Blue Economy scenarios: final report

Annex 4: Strategic uncertainties surrounding Scotland’s capacity to achieve shared stewardship of the marine environment

47. In advance of the first workshop, we asked workshop participants to submit answers to the question What are the main uncertainties - political, economic, societal, technological, legislative and environmental – that surround Scotland’s capacity to achieve shared stewardship of its marine environment in 2045?

48. These fed into the discussion and mapping of uncertainty that created the scenario matrix.

49. The full list of uncertainties is attached in this annex.

Political uncertainties

• UK and Scottish elections (2024 and 2026 respectively) – timeframe for completing NMP2 and other marine commitments (e.g. MPA fisheries management measures) of this Government is becoming squeezed. Many have already failed to be met (e.g. adoption of MPA fisheries management measures by 2024).
• Pressure from stakeholder groups to minimise socio-economic impact of marine conservation measures, particularly in the post-HPMA after-effects.
• Greater clarity and focus on the ecological and socio-economic benefits of marine conservation measures.
• Election-season uncertainty in future political ambition – UK & Scottish.
• Strategic ambition (e.g. manifestos, government visions) Vs political reality on controversial decision points. Related to this is uncertainty of how the promise of transparent ‘prioritisation’ will actually pan out.
• Influence over UK reserved matters in a Scottish plan
• Consistency with UK approach Vs taking a different (better?) approach. (e.g. MSPri; MNG)
• Willingness for equitability of burden of evidence and management approach across development and non-development sectors
• Depends on the Government of the day and their policies e.g. business a priority or environment?
• Potential for Scottish independence (and related re-joining the EU)
• International relations – specifically for fishing we share access to our Scottish waters with other coastal states
• Scottish Independence is still a big unknown
• Other geopolitical shifts that might distract from environmental commitments
• Next parliamentary term approaching
• Changes to legislation in other countries (e.g. US change to fish imports changing ADD use)
• Consistency in planning policies and implementation of international law varies widely between countries. There needs to be close working with EU/UK to ensure that trans-boundary issues are well managed. For example where marine plans are developed without alignment between jurisdictions it can have a very significant impact on linear projects (cables and pipelines) – which can have a knock on effect on other policy areas.
• Geopolitics can impact subsea cables across borders, and coordination between nations is vital for consistency for the industry to make investment decisions.

Economic uncertainties

• Public and private funding does not current match the scale of urgency and transformation of management of marine activities that is needed to meet climate and nature goals.
• Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life Under Water) is the least funded of the SDGs globally; an estimated US$ 175 billion is needed annually to achieve the SDG 14 targets (only US$ 25.5 billion was committed at the UN Ocean Conference in 2017).
• Novel finance mechanisms for the conservation and recovery of marine nature and ecosystem services benefits need to be progressed.
• Making the shift from mainstream/neoclassical to environmental economics... e.g. can we bring Dasgupta & natural capital approaches to life?
• How successful we can be in greening finance… and financing the green… (risk of greenwashing is also wrapped up in this)
• Degree to which recession will limit public spending on this area (and willingness for tough decisions to be taken – perhaps this is a political uncertainty?)
• How the economics of major growth sectors will unfold (e.g. offshore wind and associated infrastructure; ports & harbours)
• Monetary cost to achieve shared stewardship
• General state of the economy
• New markets opening up for marine resources
• Burgeoning nature credits markets
• Cost of living impacts
• Funding landscape is ever shifting
• Probably massive budget cuts coming for the public and third sector
• Private sector financing – e.g. FIRNS
• Supply chain issues within the cable industry are well known. This can include cable manufacture, vessel availability (both for installation and repair that require separate consideration), and availability of personnel and resources.
• Increased costs through regulation or planning directly impacts the bill payer – whether for connectivity (internet, data etc) or electricity supply.

Societal uncertainties

• Cost of living crisis – people’s priorities are not necessarily on environmental matters and public funding prioritises issues relating to immediate societal needs.
• Lack of clarity on what Just Transition means for individual marine sectors. Lack of equity on how this is applied more generally (e.g. rural communities get less access to low-cost clean energy than larger, more central communities).
• Protection of cultural ecosystem services
• Clear mechanisms/processes that empower local communities and under-represented voices to have greater involvement in decision making for the marine environment.
• Improving access to coastal spaces
• Degree of success in public engagement; willingness and ability to achieve participatory AND informed democracy (Ocean literacy)
• Achieving and understanding social licence on key issues & changes in sea use – geographic differences mean a need for localised data
• Clarity of actions to enable JT (not just fiscal)
• Difficulty in predicting the effects of shifts in power-dynamic with growing number and diversity of key stakeholders, which also challenges government in maintaining transparency and trust
• Shifts in community relationships/cohesion on a range of levels
• Societal expectations – changing (increasing) as the evidence builds for the need for greater and / or more urgent action (addressing causes, not symptoms)
• Could be split between local community and national. Tensions around what is seen to be national benefit versus impact on local communities
• Public awareness/engagement with marine issues could wax or wane (nationally or globally)
• Impacts of land reform
• Community capacity and resourcing for environmental leadership
• Public impressions of nature action – e.g. species introductions, restoration, protection
• Conflict between industries/sectors
• Growth of private sector interest in environment – e.g. nature financing, private-led projects
• Reduced reliance on fossil fuels and addressing climate change requires subsea cables to deliver green energy and to provide communications to reduce reliance on aviation etc. However industries themselves also need to adapt to have greener fuel, reduce energy consumption e
• Clean energy and internet/data connectivity both rely on linear routing. The unique requirements of linear projects such as cables as opposed to projects/activities/ designations which have a wider footprint need to be considered.

Technological uncertainties

• New technologies for extracting marine resources being tested without full understanding of the long-term impacts, e.g. deep-sea mining, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). A more circular economy is needed for metals and minerals to prevent the need to extract them from the deep-sea marine environment.
• Data access and availability and how this would be analysed with restructured public funding
• We don’t know what innovation is around the corner (e.g. fast pace of renewable energy tech development, including energy storage; closed/semi-closed systems in aquaculture; multi-use) - part of the challenge is helping EIA/consenting procedures keep pace.
• Advances in AI technology – what impact might this have?
• Innovations to enable multi-use by different sectors? (Not solely technological - also perhaps legal, social and environmental)
• What will be the advancements in relation to renewables e.g. smaller offshore wind structures but generate the same if not more energy with the less spatial footprint
• Technological development can produce uncertainty. Whilst we want to encourage innovation and advancements in technology there is uncertainty around new techniques being used e.g., during surveying
• Emerging uses of AI
• Advances with REM for fishing
• Closed-containment fish farming
• Entirely new industries appearing
• Climate-adaptation related tech emerging – currently unknown
• Technology will change the way we use seas, and technological advances may lead to an increase in cables with different purpose – e.g environmental/scientific monitoring.

Legislative uncertainties

• Legally binding targets for the recovery of nature are needed to provide certainty and accountability in response to the urgency of the twin biodiversity and climate crises.
• Consideration of how areas of the marine environment can be more strictly protected for the recovery of ecosystems, in line with international benchmarks (see below).
• How regional marine planning would work in a legislative context.
• How any spatial management would be implemented in practice, particularly in areas where there are cross-border considerations (Irish Sea) etc. How the proposed suite of inshore measures for fisheries, MPA spatial restrictions, a possible marine and coastal National Park and general spatial planning would fit together.
• Clear mechanisms and processes that empower local communities and under-represented voices to have greater involvement in decision making for the marine environment.
• More effective cross-policy integration (e.g. fisheries and conservation) that supports ecosystem based management of marine activities.
• Uncertainty in degree to which marine planning will be integrated effectively with other siloed regulatory and governance systems:
• Marine activities which happen outside of marine licencing process, to ensure joined up planning and use of marine space and to manage pressures well, e.g. fisheries, shipping, tourism, etc, ...
• At the coastal interface – integration with local authorities and LDP process to deliver effective join up of marine planning and terrestrial planning to enable climate change adaptation – managed retreat, accommodation space, developing in the right place, etc.
• Source-to-Sea – Strategic approaches across catchment areas to ensure coherence in policy and management so that activities which happen upstream of marine areas do not result in negative pressures and effects in the marine environment.
• Changes in power and influence legislation and its implementation – relates to some of the political and social uncertainties
• Debates about the strength/weakness of powers that carry over from the Marine Act(s) to decision making based on plan policies, and whether there may be further legal challenges that will shift expectations from implementation. (Legislation that is open to interpretation creates uncertainty about the risk of legal challenge)
• The influence/obligations that other Acts (e.g. Natural Environment Act, Circular Economy Act) will introduce for marine planning.
• Consistency in HRA across the UK for offshore wind developments. In England and Wales HRA is being carried out up to the substation however, in Scotland, HRA for the SMP is to MHWS, leaving a gap between landfall and the substation.
• Uncertainty around reserved legislation and impacts and how we can meaningfully overcome or influence e.g. Habitats Directive
• How are planners going to prioritise the different policies and objectives that link to NMP2? Being able to look at different cost scenarios and different environmental priority scenarios would be ideal to be able to prioritise
• There are lots of uncertainties around industries that aren’t covered under the same legislation as one another e.g., O&G industry isn’t covered under MaCAA other than at decommissioning stage
• There is a need for clear evidence for decisions being made and an asset register for marine systems would be invaluable in this sense.
• There is uncertainty over how offshore sites are being weighted in relation to other marine activities
• Evolving domestic laws and regulations (e.g. nature targets)
• New international agreements
• Impacts of specific policy: land reform, net zero, community empowerment, community well-being etc.
• COP decisions/targets
• Energy and internet security and resilience rely upon cables which have geographic diversity (eg physical distance between them to prevent multiple simultaneous failures e.g anchor drag damage).
• Resilience also relies upon rapid unimpeded emergency repair capability.
• As space is taken up by different activities/designations, there needs to be clear coordinated future planning for strategic linear routes to be installed in future. This needs detailed work to forecast numbers of cables, required landfall locations, and make sure that principles relating to best practice for cable resilience are taken into account.

Environmental uncertainties

• NMP2 must have protection and recovery of marine ecosystems at its core
• Lack of holistic ecosystem-based spatial management of commercial fishing, particularly for the inshore area and lack of integration of fisheries management with marine spatial planning
• Understanding and inclusion of cumulative impacts in management measures – management of sectors and issues generally addressed in isolation
• Measures for the recovery of critical habitats and ecosystems, including blue carbon, fish and shellfish spawning and nursery grounds (plus other provisioning, supporting and maintaining ecosystem services).
• The EU have adopted into law the requirement for Member States to restore 20% of land and sea currently in poor condition by 2030 (60% by 2040, and 90% by 2050). The Scottish Government has stated its intention to keep pace with the EU and should set out its plans for biodiversity recovery in relation to EU law, including through the NMP2.
• Exact timing and detail of climate-related shifts in environmental parameters and extreme events
• Limited restoration opportunities for a limited range of habitat types… potentially effecting (a) the capacity to deliver on SBS ambition, (b) ability to identify compensatory measures needed to pave way for net zero developments.
• Clarity on the role of recovery/pressure removal in achieving biodiversity outcomes.
• Understanding cumulative effects, and the ability to implement an understanding in plan-making and plan-implementation stages.
• Data deficiencies on location and condition of PMFs, and in the spatial ecology of some PMFs, outside MPAs create uncertainty in our ability to adopt and implement effective PMF policy
• Quantitative evidence of ecosystem service flows makes it more different to achieve plan objective and policy ambitions
• Difficulties in maintaining adequate long-term surveillance and trend data creates uncertainty in targeting strategic action. There are probably numerous action, but the recently diminished state of water quality monitoring (previously under WFD) is a key one.
• Climate change (although I have put this under environmental it crosses across all uncertainties) – the elephant in the room. Despite Scotland’s best efforts to decarbonise, halt diversity loss and protect the environment (both marine and terrestrial) we are not in a vacuum. Others efforts to tackle climate change and to what degree, or complete lack of effort, will have consequential impacts on our own marine environment. Those impacts and the uncertainty around them (despite modelling) will force us to take certain actions which could lead to a worst case scenario of having to prioritise some marine sectors over others e.g. renewables over fishing.
• There is a need to consider environmental commitments that have been made in the UK and EU, and there is a need to think about how changes in government can have a significant impact on work
• Impacts of climate crisis
• Species decline
• Species shifts with temperatures/food sources
• Spread of INNS
• Recovery or loss of certain habitats & species
• There are many environmental uncertainties, potentially positive and negative. Increased use of the oceans will have impacts, however with greater awareness to address climate change and biodiversity crisis, future project led biodiversity enhancement and action to tackle biodiversity loss etc could lead to better outcomes along with impact of offshore renewables and interconnectors reducing reliance on fossil fuels. There obviously remain significant uncertainties around what the future might looks like from an environmental perspective.