We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Set cookie preferences

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

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.

View supporting documents Supporting documents

East of Gannet & Montrose Fields ( EGM)

Site Area (km 2): 1,838

Site Summary

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Protected Features, Data Confidence and Conservation Objectives [ EGM]
Proposed protected features
Biodiversity Features
Ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels), offshore deep sea muds. Geodiversity Features
None Site Description
The East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA proposal is an offshore site located to the east of Aberdeen, south of the Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain MPA proposal.
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
Ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels) All scenarios: 1839.18 Yes ( BP and Shell Oil and Gas EIA surveys, 1990-2000) Partial - Offshore subtidal sand and gravel habitats present considered suitable habitat for ocean quahog Low Conserve (uncertain)
Offshore deep sea muds All scenarios: 230.13 Yes ( UK SeaMap, 2010; BGS and Marine Scotland Science PSA, provided 2012 & 2001-2011) Partial - largely based on predictive habitat mapping information Low Conserve (uncertain)
Geodiversity Features
N/A
Key: * Estimated area based on best available data References: Area of Features: GeMS Confidence in biodiversity feature presence and extent: JNCC (2012b) Confidence in biodiversity feature condition: JNCC (2013) pers. comm. Confidence in geodiversity feature presence and extent: Brooks et al. (2012) Confidence in geodiversity feature condition: Brooks et al. (2012)

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) [ EGM]
Human Activity Cost Impact on Activity
Lower Estimate (£Million) Intermediate Estimate (£Million) Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Economic Costs (Discounted)
Commercial Fisheries* 0.000 0.254 1.226
Oil and Gas 0.225 0.225 35.021
Total Quantified Economic Costs 0.225 0.479 36.247
Non-Quantified Economic Costs
Commercial Fisheries
  • None.
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels; and
  • Displacement impacts.
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels; and
  • Displacement impacts.
Oil and Gas
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
  • Costs of mitigation measures;
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
  • Costs of mitigation measures;
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
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) [ EGM]
Description Public Sector Costs
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 None 0.005 0.005
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 0.022 0.022 0.022
Total Quantified Public Sector Costs 0.022 0.027 0.027
Non-Quantified Public Sector Costs
None identified.
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) [ EGM]
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: 0.5 jobs
Upper: 3 jobs		 North East North East
North East		 Buckie
Peterhead
Fraserburgh		 Impacts concentrated in rural urban coastal areas Whitefish trawls
Nephrops trawls
Whitefish seines		 Lower: N/A
Upper: >15m		 No Impact. No breakdown of fisherman employment by ethnic origin. Unlikely to be employed in fisheries.
If any oil and gas 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) [ EGM]
Benefit Description
Ecosystem Services Benefits (Moderate and High Benefits) Relevance Scale of Benefits
Non-use of natural environment Low - Moderate. Some features protected by site have non-use values. Nil - Moderate
Other Benefits
None identified.
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 [ EGM]
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
Ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels) - - - - L/I/U - L/ I/U - - L/I/U - - - - - - -
Offshore deep sea muds - - - - L/I/U - L/ I/U - - L/I/U - - - - - - -
Geodiversity Features
N/A
Note: L = Lower Scenario; I = Intermediate Scenario; U = Upper Scenario. Normal font indicates that there is an overlap between the activity and proposed protected feature under that scenario, bold indicates that the overlap results in a potential interaction between the activity and proposed protected 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. Commercial Fisheries (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) [ EGM]

According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, Nephrops trawls, whitefish trawls and seines and pelagic trawls (over-15m) and nephrops trawls and whitefish trawls (under-15m vessels] operate within the EGM proposed MPA. The value of catches from the EGM area was £227,000 (over-15m vessels) and £433 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m fleet were made predominantly into Peterhead (66% by value), Fraserburgh (20%) and Aberdeen (9%). For the over-15m fleet, nephrops and whitefish trawlers operate in particular in the south-east corner of the proposed MPA in the area of offshore deep sea muds.

Information submitted by Copeche indicated that French vessels operate in the EGM proposed MPA, but no information was provided on numbers of vessels or value of catches. Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 14 non- UK vessels were active in the EGM area in 2012: 5 from Denmark; 4 from Sweden; 2 from the Netherlands; 1 from Norway, 1 from Germany and 1 from the Faroe Islands. The Swedish, Dutch and German vessels fish with pelagic gear (pelagic trawls and purse seines) and therefore would not be affected by the management scenarios. One Danish vessel fishes with bottom trawl and therefore may be affected by the management measures assessed under the intermediate and upper scenarios. No information on gear types used by the Norwegian vessels was available. Provisional ScotMap data do not indicate any under-15m vessel activity in the EGM 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 based on JNCC 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
  • No additional management.
  • Closure to beam trawls and dredges (gears likely to impact on ocean quahog) across the ocean quahog feature extent (full extent of proposed MPA); and
  • Reduce other mobile bottom contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines) pressure by 50% across the offshore deep sea muds feature.
  • Closure to whitefish trawls, nephrops trawls, other trawls, beam trawls and dredges (gears the could possibly affect ocean quahog) across the ocean quahog feature extent (full extent of proposed MPA); and
  • Closure to other mobile bottom-contact gears (whitefish seines, nephrops seines and other seines) across the offshore deep sea muds feature.
Description of one-off costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of recurring costs
  • None.
  • Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • Whitefish trawls (0.018);
  • Whitefish seines (<0.001);
  • Nephrops trawls (0.028).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • All gears (<0.001).
  • Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • Whitefish trawls (0.082);
  • Whitefish seines (<0.001);
  • Nephrops trawls (0.142).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • All gears (<0.001).
Description of non-quantified costs
  • None.
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (1 vessel) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)); and
  • 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.
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (1 vessel) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)); and
  • 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) 0.000 0.924 4.489
Average annual costs 0.000 0.046 0.224
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.000 0.680 3.302
Economic Impacts (£Million)
Total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.000 0.346 1.667
Average annual change to GVA 0.000 0.017 0.083
Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.000 0.254 1.226
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment 0.0 jobs 0.5 jobs 2.6 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 4b. Oil and Gas [ EGM]

The EGM proposed MPA encompasses 18 known hydrocarbon fields and four oil and gas installations. Under all scenarios, feature extents for ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels) overlap with all four installations present (Nordic Apollo FPSO; 21/25 GANNET A; 22/17 B and 22/17 A), while offshore deep sea muds overlap with only one (Nordic Apollo FPSO). A further 2 installations outside of the MPA proposal boundary are within 1km of ocean quahog aggregations under all scenarios.

Of the 204 wells present within the EGM proposed MPA, feature extents for ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels) overlap with all 204 and offshore deep sea muds overlap with 15 under all scenarios.

There are 128 sections of oil and gas pipeline present within the MPA proposal area that overlap with features proposed for designation, all of which overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels), and 19 of which overlap with offshore deep sea muds, under all scenarios. Additional lengths of pipeline outside of the MPA are within the 1km buffer area.

A number of licence awards have been granted under the 26 th and 27 th oil and gas licensing rounds which overlap with features proposed for designation within the MPA proposal boundary. Twelve awards were granted during the 26 th UK licensing round and a further 9 during the 27 th UK licensing round. Under all scenarios, all 21 of the licence awards overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels), while three of the 26 th round awards and five of the 27 th round awards overlap with offshore deep sea muds. Three of the awarded blocks have significant oil discoveries. Under all scenarios three of the discoveries overlap with ocean quahog aggregations and one with offshore deep sea muds.

Three of the awards from the 26 th round and three from the 27 th round lie wholly within the MPA proposal, while the rest overlap its boundaries.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 th and 27 th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 th round awards).
  • Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 th and 27 th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 th round awards);
  • Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type; and
  • Treat cuttings that use oil-based muds on site.
  • Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 th and 27 th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 th round awards);
  • Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type;
  • Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of more representative habitat types for offshore deep sea muds and offshore subtidal sand and gravels using data held by JNCC and collected by operators; and
  • Skip and ship drill cuttings.
Description of one-off costs
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (11 wells (2016) and 7 wells (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
  • Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
  • Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024)); and
  • Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024)).
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (11 wells (2016) and 7 wells (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
  • Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
  • Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024)); and
  • Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024)).
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (11 wells (2016) and 7 wells (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016) , 11 wells (2018) and 7 wells (2020));
  • Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
  • Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
  • Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
  • Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (3 wells (2016), 11 wells (2018), 7 wells (2020), 3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024));
  • Re-routing of new pipelines for Phases 4 - 6 - £2m per additional km of pipeline (10% of distance);
  • Survey costs for additional pipeline length - £580k per well; and
  • Skip and ship drill cuttings - £650k per well (3 wells (2016), 11 wells (2018), 7 wells (2020), 3 wells (2022) and 2 wells (2024)).
Description of recurring costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of non-quantified costs
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
  • Costs of some mitigation measures should be covered by industry best practice;
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
  • Costs of some mitigation measures should be covered by industry best practice;
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.269 0.269 44.049
Average annual costs 0.013 0.013 2.202
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.225 0.225 35.021
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%.

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 [ EGM]
Activity Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
None identified.

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

Table 6. Human Activities that would be Unaffected by Designation of the Site as an MPA [ EGM]
Activity Description
Carbon Capture and Storage There is currently no CCS activity which occurs within the boundaries of the EGM proposed MPA, nor within a 1km buffer zone. Two potential saline aquifers (Tay and Forties) overlap with the northern component of the 'ocean quahog aggregation extent (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels)' and 'offshore deep sea muds' features of the EGM proposed MPA under all scenarios (lower, intermediate and upper). However, in the timescales of the project (2014-2033) it is considered that CCS will utilise existing oil and gas pipelines, where possible, between St Fergus and the Goldeneye hydrocarbon field and that possible new infrastructure (pipeline or shipping) will link the Firth of Forth to St Fergus and Teesside to an offshore hub at Goldeneye. None of these possible future CCS developments occur within the boundaries of the EGM proposed MPA, nor within a 1km buffer zone. Therefore, no cost impacts are expected.
Military There is currently no military activity within the EGM proposed MPA boundary. No future activity is expected and, therefore, no cost assessments have been made.
Power Interconnectors No power interconnectors occur within the EGM proposed MPA boundary or within a 1 km buffer zone. No future activity is expected.
Telecom Cables No telecom cables occur within the EGM proposed MPA boundary or within a 1 km buffer zone. No future activity is expected.

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 [ EGM]
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: £0.00m
Intermediate: £0.05m
Upper: £0.22m

Annual Average Loss in GVA (direct and indirect)*: Lower: £0.00m Intermediate: £0.02m Upper: £0.08m

 Culture and heritage - impact on traditions from loss of fishing grounds. Health: xx (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: 0.5
jobs
Upper: 2.6 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.
Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (1 vessel) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)) Not quantified Employment - loss of foreign jobs from reduced landings.
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
  • Cul t ur e a nd her i tag e - change in traditional fishing patterns/ activities.
 xx
Oil and Gas Additional operational costs associated with licence and permit applications for new exploration development and decommissioning

Quantified Cost Impact (2014-2033): £0.225 - 35.021m

Decommissioning assessed at national level

 Future employment opportunities - reduced future employment opportunities if increased costs affect the economic viability of projects and lead to some projects not proceeding. xxx (under the upper scenario only)
Additional mitigation measures for new developments or decommissioning activities to support achievement of site conservation objectives Not Quantified

Future employment opportunities - reduced future employment opportunities if costs significant and render development projects unviable.

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)
Costs associated with delays during the licensing and permitting process Loss of investor confidence (developments do not proceed) Not Quantified Employment - reduced future employment opportunities if delays deter investments. 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 [ EGM]
Sector/Impact Location Age Gender
Region Ports* Rural, Urban, Coastal or Island Children Working Age Pensionable Age Male Female

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

xx

North-East
North-West

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Buckie (51%), Peterhead (26%), Fraserburgh (11%)

xx

Coastal

Rural and Urban

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if parent loses job/becomes unemployed.

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if individuals lose job/become unemployed.

xx

Potential negative effect if retirees own affected vessels or live in households affected by unemployment.

xxx

0-2.6 job losses

Potentially significant negative effect on individuals that lose job/become unemployed.

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if member of household loses job/becomes unemployed.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

x

North-East
North-West

x

Peterhead
Fraserburgh
Aberdeen
Grimsby

x

Coastal

Urban

 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 [ EGM]
Sector/Impact Fishing Groups Income Groups Social Groups
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: N/A
Upper: >15m		 Whitefish trawls
Nephrops trawls Whitefish seines		 xx xx

x

Information only available on average incomes not the distribution of income. Therefore, not clear whether this group will be affected.

 0 No breakdown of fisherman employment by ethnic origin.

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

 Shellfish: xxx
Demersal: xx
Pelagic: 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 [ EGM]
Feature Name Representation Replication Linkages Geographic Range
and Variation 		Resilience
Ocean quahog aggregations (including offshore subtidal sands and gravels) Provides representation for an area of the species in the only OSPAR Region it is recorded within in offshore waters adjacent to Scotland - OSPAR Region II. East of Gannet and Montrose Fields is a relatively data-rich area for the species. Provides one of at least three recommended examples to be protected in Scotland's seas. Not currently understood for ocean quahog. Provides representation at the south-eastern extent of its range in OSPAR Region II in Scotland's seas. Ocean quahog is listed as Threatened and/or Declining by the OSPAR Commission in OSPAR Region II so the MPA is expected to help increase resilience for the feature.
Offshore deep sea muds Provides representation for offshore deep sea muds in one of very few areas it occurs on the continental shelf in OSPAR Region II. Provides one of at least two recommended examples to be protected on the continental shelf in OSPAR Region II in Scotland's seas, although no other areas represent what would be considered viable areas of the habitat and so the possible MPA is the only recommendation for the feature on the continental shelf in OSPAR Region II. Not currently understood for offshore deep sea muds. Provides representation for one of the only viable examples of offshore deep sea muds in offshore waters in OSPAR Region II. Offshore deep sea muds are fairly widely recorded across offshore waters in Scotland's seas, but less frequently observed in OSPAR Region II. In OSPAR Region II offshore deep sea mud tends to be the burrowed mud sub-type e.g. that comprising the Fladen Grounds.
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 [21] [ EGM]
Services Relevance
to Site 		Baseline Level Estimated Impacts of Designation Value Weighting Scale of Benefits Confidence
Lower Intermediate Upper
Fish for human consumption Moderate. Habitats make contribution to food webs. Stocks not at MSY Nil Low - Small recovery of fish stocks in medium to long term. Features provide low level of supporting services to support recovery. Moderate recovery of fish stocks in medium to long term. Features provide low level of supporting services to support recovery. Low - Moderate. Site fishing grounds are of moderate value. Nil - Low Moderate
Fish for non-human consumption Stocks reduced from potential maximum
Gas and climate regulation Nil - Low Nil - Low Nil, or at best a very low level of protection of parts of ecosystem providing these services Low Nil - Low High
Natural hazard protection Nil - Low Nil - Low Low Nil - Low High
Regulation of pollution Nil - Low Nil - Low Low Nil - Low High
Non-use value of natural environment Low - Moderate. Features protected by site have low/ moderate non-use value. Non-use value of the site may decline Nil, no change in key characteristics of site Low - protection of key characteristics of site from minor decline Moderate - protection of key characteristics of site from decline, and/or allowing some recovery of values Moderate Nil - Moderate Low
Recreation Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Moderate
Research and Education Low - Moderate Biological and geological features have research value but there are substitutes Nil, no change in key characteristics of site Low - protection of key characteristics of site from decline, improving future research opportunities Low Nil - Low Low
Total value of changes in ecosystem services Nil for lower scenario, low for intermediate scenarios and moderate from upper scenario Low - Moderate Low

Human Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA East of Gannet and Montrose Fields

Fishing Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA East of Gannet and Montrose Fields

Contact

Back to top