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.


Western Fladen ( WFL)

Site Area (km 2): 723

Site Summary

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Protected Features, Data Confidence and Conservation Objectives [WFL]
Proposed protected features
Biodiversity Features
Burrowed mud - seapens and burrowing megafauna.

Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - sub-glacial tunnel valleys.

Site Description
The Western Fladen MPA proposal falls within the Fladen Grounds to the east of Scotland in the offshore waters of the northern North Sea. It encompasses areas of average and higher than average seapen densities by comparison to the wider Fladen Grounds based on available data.

Potential Alternative Designations
JNCC have identified Western Fladen as a science-based alternative to the Central Fladen for representation of the seapens and burrowing megafauna burrowed mud habitat type. JNCC recommend that the southern part of the Central Fladen MPA proposal - 'Central Fladen Core' - is still designated as it represents another type of burrowed mud (records of tall seapen).
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
Burrowed mud All scenarios: 723.18 Yes (Marine Scotland Science survey data, 2008 - 2010; JNCC & Cefas survey data 2013; BGS data, 1980-1985) Yes (Marine Scotland Science survey data, 2008 - 2010; JNCC & Cefas survey data 2013; BGS data, 1980-1985) Low Conserve (uncertain)
Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - sub-glacial tunnel valleys 1.59 Yes ( UK Admiralty charts; Olex database) Yes ( UK Admiralty charts; Olex database) Low Conserve (uncertain)
Key: * Estimated area based on best available data
References:
Area of Features: GeMS
Confidence in biodiversity feature presence and extent: JNCC (2012n)
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) [ WFL]
Human Activity Cost Impact on Activity
Lower Estimate (£Million) Intermediate Estimate (£Million) Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Economic Costs (Discounted)
Commercial Fisheries* 0.000 2.428 4.856
Oil and Gas 0.065 3.907 7.769
Total Quantified Economic Costs 0.065 6.335 12.625
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) [ WFL]
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 0.006 0.006 0.006
Total Quantified Public Sector Costs 0.006 0.011 0.011
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) [ WFL]
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: 5 jobs
Upper: 10 jobs
North East
North East
North East
Non- UK East
Fraserburgh
Peterhead
Buckie
Belfast
Scarborough
Impacts concentrated in rural and urban coastal areas Whitefish trawls Nephrops trawls Whitefish sienes 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) [ WFL]
Benefit Description
Ecosystem Services Benefits (Moderate and High Benefits) Relevance Scale of Benefits
Non-use value of natural environment Low Low - 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 [ WFL]
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
Burrowed mud - - - - L/I/U - L/ I/U - - L/I/U - - - - - -
Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - sub-glacial tunnel valleys Considered to have a low sensitivity to the pressures associated with activities they are currently exposed and likely to be exposed to in the future; 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 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) [ WFL]

According to landing statistics, nephrops trawls, pelagic trawls, whitefish trawls and seines (over-15m vessels) and nephrops trawls, pelagic trawl and other seines (under-15m vessels) operate within the WFL proposed MPA. The value of catches from the WFL area was £896,000 (over-15m vessels) and £49,700 (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 Fraserburgh (78% by value), Peterhead (16%) and Ijmuiden, The Netherlands (4%). For the over-15m fleet, nephrops trawlers in particular are active across the whole proposed MPA and the area of burrowed mud.

VMS ping data indicate that 16 non- UK vessels were active in the WFL area in 2012: 6 from the Netherlands; 4 from Norway; 2 from Sweden; 2 from Germany, 1 from Denmark and 1 from the Faroe Islands. The majority fish with pelagic gear (pelagic trawls and purse seines) and therefore are unlikely to be affected by the proposed management scenarios. One Danish vessel fishes with bottom trawl and therefore may be affected by the proposed management measures assessed under the intermediate and upper scenarios. No information on gear types used by the Norwegian vessels was available.

Information submitted by Copeche indicated that French vessels operate in the WFL proposed MPA, but no information was provided on numbers of vessels or value of catches.

Provisional ScotMap data do not indicate any under-15m vessel activity in the WFL proposed MPA. The cost estimates for the under-15m sector may be overestimates, as the 'under-15m' length group in the ICES rectangle landings data may include cases where information on vessel length and/or administrative port is missing from landings returns.

Burrowed mud (seapens and burrowing megafauna) covers the whole 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 cost impacts expected.
  • 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.
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 (0.005);
  • Whitefish seines (0.001);
  • Nephrops trawls (0.399).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • Nephrops trawls (0.020);
  • Other affected gears (<0.001).
  • Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • Whitefish trawls (0.011);
  • Whitefish seines (0.002);
  • Nephrops trawls (0.798).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • Nephrops trawls (0.040);
  • Other affected 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), possible Norway (4 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 (1 vessel), possible Norway (4 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.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.000 8.518 17.037
Average annual costs 0.000 0.426 0.852
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.000 6.265 12.531
Economic Impacts (£Million)
Total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.000 3.301 6.602
Average annual change to GVA 0.000 0.165 0.330
Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.000 2.428 4.856
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment 0.0 jobs 4.9 jobs 9.7 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 [ WFL]

There are three known hydrocarbon fields and six currently licensed blocks within the WFL proposed MPA boundary that overlap with the burrowed mud

Feature extents show that 19 oil and gas pipelines overlap with burrowed mud within the MPA proposal boundary under all scenarios, and a further 3 within the 1km buffer zone. Some sections of these pipelines (Ivanhoe/Rob, Roy) are currently going through decommissioning as part of a wider decommissioning programme, expected to be completed by the end of 2016. No platforms overlap with any of the MPA features proposed for designation, although one (14/09a CAP/CPP) is within 1km of burrowed mud under all scenarios.

67 wells overlap with burrowed mud (all scenarios) within the MPA proposal boundary, and a further 59 are within 1km.

Under the 26 th and 27 th UK licensing rounds, a further five licence awards were granted; 4 in the 26 th round and 1 in the 27 th round. All of these licence blocks overlap with burrowed mud feature extents within the MPA proposal boundary under all scenarios. All of the licence awards partially overlap the MPA proposal boundary.

There are significant oil discoveries within two of the 26 th round awards in the WFL proposed MPA boundary.

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);
  • Micro-siting in areas of reduced seapen density using data held by JNCC and collected by operators;
  • 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);
  • Micro-siting in areas of reduced seapen density using data held by JNCC and collected by operators;
  • Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type; 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 (2 wells (2014), 2 wells, (2016) and 1 well (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
  • Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2022));
  • Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (2 wells (2022)); and
  • Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2022)).
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2014), 2 wells, (2016) and 1 well (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
  • Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2022));
  • Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (2 wells (2022));
  • Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2022));
  • Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells (2018), 1 well (2020) and 2 wells (2022));
  • Re-routing of new pipelines for Phases 4 - 6 - £2m per additional km of pipeline (10% of distance); and
  • Survey costs for additional pipeline length - £580k per well.
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2014), 2 wells, (2016) and 1 well (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells, (2018) and 1 well (2020));
  • Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (2 wells (2022));
  • Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (2 wells (2022));
  • Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (2 wells (2022));
  • Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (2 wells (2016), 2 wells (2018), 1 well (2020) and 2 wells (2022));
  • 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 (2 wells (2016), 2 wells (2018), 1 well (2020) and 2 wells (2022)).
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) 0.076 4.946 9.496
Average annual costs 0.004 0.247 0.475
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.065 3.907 7.769
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 [ WFL]
Activity Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
None identified.

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 [ WFL]
Activity Description
Carbon Capture and Storage There is currently no CCS activity which occurs within the boundaries of the WFL proposed MPA, nor within a 1km buffer zone. One potential hydrocarbon field (Claymore) overlaps with the south-eastern component of the 'burrowed mud' feature of the WFL 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 WFL proposed MPA, nor within a 1km buffer zone. Therefore, 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 [ WFL]
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: £0.43m
Upper: £0.85m

Annual Average Loss in GVA (direct and indirect)*:
Lower: £0.00m
Intermediate: £0.17m
Upper: £0.33m
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: 4.9 jobs
Upper: 9.7 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), possible Norway (4 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.
xx
Oil and Gas Additional operational costs associated with licence and permit applications for new exploration development and decommissioning

Quantified Cost Impact: £0.065 - 7.769m

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. 0
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 [ WFL]
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 West North-West

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Fraserburgh (73%), Peterhead (9%), Buckie (9%), Belfast (2%), Scarborough (2%)

xx

Coastal

Urban and Rural

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

0-10 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

x

Fraserburgh Peterhead Macduff

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 [ WFL]
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 [ WFL]
Feature Name Representation Replication Linkages Geographic Range
and Variation
Resilience
Burrowed mud Provides representation for one type of burrowed mud (seapens and burrowing megafauna in offshore waters of OSPAR Region II in Scotland's seas. Provides one of at least three examples of this one type of burrowed mud to be protected in Scotland's seas. Not well understood for burrowed mud. Provides representation for one type of burrowed mud (seapens and burrowing megafauna) in offshore waters of OSPAR Region II in Scotland's seas. Burrowed mud is considered to be Threatened and/or Declining by the OSPAR Commission, in OSPAR Region II so the MPA is expected to help increase resilience for the feature.
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 [34] [ WFL]
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 Minimal/Low - potential increase of fish stocks in medium/long term. Features provide low level of supporting services to support recovery. Moderate 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 - features do not provide large non use values. Low - Moderate Nil Low Low - Moderate Low - Moderate Nil - Moderate Low
Recreation Low Low Nil Nil Nil Nil Minimal Moderate
Research and Education Minimal Minimal Nil Minimal Minimal Nil - Minimal Low Low
Total value of changes in ecosystem services Fisheries likely to drive low benefits from intermediate and upper scenarios Low - Moderate Low

Human Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA West Fladen

Fishing Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA West Fladen

Contact

Back to top