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

• 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.

• 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.

According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, whitefish trawls, dredges and pelagic trawls (over-15m) and pelagic trawls, pots, whitefish trawls, lines and dredges (under-15m vessels) operate within the TBB proposed MPA. The value of catches from the TBB area was £139,000 (over-15m vessels) and £9,100 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m vessels were predominantly into Peterhead (87% by value) and Fraserburgh (7%). For the over-15m fleet, there was sparse activity by dredgers and whitefish trawlers across the whole proposed MPA over areas of subtidal sands and gravels and sandeels.

Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 10 non- UK vessels were active in the TBB area in 2012: 8 from Denmark; 1 from France and 1 from the Netherlands. The majority fish with pelagic, static or unknown gear types and, therefore, would be unlikely to be affected by proposed management scenarios. Two Danish vessels fish with bottom trawl and, therefore, may be affected by the proposed management measures assessed under the intermediate and upper scenarios.

Provisional ScotMap data do not indicate any under-15m vessel activity in the TBB 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. Historically, the Turbot Bank possible MPA area was subject to industrial demersal trawling for sandeels. However, following the east coast of Scotland sandeel closure in 2000, the industrial sandeel fishery in Scottish waters has decreased dramatically. Although the westernmost edge of the TBB proposed MPA is the only section that overlaps with the closure area, it is likely that recent effort within the site does not reflect historic fishing patterns in the area. As such, no management measures have been associated with the designation of this feature.

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.

• No additional management.

• Reduce mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) pressures by 50% across the MPA area.

• Closure to mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across full extent of MPA.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Whitefish trawls (0.054);
• Whitefish seines (<0.001);
• Dredges (0.014);
• Other 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):
• Whitefish trawls (0.108);
• Whitefish seines (<0.001);
• Dredges (0.028);
• Other affected gears (<0.001).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.001).

• None.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (Denmark (2 vessels)); 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 (2 vessels)); 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.

• 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 only (as no significant discoveries present within awarded blocks).

• 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 only (as no significant discoveries present within awarded blocks);
• 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 only (as no significant discoveries present within awarded blocks);
• 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 subtidal sands and gravels using data held by JNCC and collected by operators; and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings.

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2020)); and
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2020)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2020)); and
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2020)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2020)); and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings - £650k per well (1 well (2020)).

• None.

• None.

• None.

• 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.

• Healt h (increase in illness, mental stress, loss of self esteem

• Increase in crime; and
• Reduction in f u ture emp lo y me n t prospects/future earnings.

• 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.

Quantified Cost Impact (2014-2033): £0.008 - 0.537m

Decommissioning assessed at national level

Costs associated with delays during the licensing and permitting process

Loss of investor confidence (developments do not proceed)

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

xx

North-East West North

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Peterhead (58%), Oban (18%), Fraserburgh (7%), Lerwick (7%)

xx

Coastal and Island

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

0-1.6 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

Peterhead
Fraserburgh

x

Coastal

Urban

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

x

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

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports