Blue Economy scenarios: final report

Methodology

Process overview

14. 49 participants, representing 30 organisations in the marine sector, took part in 4 workshops to develop the scenarios; to use them to explore how the different outcomes might affect Scotland’s strategic priorities and high-level objectives in the marine space; and to rehearse the steps Scotland would need to take to deliver its preferred scenario.

15. The full list of participants is set out in Annex 1.

16. The process consisted of 8 steps:

• Step 1: Identify uncertainties
• Step 2: Identify critical uncertainties
• Step 3: Create the scenario framework
• Step 4: Develop initial scenarios
• Step 5: Refine the scenario logics
• Step 6: Validate the scenarios
• Step 7: Test high level objectives
• Step 8: Backcasting the preferred future

17. Steps 1 - 4 took place in the first workshop. The output from that workshop – which lasted for a full day – was an agreed scenario framework that defined the axes of uncertainty and a set of outline scenario narratives.

18. Step 5, which took place over two online workshops, provided an opportunity for a wider group of stakeholders to consider the internal and external forces acting on Scotland’s marine environment and to discuss what that might mean for Scotland’s future trajectory.

19. Waverley developed the scenario storylines between Steps 5 and 6, combining the range of outputs to create the draft final set of scenarios.

20. The draft scenarios provided the main input to the final workshop where participants undertook steps 6-8 to

• Review the drafts for any gaps and inconsistencies
• Identify how each scenario logic might impact on sector performance in key areas
• Agree the preferred scenario
• Carry out a backcasting exercise to identify the steps that need to be taken if Scotland is to achieve that preferred scenario

21. The final report brings together the range of outputs from the process to highlight the insights they provide into the future of Scotland’s marine space and the steps that industry stakeholders might need to take to deliver their preferred future.

Step 1: Identify Uncertainties

• Identify the main uncertainties surrounding Scotland’s capacity to achieve shared stewardship of its marine environment in 2045.

Step 2: Identify Critical Uncertainties

• Identify strategic themes
• Determine critical uncertainties
• Define strategic areas of uncertainty.

Step 3: Create the Scenario framework

• Prioritise strategic axes of uncertainty
• Agree which axes to use to create the scenario matrix

Step 4: Develop Initial Scenarios

• Develop initial scenarios in workshop discussion

Step 5: Refine the Scenarios logic

• Wider stakeholder consultation
• Examine the forces pushing Scotland towards one scenario or another
• Write up and refine scenarios post step 4 and 5

Step 6: Validate the Scenarios

• Review the draft final scenarios for gaps and inconsistencies
• Amend final scenario narratives

Step 7: Test Scotland’s Performance

• Identify implications for sector performance
• Review high level objectives against the scenarios

Step 8: Backcast the Preferred Future

• Identify the preferred future
• Build the timeline of events leading to the preferred future

The Process in Detail

Steps 1-2: Identifying uncertainty

22. The underlying principle of scenario thinking is uncertainty. The first stage in the scenario process is to identify uncertainties that might affect the policy area and then prioritise those which are most important. These inform development of the scenario framework.

23. Stakeholders took part in group discussions during the first workshop to

• brainstorm the main uncertainties surrounding Scotland’s capacity to achieve shared stewardship of its marine environment in 2045
• cluster uncertainties by theme
• identify critical uncertainties - those deemed most important for achieving shared stewardship of the marine environment in the future
• set out the alternative ways these critical uncertainties might play out by describing a series of strategic axes of uncertainty

24. The 11 critical uncertainties identified by stakeholders are set out below.

Government decision making was determined to be a critical uncertainty by stakeholders. The alternate ways this could play out ranges from government having a short-term focus and funding being volatile to long-term stability and committed resources.

Technology advancement was determined to be a critical uncertainty by stakeholders. The alternate ways this could play out ranges from equitable access to new technology to inequitable access to new technology.

Increasing sea temperatures was determined to be a critical uncertainty by stakeholders. The alternate ways this could play out ranges from industry being responsible to mitigate the impacts to there being no accountability and no mitigation.

The Global socio-economic system was determined to be a critical uncertainty by stakeholders. The alternate ways this could play out ranges from nature wins to economic sustainability wins.

Global Politics was determined to be a critical uncertainty by stakeholders. The alternate ways this could play out ranges from disrupted trade and a changed use of the sea to resilient supply and food security.

Depoliticisation was determined to be a critical uncertainty by stakeholders. The alternate ways this could play out ranges from a shared stewardship approach to conflicting goals.

The legislative environment was determined to be a critical uncertainty by stakeholders. The alternate ways this could play out ranges from a systematic approach to a fragmented approach

Scotland’s transition was determined to be a critical uncertainty by stakeholders. The alternate ways this could play out ranges from preservation of the status quo to a push to deliver an ambitious vision.

Risk appetite was determined to be a critical uncertainty by stakeholders. The alternate ways this could play out ranges from political short-termism to a long-term commitment to change.

Prioritisation was determined to be a critical uncertainty by stakeholders. The alternate ways this could play out ranges from authoritarian decision-making to collaborative decision-making

Step 3: Creating the scenario framework

25. The scenario matrix was created by reviewing the critical uncertainties and reflecting on which combination offered the most useful framework for thinking about long term development of the marine space.

26. Through conversation, it became clear that two sets of uncertainties were particularly important. The first set, containing three uncertainties, related to government’s approach to policy making and to driving change:

• Government decision making
• Scotland’s leadership
• Prioritisation

27. The second set, containing two uncertainties, related to culture in Scotland and its openness to change:

• Risk appetite
• Scotland’s transition

28. Combining these two sets of uncertainty allowed stakeholders to create the final scenario axes:

The scenario framework outlines the two sets of uncertainties that offered the most useful framework for thinking about the long-term development of the marine space, which were:

1. The government's approach to policy making, which could range from the government being facilitative to the government being directive.

2. Culture in Scotland and its openness to change, which could range from society demanding systemic change to society resisting change.

29. This axis reflects uncertainty around government’s approach to policy making and to driving change. At one end of the axis, government adopts a collaborative and facilitative approach to change. At the other end, governments are authoritative and directive and seek to drive change to deliver their agenda.

30. The axis explores the prevailing culture in Scotland and its openness to change. At one end of the axis, businesses, communities and government take a long term view and seek systemic change. Decision making and action is driven by a shared recognition that change is essential to achieve net zero. At the other end, businesses, communities and government take a short term view. Decision making and action is driven by expedience and a reluctance to accept that change is necessary.

31. The resulting scenario framework is set out below:

Step 4: Developing the initial narratives

32. Stakeholders developed the initial narratives in the first workshop by describing how a range of factors might play out in each scenario and might vary between them. The factors were

• The choices made by Scotland’s communities, businesses and government that have led to the scenario
• The main opportunities and threats facing Scotland’s marine environment
• What life is like for people in Scotland’s marine communities
• The priority placed on achieving environmental benefit and economic gain and whether net zero has been met
• How healthy the marine ecosystem is and what the long term prognosis is
• What shared stewardship of the blue economy is delivering
• Which industries are thriving and which are struggling
• What priority policy issues the government is wrestling with

33. Groups also named the scenarios:

• End of the rainbow
• Winner takes it all
• Status: woe
• Live fast, die young

Step 5: Refining the scenario logics

34. The first part of step 5 involved providing an opportunity for a wider group of stakeholders to meet online and consider the internal and external forces acting on Scotland’s marine environment and to discuss what that might mean for Scotland’s future trajectory.

35. Participants worked with the scenario framework to identify

• Where Scotland sits on each axis now
• Where the current direction of travel suggests Scotland will be in 2045
• What forces are pushing Scotland in one direction or another – and how strong they are

36. The second part of step 5, conducted by Waverley, was to draw together the outputs from these conversations and the step 4 workshop to write up the draft final scenario narratives.

Step 6: Validating the scenarios

37. Step 6 took place in the first part of the final scenario workshop. Stakeholders reviewed the draft scenarios in detail and identified elements they wanted to add to – or remove from – the narratives. They were asked, in particular, to recommend ways to develop the description of the marine environment.

Step 7: Test Scotland’s performance

38. Stakeholders analysed two aspects of Scotland’s performance in the scenarios

• Performance in key sectors
• Delivery of the marine sector high level objectives

Performance in key sectors

39. Stakeholders considered Scotland’s performance in 7 key sectors in the scenarios:

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

40. They did so by comparing – qualitatively – performance at the mid and end point of each scenario relative to 2024.

41. Two groups expanded the definition of energy to make a distinction between renewables and oil and gas. Two groups also expanded the definition of fisheries to make a distinction between large mobile and small static fisheries.

42. The scenarios in sections 5-8 contain the individual assessments. The assessment for all four scenarios is shown in the table in section 9.

Delivery of the marine sector high level objectives

43. Stakeholders ranked NMP2’s high level objectives against each scenario. They did so by assigning each objective a score between 1 (most important in the scenario logic) to 11 (least important in the scenario logic).

Step 8: Backcasting the preferred future

44. Backcasting is a technique for determining the steps that need to be taken to deliver a preferred future. The process involves building a timeline backwards from the preferred future to the present and setting out the key changes required to deliver it.

45. Stakeholders agreed unanimously that one scenario - End of the rainbow - is the scenario that most closely represents the future the group aspires to. Stakeholders conducted a backcasting exercise to determine the steps required to deliver this future.