Draft Partial Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) – Fisheries Management Measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

4. Assessment

4.1 Does your assessment identify any unique impacts on island communities?

No data has been collected from stakeholders or revealed within the other associated assessments which would indicate that there are any unique impacts on island communities that are required to be considered.

Demographic

It is not anticipated there will be any unique impacts.

Gaelic:

N/A

Economic and Social

The introduction of this policy will impact vessels fishing within offshore MPAs. The policy will add restrictions on certain gear types, spatial or temporal restrictions.

The policy change will impact vessels with an island home port the same way it will impact vessels with a mainland home port. The management measures for each site are dependent on the features of the site, conservation objectives and the risk to the features from the pressures of fishing activity. In addition, the anticipated impacts, both positive (e.g., conservation of site features) and negative (e.g., potential loss in landings) are expected to be similar for mainland and island communities.

The policy is not expected to have unique social impact on island communities in terms of deprivation and social exclusion in the islands.

Part of the SEIA investigates the potential cumulative economic benefits and costs, and associated potential social impacts, of implementing the proposed management measures at each site. The impacts relating to the distribution of the economic costs and consequent social impacts as a result of these proposed fisheries management measures are most relevant for this partial ICIA.

The SEIA presents an estimated value range for each proposed management option. Estimates for Option 1 represent the measures which restrict gears identified as damaging to designated features, for 15 sites these are zonal and for the remaining 5 these are across the full site. The Option 2 estimate range represents management measures that restrict affected fishing gears across the entire site boundaries.

Across the full suite of sites, the implementation of this policy is estimated to:

• ß Reduce the average annual value of output landed by the UK commercial fisheries sector by between £0.7–2.7 million (Option 1) and £4.8–8.0 million (Option 2);
• ß Reduce GVA (direct and indirect) of the UK commercial fisheries sector over the 20-year period by £6.5–22.4 million (Option 1) to £40–66 million (Option 2) (present value); and
• ß Reduce the average employment (mean number of jobs, direct and indirect) of the UK commercial fisheries sector by between 9 - 34 (Option 1) and 61 - 101 (Option 2) full time equivalents (FTEs).

Distribution of Economic Costs and Consequent Social Impacts

Table 14 and 15 within the SEIA shows the key results of the distributional analysis. A copy of both these tables are provided in Annex C (Table C1 and Table C2 respectively).

Under the higher end of the estimated impact of Option 1, the share of total reductions in landings occur predominantly within Scotland (76%). Within this, Fraserburgh, Orkney and Shetland are the home port districts with the highest impacts (Table B2). Under Option 2, the districts with the highest proportion of landings affected are Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Orkney (Table B2). The impacts are concentrated in coastal areas in areas of the North-East and remote rural in North and North-West and Islands.

Under the higher end of the estimated impact of Option 1, Fraserburgh and Orkney would be attributed to the largest absolute employment impact for FTEs. The largest relative employment impact (reduction in FTE as % of total regularly employed in fishing in home port district) is at Orkney (3%), followed by Shetland (1.8%) and Fraserburgh (1.2%). Under Option 2, the largest relative employment impacts were attributed to Orkney (3.9%), Fraserburgh (3.7%) and Peterhead (2.9%), (Table C 3).

Relating to fish processes under the higher end of the estimated impact of Option 1, Peterhead, Scrabster, Kinlochbervie and Ullapool are most significantly affected with minimal negative effect noted. The ports affected with the largest relative impact (based on landings affected compared to total landings to port of landing, Table B3) for the higher end of the estimated impact of Option 1 within Scotland are at Aberdeen (3.6%), Cullivoe (2.8%) and Kinlochbervie (2.4%). Again, impacts are concentrated in coastal areas; rural in North-East, remote rural in North and North-West and Islands.

Under the higher end of the estimated impact of Option 1 and Option 2, the main gear types affected would include demersal vessels and in turn potentially affect fish processers that cannot offset reductions in local landings with imported fish (at a minimal negative effect) (Table C2).

The significance of the impacts depends on their scale relative to the size and socio-economic characteristics of the affected ports. The combined effects of sites are considered in relation to home port district employment and landings at port of landing, in percentage terms. Both show potential for significant consequential social impacts.

Distribution of Economic Costs- Location

The annual average value of landings affected (Table B2) show that:

• In the higher end of the estimated impact of Option 1, the expected costs of the proposed management options are predominantly on Scottish ports. It is estimated that over 76% of the total affected landings would be from vessels registered to Scottish ports. Landings from vessels registered at Fraserburgh are about 27% of the landings affected under the estimate. Note these totals are not the percentage of landings lost at the port of landing which are described in Table B3.
• Under Option 2, the majority of impacts are felt in Scotland (72%), with most losses from vessels registered at Fraserburgh (29% of total losses), followed by Peterhead (10%), Ayr and Orkney (both 8%). Outside of Scotland, the majority of losses arise to vessels registered in the North East of England (15%); with unknown home port registration (11%) account for the remainder.

While these ports may bear the greater proportion of the total effects, the significance of impacts depend on their scale relative to the size of the affected home port district. The impacts per port district are calculated as relative to total landings per home district. Table C 3 shows the impact on landings;

• The impact on landings is small across all Scottish ports under the lower estimate. The highest is Orkney which has up to 2.5% of total landings potentially affected.
• The employment impacts vary across ports, although they are generally low as a percentage of total employment.
• In the higher end of the estimated impact of Option 1, the value of landings potentially lost as a result of the proposed management options represents a very small proportion of total landings by home port for all of Scotland's districts and ports affected.
• The majority of the impacts on employment under Option 2 are at Orkney and Fraserburgh (based on landings affected by registered home port of the vessels).
• An estimated 16 jobs would be affected in total at these ports, which is 3% of the local fishing workforce in Orkney (6.5 jobs), and 1.2% (9 jobs) in Fraserburgh.

Fish Processing

As described in Section 2.1 the processing activity is concentrated in the north-east of Scotland (Grampian) with more modest levels of processing activity in "Other Scotland" and in the Highlands and Islands (where processing is on a smaller scale).

Management options are, however, anticipated to restrict commercial fishing activity, and have the potential to reduce the quantity of seafish landed locally at Scottish landing ports. This could reduce the supply of locally landed catch to fish processing facilities and the hotel/restaurant, retail and wholesale trades, and/or reduce confidence and hence investment in these sectors, in particular the fish processing industry. The significance of the economic impact will depend upon various factors, including:

• The extent to which the landings of different species are affected (i.e., demersal, shellfish) and the dependency of different processing units on these species;
• The distribution of affected landings across landing ports/regions and the dependency of landing ports on the affected landings; and
• The dependency of fish processing units in these regions/ports on processing locally landed catch, and their ability to offset reductions in local landings with landings that would have gone to ports where impacts are lower, and/or with imported fish.

Table 21 within the SEIA shows the distribution of all the lost landings across UK and non-UK ports from the MPAs.

• Under Option 1, the port subject to the largest proportion of the affected landings is Peterhead (up to 24.7% of the total impacts across Scotland). This is followed by Scrabster (19.2%), Kinlochbervie (13.3%),Ullapool (11.2%) and Lerwick (10.5%).

Under Option 2, the most significantly impacted ports are the same, with Peterhead accounting for 36.0% of the total impacts. Note that impacts at Ullapool as a percentage of total impacts decrease under the upper estimate (11.2% to 7.1%),and impacts at Fraserburgh increase from up to 6.5% under Option 1 to 11.6% under Option 2. However, the high percentage of landings affected can be a reflection of the very small size of the port, as well as the absolute size of the impact. The size of the impact on these ports depends on the relative importance of the landings affected within the total landings to the port. The impacts as a percentage of the total landings at each port are provided in Table 22, a copy is provided within Annex D1,:

• Under Option 1, the most significant impacts on Scottish ports are at Aberdeen (3.6%), Cullivoe (2.8%) and Kinlochbervie (2.4%).
• Under Option 2, impacts at Aberdeen show a significant increase (to 13.8%). For other Scottish ports affected (Cullivoe, Kinlochbervie), the landings affected as a percentage of total landings to the port all increase in percentage terms, and in actual value.

At several of these locations, the impacts could potentially affect local fish processing businesses, due to the scale of the landings affected. This could have social consequences, as identified in Table 15 of the SEIA (Annex C2). This is particularly the case where a large proportion of landings, as shown in Table B3, are potentially affected (particularly Aberdeen, where 13.8% of total landings are affected under Option 2), and where there are fish processing businesses within remote communities.

4.2 Does your assessment identify any potential barriers or wider impacts?

No additional barriers have been identified, however, as identified within the SEIA the estimated of costs and benefits are subject to significant uncertainties. The range of impacts vary greatly on the management options and the assumptions applied.

The combined worst-case impacts from management options for a small number of sites could have locally significant adverse social impacts in specific coastal communities. There are three ports or port districts (Fraserburgh, Shetland and Ullapool) that would be affected in terms of both the loss of landings to the port, and the loss of employment opportunities on vessels for which they are the homeport. Therefore, there are at increased risk of adverse negative socio-economic consequences from the combined effects of the site management measures.

In addition, all of the estimates of costs and benefits are subject to significant uncertainties. The range of impacts vary greatly depending on the management option and assumptions applied. The extend to which fisheries landings affected will be lost, or the activity will be displaced to other areas, and the consequential impacts of this displacement, are uncertain. In addition, the consequential socio-economic impacts in report or fragile communities may have the potential to be greater than the estimates presented.

Therefore, we welcome any concerns of impacts, relating specifically to island communities, to be submitted via our stakeholder engagement and public consultation process for consideration.

4.3 Are there mitigations already in place for these impacts raised?

No significantly different impacts for island communities are expected therefore no specific mitigations have been put in place to address this. However, policy wide mitigation has taken place during the development process of these measures. See previous Section 2.4 on details of mitigation steps taken.

4.4 Are there mitigations in place for the impacts identified and noted above from stakeholders and community consultations?

See previous section 2.4 on details of mitigation steps taken.

If through the public consultation process any impacts are raised from stakeholder and communities that have not been taken into account, Marine Directorate will address these impacts and develop suitable mitigation options, if relevant and required. The final ICIA will be updated to note these changes.

4.5 Does the evidence show different circumstances or different expectations or needs, or different experiences or outcomes (such as levels of satisfaction, or different rates of participation)?

Engagement with the fishing industry and environmental organisations to date have shown different levels of ambition of fisheries management to be delivered. A range of options have been assessed within the reports and assessments to show level of impact to the environment and socio-economics under each anticipated option. The consultation will help to inform of the stakeholders' issues and concerns of these options. It will then be for Ministers to decide on the option taken forward for the final fisheries management measures.

Although having differing views there has been broad support of the proposed fisheries management for offshore MPAs from the fishing industry and environmental organisations.

4.6 Are these different effects likely?

The policy change will have an impact on certain fishing activity occurring in offshore MPAs. The impact of these measures are dependent on the activity occurring within the site and the risk to features of the site and meeting the conservation objectives of the designated site.

There is the potential for this policy change to have varying effects and impacts across the different ports within Scotland under each of the various estimates. However, the impacts assessed is spread across various homeports based on landings affected by registered home port of the vessels and does not significantly impact the islands more than the mainland.

4.7 Are these effects significantly different?

No, of the impacts assessed under the various estimates within the SEIA the impacts are spread across various homeports based on landings affected by registered home port of vessels. Island communities are not significantly more impacted and effects are consistent with those on the mainland such as Fraserburgh, Kinlochbervie or Peterhead.

4.8 Could the effect amount to a disadvantage for an island community compared to the mainland or between island groups?

No, of the impacts assessed under the various estimates within the SEIA the impacts are spread across various homeports based on landings affected by registered home port of vessels. Island communities are not significantly more impacted and is consistent with their equivalents on the mainland such as Fraserburgh, Kinlochbervie or Peterhead and between island groups such as Orkney and Shetland.

However as stated in Section 4.2, it should be recognised thatwithin the SEIA the estimated of costs and benefits are subject to significant uncertainties. The range of impacts vary greatly on the management options and the assumptions applied.

In addition, the consequential socio-economic impacts in remote or fragile communities may have the potential to be greater that the estimates presented within the SEIA assessment.

Therefore, we welcome any concerns of impacts, relating specifically to island communities, to be submitted via our stakeholder engagement and public consultation process for consideration.

4.9 Do you consider a full Islands Community Impact Assessment (ICIA) to be required?

In preparing this partial ICIA, I have formed the opinion that our policy, strategy or service is NOT likely to have an effect on an island community which is significantly different from its effect on other communities (including other island communities). The reason for this is detailed below in Section 4.10.

4.10 What are the reasons for or not completing a full ICIA?

Having considered the results from the SEIA assessment and discussions and engagement with stakeholders likely to be affected by this policy implementation, there is no evidence currently to suggest that the policy change will have an effect on island community which is significantly different from its effect on other communities. Therefore, we do not consider that a full ICIA is required.

However, it is our intention following the public consultation of the proposed fisheries management measures, review of consultation responses and publication of the consultation analysis report we will review this partial ICIA. We would ensure that island communities are consulted on this, and further island communities impact assessments carried out as required and based on feedback from stakeholders.

Screening ICIA completed by: Aisling Duncan

Position: MPA Programme Manager

Signature: Aisling Duncan

Date completed: 25 July 2024

ICIA approved by: Caroline Cowan

Position: Deputy Director and Portfolio Lead for Marine Environment

Signature: Caroline Cowan

Date approved: 25 July 2024