Blue Economy scenarios: final report - summary
Scottish Government commissioned Waverley in December 2023 to create different scenarios for use of marine space in Scotland to help identify reasoned descriptions of alternative possible futures in order to explore how current and alternative development trajectories might affect the future.
2. About scenarios
The scenarios set out in this report are narrative scenarios, not quantitative models or an assessment of current Scottish Government policy.
Narrative scenarios are stories that help stakeholders explore alternative ways the world might develop and what those developments might mean for the challenges and choices that governments, businesses and citizens might face in the future. They provide an opportunity for stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of the opportunities and challenges that Scotland might face in the future and to rehearse the strategic choices and decisions they may have to make – individually or collectively – to achieve success
The process in detail
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
End of the rainbow describes a future where Scottish Government is facilitative, and society demands long term systemic change. Business, government and society are pursuing net zero. Business has adopted the natural capital model, driven in part by global supply chains and by social values. Government enables and supports change. Rural and coastal communities are thriving as new job opportunities support growth.
Winner takes it all describes a future where society demands systemic change, and Scottish government takes a directive approach to delivering long-term sustainability in the blue economy. Strict environmental regulations are enforced, pushing businesses to innovate and adopt sustainable practices. The focus on sustainability attracts investment in green technologies and sustainable fisheries. Society benefits from cleaner environments, sustainable job creation, and a robust economy that doesn't compromise the health of marine ecosystems.
Status woe describes a future where Scottish Government adopts a directive stance to deal with declining growth, limited productivity and low levels of investment in skills and technology. Short-term gains overshadow long-term sustainability. Society as a whole doesn’t understand or care about net zero and policies are ineffective. There is no shared strategy for Scotland’s marine environment, which means it is exploited rather than protected for the future.
Live fast, die young describes a future where Scottish Government aims to be more collaborative and facilitative, but inconsistent policy making and economic opportunism prevents Scotland from progressing. Economic benefit is prioritised over sustainability and the lack of a coherent long-term strategy to manage Scotland’s blue economy leads to fragmented effort and limited progress. Scotland’s marine environment suffers; what limited effort there is to manage the marine space relates to productive industry rather than environmental stewardship
Table 1. Comparative analysis of performance in key sectors across the scenarios
| Future Scenarios | End of the Rainbow | Winner takes it all | Status: woe | Live fast, die young | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2035 | 2045 | 2035 | 2045 | 2035 | 2045 | 2035 | 2045 | |
| Energy | A | A | - | - | B | A | - | - |
| Energy: Renewables | A | A | B | A | - | - | B | B |
| Energy: Oil and gas | E | E | D | D | - | - | B | B |
| Fisheries | A | A | - | - | D | E | D | E |
| Fisheries: Large mobile | A | A | D | E | - | - | - | - |
| Fisheries: Small static | A | A | D | D | - | - | - | - |
| Aquaculture | A | A | B | A | C | C | B | D |
| Tourism | B | B | C | C | C | C | D | D |
| Transport, ports and harbours | B | B | B | A | A | A | B | B |
| Coastal and islands communities | A | A | D | D | D | D | C | E |
| Marine nature | B | A | C | B | E | E | D | E |
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
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 stronger, reflecting a repurposing of activity in the latter sector rather than an expansion of it; and a more cautious approach to travel and to protecting the natural environment globally.
Fisheries declines in all three other scenarios, either as a policy choice (Winner takes it all) or because lack of environmental protection degrades fish stocks and habitats.
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, the sector does well at first but then loses market share because of poor strategic choices in the sector.
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 consequently, for reducing travel.
Energy production in Status: woe and in Live fast, die young keeps oil and gas in the mix. 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.
Overall, participants’ analysis indicates why End of the rainbow is their (unanimously) preferred future. 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.
Delivery of the marine sector HLOs in each scenario
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).
The results and the key messages for End of the rainbow are set out on the following pages.
Table 2. Comparative rankings for End of the rainbow
| High Level Objective | sub-High Level objective | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climate mitigation and adaptation | 1.1 Respond to the global climate emergency, achieving net zero by 2045 and realising adaptation opportunities | 3 | - | 1 | 2 |
| Ecosystem health, protection and restoration | 2.1 Respond to the Global Biodiversity Crisis, protecting Scotland’s marine and coastal biodiversity | 3 | 6 | 1 | 4 |
| Ecosystem health, protection and restoration | 2.2 Restore + enhance Scotland’s marine and coastal ecosystem services in line with Scotland’s biodiversity strategy | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| Sustainable marine economy | 3.1 Enable multi-use of Scotland’s seas to reduce conflict for marine space | 1 | 1 | - | 8 |
| Sustainable marine economy | 3.2 Safeguard opportunities for marine economic sectors to operate, based on available evidence and in line with Scotland’s ambitions | 7 | 3 | - | 9 |
| Sustainable marine economy | 3.3 Enable use of Scotland’s seas to support the development of Net Zero sectors in line with Scotland’s ambitions | 11 | - | - | 5 |
| Island and coastal community development | 4.1 Enhance and safeguard opportunities for sustainable, resilient and diverse marine economies within Scotland’s Island and coastal communities | 2 | 5 | - | 7 |
| Cultural heritage | 5.1 Protect, and where appropriate, enhance access to and appreciation of Scotland’s marine and coastal cultural heritage | 7 | - | - | 11 |
| Social and cultural well-being | 6.1 Facilitate equitable access to Scotland’s seas and shared stewardship to benefit well-being and to support thriving communities | 7 | - | - | 6 |
| Implementation | 7.1 Use evidence-based decision-making to manage marine space in line with Scotland’s wider ambitions | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Implementation | 7.2 Contribute to monitoring and evaluation of NMP2 implementation | 10 | - | 7 | 10 |
The same number is shown more than once in some groups’ columns because they ranked the high level objectives as the same level of importance.
Table key
1 = the most important
11 = the least important
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.
This suggests that the current definition of the high-level objectives is open to interpretation and that HLOs should be reviewed. Each objective should include both qualitative and quantitative targets for the next five years and should ideally be set against 20-year targets.