Queen of Sweden Proposed Historic Marine Protected Area (MPA) Partial Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA)

4. Step Four – Assessment

4.1 Does your assessment identify any unique impacts on island communities?

No data has been collected from stakeholders or revealed within the BRIA which would indicate that there are any unique or significant impacts on island communities that are required to be considered.

The BRIA examined the following sectors and considered the potential impacts of the proposed Queen of Sweden Historic MPA:

4.1.1 Aquaculture

No current aquaculture activity in the proposed area and none is understood to be planned nearby.

4.1.2 Developed Coasts

The coast is largely developed in vicinity of the wreck.

4.1.3 Discharges / Waste Disposal

The nearest dredge disposal site is located off the north coast of Bressay island, about 4km to the west of the wreck. There may be storm outfall pipes in the vicinity.

4.1.4 Energy Generation and Transmission

No current generation activity or planned generation activity is in the area. No cabling is known to run through the area (either power or communications).

4.1.5 Fisheries

Discussions with stakeholders on Shetland indicate that, due to location of the wreck (inside the harbour limits and close to the shore) and nature of the seabed (rock and reef), scallop dredge activity does not take place in the designation area. Limited creeling activity is understood to take place around the wreck, particularly during winter months. The assessment hasn’t obtained precise figures of the number of creeling vessels using the area but estimates suggest this may be up to six.

4.1.6 Flood and Coast Protection

No significant infrastructure of this nature is noted in the area of the wreck.

4.1.7 Gathering / Harvesting

Sea angling is understood to take place in the vicinity of the wreck. There are currently no proposals for seaweed harvesting.

4.1.8 Marine Traffic

The site lies within the area of responsibility of Lerwick Harbour Authority. The main ferry and shipping route into the harbour lies around 200 to 300m to the east. An automated navigation light stands on land at Twageos Point. The harbour handles over 5,000 vessels annually including ferries, cruise ships, large fishing vessels, oil and gas supply ships and vessels engaged in decommissioning work.

4.1.9 Military Activity

There is no known military use of the sea area in the vicinity of the wreck.

4.1.10 Mineral Extraction

None known or known to be planned in the area of the wreck. There is currently no maintenance dredging carried out within the harbour authority limits, however capital dredging was undertaken in 2008, and may be required in the future for waters off Victoria Pier and the North Ness channel (about 1 to 2km to the north west of the wreck).

4.1.11 Oil and Gas

There is no extraction in the vicinity of the wreck although, as noted above, Lerwick Harbour handles oil and gas related work.

4.1.12 Recreation and Access

Around 500 yachts per year visit Lerwick harbour. There is a charted anchorage in Brei Wick to the south west of the wreck, but the site itself is not favoured for anchoring, as it lies relatively close to the main shipping navigation channel. The wreck is known to be visited by recreational divers and is mentioned on the website of several dive charter companies. Lerwick Harbour Authority ask that divers who want to dive on the wreck make prior contact with them.

4.2 Does your assessment identify any potential barriers or wider impacts?

No additional barriers or wider impacts have been identified through engagement with stakeholders, responses to the consultation or revealed through the BRIA.

4.3 How will you address these?

No significantly different impacts for island communities are expected therefore no specific mitigations have been put in place to address these.

4.4 Does the evidence show different circumstances or different expectations or needs, or different experiences or outcomes (such as different levels of satisfaction, or different rates of participation)?

Nothing identified through engagement and consultation of relevance to this section.

4.5 Are these different effects likely?

Different effects are not considered to be likely.

4.6 Are these effects significantly different?

No, given the limited level of impacts anticipated from designation of the Queen of Sweden Historic MPA it is not felt that these impacts would be significantly different for island communities.

4.7 Could the effect amount to a disadvantage for an island community compared to the mainland or between island groups?

No, given the limited level of impacts anticipated from designation of the Queen of Sweden Historic MPA it is not felt that these impacts would amount to a disadvantage for an island community compared to the mainland or between island groups.

4.8 Do you consider a full Islands Community Impact Assessment (ICIA) to be required?

In preparing this partial ICIA, I have formed the opinion that our policy, strategy or service is NOT likely to have an effect on an island community which is significantly different from its effect on other communities (including other island communities). The reason for this is detailed below in Section 4.9.

4.9 What are the reasons for or not completing a full ICIA?

Having considered the results of the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment, engagement with stakeholders likely to be affected by these proposed designations, and responses to the formal consultation, there is no evidence currently to suggest that the proposed designations will have an effect on the island community which is significantly different from its effect on other communities. Therefore, we do not consider that a full ICIA is required.

Screening ICIA completed by: Gordon Forbes

Position: Marine Protected Areas Policy Officer

Signature:

Date completed: 14 April 2025

ICIA approved by: Caroline Cowan

Position: Deputy Director and Portfolio Lead for Marine Environment

Signature:

Date approved: 16 June 2025