Download
1 / 19
190 likes | 425 Views
. Key Points. A range of approaches and scenarios are considered to provide indications of potential loss of landings value resulting from the closure to mobile gear of the proposed MPA.The value of scallops landed by vessels sighted in the proposed MPA was c.
E N D
1. Lyme Bay proposed MPA Indications of Social and Economic Impacts Hazel Curtis and John Anderson 15 February 2008
2. Key Points A range of approaches and scenarios are considered to provide indications of potential loss of landings value resulting from the closure to mobile gear of the proposed MPA.
The value of scallops landed by vessels sighted in the proposed MPA was c.£2.6m in 2005 and c.£3.0m in 2006, an average £2.8m per year. If there were a loss of half that amount, and no loss of other species value, it would equate to a reduction in annual landings value of £1.4m
The value of landings by vessels sighted in the proposed MPA was estimated at around c.£9.9m per year, averaged across 2005 and 2006. If there were a loss of 25% of that amount, it would equate to a reduction in annual landings value of c.£2.5m.
Application of input-output analysis gives the following impacts on the wider English economy, likely to be concentrated in the region of the landings:
3. Background This report attempts to give an indicative or outline impact assessment relating to the closure of the whole 60 square miles of the proposed MPA in Lyme Bay.
Although it was not possible to conduct sufficient research to build a detailed assessment, enough data was collected or available to allow us to build some indications of the nature and scale of likely impacts.
Seafish economists are willing to discuss and further elaborate the contents of this report to assist in any decision making process relating to the proposed closed area.
There are currently four areas subject to voluntary agreements in Lyme Bay, to prevent trawling and dredging within these zones. The type and scale of the impact of these closures on affected vessels can give some indication of the likely effects of the proposed closure described in Option C of the consultation document.
Vessel owners and skippers have continued to fish in other nearby areas.
Vessel owners report loss of earnings resulting from having to stay outside the voluntary zones, resulting from lower CPUE in the alternative fishing areas that they now exploit.
One skipper estimated that he is now catching around 75% of the volume that he could catch if there were no voluntary agreements.
4. Homarus report The report prepared by Homarus Ltd does not attempt to estimate the total loss of earnings, loss of profit, number of businesses likely to cease or further impact on the wider economy resulting from the closure of the proposed MPA to trawled gear fishing.
Rather, it attempts to estimate the value of commercial fishing currently arising from the area, which is not equivalent to the value of earnings which would be lost were the area to be closed.
It is important to note two points in particular in relation to the report.
First, in the report, a key assumption is that scallops can be caught at equal CPUE throughout the whole of the two ICES areas in which the proposed MPA falls. Since the proposed MPA forms 11.3% of the two ICES rectangles, the report assumes that the proposed MPA generates only 11.3% of the value of scallops from the two ICES rectangles. The map reproduced in this report shows that there are two major scallop beds in the area of those two ICES areas and that the closed area forms more like 40% to 50% of the scallop beds within the two ICES areas.
Second, it is entirely unlikely that if that area is closed, the value of landings lost to local vessels can be replaced in the region by other, as yet under-exploited fishing opportunities. There are no under-exploited fishing opportunities in the region. It is unlikely that the same number of fishing vessels will continue in business, simply sharing a lower value of landings between them. It is almost inevitable that some vessels will cease to trade. After some time, the remaining vessels will then be able to operate at an acceptable return on the reduced fishing opportunity. If there is a spill-over effect in the longer run, the smaller number of vessels remaining in business may be able to benefit from higher levels of CPUE in the area around the MPA than they previously realised.
The Homarus report makes little reference to the likely alternative options that displaced vessels may attempt to exploit in order to remain in business, or the further impacts on other groups of vessels that the displaced vessels’ activities may cause.
The Homarus report makes little reference to social impacts of closure or impacts of conflict with displaced vessels. Fishermen interviewed for this assessment were highly concerned about negative social impacts.
5. Approaches to impact assessment There are three major approaches which we would support to estimating the economic impact of closing an area to fishing activity.
Detailed approach based on identifying and analysing impact on all directly and indirectly affected vessels
Outline estimations of scale of impact using numbers of vessels, average or typical financial performance, total value of landings, likely impacts, etc.
Estimation of change in value of landings and application of multipliers
In this report, we make a partial attempt to show how the detailed approach could be worked out, but it was not possible to gather enough detailed evidence to support this approach in full.
An outline indication of scale is given, based on landings of vessels sighted by Devon SFC fishing in the proposed closed zone.
Loss of profit by the vessels is estimated based on a scenarios of 10% reduction in value of landings and 10% increase in fuel costs.
Multipliers are applied to potential reduction in value of landings, based on two scenarios, to show impact on the wider economy of England, although most of the impact would be likely to occur in the region.
6. Detailed Framework for estimating economic impact
7. Step 1: Estimates of Activity without MPA
8. Step 1: Activity without MPA
9. Lyme Bay and nearby scallop beds
10. Map of likely displacement area
11. Step 2: Costs & earnings with no MPA
12. Step 3: describe impacted activities
13. Step 4: List likely alternative activities
14. Step 5: Characterise new activities with MPA
15. Step 6: Costs & earnings with MPA
16. Step 8: Impact on wider economy
17. Step 8: Impact on wider economy, cont
18. Social impacts
19. References
20. For further information
