing fleets in the UK. Data are collected through face-to-face interviews and surveys to gather data on employment, fuel use and capital value indicators, combined with landings data from official data sources (e.g., MMO). Data are presented for defined groups or fleet segments of similar vessels. Seafish also collect annual economic and employment data on the seafood processing sector through surveys.

Use in Monitoring: To identify changes in economic output and employment at a national level. Review of relevant data and reports published by Seafish. Consideration of any changes in economic output or employment at a national level which could contribute to changes in fishing activity/output at a local level. Key economic and employment trends should be described.

Dataset: Office for National Statistics (ONS) – The Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES) data

Source: ONS Available at ONS website.

Description: Provides employment breakdown from different sectors across the UK. New data is released every year, so figures are up to date and provide a history of the data. The BRES data provides annual employee and employment estimates for the UK (ONS, 2023). BRES is the primary source for employee data estimated at a detailed regional and industrial level with a detailed breakdown by industry (according to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007) and geography across the UK over a large sample size. The data is released annually in October and could be used to identify changes in employment rates in different industries throughout past years. The employment figures from the BRES data can be analysed across the commercial fishing industry. The results from analysing the annual data may be able to indicate changes in the industry’s baseline, and therefore, could be used for monitoring.

Use in Monitoring: To identify changes in employment at a regional level. Review of BRES industry employment data by SIC 2007 code (marine fishing = 03110) to identify national changes in commercial fishing employment. Annual national marine fishing employment should be presented in bar graphs or tables.

Dataset: Scottish Government Statistics

Source: Scottish Government - Available at Scottish Government website.

Description: Official source for Scotland’s statistics on over 250 datasets related to socio-economic indicators and topics. Incorporates information from other sources including, but not limited to, National Records of Scotland, Public Health Scotland, Revenue Scotland and Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Datasets provide information between 2010 – 2023 in the latest publications, with options to search and assess data by local authority and at a regional level. The dataset also links to the Supply, Use and Input-Output tables. Information is widely used in EIA and SEIA to inform indicators for local project areas on demographics, population, economic activity, housing and tourism.

Use in Monitoring: To identify key trends through statistical references on key socio-economic indicators, including transport, public health, social security and heritage at a local authority level. Review of relevant data outputs to summarise socio-economic trends for relevant local authority area. This source contains socio-economic data categorised under different themes providing information on demographics, population, economic activity, housing and tourism. It is recommended that the following themes are reviewed for the relevant local authority area: access to services, population, housing, health and social care, community wellbeing and social environment and SIMD.

Dataset: Marine Economic Statistics

Source: Scottish Government Available at Scottish Government website.

Description: Publishes annual data on marine sector GVA, employment, and turnover, broken down by categories such as shipbuilding, offshore wind, wider marine energy, fishing, fish landings, aquaculture, seafood processing and water transport and construction services. Most recent 2023 publication showcases annual data up to 2021, and industry sector data is broken down to local authority level.

Use in Monitoring: To identify changes in GVA, employment and turnover associated with marine sectors in Scotland annually. Review of annual report and data outputs to characterise change in GVA, turnover, employment and income for the commercial fisheries industry. Supporting tables to the report provide break down of economic and employment data for the previous 10-year period. Annual data should be presented in bar graphs or tables.

Dataset: Sub-Scotland Economic Statistics Database

Source: Scottish Government Available at Scottish Government website.

Description: Datasets cover economic, business, labour market and population data for Scotland, as well as local authority areas within Scotland. Further information is provided on Travel to Work Areas, Scottish Island Regions and areas around the River Clyde. Data is updated on a regular basis subject to the input dataset sources being updated, thus the timeframe available varies between each dataset, with some available for 2022 – 2023 and others only up to 2021.

Use in Monitoring: To identify changes in economic activity such as employment, working age employment rate, unemployment and self-employment as well as number of businesses registered across Scotland and in individual regions. Review of relevant data outputs to summarise socio-economic trends for relevant local authority area. The excel spreadsheet associated with this database contains economic, labour market and population data for Scotland and local authority areas.

Dataset: Scottish Annual Business Statistics (SABS) (2020)

Source: Scottish Government

Description: Available at Scottish Government website. SABS offers estimates of employment, turnover, purchases, GVA and labour costs for businesses operating in Scotland. Data are classified according to the industry sector, location, and ownership of the business. Sectors include production and manufacturing, construction and the service sector. Data is available for local authority level areas covering a time span from 2008 until 2020. Provides identification of individual sub-sector trends, such as production and manufacturing of various goods, engineering, civil construction, wholesale, and retail trade.

Use in Monitoring: To identify overall trends across key sectors in economic activity by year and area. Analysis of relevant economic and employment data to identify trends in economic activity for the fishing and seafood processing industry. Supplementary tables to the report contain a time-series of economic and employment data for the fishing industry, including fishing itself and seafood processing. Annual economic and employment data should be presented in bar graphs or tables.

Dataset: SIMD (2020)

Source: Scottish Government Available at SIMD website.

Description: The SIMD focuses on several key areas related to deprivation, including income, employment levels, access to education and health, access to services, crime levels and housing. The data is split into 6,976 small areas and ranked according to levels of deprivation. The index’s approach is spatial, with not every person in a given area potentially being considered as ‘deprived,’ and several distinct levels of deprivation could be identified in a given larger area of assessment.

Use in Monitoring: To identify changes to levels and rankings of deprivation in designated areas. Review data and interactive SIMD tool to understand any changes to levels and rankings of deprivation in designated areas. Any key trends in deprivation levels should be described within the monitoring report.

Dataset: Supply, Use and Input-Output Tables

Source: Scottish Government

Description: Available at Supply, Use and Input-Output Tables website. Input-Output tables are applied for economic impact calculations by deriving GVA and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) from the offshore wind project expenditure per unit of output using the multiplier factors from the relevant SIC code category. They can further be employed to establish similar impacts on the fishing industry and any associated changes resulting from an increase or decrease in expenditure and associated economic activity. Input-Output figures are derived from their associated Supply and Use tables, capturing the output provided by a defined industrial category.

Use in Monitoring: To monitor and assess economic activity by industry/supply chain category and calculate GVA, FTE impacts. Input-Output tables are applied for economic impact calculations by deriving GVA and FTE from the OWE expenditure using the multiplier factors from the relevant SIC code category. The multipliers can be used to predict the wider GVA and FTE impacts from project expenditure over a monitoring period.

Dataset: Nomis Official Labour Market Statistics

Source: ONS Available at Nomis website.

Description: Nomis provides overall labour market statistics based, in part, on census data by region and local authority/postcode level. Data focuses on employment by various occupations, reasons for economic inactivity, estimates of unemployment, household-based data, migration, and nationality. It further includes access to annual population and labour surveys, with regional and local area breakdown.

Use in Monitoring: To identify changes and current status in economic activity, employment and household related data. Annual labour market statistics should be presented in bar graphs or tables.

Dataset: Stakeholder engagement, including survey and interview data

Source: Primary data collected by developer(s)

Description: Engagement with the fishing industry via the FLO, fisheries and/or stakeholder manager is recommended for OWF developments. This engagement may take the form of questionnaires, meetings/interviews and/or annotated charts. In addition to engagement with fishers and local communities, engagement with local authorities can provide more detailed area-specific insights.

Use in Monitoring: To identify and understand socio-economic impacts to fishers and also the local community (e.g., impact on processors, transporter, consumers, local services).

Data gaps

The key data gaps in the monitoring datasets are outlined below:

• Limited information on fishing activity for vessels 12 m and under, as these vessels are not required to be fitted with VMS or AIS (see Section ‘Future datasets’);
• Limited suitable datasets to monitor fishing activity at a project-scale; and
• Limited local fisheries’ socio-economic information (e.g., ways in which businesses and communities depend on fishing).

Further details on the data gaps per source are provided in the Dataset Analysis Report (Appendix B).

Future datasets

As datasets are always changing, and new ones are developed constantly, everyone conducting monitoring should be aware when new datasets arise. The datasets provided in Table 3‑4 are expected to become available to provide further information and to be included as good practice to inform commercial fisheries monitoring.

Table 3‑4 Future datasets

Inshore Vessel Monitoring System (iVMS)

iVMS would monitor inshore fishing activity and could improve the spatial understanding of the commercial fishing vessels under 12 m in length. Using General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) mobile signals, iVMS provides positional information which is sent and stored to the UK VMS hub (devices located outside GPRS range continue to store information and send it once coverage next becomes available). Combined with data on catch volumes, scientific evidence of stock levels and other data, iVMS application could improve national fisheries monitoring by enabling a clearer picture of fishing activity which would highlight vessels whereabouts. Initial lack of historical data would hinder analysis for at least the first couple of years until significant and useful analysis of patterns become apparent.

The requirement for all inshore fisheries vessels under 12 m in length to be fitted with an iVMS device was set to be mandatory from April 2024 in England but has since been delayed due to the change in government. However, a significant number of English vessels (85%) now have iVMS devices installed, as of May 2024 (UK Government, 2024). iVMS is mandatory on all under 12 m vessels operating in Welsh waters as of February 2022 (Welsh Government, 2024). A low frequency of transmissions (‘pings’) would not provide an accurate presentation of fishing activity but, it can be used to determine the spatial distribution of the fishing fleet.

Remote Electric Monitoring (REM)

REM in fisheries refers to the use of imagery, sensors, and GPS to independently monitor fishing operations, effort, and/or catch, providing important data for management and science. However, the components of REM systems can differ depending on the industry sector in which it is used and does not need to necessarily include the use of cameras.

Legislation is now in place that mandates REM on all scallop dredge vessels (since 17 June 2024) and pelagic fishing vessels (from March 2026). The legislation applies to relevant vessels operating in Scottish waters, and for Scottish vessels regardless of where they are fishing. The SIFIDS project^[17] (see Dataset Analysis Report Appendix B, for more information) is another example of successful REM implementation.

Scottish Government iVMS and REM

Consultation on the implementation of REM systems on fishing vessels in Scottish waters occurred between March and June 2022.

The Scottish Government have not yet confirmed when iVMS devices will be mandatory for Scottish inshore fishing vessels. A consultation on the use of iVMS occurred in August 2023 (Scottish Government, 2023b). The exact details of iVMS devices and requirements are not yet known. Further details on iVMS are included within the Dataset Analysis Report (Appendix B).

3.7 Step 5: Determine the Monitoring Frequency

It is recommended as good practice that data gathered should be collected to cover the entire project’s lifetime. The frequency in which monitoring data is collated should be set out in fisheries monitoring plans and agreed with the regulator and stakeholders and align with the purpose and objectives of the monitoring (e.g., if a proposed mitigation measure is implemented for a specific period of time, it may be appropriate to collate monitoring data for periods before, during and after the implementation of the mitigation measure). Equally, it may be appropriate for data to be collated in a manner that reflects any distinct stages or activities in a particular phase (e.g., seabed preparation, cable installation, foundation installation etc., or periods of major maintenance during operation and maintenance) or in regular intervals (e.g., every six months). Justification for the frequency in which monitoring data is collated should be provided within relevant monitoring proposals/plans.

It should be noted that there will inevitably be a delay in the data for a particular period being publicly available and full analysis of the data for this period will not be possible until all data is available.

3.8 Step 6: Data Collection and Analysis

Data should be collected and analysed by commercial fisheries specialists and socio-economists who understand how to collect and analyse fisheries and socio-economics data. Any data analysis should be in line with best practice and any available guidance at the time of the analysis. Consideration should be made by the developer as to whether a peer review of data outputs is required to ensure an accurate and robust data analysis is undertaken.

3.8.1 Data collection

Data should be collected for all selected monitoring datasets (see Step 4; Section 3.6) for the monitoring periods defined in Step 5 (Section 3.7).

3.8.2 Data analysis

Any seasonal and annual trends within the monitoring period should be described and compared against any trends identified in the EIA baselines. As described in Step 4, it is important to consider multiple data sources to corroborate and cross-verify any trends identified. Step 4 also describes how the datasets can be used in monitoring.

Monitoring data should be described in a logical format and structure, going from a high level of detail to a finer scale. This is common practice in the development of EIA baselines and typically results in landings data being presented first, followed by the presentation of data at a finer scale (e.g., VMS and AIS) to understand the distribution of fishing effort and value. It is important that a holistic approach is taken and that all the data are considered together to provide an accurate understanding of any changes in fishing activity or fisheries’ socio-economic indicators.

Within the monitoring report, an attempt should be made to explain the drivers of any changes identified, taking account of other influences on fishing activity (see Section 3.8.2). Monitoring during all phases of an OWF should be conducted in line with the key stages outlined in Figure 3‑2.

3.8.3 Attribution of changes to OWF

Attributing changes in fishing activity and fisheries’ socio-economic indicators to OWFs is complicated by the multitude of factors that can affect these variables. However, an attempt should be made to understand changes in fishing activity or fisheries’ socio-economic indicators and to assess whether OWFs have contributed to any of these changes. Fishing activity is temporally and spatially variable depending on several factors such as the distribution of fish and shellfish resources, changes in TAC, quota, seasonal or spatial restrictions, and environmental conditions (e.g., weather). Therefore, a reduction or change in fishing activity or socio-economic impacts within the study area may not be wholly, or even partly, caused by the OWF itself, but may be as a result of another external or internal influence.

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. If such a comparison would show that patterns or landings have only changed locally, the impacts can most likely be attributed to the OWF. However, it should be noted that, if the wider study area includes multiple OWFs, cumulative impacts could underestimate the impacts of the local OWF area. Therefore, it is noted that it is difficult to attribute changes in commercial fishing patterns on a large scale to OWFs. Where possible, analysis of monitoring data should consider other factors which may influence fishing activity and changes in socio-economic trends. Theory of change and logic modelling^[18] can be used to explore specific chains of impacts, as well as historic environmental data trends, fluctuations in TAC and changes in quota that could have influenced fishing patterns.

3.9 Step 7: Reporting

It is recommended that the findings of the monitoring be summarised and published as PDF or Word documents. The structure and content of the reports should be outlined within the monitoring proposal and agreed with relevant stakeholders. There is no distinct template to be followed for the monitoring report, to allow for flexibility for developers and different projects. However, it is suggested that the reports could cover the following:

• Purpose and objective of monitoring (noting this will first be outlined as part of the monitoring proposals)^[19];
• Relevant consent conditions (if applicable);
• Summary of key fisheries (as detailed in the EIAR, updated as required. This summary would likely include text as well as any relevant tables, maps and/or figures);
• Relevant project information for the monitoring period (e.g., construction methodology and activities);
• Fishing activity information over the monitoring period (compared with the EIA baseline and any preceding monitoring reports);
• Fisheries’ socio-economic information over the monitoring period (compared with the EIA baseline and any preceding monitoring reports);
• Discussion on any changes in fishing activity or fisheries’ socio-economic indicators during the monitoring period, as well as any long-term trends identified over the project lifecycle; and
• Attribution of any changes to the OWF, taking account of other external factors such as changes in TAC, market demand, fish and shellfish stocks, climate change, cumulative developments and fisheries restrictions/management measures.

Where possible, data should be presented in a way that eases comparison with future monitoring reports (e.g., the use of tables and graphs that can easily be reproduced using updated data for future monitoring periods is encouraged). Developers should analyse and decide if any of their data is commercially sensitive and cannot be shared. Resource availability and the volume of data may also be a factor in the ability to disseminate this information.

The Rapid Literature Review (Appendix A) and Dataset Analysis Report (Appendix B) both highlight the lack of centralised data, limited data sharing and accessibility. If monitoring is to go forward successfully, good practice should involve data sharing in a centralised location that is user friendly and accessible. Creating a streamlined, user-friendly national database for monitoring data outputs should be considered by developers, or alternatively, a monitoring strategic initiative could be created for developers to feed into. Such a centralised database could allow for regional or national analysis of the impacts of OWFs on the commercial fishing industry, utilising project specific data.

In the absence of a centralised database for the collation of monitoring data, it is recommended that a suitable publishing mechanism is outlined within monitoring proposals, which may depend on the monitoring objectives (e.g., if monitoring is required by a licence condition, submission of the reports to the regulator will be required at agreed intervals which may be set out in relevant fisheries monitoring plans. The frequency of publication by the developer may also depend on the specific monitoring purpose and objectives and also the duration of various phases of the project). For good practice, any reports should be published at least every five years throughout all project phases. For best practice, monitoring reports should be collated at least annually during pre-construction (start after licence award) with a single pre-construction monitoring report published up to the point of construction. Monitoring reports during the construction phase should be published annually and thereafter conducted every five years during operation and maintenance, through to decommissioning. It is recommended that stakeholder engagement is conducted every two to three years.

3.10 Step 8: Benchmarking

There should be an assessment and benchmarking of the monitoring every two years. This will involve consideration of new monitoring datasets or new approaches to monitoring which were not available when the monitoring proposal was developed. This should also account for any new evidence which could alter the focus of the monitoring objectives (e.g., at the time of benchmarking, if there is sufficient evidence for a particular impact, it may be appropriate to shift the focus of the monitoring to another impact where there is less available evidence). Benchmarking should be led by the developer and engagement with relevant stakeholders will be crucial to ensure a consistent approach across the industry.

3.11 Step 9: Evaluating

At the same time as the benchmarking assessment, the effectiveness of the monitoring against any set objectives should be evaluated. Effective monitoring should be able to identify and understand changes in fishing activity and socio-economic, as far as is reasonably practicable. The evaluation assessment should identify if effective monitoring has been achieved, and if the monitoring can be used to validate predicted impacts, understand the effectiveness of mitigation measures, or identify unforeseen impacts. The monitoring approach should be adaptive and reassessed at different stages of the project to ensure monitoring remains effective. Where required, the monitoring approach should be adapted, based on the results of the evaluation and through engagement with stakeholders.

The results of the evaluation should also provide a holistic overview of the fisheries and socio-economic impacts of the proposal, based on the monitoring results and in the context of the monitoring objectives and purpose. The implications of these results for the developer will differ depending on the specific objectives and if monitoring is required by regulatory requirements (e.g. if monitoring was stipulated by a consent condition, results should be shared with the regulatory authority and further actions determined on the basis of the scale of change and the specific consent conditions).