MSPs back principle of compensating Scottish fishermen for wind farm losses

The Scottish Parliament has backed the principle that fishermen should be compensated for financial losses caused by offshore wind farms. MSPs voted at Holyrood on Wednesday 7 October, according to Shetland News. The vote on Scottish fishing compensation for wind farms is not legally binding, but the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF) says it sets a clear political principle that now has to become practical action.

What the Scottish Parliament backed on fishing and wind energy

Shetland News reported that MSPs heard fishermen should be protected from, or compensated for, financial losses when offshore wind farms expand into long-established fishing grounds. The SFF welcomed the result and called it an “important recognition of one of the greatest challenges facing the industry”. The reports do not give the vote tally or the exact wording of the motion, so the precise commitments are not yet clear.

SFF chief executive Elspeth Macdonald said Parliament had recognised “a very simple principle: fishermen should not be expected to carry the financial cost when established fishing grounds are lost or restricted by offshore wind development.” She said the next step “must be to turn it into a fair, transparent and workable compensation framework”. Because the vote carries no legal force, it is for the Scottish Government and developers to decide what, if anything, follows.

How wind farm impact on Scottish fishing communities is felt

The fishing industry has consistently warned of a “spatial squeeze”, with grounds lost or cut off by offshore renewable developments and conservation measures, according to Shetland News. Ms Macdonald said the industry supports jobs and businesses throughout Scotland’s coastal communities. The Scottish Government’s consultation on its draft offshore wind sectoral marine plan, analysed in a consultation report, refers to a proposed ambition of 40 GW of offshore wind by 2040, which suggests the pressure on fishing grounds may grow.

That consultation also shows how respondents reacted to one proposal. On a proposal to include up to 1 GW of test and demonstration projects, 211 people and organisations answered the multiple-choice question. Our calculation from the published counts is that 46.0% said no (97), 29.4% said they did not know (62) and 24.6% said yes (52). The analysis says fisheries respondents answered either “No” or “Don’t Know”, and none said “Yes”.

Wider research points the same way. A Scottish Government review of fisheries research cites a 2020 European study that found trawling fleets targeting mixed demersal species and crustaceans would be most affected by future cumulative impacts. That study is not specific to Scotland.

Supporters, critics and open questions

The SFF cites recent national polling it commissioned. It found 79% of respondents supported requiring energy companies to pay fair compensation where offshore wind restricts fishing grounds or causes financial loss. The same research found 65% supported a temporary pause on further offshore wind approvals until impacts on fishermen are fully assessed and compensation is agreed. The sources do not name the pollster or give the sample size, and the federation campaigns on the issue, so the figures should be read with that in mind.

The reports of the vote do not set out arguments against compensation, so we cannot say where opposition lies. The cost question is a live one in research, though. A Dutch study cited in the Scottish Government review concluded that demersal fishing inside operating wind farms would raise the cost of the energy produced, and recommended weighing that cost against the benefit to the fishery. The same review notes that compensation payments, early consultation and guidelines could ease conflict between fisheries and marine renewables.

How this differs from the Marine Recovery Fund

The vote should not be confused with the Scottish Marine Recovery Fund (MRF), which is a separate policy. According to the Scottish Government’s consultation analysis, the MRF is a way for offshore wind developers to meet environmental compensation requirements for adverse effects on protected sites. The sources do not say it covers lost fishing income or that the two would be linked.

The MRF consultation does show how complicated compensation can become. Of the organisations that answered on whether developers should choose between the Scottish and UK funds, 14 said yes, 7 said no and 2 did not know, alongside one individual who said no. The fisheries respondent answered “Don’t Know” and said the consultation lacked appropriate detail while talks between the four UK administrations continue. Offshore wind respondents asked for clarity on who bears liability, how delivery is monitored and how disputes are resolved. Similar questions are likely to arise for any fishing scheme.

What happens next for renewable energy fishing compensation in Scotland

The sources give no timetable, funding source or payment formula. The SFF says it will work with the Scottish Government and the offshore wind industry, and Ms Macdonald said the vote should “mark the point at which we move beyond debating whether compensation is justified and start working seriously on how it will operate”.

For fishing businesses, the practical steps are to keep clear records of where and when they fish, follow Scottish Government consultations and talk to the SFF. A 2017 study of the east coast of Scotland, cited in the government review, recommended that licensing authorities ask for co-existence plans before a licence application and that mitigation be agreed early.

Your questions answered

Is the Holyrood vote law?

No. Shetland News reports that the vote is not legally binding. The SFF says it establishes a political principle that the Scottish Government and developers must now act on, so nobody can claim compensation under it yet.

Who would pay and how much?

That has not been decided in the sources. The SFF’s polling asked about energy companies paying, and the federation wants developers involved in designing the framework. The level of payment, who qualifies and how losses would be measured remain open.

Does the vote stop new wind farms?

Not according to the reports, which describe a vote on compensation. The SFF has separately called for a moratorium on further offshore wind consents until impacts on fishing are addressed, but the reports do not say Parliament backed that call.