Our ‘UK Fishing and Offshore Wind’ event explored how the fisheries and offshore wind sectors can collaborate and ensure optimal marine planning outcomes for all involved.
Attendees heard from:
Dickon Howell - Director, Howell Marine Consulting
Dale Rodmell - Assistant Chief Executive, National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations
Courtney French - Senior Environment & Consents Specialist, Ørsted
A full recording of the online event can be found here:
Following the presentations, Parliamentarians and attendees put their questions to the panel. Written summaries of all questions and answers are provided below. Please note that these answers reflect the views of the panelists, rather than the APPG Secretariat or its Members.
For questions there was not time to answer during the event, speakers have provided written answers, which are incorporated into the accounts below.
Legislation
How do the devolved administrations and UK government propose to look at the socio-economic impacts of offshore wind developments on fisheries and on onshore communities?
Dickon Howell said that the challenge is that sectoral planning of offshore wind is conducted by the devolved administrations, and without an integrated UK Marine Strategy or an integrated Marine Policy Statement (MPS), it’s difficult to foresee what the mechanism will be to ensure that policy integrates environmental, social and economic impacts on a UK-wide level.
Dale Rodmell said that the NFFO are looking at this from a licensing perspective, including looking at the impact of fisheries and habitats. He said this is not fully sufficient, especially in regards to cumulative issues, where impacts from previous projects are assumed to be taken into account by the baseline for new projects.
Courtney French added that wind farm operators do undertake impact assessments for fisheries, but generally at a fleet level. This may not capture issues that exist at individual vessel level. She added that there is a lack of data available for the inshore fishery and emphasised that assessing this data from the industry, as well as their perception on impacts, is important for decision making.
What is the scope for updating the Marine Policy Statement of 2010, and where should it head?
Dickon Howell noted that the UK has changed significantly since 2010, both with regards to legislative frameworks and new commitments such as net zero. He recommended the new MPS acknowledge the changes in the situation on all fronts. He said there are key items that are currently being addressed by project-level decision making, which need to be scaled out to an integrated approach.
With the increased use of the marine environment (e.g. offshore energy), the continued aims to deliver Good Environmental Status, and impacts this may have to industries such as fishing - is the UK Government considering how a ‘just’ transition will be achieved for the fishing industry?
While he couldn’t comment on government plans, Dickon Howell emphasised that a focus on an equitable, just, and aware transition to net zero is crucial. In England, the initiatives within the Crown Estate are starting to move in a similar direction, and there is interest at the strategic level to understand how industries interact with each other.
Dale Rodmell added that a lot of areas are currently compartmentalised which creates the potential for unintended consequences, such as measures imposed on the Dogger Bank. The challenge is that not all avenues have been fully incorporated into plans at this point, which needs to be addressed moving forwards.
Are the current funding arrangements for displaced fishermen sustainable with the projected growth of offshore wind?
Dale Rodmell said that in the UK, there are no legal arrangements or precedents for compensation to fishers for the permanent loss of fishing grounds - in contrast to other nations such as Denmark, or other sectors such as agriculture. Agreements designed with the aim of reducing frictions that are sometimes made between the offshore infrastructure developer and affected local fishers tend to be on a commercial in-confidence basis.
Under the UK Marine Policy Statement each nation was tasked to create a National Marine Plan. Have England created one?
Dickon Howell said that the structure and detailed content of Marine Plans is not prescribed by the Marine and Coastal Access Act so England has produced 11 marine plans which taken together provide the national context. More information here.
Marine planning
The Marine Policy Statement places a requirement upon developers and decision makers to account for displacement and cumulative effects, but impact assessments rarely give these effects serious consideration. How can this change?
Dickon Howell said that the issue of cumulative assessment is challenging to understand but must be considered in the decision making process, both in terms of spatial displacement and biodiversity. He said the issue of spatial displacement was easier to understand, provided the fishing data was accessible. On biodiversity, he noted change was happening, mentioning the Crown Estate’s new Offshore Wind Evidence and Change Programme, Defra’s Enabling Actions Programme, and NERC’s incumbent programme to build a cumulative ecosystem model. He also mentioned Scotland’s system, where their Strategic Environment Assessment process is more closely tied to the leasing round, allowing feedback and responses to the issue of cumulative effects.
Dale Rodmell said there remained a lack of understanding of what spatial requirements are being made to meet energy targets. He said sectoral planning inevitably prioritised their own sectors, and fishing spatial needs were often lower priority in planning decisions. He said understanding the sensitivities regarding loss of access to fishing grounds, and trade-offs between different sectors, was needed.
Could liaison at a grassroots level prove beneficial in the future?
Dale Rodmell said that yes, ideally the earlier the interaction takes place the better, and interaction at the planning and development phase is encouraged to ensure that the location and design of projects are compatible with skippers’ needs. He noted that fishers’ feedback is not as incorporated into design as they would like, particularly with regards to cable laying.
Which of the various bodies would be responsible for arbitrating between offshore wind and fishing interests? In particular where displacement of fishing activity into smaller areas becomes an issue as the build out progresses.
Dickon Howell said that arbitration must be cognisant of the needs and intended outcomes of different government departments and the sectors involved. He said the current challenge stems from offshore wind developing faster than the marine planning system is evolving. He added there is a push for the adoption of a more strategic approach, but at the project level there still exist challenges for mediation, such as between wind farm operators and fishers.
Compensatory measures are in some cases seeking to restrict fishing activity to compensate for environmental damage caused by wind farm development. How can this be justified?
Dickon Howell said that issues around compensation are arising because of the pressures that both offshore wind and fishing are putting on biodiversity. These need addressing at both a strategic and project level.
Fishermen are impacted by net zero delivery through wind farm construction but they impact the delivery of net zero. How are the impacts and benefits to society balanced?
Dickon Howell said this needs to be done at a policy, planning and project level through mechanisms such as sustainability appraisal, marine planning and infrastructure consent.
Given the recent case of the Norfolk Vanguard in the High Court relating to the cumulative effect of wind farms on Norfolk’s landscape, is there an argument for considering the cumulative effects of wind farms on fishing?
Dale Rodmell noted that all commercial scale offshore wind farm projects are required to carry out a cumulative impact assessment on fishing. He said the NFFO considers that the processes for assessing cumulative effects on fisheries need to be improved. He said assessments can be relatively subjective and superficial, especially for impacts on under-12m fishing vessels. He noted the current approach neglects projects and proposals that have been completed, assuming the impacts to have been reflected in the baseline data (an approach that is endorsed by planning guidance), leading to the issue of a shifting baseline that is not captured in analysis. He advocated for a more thorough and focused examination of the use of fishing grounds by fleet segments and their sensitivity to loss of access to improve understanding of cumulative effects.
Fishermen are being compensated when displaced by wind farms, but they move into areas competing with other fishermen, who are not compensated. Should this latter group also be compensated given they are also negatively affected?
Dale Rodmell said that compensation for loss of access to fishing grounds is typically handled in an ad hoc and relatively haphazard fashion. There is no overall national framework that addresses the issues or provides for a dispute resolution mechanism, and impacts as a result of displacement are generally not taken into account directly, although these may be significant and are likely to increase in magnitude in the near future, not just from wind farms but other marine developments and MPAs. He suggested that displacement effects can be minimised by intelligent choice of sites and the design of turbine arrays, incorporating a robust process to evidence knock-on effects and to pay proportionate compensation. In cases where it has not been possible to come to agreement on the evidential basis for compensation at an individual business level, an alternative strategy that has been supported by the NFFO is the provision of funding aimed at wider fishing community benefit such as through projects administered under the West of Morecambe Fisheries Fund.
Courtney French said that Ørsted UK’s commercial fisheries strategy allows for compensation for those who are directly impacted by the survey or construction works of the wind farm site, who can demonstrate an economic dependency on the area. She added that it is very difficult to predict any displacement effects, and there are no agreements in place for areas outside of their leased sites.
What is the NFFO’s position regarding disagreements between Ørsted and fishermen in North Norfolk?
Dale Rodmell said that the NFFO takes the view that fishing businesses should not be adversely affected by the development of offshore wind projects, and pointed to guidance for disruption settlements, which emphasises an evidence-based process to determine losses and impacts that aims neither to advantage nor disadvantage any affected fishing business. He said it is understood that negotiations have taken place between Ørsted and individual local fishing associations, where agreements were reached in some cases but not in others, but the NFFO was not party to those negotiations and cannot therefore comment further.
What is Ørsted ’s position regarding disagreements between Ørsted and fishermen at Hornsea Three?
Courtney French emphasised that is was always Ørsted’s aim to work collaboratively with fishers and other marine users. She extended thanks to the many fishermen who have engaged constructively to reach evidence-based agreements and enable our surveys for Hornsea Three to proceed safely. She added this approach is in line with industry best practice guidelines and is also advocated by many key stakeholders, including the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations (NFFO). She said despite significant efforts to engage on Ørsted’s part, a small minority of fishermen did not wish to provide evidence and a small amount of unmarked, unidentifiable gear was left in the survey area. She said that, in order to safely conduct the survey work, they had to secure the right to remove this gear as a last resort.
What efforts/steps are being taken to coordinate between different offshore wind developers?
Courtney French said there are a number of industry forums for sharing information and aligning approaches for fisheries co-existence management. She added that export cabling requirements oblige the industry to have the asset owned by a third party, a process is regulated by OFGEM. The industry is discussing alternative solutions but different developers cannot currently share export cables under the existing regime.
Will areas around offshore wind farms be considered as priority sites for marine reserves over other areas, since fishing them will be more difficult?
Dickon Howell explained that MPA designation is undertaken primarily on biodiversity factors; any further consideration of offshore wind sites as MPAs would need to be addressed by Defra.
Coexistence
Has Ørsted looked into the capacity of using offshore wind farms to help improve biodiversity and potential fishing by stocking certain species, such as shellfish?
Courtney French detailed European projects that aim to increase cod stocks, the creation of boulder reefs (including at Westermost Rough), and contributions towards the construction of Bridlington lobster hatchery. She noted the hatchery did not have the direct purpose of increasing stocks, but said there was potential for surplus juveniles from scientific research to be added to the wind farms’ scour protection, a project they are investigating alongside the Holderness Fishing Industry Group.
What are the barriers to co-locating other activities within wind farms such as mariculture of shellfish and algae?
Courtney French said that Ørsted had carried out feasibility studies for oyster seeding at Gunfleet Sands, which demonstrated efforts wouldn’t be successful, but there were hopes other sites could be more promising. She referred to some of Ørsted’s European projects, where licences were contingent upon demonstrating net gains, leading to installations such as cod pipes. She said it was hoped that UK projects would follow suit, which would involve working with MCA and Trinity House to assure health and safety standards are adhered to.
Who should be responsible for resourcing the collection of better evidence on co-existence of fishing activities with offshore wind?
Dale Rodmell highlighted that the principle of co-existence features in the marine policy statement as well as marine plans, so there is a cascade of responsibilities from central government, to relevant public bodies responsible for policy and implementation, to offshore wind applicants as part of the consent process. He added that this latter application process should address how marine policies are met, but this sometimes isn’t fully realised due to assessments focusing on impacts rather than co-existence, and liaison with fisheries only late in the planning process.
Courtney French said that it will take time to collect and process data to accurately evidence co-existence. She added that the inter-sector FLOWW group are investigating how they can better understand and improve co-existence.
Will use of technology such as GPS locators enhance the coexistence of use of marine areas?
Dale Rodmell said it would, but stressed that improvements are needed in the communication of technology and information to the fishing industry. The potential to include warning and safety units in wheelhouses is something that needs to be adapted to notify of cables of offshore wind hazards also.
What are the terms regarding using fishing vessels and crew for windfarm guard duty? How are contracts tendered and determined?
Courtney French said that for Ørsted anyone could be invited to tender, and a number of ex-fishing vessels are already in use. She perceived it not as a form of impact mitigation, given there is no guarantee that the tenders will go to fishers as they may not meet health and safety standards, but they are very welcome to apply and many are contracted through the NFFO.
Dale Rodmell believed these contracts can be a form of mitigation, but stated there are only a small number of opportunities. He added that using fishers brought the advantages of knowledge of the area and existing relationships with local communities.
Could state aid be used to convert fishing vessels to electric power, and could fishers get a special tariff to access renewable energy?
Courtney French said there was investigation underway into the potential of transitioning to hybrid fishing vessels, so there is room for discussion as to whether the fleet could share access to charging points offshore.
Dale Rodmell and Dickon Howell both suggested the new Fisheries and Seafood Scheme could provide support, given the Scheme includes a section on energy improvement of vessels. Dickon Howell noted the Scotland Marine Fund likely had a similar section.
Could kelp farming be undertaken between wind turbines?
Courtney French answered that this would be a possibility, as long as developments were accompanied by relevant marine licences and were compliant with health and safety regulations.
Dale Rodmell added that the issue of licences would depend on the actions of the incumbent licence holder, usually the offshore wind operator.
Is there scope for developing alternate fixed gear for targeting finfish, which could potentially be deployed within wind farm areas even if mobile gear are excluded?
Dale Rodmell said there is always scope for innovations in fisheries, but they need to be technically feasible, have viable business models, and comply with regulations. This means swapping gear types is often not a simple solution.
What are some specific examples of co-location with static fisheries or conservation?
Courtney French named Westermost Rough off the Yorkshire Coast (highlighting this video) and artificial reefs and cod pipes at Borssele (highlighting this video).
Dale Rodmell added that Westermost Rough has demonstrated that potting can take place within wind farms despite initial fears, due to compatibility with the activity and the relationship between the associations directly involved and strong collaboration.
How could we mitigate the risks posed by wind farm cables on fishing vessels?
Courtney French noted that the majority of cables are either buried or protected. She said that developers and asset owners have a responsibility to minimise any impacts on other marine users by publishing cable positions and burying, protecting and/or monitoring cables where practical. She added that fishing businesses have a responsibility to avoid identified hazards such as cables, as far as reasonably practical. She said Ørsted provide locations of known exposed cables to KISORCA and include them in Notice to Mariners or Notice to Fishermen.
Dale Rodmell said that a better understanding of how to deploy cables in different environments (e.g. nature of seabed composition, desired depth, physical processes etc.) is needed, along with managing any exposures that occur.
How can long-term damage to fish stocks from wind turbine construction (such as noise and vibration) be managed, especially with new developments in the same area on the horizon?
Courtney French said that Ørsted assess all species affected by proposals at the point of application, including any grounds known to be important in the context of fisheries nurseries or breeding grounds. Most developers actively seek to avoid such areas and if cables do end up being laid through them, there are often seasonal restrictions to reduce any effects.
Is Ørsted looking at nature-inclusive design for turbine foundations? Is there an opportunity for wind farms to be designed so that they attract commercial fishing species to the area or provide additional habitat for them?
Courtney French said that Ørsted incorporate Nature Inclusive Design into some of their projects across Europe (such as seen here). She added they are also actively investigating the role of wind farms as artificial aggregation devices for marine species.
Can scour protection be specifically designed to maximise benefits for e.g. lobster populations?
Courtney French explained that scour protection usually consists of rocks, between which are crevices. She said there is anecdotal evidence that suggests that the scour protection acts as an additional habitat for species such as lobster. She added that the results of the six -year study at Westernmost Rough indicated that following the construction of the wind farm, there are no observable differences in the size distribution, increased catch rates of lobsters and consistent economic return for fishers.