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

4 Case Study

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Background

This Case Study demonstrates how the monitoring approaches and principles developed for the Guidance can be applied in practice.

4.1.2 Case Study Design

The Case Study represents a hypothetical OWF located in Scottish waters with the following attributes:

A capacity of over 500 Megawatts (MW);

An array area^[20] that is located within Scottish Offshore Waters (i.e., beyond the 12 Nautical Mile (NM) limit);

A 50/50 split of floating and fixed foundations within the array area; and

Offshore export cable(s) located between the array area and a landfall at the Scottish coastline (0-200 NM).

This Case Study showcases how the monitoring approaches and principles set out in the Guidance would be applied to the hypothetical OWF, including for the post-consent, construction, and operation and maintenance phases. As the OWF is hypothetical, the Case Study will focus on the application of the Guidance, rather than any data outputs.

4.1.3 Structure of this Case Study

This Case Study has been structured in accordance with the step-by-step process outlined within the Guidance for planning and conducting commercial fisheries monitoring. The following sections represent a working example of conducting commercial fisheries monitoring in line with the Guidance.

4.2 Step 1: Define Monitoring purpose and Set objectives

In the hypothetical OWF example, the monitoring purpose and objectives were first set out within an outline fisheries monitoring plan that was submitted alongside the EIAR. Within the EIAR, significant effects were identified for creel fishers as a result of restricted access and loss of access during construction.

Furthermore, the EIAR noted the uncertainty with regards to mobile fishing activity returning within the floating area of the hypothetical OWF once operational. The outline fisheries monitoring plan described the monitoring objectives and purpose based on the fisheries-specific sensitivities and the predicted impacts. The example monitoring purpose and objectives set out in the outline fisheries monitoring plan are provided in Box 1.

Box 1. Example of monitoring purpose and objectives

The monitoring purpose and objectives of the hypothetical OWF are:

1) To better understand changes in fishing activity during each phase of the hypothetical OWF; and

2) To validate the predicted impacts associated with displacement of fishing effort during the operation and maintenance phase.

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

In line with good practice, the hypothetical OWF considered the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) rectangles that the development overlaps with or is adjacent to as part of the commercial fisheries study area for the EIAR. The ‘local study area’ was considered to be the four ICES rectangles the project (array area and cable corridor) overlaps, with the ‘regional study area’ representing the eight ICES rectangles adjacent to the development area and those that effort may be relocated to.

The fisheries’ SEIA conducted for the hypothetical OWF considered ‘local’ study areas in line with the guidance on “Defining 'local area' for assessing impact of offshore renewables and other marine developments: guidance principles” to identify onshore areas which could be impacted (Scottish Government, 2022b). The relevant local authority areas for any onshore indirect effects were identified as the Highland, Moray, Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen City and Town X, where the majority of the local fishers lives. These areas were found based on the six principles outlined within Scottish Government (2022b) for identifying local study areas, including to account for potential construction and operation and maintenance ports and the location of infrastructure. Furthermore, given the scale of the hypothetical OWF it was considered relevant to count the UK and Scotland as part of a study area for economic impacts.

Both the commercial fisheries and the fisheries’ SEIA baselines utilised five years of data and the baseline characterisation aligned with good practice (e.g. Scottish Government, 2022a). The commercial fisheries and fisheries’ SEIA baselines were considered sufficient to be used for monitoring. In addition to desk-based socio-economic research, a survey was conducted with fishers, fishing industry representatives, and members of the local community from Town X. The outcomes of the engagement were used to record a baseline for social impacts within Town X, as the official data did not have enough granular details. The data collected could also be used in the future as part of the fisheries’ socio-economic baseline and was linked to the stakeholder mapping and stakeholder engagement as discussed in Section 4.4.

4.4 Stakeholder Engagement

4.4.1 Undertake Stakeholder Mapping

Relevant stakeholders for stakeholder engagement were first outlined at the Scoping and EIA stage for the hypothetical OWF. Stakeholders were identified through a stakeholder mapping exercise, based on recent experience from the developer in the area, in addition to initial engagement with stakeholders. Relevant stakeholders are listed below^[21]:

Commercial fisheries stakeholders:

• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF);
• Scottish White Fish Producers Association (SWFPA);
• North and East Coast Regional Inshore Fisheries Group (IFG); and
• Local fishers (with strong focus on local creelers who might be affected by the development).

Socio-economic stakeholders:

• Relevant local businesses:
• The local fishmonger “Fish Buyer 1”;
• The local snack bar “Chippy”; and
• Businesses supporting local creelers (processors, transport).
• Relevant representatives from the relevant local authority areas:
• The Highland Council (THC);
• Moray Council;
• Aberdeenshire Council;
• Aberdeen City Council; and
• Local Town X Council.
• Other relevant key stakeholders:
• Highlands and Island Enterprise (HIE);
• Scottish Enterprise; and
• Opportunity North East; and
• Local residents from Town X (focus on potential changes to local area if fishing is diminished).

4.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement

The stakeholder engagement strategy for the hypothetical OWF was outlined within the fisheries monitoring and communication proposal. The hypothetical OWF is located in proximity to three other OWFs at a similar stage to the hypothetical OWF, and therefore, stakeholder engagement was coordinated with these to reduce stakeholder fatigue (e.g., through the relevant commercial fisheries working group). In the first instance, local representatives, such as SFF, SWFPA and NECRIFG were contacted. The engagement was led by the FLO, fisheries and/or a stakeholder manager. The FLO identified individual and invited them to attend stakeholder meetings with the hypothetical OWF.

A fisheries’ socio-economic working group was set up which contained the stakeholders identified during the stakeholder mapping exercise. Outside of this group, local stakeholder engagement sessions were also held, such as with local authority departments and organisations (e.g., Public Health Scotland) and with the wider community as part of community events (e.g., attendance at the Highland Games). Stakeholder engagement was undertaken in line with the “Method Toolkit for Participatory Engagement and Social Research” (Scottish Government, 2023c).

Box 2. Example stakeholder engagement strategy for the hypothetical OWF

Pre-consent phase:

• As part of general stakeholder engagement for the project, engagement with relevant stakeholders was sought to inform any monitoring proposals set out in the consent application.

Post-consent/pre-construction phase:

• In-person or virtual meetings with SFF, SWFPA and NECRIFG 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 stakeholder engagement for the EIA);
• Engagement with fisheries’ socio-economic working group, local authority organisations and the wider community; and
• In line with feedback from local representatives, individual vessel operators/owners were identified through local knowledge from harbour masters, fishery officers and local FIRs. Engagement with these fishers was led by the local representatives. Engagement was conducted via in-person meetings at an appropriate location (near the harbour) and time (as agreed with fishers).

Construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phase:

• The frequency of engagement during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases was agreed during the pre-consent or post-consent/pre-construction phase as every two years;
• Stakeholder 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 collected (e.g., plotter tracks); and

Semi-structured stakeholder interviews and surveys containing questions on potential changes to local community if fishing is diminished.

4.5 Step 4: Determine the Monitoring Datasets

Using the hypothetical OWF as a hypothetical project example which overlaps both offshore (array area, export cable) and inshore waters (export cable and landfall), the following data sources were considered for monitoring, which align with the recommended datasets in the Guidance:

Landings data;

UK fishing vessel lists;

VMS;

AIS;

Surveillance sightings;

Records from OFLO and/or CFLO, guard vessels and/or fisheries;

MCC records;

Scouting surveys;

Marine Traffic Surveys;

Seafish – fishing and seafood data and insight;

ONS – BRES data;

Scottish Government Statistics;

Marine Economic Statistics;

Sub-Scotland Economic Statistics Database;

Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics;

Scottish Annual Business Statistics (SABS) (2020);

SIMD Index;

Supply, Use and Input-Output Tables;

Nomis Official Labour Market Statistics;

Stakeholder engagement, including survey and interview data; and

Data on other external factors which could affect fishing activity or socio-economic indicators including TAC, stock and fish density changes, and market demand.

The following datasets were not considered appropriate or required with sufficient justification provided within the outline fisheries monitoring plan based on the monitoring purposes and objectives:

Aerial surveys to spot static gear buoys;

Fishing vessel surveys with input from fishers/using scouting and guard vessels to monitoring fishing activity;

Applying CCTV and/or AIS devices to active OWFs; and

Vessel passage plans.

4.6 Step 5: Determine the Monitoring Frequency

The hypothetical OWF agreed with the regulator and stakeholders that monitoring would be continuously throughout the lifetime of the project, but that outputs would be collected and published only every two to three years, starting from consent award.

4.7 Step 6: Data collection and analysis

As described in the Guidance, it is important to consider multiple data sources to corroborate and cross-verify any trends identified. The hypothetical OWF collected and analysed data from all relevant datasets (Section 4.5) for each project stage. At each stage, landings data was analysed first, followed by data at a higher spatial resolution. All datasets were considered and cross-verification of trends. Seasonal and annual trends within the monitoring period were described and compared against any trends identified in the EIA baseline. Within the monitoring report, an attempt was made to explain the drivers of any changes - see Box 3 for an example.

Box 3. Example approach to data analysis for the hypothetical OWF

Construction

The hypothetical OWF identified a reduction in static gear activity in the local study area during construction, which was expected as these fishers were requested to remove their gear from the under-construction areas. Furthermore, a reduction in cod landings weights within the local study area was found during construction when compared with the EIA baseline. A reduction in fishing effort at the OWF was also identified through a review of VMS data. The TAC and quota did not change, but the number of vessels registered at the local port reduced by 10%.

Stakeholder engagement with the local fish processing industry revealed a reduction in profit during the construction of the OWF compared with the EIA baseline. However, consideration of market prices indicated that this was (partly) a result of a UK-wide price reduction in brown crab.

Operation and maintenance

Monitoring of VMS data for the hypothetical OWF showed that fishing effort did not change compared to the EIA baseline within the area with fixed turbines, whereas vessels did not enter the area with floating turbines. Fishing effort did increase alongside the edges of the floating turbines, and landings data showed a steep decrease in landings for cod. The TAC and quota did not change, though water temperature rose and cod stocks moved slightly northward. The number of vessels registered at the local port decreased by a further 5% after the first five years after construction. A new fishery for tuna, which was not defined within the EIA baseline, appeared in the landings data. Fishing over the cable corridor remained the same according to all data sources analysed.

Stakeholder engagement with local communities in the Highlands revealed that out of business fishers moved out of the area that is already suffering from depopulation, putting at risk a closure of a local school.

Decommissioning

The hypothetical OWF identified a reduction in brown crab landings weights within the local study area during decommissioning when compared with the EIA baseline. This reduction was also observed within the regional study area and coincides with a mass mortality of brown crab in the area. Further loss of income was identified for the fish processing industry as a result, resulting in loss of jobs and risk of depopulation.

4.8 Step 7: Reporting

The frequency of reporting monitoring results should be aligned with the monitoring objectives. 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. This report should describe seasonal or annual trends using the datasets outlined in Section 3.6. Thereafter, more frequent reporting is likely to be required, depending on the monitoring purpose and objectives, as well as the duration of the various project phases.

Box 4. Example outputs by the hypothetical OWF

The findings from the data analysis (Step 6) were published within the monitoring reports from the hypothetical OWF. As monitoring was required as a consent condition, these reports were published on the regulator’s website. The hypothetical OWF compared all findings with the findings from the three nearby OWFs, that all published their monitoring reports on their websites. Stakeholder engagement was used to collect primary social data from communities and relevant stakeholders that fed into the analysis.

Through stakeholder engagement, the hypothetical OWF concluded that the local OWFs contributed to the vessel reduction at the local port, as fishers sold their vessels to take up jobs in the OWF sector. It was also concluded that climate change was the likely driver for the cod movements, although some changes could have been accelerated during construction of the hypothetical OWF. The reduction in income at the local fish processing facilities and the potential depopulation of local areas was considered to relate to reduction of fishing in this area, that in turn related to a UK-wide reduction in brown crab. The appearance of a tuna fishery was noted as positive by the local fishers.

4.9 Step 8: Benchmarking

At two-year intervals, the hypothetical OWF conducted a benchmarking exercise to understand the effectiveness of monitoring in achieving the monitoring objectives. This benchmarking exercise includes:

Consideration of newly released datasets;

Engagement with stakeholders around effectiveness of the monitoring to date with the aim of gaining feedback for improvements; and

Comprehensive assessment to identify areas for improvement to better achieve monitoring objectives (e.g., in relation to monitoring frequency, data analysis or reporting).

4.10 Step 9: Evaluating

At the same two-year intervals as benchmarking, the hypothetical OWF conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the monitoring against the set objectives.

Box 5. Benchmarking and evaluation outputs of the hypothetical OWF

Two and four years after the original monitoring plan was developed, the benchmarking and evaluating steps showed no new datasets nor a requirement for a different type of monitoring. However, after six years, stakeholders told Hypothetical OWF that a new dataset had been developed over the last year, where the local fishers inputted their fishing location and catch into a new digital system “LOCAL”. Hypothetical OWF was granted access to the outputs of the dataset and therefore added this new dataset to their monitoring assessments. “LOCAL” showed consistency with the findings from stakeholder engagement about smaller vessels.

It was evaluated that the monitoring plan was effective. Therefore, no additional mitigations were identified as being required.

4.11 Case study conclusion

Effective monitoring is essential to understand the potential impacts that offshore windfarms and other sectors may have on the commercial fishing industry. This case study illustrates how the Guidance can be followed for various phases of an OWF project (post-consent/pre-construction, construction, post-construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases). This case study has used a hypothetical offshore windfarm located in Scottish waters as an example, discussing how the monitoring approaches and principles set out in the Guidance would be applied to the hypothetical OWF.

It is not possible to provide a prescriptive step-by-step guide, as monitoring approaches may differ depending on the monitoring purpose, objectives, and site location. The Case Study has given an overview of how the guidance can be used by developers to adhere to a consistent monitoring approach. The Case Study descriptions for the hypothetical OWF included potential real-life examples. By adhering to the guidance, the hypothetical OWF could develop a monitoring plan, analyse required data, and draft and publish the monitoring reports. However, it is acknowledged that following the Guidance may not be always feasible for all developers (e.g., the hypothetical OWF used most data sources listed within the Guidance. Not all data sources would be utilised by all developers; usage will depend on data availability and monitoring requirements. Furthermore, the hypothetical OWF shared data with developers nearby, whilst it is acknowledged that confidentiality and other factors may not allow the sharing of data in a similar way in real life).

This Case Study focused on a hypothetical OWF.