Blue Economy scenarios: final report

Strategic Analysis of the Scenarios

Introduction

136. We asked participants to analyse three aspects of the scenarios

• Performance in key sectors in each scenario
• The plausibility and favourability of each scenario
• Delivery of the marine sector high level objectives (HLOs) in each scenario

137. The outcome of these discussions is set out in this section of the report.

138. These analyses are, in line with the subjective nature of the scenarios, qualitative and based on the informed judgement of the stakeholder group.

Performance in key sectors

139. We asked participants to identify how Scotland performs in 7 key sectors:

• Energy
• Fisheries
• Aquaculture
• Tourism
• Transport, ports and harbours
• Coastal and islands communities
• Marine nature

140. They did so by assigning a score at the mid and end point of each scenario relative to 2024.

141. The scenarios in sections 5-8 contain the individual assessments. The assessment for all four scenarios is shown in the table on page 30.^[2]

A = significantly stronger than in 2024

B = slightly stronger than in 2024

C = about the same as in 2024

D = slightly weaker than in 2024

E = significantly weaker than in 2024

Commentary on the comparative analysis

142. The analysis highlights the comparative strength of End of the rainbow against the other three scenarios. All sectors perform well, apart from oil and gas – indicating that the transition to renewables is completed on target. Tourism and Transport, ports and harbours are slightly (rather than significantly) stronger, perhaps reflecting a repurposing of activity in the latter sector rather than an expansion of it; and perhaps a more cautious approach to travel and to protecting the natural environment globally.

143. Fisheries declines in all three other scenarios, either as a policy choice (Winner takes it all) or because the lack of any protection of the environment results in degradation of the fish stocks and habitats.

144. Aquaculture is stronger in Winner takes it all due to investment and innovation in the sector and the desire to ensure the industry is sustained for the long term. Its future is determined by the market in Status: woe and in Live fast, die young. In the latter scenario, the sector does well at first but then loses market share because of poor strategic choices in the sector.

145. Coastal and island communities decline in all three of the other scenarios. In Winner takes it all, this is due primarily to the investment in technology, to efficiency gains in production and remote working and to the expansion of onshore energy production. There is also a natural decline due to the ageing demographic and the downturn in global tourism due to consumers’ concerns for the environment and, consequently, for reducing travel. There was no discussion in these workshops about travel being restricted (by carbon passports, for example) but that would be consistent in this scenario.

146. Energy production in Status: woe and in Live fast, die young keeps oil and gas in the mix. We have made some assumptions about how and why this happens in the narratives. The key issue in these scenarios is that Scotland struggles to afford the cost of transition and to switch to renewables at scale and at pace. Readers will have their view on how realistic this is.

147. Overall, participants’ analysis indicates why End of the rainbow is their (unanimously) preferred future. It does, however, raise some challenging questions about how easy it will be to drive change of this scale in all sectors without government being directive. Achieving success in this scenario logic will require a significant focus on bringing business and society on side with the difficult decisions that need to be made.

Plausibility and favourability

148. Having developed and tested the scenarios, we asked participants to vote on which scenario they felt to be

• Most plausible
• Most favourable for the marine space
• Most favourable for Scotland
• Closest to now
• Closest to ‘the official future’
• Closest to the future participants individually aspire to
• Closest to the future Scotland is moving towards
• Closest to the future that demands the most change

149. The vote is subjective. It is designed to help participants think about where Scotland is now, where they would like it to be and what needs to be done to get there.

150. It is also worth highlighting that these scenarios are not predictions; they are a thought experiment. This means (for example) that End of the rainbow, the scenario that is closest to the future that the group aspires to, is not a literal description of what that future should be. It is a broad brush picture that points towards a favourable future.

151. The results are shown in the table on page 33.

Commentary on the plausibility and favourability vote

152. The future that is closest to the one everyone in the group aspires to is End of the rainbow. Everyone believes this scenario to be the most favourable for Scotland - and three quarters of the group also believe it to be closest to the official future that Scotland is pursuing.

153. No-one, however, thinks that End of the rainbow is the future that Scotland is currently moving towards. The group is split between that future being Live fast, die young or Winner takes it all.

154. This suggests there is a gap between aspiration and reality that needs to be addressed if Scotland is to achieve a future that looks like End of the rainbow.

155. 14 out of 16 members of the group feel that Live fast, die young is closest to the present reality. Almost half the group feel it is closest to the future that Scotland is moving towards and 10 out of 16 participants (62% of the group) believe it is the most plausible scenario.

156. This indicates a shared belief that Scotland in danger of not moving forwards – effectively remaining stuck in the present - and not doing enough to deliver the blue economy vision.

157. End of the rainbow – the scenario that most closely represents the future the group aspires to – is the scenario that demands the most change.

158. Change is not easy and if Scotland is to deliver it in line with the aspiration to achieve End of the rainbow, it must consider

• What changes need to be made
• How, when and by whom these changes will be made
• Where resistance to change might lie and how it might manifest
• How Scottish Government will work with key stakeholders to overcome resistance and to drive change forwards
• How NMP2 can contribute to change

159. It is important to highlight that 44% of the group believe that Scotland is on course to a future that is close to the Winner takes it all scenario.

160. Perhaps the two biggest differences between this scenario and End of the rainbow are that Scottish Government is more directive; and Scotland cannot achieve everything and has to make some trade offs if it is to achieve the blue economy vision.

161. This finding raises an important question over whether the blue economy vision is aspirational or literal. If it is aspirational, these findings highlight where certain trade offs might need to be made. These should be factored into planning conversations. If the vision is literal, then the points about change set out in paragraph 8.25 are critically important.

Delivery of the marine sector high level objectives (HLOs) in each scenario

162. We asked participants to rank NMP2’s high level objectives against each scenario. They did this by assigning each objective a score between 1 (most important in the scenario logic) to 11 (least important in the scenario logic).

163. 4 groups did this ranking for End of the rainbow and then split into three groups, each of which did the ranking for one other scenario.

164. The results of both exercises – and the key messages arising from each - are set out in tables on the following pages.

The same number is shown more than once in some groups’ columns because they ranked the high level objectives at the same level of importance

Table key

1 = the most important

11 = the least important

165. The key message emerging from the comparative rankings for End of the rainbow is that there are striking and important differences of opinion about what is important in the scenario. Only one of the 11 objectives - 1.1 Respond to the global climate emergency, achieving net zero by 2045 and realising adaptation opportunities – receives a similar importance ranking from all groups.

166. This suggests that the current definition of the high level objectives is too loose and, consequently, open to interpretation. The HLOs should therefore be reviewed and tightened up. Each objective should include both qualitative and quantitative targets for the next five years – the life of the plan – and should ideally be set against 20 year targets. These should perhaps be set out as ranges.

The same number is shown more than once in some groups’ columns because they ranked the high level objectives at the same level of importance

Table key

1 = the most important

11 = the least important

167. The group’s view is that Scotland’s strategic trajectory is from a present that feels like Live fast, die young to a future that feels like End of the rainbow (paragraph 9.24).

168. The rankings for these two scenarios are broadly comparable. The exact order of importance may vary slightly, but in most cases, objectives that are most important in End of the rainbow are also high up the ranking in Live fast, die young. This suggests that the current rankings are likely to remain broadly unchanged.

169. There are three exceptions that are worth highlighting. The first is High Level Objective 7.1: Use evidence based decision-making to manage marine space in line with Scotland’s wider ambitions.

170. In Live fast, die young [close to today’s reality], this objective is the second least important. In End of the rainbow, it is more important, ranked 6^th. The responses set out in the tables in the next section confirms this is important and that ensuring Scotland has the evidence it needs to support decision making in managing the marine space should be addressed early.

171. We also suggest that phrases such as “in line with Scotland’s wider ambitions” is unhelpfully generic. We recommend that language such as this is tightened up. Our experience of successful (and unsuccessful) strategic planning tells us that NMP2 must avoid comparative and unquantified measures of success. We therefore recommend that the High Level Objectives should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timebound).

172. The other two exceptions are HLO 3.2 (Safeguard opportunities for marine economic sectors to operate, based on available evidence and in line with Scotland’s ambitions) and HLO 3.3 (Enable use of Scotland’s seas to support the development of Net Zero sectors in line with Scotland’s ambitions).

173. In Live fast, die young, these objectives are in the top 4 most important. In End of the rainbow, each is 5 places lower in importance. It is worth noting this difference and ensuring that Scotland’s approach to delivering these objectives is sensitive to – and adapts in in response to - the changing contextual environment.

174. This is also an important general point about Scotland’s transition to deliver the blue economy vision. One objective may have the same importance now and once the vision has been achieved - but that does not mean that the policy response to that objective will be the same in each case. Rather, as noted in paragraph 9.38, it is likely that policy will need to adapt over time.