Publication - Impact assessment

Planning Scotland's Seas: 2013 - The Scottish Marine Protected Area Project – Developing the Evidence Base for Impact Assessments and the Sustainability Appraisal Final Report - Appendix E - Marine Site Reports

Published: 19 August 2013
Part of: Marine and fisheries
ISBN: 9781782567585

This is Appendix E for the pMPA Impact and Sustainability Report containing the detailed site by site reports. Published separately due to size.

Supporting documents

Wyre and Rousay Sounds ( WYR)

Site Area (km ²): 18

Site Summary

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Protected Features, Data Confidence and Conservation Objectives					[ WYR]
Proposed protected features
Biodiversity Features Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment, maerl beds. Geodiversity Features Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish Shelf Seabed - components to be confirmed by SNH. Site Description The Wyre and Rousal MPA proposal covers the sounds between the islands of Rousay, Wyre and Egilsay in Orkney, north Scotland. The area covers channels swept by the tides of the Atlantic and the North Sea supporting large beds of maerl and kelp and seaweed communities.
Summary of confidence in presence, extent and condition of proposed protected features and conservation objectives
Proposed Protected Feature	Estimated Area of Feature (by scenario) (km ²)	Confidence in Feature Presence	Confidence in Feature Extent	Confidence in Feature Condition	Conservation Objective and Risk
Biodiversity Features
Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment	*Lower: 7.71 Intermediate: 17.62 Upper: 17.62	Yes ( SNH survey, 1996; Marine Scotland survey, 2011)	Partial - likely to extend further than records suggest	Not known	Conserve (uncertain)
Maerl beds	Lower: 8.88 Intermediate: 8.88 Upper: 14.81	Yes ( SNH survey, 1996; Marine Scotland survey, 2011)	Yes	Not known	Conserve (uncertain)
Geodiversity Features
Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish Shelf Seabed -components to be confirmed by SNH		No	No	Not known
Key: * Estimated area based on best available data References: Area of Feature: GeMs Confidence in feature presence and extent: SNH (2012q)

Summary of Costs and Benefits

Table 2a. Site-Specific Economic Costs on Human Activities arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (present value of total costs over 2014 to 2033 inclusive)			[ WYR]
Human Activity	Cost Impact on Activity
Human Activity	Lower Estimate (£Million)	Intermediate Estimate (£Million)	Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Economic Costs (Discounted)
Aquaculture (Finfish)	0.002	0.009	0.009
Commercial Fisheries*	<0.001	0.002	0.042
Energy Generation	0.012	0.024	0.068
Total Quantified Economic Costs	0.014	0.035	0.119
Non-Quantified Economic Costs
Aquaculture (Finfish)	Possible costs associated with potential future development; and Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment	Possible costs associated with potential future development; and Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment	Possible costs associated with potential future development; and Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment
Commercial Fisheries	Displacement impacts.	Displacement impacts.	Displacement impacts.
Energy Generation	Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.	Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.	Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
Recreational Boating	Cost of anchorage relocation.	Cost of anchorage relocation.	Cost of anchorage relocation.
Note: For detailed information on economic cost impacts on activities, see Table 4. * These estimates (present value of total change in GVA) assume zero displacement of fishing activity and hence are likely to overestimate the costs.

Table 2b. Site-Specific Public Sector Costs arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive)			[ WYR]
Description	Public Sector Costs
Description	Lower Estimate (£Million)	Intermediate Estimate (£Million)	Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Public Sector Costs (Discounted)
Preparation of Marine Management Schemes	None	None	None
Preparation of Statutory Instruments	0.004	0.004	0.004
Development of voluntary measures	National assessment	National assessment	National assessment
Site monitoring	National assessment	National assessment	National assessment
Compliance and enforcement	National assessment	National assessment	National assessment
Promotion of public understanding	National assessment	National assessment	National assessment
Regulatory and advisory costs associated with licensing decisions	0.001*	0.002*	0.003*
Total Quantified Public Sector Costs	0.005	0.006	0.007
Non-Quantified Public Sector Costs
None identified.
* Regulatory and advisory costs of finfish and shellfish aquaculture assessed at national level.

Table 2c. Summary of Social Impacts and Distribution of Quantified Impacts arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive)										[ WYR]
Key Areas of Social Impact	Description	Scale of Expected Impact across Scenarios, Average (mean no. of jobs affected)	Distributional Analysis
			Location			Fishing Groups Predominantly Affected		Social Groups Affected
			Region	Port	Rural/ Urban/ Island	Gear Types Most Affected	Vessels most affected	Crofters	Ethnic minorities	With disability or long term sick
Employment with consequent impacts on: Health, Crime, Environment, and Culture and Heritage	Commercial fisheries - Loss of jobs (direct and indirect)	Lower: 0 jobs Intermediate: 0 jobs Upper: 0 jobs	North	There is currently no information available, although likely to include Kirkwall.	Impacts concentrated in island coastal areas	Cannot be identified for confidentiality reasons.	Lower: <15m Upper: <15m	No Impact.	No Impact.	No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries..
If any energy generation developments do not proceed as a result of designation (due to additional costs, project delays, loss of investor confidence), there may be significant social impacts due to job losses (non-quantified).
Note: For detailed information on socio-economic impacts by sector, see Table 7a. For more detailed information on distributional impacts of quantified costs by sector see Tables 7b and 7c.

Table 2d. Site-Specific Benefits arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive)		[ WYR]
Benefit	Description
Ecosystem Services Benefits (Moderate and High Benefits)	Relevance	Scale of Benefits
Fish for human consumption	High. The site provides supporting services, including contribution to food webs and nursery habitats.	Low - Moderate
Fish for non-human consumption		Low - Moderate
Non-use value of natural environment	Moderate - High. Variety of protected features.	Low - Moderate
Other Benefits
Tourism	Higher biodiversity due to designation, and presence of designations, may attract more tourism activity to local economy.
Contribution to ecologically coherent network	See report Section 7.5.
Note: For detailed information on ecosystem services benefits, see Tables 9 and 10. For detailed information on other benefits, see Table 5 (activities that would benefit) and Table 8 (contribution to ecologically-coherent network).

Summary of Overlaps and Interactions between Proposed Designated Features and Human Activities

Table 3. Overlaps and Potential Interactions between Features and Activities under different Scenarios, indicating need for Assessment of Cost Impacts on Human Activities from Designation of the Site as an MPA																	[ WYR]
	Aggregates	Aquaculture (Finfish)	Aquaculture (Shellfish)	Aviation	Carbon Capture & Storage	Coastal Protection	Commercial Fisheries	Energy Generation	Military Activities	Oil & Gas	Ports & Harbours	Power Interconnectors	Recreational Boating	Shipping	Telecom Cables	Tourism	Water Sports
Biodiversity Features
Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment	-	I/U	-	-	-	-	L/I/U	L/ I/ U	-	-	-	L/I/U	L/I/U	-	-	L/I/U	L/I/U
Maerl beds	-	L/I/U	-	-	-	-	L/ I/ U	L/ I/ U	-	-	-	L/I/U	L/I/U	-	-	L/I/U	L/I/U
Geodiversity Features
Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish Shelf Seabed - components to be confirmed by SNH	Not considered to be sensitive at the levels of exposure expected from human activities; thus, not considered in the context of management.
Note: L = Lower Scenario; I = Intermediate Scenario; U = Upper Scenario. Normal font indicates that there is an overlap between the activity and proposed designated feature under that scenario, bold indicates that the overlap results in a potential interaction between the activity and proposed designated feature that has resulted in cost impacts under that scenario. For detail of management measures assessed under each scenario for each activity, and results of the cost estimates, see Table 4.

Human Activity Summaries

Human activities that would be impacted by designation of the site as an MPA

Table 4a. Aquaculture (Finfish)			[ WYR]
Three finfish farms are located within the boundary of the WYR proposed MPA. These are the Bay of Ham, Bay of Vady and Kirk Noust. The Bay of Ham and the Bay of Vady directly overlap with the feature Kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities under the intermediate and upper scenarios. Kirk Noust directly overlaps with this feature under all scenarios. All three sites are within 1km of this feature under all scenarios. The Bay of Ham and Kirk Noust directly overlap with the feature Maerl Bed feature under the upper and all scenarios respectively. All three sites are within 1km of this feature under al scenarios. There is no public information on potential future development within the proposed MPA. In the absence of information on potential future developments, the assessment has focused on the costs associated with obtaining new CAR licences. A national assessment of the costs of obtaining planning permission for new developments is provided separately.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features.	Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features; and Additional survey costs incurred once every 10 years (2019 & 2029) to inform new CAR licence applications.	Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features; and Additional survey costs incurred once every 10 years (2019 & 2029) to inform new CAR licence applications.
Description of one-off costs	Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application.	Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application; and Additional baseline visual survey costs -£1.6k per CAR licence application	Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application; and Additional baseline visual survey costs -£1.6k per CAR licence application
Description of recurring costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of non-quantified costs	Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.	Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.	Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033)	0.003	0.013	0.013
Average annual costs	<0.001	0.001	0.001
Present value of total costs (2014-2033)	0.002	0.009	0.009
Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs for the site summed over the 20 year period. Average annual costs = Total costs divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20). Present value of total costs = Total costs discounted to their current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%.

Table 4b. Commercial Fisheries (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity)			[ WYR]
According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, pots, hand fishing, dredges and other gears (under-15m vessels) operate within the WYR proposed MPA. There is no over-15m vessel activity within the area. The value of catches from the WYR area was £12,900 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Provisional ScotMap data indicate that the annual average earnings from the WYR proposed MPA was £67,500, with over 70% of this from pots and the remainder from diving. No value was indicated for trawls, indicating that the estimates of value of landings from the ICES rectangle data is likely to over-estimate the impact on under-15m trawls. However, the impact on pots may be an under-estimate, with the total value of annual average earnings from pots in the WYR area being £0.05 million (although the whole value would not be impacted by the management measures assessed). The coverage for ScotMap interviews in the region was 90.2% (total value of reported landings from the Fisheries Information Network for those vessels included in the ScotMap value analysis expressed as a percentage of the total reported landings for all vessels <15m). Therefore, the ScotMap estimate is likely to be a good representation the value of fishing by under-15m vessels, and the spatial representation of the value of fishing is fairly robust due to the high level of coverage. VMS data indicate that there are no non- UK vessels fishing within the WYR proposed MPA. Management measures for the scenarios have been developed based on the sensitivity and vulnerability of the features to the pressures caused by different gear types and SNH recommendations. Unlike most other sectors, the potential cost of designation on commercial fisheries is a loss or displacement of current (and future) output, caused by restrictions on fishing activities. Any decrease in output will, all else being equal, reduce the Gross Value Added ( GVA) generated by the sector and have knock-on effects on the GVA generated by those industries that supply commercial fishing vessels. The costs estimates for this sector have therefore been estimated in terms of GVA. GVA estimates have been generated by applying fleet segment-specific 'GVA/total income' ratios to the value of landings affected. The GVA ratios have been calculated using data on total income and GVA from the Sea Fish Industry Authority Multi-year Fleet Economic Performance Dataset (published March 2013). Further details on the GVA ratios and the methodology for estimating GVA and employment impacts applied are presented in Appendix C7. It is important to note that all costs presented below assume that all affected landings are lost, that is, there is no displacement of fishing activity to alternative fishing grounds. In reality, some displacement is likely to occur and hence the cost, GVA and employment impacts presented in this table are likely to overestimate the costs.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	Reduce 50% of mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) pressure across of maerl beds.	Closure to mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across maerl beds.	Closure to mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across maerl beds.
Description of one-off costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of recurring costs	Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices): All affected gears (<0.001).	Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices): All affected gears (<0.001).	Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices): All affected gears (0.004).
Description of non-quantified costs	Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.	Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.	Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033)	0.002	0.005	0.086
Average annual costs	<0.001	<0.001	0.004
Present value of total costs (2014-2033)	0.002	0.003	0.063
Economic Impacts (£Million)
Total change in GVA (2014-2033)	0.001	0.003	0.056
Average annual change to GVA	0.000	0.000	0.003
Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033)	0.000	0.002	0.042
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment	0.0 jobs	0.0 jobs	0.0 jobs
Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs for the site summed over the 20 year period. Average annual costs = Total costs divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20). Present value of total costs = Total costs discounted to their current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%. Total change in GVA (2014-2033) = The change in direct GVA in the sector for the site summed over the 20 year period. Average annual change to GVA = Total change in direct GVA in the sector for the site divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20). Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033) = Total change in direct GVA in the sector for the site discounted to current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%. Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment = The average (mean) reduction in direct employment in the sector plus the indirect reduction in employment on the sector's suppliers.

Table 4c. Energy Generation			[ WYR]
Under intermediate and upper extent scenarios, the Fall of Warness (European Marine Energy Centre ( EMEC), up to 4MW capacity) tidal energy generation test site is within 5km of the feature kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities within the WYR proposed MPA boundary. However, given the feature is not sensitive to tidal developments and taking SNH management options into account, no additional cost impacts are anticipated associated with the deployment of prototypes at this location. Planning is currently in progress ( i.e. pre-application) for the Westray South ( SSE Renewables Developments ( UK) Limited, 200MW capacity) tidal energy generation development. Under all scenarios, the Westray South tidal development is located within 5km of the features maerl beds ( OSPAR and BAP designated) and kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities within the WYR proposed MPA boundary. Additional assessment of the interaction with these features could be required. A tidal energy generation Area of Search (AoS) overlaps the MPA feature kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities under the upper scenario for the WYR proposed MPA. Additional assessment of the interaction with this feature could be required. In addition, one potential future export cable route for tidal energy generation developments (Fall of Warness and Westray South) overlaps the MPA features maerl beds and kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities for all scenarios. It is possible that re-routing of cables would be necessary to avoid direct overlap with these features, although developers are likely to have taken this into account, especially given the feature's OSPAR and BAP designation. Therefore, only additional survey costs are expected under the upper scenario.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to features within 1km of proposed activities.	Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to features within 5km of proposed activities.	Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to features within 5km of proposed activities; and Additional survey costs incurred to inform new licence applications.
Description of one-off costs	Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k. Application estimated for submission in 2014 (Westray South export cable).	Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 2 in total). Application(s) estimated for submission in 2014 (Westray South and export cable).	Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 3 in total). Application(s) estimated for submission in 2014 (Westray South and export cable) and 2024 (tidal energy AoS); and Additional survey costs - £5k per linear km of development (Westray South export cable, 7km).
Description of recurring costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of non-quantified costs	Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.	Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.	Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033)	0.012	0.024	0.071
Average annual costs	0.001	0.001	0.004
Present value of total costs (2014-2033)	0.012	0.024	0.068
Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs for the site summed over the 20 year period. Average annual costs = Total costs divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20). Present value of total costs = Total costs discounted to their current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%.

Table 4d. Recreational Boating			[ WYR]
There are no cruising routes for recreational boating that intersect the WYR proposed MPA. Under the upper scenario, there are four anchorages for recreational boating that overlap with proposed protected features within the MPA proposal boundary. All four of these anchorages (and associated 100m buffer zones) overlap with feature extents for kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities and maerl beds. Under the intermediate and lower scenarios, SNH have identified two anchorages in Wyre Sound and one commercial anchorage in Rousay Sound overlap with records of maerl beds.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts	Relocate anchorages away from the northern and southern sides of Wyre Sound and in Rousay Sound away from maerl beds. If not possible to relocate away from maerl beds, relocate to less sensitive or more representative areas of maerl within MPA.	Relocate anchorages away from the northern and southern sides of Wyre Sound and in Rousay Sound away from maerl beds. If not possible to relocate away from maerl beds, relocate to less sensitive or more representative areas of maerl within MPA.	Relocate all anchorages that overlap with maerl beds. If not possible to relocate away from maerl beds, relocate to less sensitive or more representative areas of maerl within MPA.
Description of one-off costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of recurring costs	None.	None.	None.
Description of non-quantified costs	Cost of anchorage relocation.	Cost of anchorage relocation.	Cost of anchorage relocation.

Human activities that would benefit from designation of the site as an MPA

Table 5. Human Activities that would Benefit from Designation of the Site as an MPA				[ WYR]
Activity	Description	Lower Estimate	Intermediate Estimate	Upper Estimate
Tourism	Coastal areas are well represented when considering the locations of various tourist related sites within Scotland with a range of site types present in all regions including the North. Where significant impacts to recreational boating or water sports have been identified for the site, there could also be consequential impacts on tourism.	Tourism may benefit from the designation of the MPA as an added attraction to the destination. In addition, there may also be indirect benefits to tourism as a result of benefits to some water sports activities, for example, recreational angling.	The intermediate management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower estimate.	The upper management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower and intermediate estimates.
Water Sports - Sea Angling	Sea angling is carried out along most of the Scottish coastline within 6nm ( SSACN). SJU proposed MPA is a coastal site and is located wholly within 6nm of the UK coastline. Therefore sea angling overlaps with all features and there corresponding extents within the proposed MPA. No management restrictions upon this activity are required.	Sea anglers could benefit from any on-site positive effects resulting from the MPA designation and corresponding management restrictions on sector activities including an increase in the size and diversity of species which in turn is expected to increase the attraction of a site for anglers (Fletcher et al. 2012).	The intermediate management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower estimate.	The upper management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower and intermediate estimates.

Human activities that are present but which would be unaffected by designation of the site as an MPA

Table 6. Human Activities that are Present but which would be Unaffected by Designation of the Site as an MPA [ WYR]
Activity	Description
Power Interconnectors	Three existing power interconnectors overlap with the WYR proposed MPA. Two power interconnectors overlap with kelp and seaweed communities (all scenarios) and maerl beds (all scenarios). The third power interconnector overlaps with kelp and seaweed communities (intermediate and upper scenarios) and maerl beds (upper scenario). Two additional power interconnectors are also within 1km of maerl beds (one under all scenarios and one under the upper scenario only) and kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities (both under the intermediate and upper scenarios). No cost impacts are foreseen, as it is assumed that there will be no review of the existing consents.

Table 6. Human Activities that are Present but which would be Unaffected by Designation of the Site as an MPA [ WYR]

Activity

Description

Power Interconnectors

Three existing power interconnectors overlap with the WYR proposed MPA. Two power interconnectors overlap with kelp and seaweed communities (all scenarios) and maerl beds (all scenarios). The third power interconnector overlaps with kelp and seaweed communities (intermediate and upper scenarios) and maerl beds (upper scenario). Two additional power interconnectors are also within 1km of maerl beds (one under all scenarios and one under the upper scenario only) and kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities (both under the intermediate and upper scenarios). No cost impacts are foreseen, as it is assumed that there will be no review of the existing consents.

Social and Distributional Analysis of Impacts from Designation of the Site as an MPA

Table 7a. Social Impacts Associated with Quantified and Non-Quantified Economic Costs					[ WYR]
Sector	Potential Economic Impacts	Economic Costs and GVA ( PV)	Area of Social Impact Affected	Mitigation	Significance of Social impact
Commercial Fisheries	Loss of traditional fishing grounds with consequent loss in landings, value of landings and hence GVA	Annual Average Loss in Value of Landings: Lower: <£0.01m Intermediate: <£0.01m Upper: <£0.01m Annual Average Loss in GVA (direct and indirect): Lower: <£0.01m Intermediate: <£0.01m Upper: <£0.01m	Culture and heritage - impact on traditions from loss of fishing grounds.		Health: x (for individuals affected who do not find alternative employment)
	If the loss in GVA significant enough, risk of job losses (direct and indirect)	Job Losses*: Lower: 0.0 jobs Intermediate: 0.0 jobs Upper: 0.0 jobs	A reduction in employment can generate a wide range of social impacts which, in turn, can generate a range of short and long term costs for wider society and the public purse: Healt h (increase in illness, mental stress, loss of self esteem and risk of depression); Increase in crime; and Reduction in f u ture emp lo y me n t prospects/future earnings.	Support to retrain those affected and for the promotion of new small businesses in fisheries dependent areas.
	Displacement Effects	Not Quantified	Quantified impact on jobs assume worst case scenario ( i.e. no redistribution of effort). In reality displacement effects likely to occur with socio-economic consequences: Empl o y m e nt - reduced employment due to changes in costs and earnings profile of vessels ( e.g. increased fuel costs, gear development and adaption costs, additional quota costs); Conflict/Loss of social cohesion - diminishing fishing grounds may increase conflict with other vessels/gear types, increase social tensions within fishing communities and lead to a loss of social cohesion among fleets. Could also lead to increased operating costs as a result of lost or damaged gear. Equally, gear conflict could reduce where gears are restricted/prohibited; Healt h - increased risks to the safety of fishers and vessels and increased stress due to moving to lesser known areas; E n v ironmental - increased impact in targeting new areas, longer streaming times and increased fuel consumption; and Culture and heritage - change in traditional fishing patterns/ activities.		x
Energy Generation	Additional operational costs	Quantified Cost Impact (2014-2033): £0.012 - 0.068m	Future employment opportunities - if increased operational costs associated with management measures render projects unviable or restrict project size there will be a negative impact on economic activity and job creation in this sector.		0
Energy Generation	Costs associated with delays during the consenting process Loss of investor confidence (developments do not proceed)	Not Quantified	Future employment opportunities - if the delays deter investments there will be a negative impact on economic activity and future job creation in this sector. Environment - possible negative impact in relation to climate change and the ability of the Scottish Government to meet its 2020 renewables targets, decarbonisation targets and climate change targets. There would also be consequent financial implications of climate change impacts. This impact is uncertain and is only likely to arise under the upper scenario. JNCC's current advice is that the intermediate scenario represents their best view on management requirements.		xxx (under the upper scenario only)
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected. * These estimates assume zero displacement of fishing activity and hence are likely to overestimate the costs.

Table 7b. Distribution of Quantified Economic Costs for Commercial Fisheries and Fish Processors (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) - Location, Age and Gender								[ WYR]
Sector/Impact	Location			Age			Gender
Sector/Impact	Region	Ports*	Rural, Urban, Coastal or Island	Children	Working Age	Pensionable Age	Male	Female
Commercial Fisheries Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment	x North	x There is currently no information available, although likely to include Kirkwall	x Coastal	0	0	xx Potential negative effect if retirees own affected vessels or live in households affected by unemployment.	0 0.002-0.04 job losses	0
Fish Processors Reduction in local landings at landing ports	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected. * Based on value of landings by home port affected under intermediate scenario.

Table 7c. Distribution of Quantified Economic Costs for Commercial Fisheries and Fish Processors (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) - Fishing Groups, Income Groups and Social Groups								[ WYR]
Sector/Impact	Fishing Groups		Income Groups			Social Groups
Sector/Impact	Vessel Category <15m >15m*	Gear Types/Sector*	10% Most Deprived	Middle 80%	10% Most Affluent	Crofters	Ethnic minorities	With Disability or Long-term Sick
Commercial Fisheries Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment	Lower: <15m Upper: <15m	Cannot be identified for confidentiality reasons.	0	0	x Information only available on average incomes not the distribution of income. Therefore, not clear whether this group will be affected.	0	0	0
Fish Processors Reduction in local landings at landing ports		0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected. * Based on costs to gear types/sectors and vessel categories affected under the intermediate scenario.

Potential Contribution of the Site to an Ecologically-Coherent Network

Table 8. Overview of Features Proposed for Designation and how these contribute to an Ecologically Coherent Network of MPAs					[ WYR]
Feature Name	Representation	Replication	Linkages	Geographic Range and Variation	Resilience
Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment	Provides representation for kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment in OSPAR Region II.	Represents one of two areas recommended for protection within OSPAR Region II and one of four in Scottish seas.
Maerl beds	Provides representation for maerl beds in OSPAR Region II.	Represents one of two areas recommended for the protection of maerl beds in OSPAR Region II and one of five in Scottish waters.			Maerl beds are listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining. MPA area may increase resilience.
JNCC (pers. comm.); SNH and JNCC. (2012). Assessment of the potential adequacy of the Scottish MPA network for MPA search features: summary of the application of the stage 5 selection guidelines. Available online from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/engagement/270612.

Anticipated Benefits to Ecosystem Services

Table 9. Summary of Ecosystem Services Benefits arising from Designation of the Site as an MPA ^[17]								[ WYR]
Services	Relevance to Site	Baseline Level	Estimated Impacts of Designation			Value Weighting	Scale of Benefits	Confidence
Services	Relevance to Site	Baseline Level	Lower	Intermediate	Upper	Value Weighting	Scale of Benefits	Confidence
Fish for human consumption	High. Support food web and contain nursery habitats.	Extent of habitats uncertain	Low	Low - Moderate. Protection of shellfish beds can contribute to maintenance and recovery of stocks - benefits are higher under stronger protection measures but ecosystem response is uncertain.		Moderate. Commercially valuable species supported.	Low - Moderate	Low, uncertain if habitats need to recover.
Fish for non-human consumption	High. Support food web and contain nursery habitats.	Uncertain	Low			Moderate. Commercially valuable species supported.	Low - Moderate	Low, uncertain if habitats need to recover.
Gas and climate regulation	Minimal	From kelp and seaweed communities	Low - Moderate, dependent on avoiding decline or restoring kelp & seaweed communities.	Moderate, social cost of carbon	Minimal	High
Natural hazard protection	Low	Low	Nil		Low	Nil	High
Regulation of pollution	Moderate, benthic communities regulate pollution	Low, major water quality issues to be dealt with through WFD	Minimal, if protection avoids damage or allows recovery of habitats.		Low, water quality in this area not affecting human welfare	Minimal, increase in this service unlikely	Moderate
Non-use value of natural environment	Moderate - High, variety of protected features, and contribution of the site to MPA network, have non-use value.	Non-use value of the site may be reduced through damage	Low, if protection avoids damage or allows recovery of habitats, service could increase			Low, small site but contribution to halting decline of marine biodiversity.	Low - Moderate	Moderate, value to society uncertain
Recreation	Low	Some angling and recreational boating routes	Low, angling benefits and biodiversity encountered by recreational boaters may avoid deterioration or recover.	Low, some activities, but substitutes are available.		Nil - Low	Moderate
Research and Education	Low	Low, small number of biological features have research value and there are substitutes	Low, if protection avoids damage or allows recovery of habitats, service could increase	Low		Low	Low - Moderate, extent to which research uses site in future uncertain
Total value of changes in ecosystem services			Low for lower scenario, Low for upper scenarios				Low	Low

Human Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA Wyre and Rousay Sounds

Contact

The Marine Environment Team

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Was this helpful?

Yes

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Yes, but

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Information

Wyre and Rousay Sounds ( WYR)

Contact

There is a problem