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

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


Firth of Forth Banks Complex ( FOF)

Site Area (km 2): 2130

Site Summary

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Protected Features, Data Confidence and Conservation Objectives [ FOF]
Proposed protected features
Biodiversity Features
Ocean quahog aggregations, offshore subtidal sands and gravels, shelf banks and mounds.

Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - moraines.

Site Description
The Firth of Forth Banks Complex proposed MPA is in offshore waters and comprises three different parts (northern southern and western) and encompasses four shelf bank and mound features in the Firth of Forth.

Potential Alternative Designations
At the request of Marine Scotland, JNCC have proposed science-based alternatives to the ocean quahog aggregations proposed protected feature (Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain) and the shelf banks and mounds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels proposed protected features (Turbot Bank) of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex possible MPA.
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 All scenarios: 2128.71 Yes (Northumberland Coast Marine Biodiversity Project data, 1999 - 2001; JNCC Firth of Forth Banks Complex Survey, 2011) Partial Low Conserve (uncertain)
Offshore subtidal sands and gravels All scenarios: 2128.71 Yes ( UK SeaMap, 2010; BGS PSA, provided 2012; JNCC Firth of Forth Banks Complex Survey, 2011) Yes Low Conserve (uncertain)
Shelf banks and mounds Yes ( UKHO Admiralty Charts; NOC) Yes Low Conserve (uncertain)
Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - moraines 493.18 Yes Yes Low Conserve (uncertain)
Key: * Estimated area based on best available data
References:
Area of Features: GeMS
Confidence in biodiversity feature presence and extent: JNCC (2012d), JNCC (2011)
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) [ FOF]
Human Activity Cost Impact on Activity
Lower Estimate (£Million) Intermediate Estimate (£Million) Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Economic Costs (Discounted)
Commercial Fisheries* 0.000 4.175 4.803
Energy Generation 0.070 0.070 43.440
Military See national costs See national costs See national costs
Total Quantified Economic Costs 0.070 4.245 48.243
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.
Energy Generation
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
  • Micro-siting of turbines; and
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.
Military
  • See national assessment.
  • See national assessment.
  • See national assessment.
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) [ FOF]
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 0.007 0.007 0.007
Total Quantified Public Sector Costs 0.007 0.012 0.012
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) [ FOF]
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: 6 jobs
Upper: 7 jobs
West
North East
North East
South
South
North West
West
North
Ayr
Buckie
Peterhead
Poole Brixham Oban
Milford Haven Scrabster
Impacts concentrated in rural and urban coastal areas Whitefish trawls
Whitefish seines
Dredges
Other gears
Lower: N/A
Upper: >15m
No Impact. No Impact. 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) [ FOF]
Benefit Description
Ecosystem Services Benefits (Moderate and High Benefits) Relevance Scale of Benefits
Non-use of natural environment Moderate. Protected features which make a contribution to MPA network 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 [ FOF]
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 - - - - - - L/ I/ U L/ I/ U L/I/U L/I/U - L/I/U L/I/U - - - L/I/U
Offshore subtidal sands and gravels - - - - - - L/ I/ U L/ I/ U L/I/U L/I/U - L/I/U L/I/U - - - L/I/U
Shelf Banks and Mounds With the exception of those bank and mound features representative of moraines, the feature is not considered sensitive to pressures associated with marine activities and, therefore, is not considered further.
Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - moraines These overlap with the distribution of offshore subtidal sands and gravels in the MPA proposal and it is considered that the management options presented for offshore subtidal sands and gravels will be similar for this geodiversity interest.
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) [ FOF]

According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, dredgers, otter trawls (nephrops, whitefish and other) and whitefish seines (over-15m vessels) and nephrops trawls, pots, dredgers, other trawls, whitefish trawls, hand fishing, lines and nets (under-15m vessels) operate within the FOF proposed MPA. The value of catches from the FOF area was £483,000 (over-15m vessels) and £248,000 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). For the over-15m fleet, dredgers operate in particular in the western component of FOF, with whitefish trawls and other trawls operating across the area.

The feature extents for ocean quahog and offshore subtidal sands and gravels extend across the whole proposed MPA boundary in the intermediate and upper scenarios. Dredging, trawling, seining and static gear use therefore overlap with both proposed protected features under both the intermediate and upper scenarios. Management 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 advice. Using this information, the potential cost impacts of management measures have been assessed for trawls and dredges.

Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 7 non- UK vessels were active in the FOF area in 2012, all from Denmark. Based on the EU vessel register, it appears that two of these vessels fish with bottom trawls and therefore would be impacted by the management measures assessed under the intermediate and upper scenarios.

Provisional ScotMap data indicate that the annual average earnings from the FOF proposed MPA was £191,800, with over 70% of this from pots (predominantly for lobster). The spatial distribution of value from the under-15m ScotMap data indicates that the majority of value in the FOF proposed MPA and surrounding area is derived from closer inshore in the Firth of Forth area, indicating that the estimates of value of landings from the ICES rectangle data is likely to over-estimate the impact on the under-15m sector. The coverage for ScotMap interviews in the region was 85.2% (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 slightly under-represent the value of fishing by under-15m vessels, but the spatial representation of the value of fishing is fairly robust due to the high level of coverage.

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 full extent of MPA;
  • Reduce other mobile bottom contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines) pressure by 50% across MPA.
  • Closure to mobile bottom contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across full extent of MPA.
Description of one-off costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of recurring costs
  • None.
  • Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million):
  • Whitefish trawls (0.001);
  • Dredges (0.410);
  • Other affected gears (0.035).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million):
  • All affected gears (0.075).
  • Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million):
  • Whitefish trawls (0.003);
  • Dredges (0.410);
  • Other affected gears (0.071).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million):
  • All affected gears (0.138).
Description of non-quantified costs
  • None.
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (2 vessels)); and
  • Displacement impacts (additional fishing pressure on other areas, potential conflict with other vessels, additional steaming time/fuel costs).
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (2 vessels)); and
  • Displacement impacts (additional fishing pressure on other areas, potential conflict with other vessels, additional steaming time/fuel costs).
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.000 10.425 12.417
Average annual costs 0.000 0.521 0.621
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.000 7.668 9.133
Economic Impacts (£Million)
Total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.000 5.676 6.530
Average annual change to GVA 0.000 0.284 0.327
Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.000 4.175 4.803
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment 0.0 jobs 5.9 jobs 7.1 jobs
Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs arising as a result of management measures 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. Energy Generation [ FOF]

There are no energy generation activities currently operating within the FOF proposed MPA boundary or corresponding buffer zones. Thus, economic costs and management measures associated with energy generation in this proposed MPA are described in light of known possible future developments.

In 2012, Seagreen Wind Energy Limited (Seagreen) submitted separate applications to the Scottish Government for consent to construct two offshore wind farms (Project Alpha and Project Bravo, 525MW each) in the Firth of Forth Offshore Wind Zone (Phase 1). Project Alpha and Project Bravo overlap the western and northern parts of the FOF proposed MPA boundary, respectively. Buffer zones (1km) around possible export cable routes from these potential wind farm developments could overlap the FOF proposed MPA boundary. Nevertheless, any associated costs of Phase 1 are considered sunk as the application process has the potential to be concluded prior to 2014. Similarly, the consent application has been submitted for the Neart Na Gaoithe (Mainstream Renewable Power) wind farm development which lies within a 5km buffer zone around the proposed MPA, but any associated costs are effectively sunk (as above).

Seagreen's plans are ongoing regarding the development of two further areas of the Firth of Forth Offshore Wind Zone (Phases 2 and 3, up to 2.6GW combined capacity). Phase 2 is planned to comprise three wind farms (Seagreen Charlie, Seagreen Delta and Seagreen Echo) and Phase 3 is planned to comprise two wind farms (Seagreen Foxtrot and Seagreen Golf). The areas considered for Phases 2 and 3 overlap the southern and western parts of the FOF proposed MPA. Approximately 57.4km 2 (6.2%) of Phase 2 would overlap the western and southern parts and approximately 502.8 km 2 (67.2%) of Phase 3 would overlap the western part. Additional licence application costs may be incurred in order to assess potential impacts to MPA features (ocean quahog aggregations ( OSPAR listed) and offshore subtidal sands and gravels ( UK BAP listed)) for Phases 2 and 3 under all scenarios, as well as additional survey costs. Therefore, should Seagreen successfully obtain permission(s) to construct Phases 2 and 3 within the FOF proposed MPA boundary, additional management measures may be required. Buffer zones (1km) around possible export cable routes from Firth of Forth Offshore Wind Zone developments overlap ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within the FOF proposed MPA boundary.

The Inch Cape (Repsol Nuevas Energías UK) wind farm development (pre-application) lies within a 5km buffer zone around the proposed MPA and, therefore, may incur additional costs to assess the potential impacts to the proposed protected features (ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels) under the intermediate and upper scenarios.

It should be noted that additional cost impacts could also arise as a result of consenting delays. The cost impacts and uncertainty associated with MPA designation may affect investor confidence.

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 ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within 1km of proposed activities.
  • Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within 5km of proposed activities.
  • Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within 5km of proposed activities;
  • Additional survey costs incurred to inform new licence applications;
  • Use of graded scour protection around turbine foundations; and
  • Micro-siting of infrastructure in less sensitive areas using data held by JNCC on seabed habitat types and data collected by operators.
Description of one-off costs
  • Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 6 in total). Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2014 (Seagreen Charlie, Seagreen Delta, Seagreen Echo and Inch Cape) and 2016 (Seagreen Foxtrot and Seagreen Golf).
  • Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 6 in total). Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2014 (Seagreen Charlie, Seagreen Delta, Seagreen Echo and Inch Cape) and 2016 (Seagreen Foxtrot and Seagreen Golf).
  • Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k per licence application (up to 6 in total). Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2014 (Seagreen Charlie, Seagreen Delta, Seagreen Echo and Inch Cape) and 2016 (Seagreen Foxtrot and Seagreen Golf);
  • Additional survey costs - £5k per km 2 of development; and
  • Costs of graded scour protection - £0.35m per Gravity Base Structure - Phase 2 (6.2% of 380 = 24) and Phase 3 (67.2% of 169 = 114) for Firth of Forth Offshore Wind Zone - assumed to be incurred in 2016 and 2017 (Phase 2) and 2019 and 2020 (Phase 3).
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.
  • Micro-siting of turbines; 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) 0.072 0.072 51.173
Average annual costs 0.004 0.004 2.559
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.070 0.070 43.440
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 4c. Military [ FOF]

Two military practice areas: St Andrews (D609; sonobuoy, missile and firing) and area D609 (firing danger area) overlap with the northern part of the FOF proposed MPA. Both of these military practice areas overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (all scenarios) and offshore subtidal sands and gravels (all scenarios).

Three military practice areas: Firth of Forth (middle) (X5641), Firth of Forth outer (outer) (X5642) and a submarine exercise area overlap with the western component of the FOF proposed MPA. All three military practice areas overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (all scenarios) and offshore subtidal sands and gravels (all scenarios).

Five military practice areas: St Andrews (D609, sonobuoy, missile, firing), Firth of Forth (outer) (general practice area), X5642 (firing danger area), D609 (firing danger area) and a submarine exercise area overlap with the southern part of the FOF proposed MPA. All of these military practice areas overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (all scenarios) and offshore subtidal sands and gravels (all scenarios).

Although the proposed protected features are vulnerable to certain MoD activities, no management options are proposed. This is because it is assumed that management relating to MoD activity will be coordinated through the MoD's Maritime Environmental Sustainability Appraisal Tool ( MESAT) which the MoD uses to assist in meeting its environmental obligations. This process will include operational guidance to reduce significant impacts of military activities on MPAs. It is assumed that the MoD will incur additional costs in adjusting MESAT and other MoD environmental assessment tools in order to consider whether its activities will impact on the conservation objectives of MPAs and also incur additional costs in adjusting electronic charts to consider MPAs. However, these costs will be incurred at national level and hence no site-specific cost assessments have been made.

Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • See National Assessment.
  • See National Assessment.
  • See National Assessment.
Description of one-off costs
Description of recurring costs
Description of non-quantified costs
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) See national costs See national costs See national costs
Average annual costs See national costs See national costs See national costs
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) See national costs See national costs See national costs
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 [ FOF]
Activity Description Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Water Sports - Scuba Diving There are four dive sites located within the FOF proposed MPA - two wreck dive sites (St Briac and Burnstone) and two submarine wreck dive sites (U1020 and U12). All four dive sites overlap with both biodiversity features within the proposed MPA; No management restrictions upon this activity are considered to be required. The added protection offered by an MPA designation and management measures placed upon sector activities may increase the aesthetic attraction of the dive sites through an improved marine ecosystem and a reduction in degradation to the wreck sites. 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 [ FOF]
Activity Description
Oil and Gas Two abandoned oil wells are present in the northern part of the FOF proposed MPA boundary; wells 26/14-01 and 26/08-01. There are no awarded licence blocks currently within any part of the FOF proposed MPA boundary. The feature extents for both ocean quahog aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels under the lower, intermediate and upper scenarios overlap with the abandoned wells and licence blocks, although no cost impacts are foreseen as there is no current or future activity anticipated.
Power Interconnectors One future power interconnector (Eastern HVDC Link) overlaps with the southern part of the FOF proposed MPA for a distance of 26.2km and one future power interconnector (Norway-England connector) potentially overlaps with the western part of the FOF proposed MPA for a distance of 5.5km. Both these future power interconnectors overlap with ocean quahog aggregations (all scenarios) and offshore subtidal sands and gravels (all scenarios). However no cost impacts are foreseen as the site is located beyond the 12 nautical mile threshold (within which licences are required for cables).
Recreational Boating Two medium RYA cruising routes ( RYA Route/RYA Scotland and RYA North East Region) overlap with the 'ocean quahog aggregations' (all scenarios) and the 'offshore subtidal sands and gravels' (all scenarios) feature extents in the southern and western parts of the FOF proposed MPA for a length of 28km and 66km, respectively. It is unlikely there would be a significant interaction between the ocean quahog aggregations or the offshore subtidal sands and gravels features and recreational boating and so no cost impacts are 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 [ FOF]
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: £0.52m Upper: £0.62m Annual Average Loss in GVA (direct and indirect)*: Lower: £0.00m Intermediate: £0.28m Upper: £0.33m 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: 5.9 jobs Upper: 7.1 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 mobile gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (2 vessels)) 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.
x
Energy Generation Additional operational costs Quantified Cost Impact (2014-2033): £0.070 - 43.440m 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. xxx (under the upper scenario only)

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 [ FOF]
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

x

North-East
North-West
East

x

Largest employment impacts in:

Ayr (56%),
Buckie (14%),
Peterhead (6%),
Poole (5%), Brixham (5%), Oban (4%), Milford Haven (3%), Scrabster (2%)

x

Coastal

Urban and Rural

0 0

xx

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

0

0-7.1 job losses

0

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

x

North-East
North-West
East

x

Aberdeen
Montrose
Peterhead
Fraserburgh
Buckie
Arbroath
Eyemouth

x

Coastal

Urban and Rural

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 [ FOF]
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
Whitefish seines
Dredges
Other gears
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

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 [ FOF]
Feature Name Representation Replication Linkages Geographic Range
and Variation
Resilience
Ocean quahog aggregations 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. Firth of Forth Banks Complex 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-western 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 subtidal sands and gravels Provides representation for a range of different types of offshore subtidal sand and gravel habitats on the continental shelf in OSPAR Region II. Firth of Forth Banks Complex is a relatively data-rich area for the habitat. Provides one of at least two recommended examples to be protected on the continental shelf in OSPAR Region II in Scotland's seas. Not currently understood for offshore subtidal sands and gravels. Provides representation at the south-western extent of its range on the continental shelf in OSPAR Region II in Scotland's seas. Offshore subtidal sands and gravels are widely distributed across offshore waters in Scotland's seas.
Shelf banks and mounds Provides representation for shelf bank and mound features considered to be of wider functional significance to the health and diversity of Scotland's seas, e.g. seabird and marine mammal foraging grounds. Provides representation for one of at least two recommended areas to be included in the MPA network for shelf banks and mounds considered to be of wider functional significance in Scotland's seas. The shelf banks and mounds in the Firth of Forth Banks area harbour relatively large numbers of sandeel, which are important for foraging seabirds and marine mammals. The banks also impinge on local current systems, increasing mixing in the water column and subsequently primary production in the area. Provides representation at the south-western extent of the range of the feature in OSPAR Region II in Scotland's seas. Shelf banks and mounds are fairly widely recorded across Scotland's seas.
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 [23] [ FOF]
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 and unlikely to recover Nil Low - Small recovery of fish stocks in medium to long term. 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 change to protection of parts of ecosystem providing these services Low Nil - Low High
Natural hazard protection Nil Nil Low Nil High
Regulation of pollution Nil - Low Nil - Low Low Nil - Low High
Non-use value of natural environment Moderate - wrecks and protected features, and contribution of the site to MPA network, have 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 Low - Moderate 4 active dive sites Nil Low - slightly higher biodiversity encountered by divers Low - Moderate Low 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 No real impact for lower scenario, low for intermediate and moderate for upper scenarios Low - Moderate Low

Human Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA Firth of Forth Banks Complex

Fishing Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA Firth of Forth Banks Complex

Contact

Back to top