Draft Partial Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) – Fisheries Management Measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
This assessment is undertaken to consider the impacts of the measures under consideration on island communities in Scotland.
Annex C Distribution of economic costs and impacts
Sector/ Impact |
Location |
Age |
Gender |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Regions |
Port (s) |
Rural, Urban, |
Children |
Working Age |
Pensionable Age |
Male |
Female |
||
Commercial Fisheries Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment, linked back to home port of vessels |
Share of total reductions in landings: Scotland: 76%, with Fraserburgh, Orkney and Shetland most significantly impacted Other UK: 11% Unknown registration: 11% |
Largest absolute employment impact for higher end of Option 1 is at Fraserburgh 9 FTEs and Orkney 7 FTEs. Largest relative employment impact (reduction in FTE as % of total regularly employed in fishing in home port district) for the higher end of Option 1 is at Orkney (3%) |
x Impacts concentrated in coastal areas; rural in North-East, remote rural in North and North-West, and Islands. |
x Potential negative effect if parent loses job/ becomes unemployed |
x |
0 |
x 34 FTE job losses |
x Potential negative effect if member of household loses job/ becomes unemployed |
|
Fish Processors Reduction in local landings at landing ports |
x Peterhead, Scrabster, Kinlochbervie and Ullapool are most significantly affected in Scotland. |
Largest relative impact (based on landings affected compared to total landings to port of landing for the higher end of the estimated impact of Option 1 is outside Scotland at Londonderry (5.4%). In Scotland, the largest relative impacts are at: Aberdeen (3.6%) Cullivoe (2.8%) Kinlochbervie (2.4%) |
x Impacts concentrated in coastal areas; rural in North-East, remote rural in North and North-West, and Islands. |
x |
x |
0 |
x 60% of processors male |
x 40% of processors female* |
|
Impacts: xxx: significant negative effect; xx: possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected.
* Seafish (2022) Processing Enquiry Tool. Updated Jan 2022.
Sector/ |
Fishing Groups |
Income Group |
Social Groups |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vessel Category <12 m, >12 m |
Gear Types/Sector |
10% Most Deprived |
Middle 80% |
10% Most Affluent |
Crofters |
Ethnic Minorities |
With Disability or Long-Term Sick |
||
Commercial fisheries Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment, linked back to home port of vessels |
Impacts on >12 m vessels |
Main gear types affected for vessels are demersal trawls. |
x Possible negative impact on 10% most deprived |
x Possible negative impact on middle income group |
x Possible negative impact on upper income group under upper estimate of Option 1, but wage data not available to confirm |
0 |
EU/EEA nationals account for 14% of employment on Scottish vessels, and non-EEA nationals 7% (mostly Filippino) Approximately a third of employment is of non-UK nationals (mostly from outside of the EU)[4] |
0 No employment data |
|
Fish Processors Reduction in local landings at landing ports |
Impact on different types of processing units: Demersal fish processing units that cannot offset reductions in local landings with imported fish: x |
x |
x |
0 |
0 |
51% of employment in fish processing in Scotland is of EEA nationals, 1% of 'other/ unknown'[5] |
No breakdown of fish processing employment data around disability or long-term sick |
||
Impacts: xxx: significant negative effect; xx: possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected
Home Port District |
Estimated reduction in employment (FTEs) |
Affected value of landings as % of total landings by vessels registered to Home District |
In employment as % of total regularly employed in fishing 1 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
|
Aberdeen |
0 - <1 |
<1 |
0% – <0.1% |
0.1% |
0%– <0.1% |
<0.1% |
Ayr |
0 - 1 |
8 |
0% – 0.8% |
4.0% |
0%–0.4% |
1.9% |
Buckie |
0 - <1 |
3 |
<0.1% – 0.2% |
1.4% |
0%–0.3% |
2.4% |
Campbeltown |
0 - <1 |
<1 |
0% – <0.1% |
0.1% |
0%–<0.1% |
0.1% |
Eyemouth |
0 - <1 |
<1 |
0% – 0.1% |
0.1% |
0%–<0.1% |
0.1% |
Fraserburgh |
0 - 9 |
30 |
0.1% – 0.5% |
1.4% |
0%–1.2% |
3.7% |
Kinlochbervie |
0 |
0 |
0.1% - 0.2% |
1.3% |
0%–0% |
0% |
Lochinver |
0 - 1 |
4 |
<0.1% – 0.3% |
2.4% |
0%–0.3% |
2.1% |
Mallaig |
0 |
0 |
0% – <0.1% |
0.4% |
0%–0% |
0% |
Oban |
0 - <1 |
<1 |
0% – 0.2% |
0.4% |
0%–0.1% |
0.2% |
Orkney |
0 - 7 |
8 |
1.6% – 2.5% |
3.2% |
0%–3.0% |
3.9% |
Peterhead |
0 – 3 |
10 |
<0.1% – 0.2% |
0.9% |
0%–0.8% |
2.9% |
Pittenweem |
0 - <1 |
<1 |
0% – 0.1% |
0.1% |
* |
* |
Portree |
0 |
0 |
0% – <0.1% |
<0.1% |
0%–0% |
0% |
Shetland |
0 – 4 |
6 |
<0.1% – 0.3% |
0.4% |
0%–1.8% |
2.5% |
Stornoway |
0 |
0 |
0% – <0.1% |
<0.1% |
0%–0% |
0% |
Ullapool |
0 |
2 |
0% – 0.3% |
1.7% |
0%–0% |
1.3% |
Wick |
0 |
0 |
<0.1% – 0.1% |
0.2% |
* |
* |
Unknown |
1 - 4 |
12 |
N/A |
N/A |
* |
* |
1 As reported in Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 2019
* Employment data for these districts were not available
No impact is shown as 0%
N/A: Unable to calculate affected landings as a percentage of total landings for vessels where home district registration is unknown.
Contact
Email: marine_biodiversity@gov.scot
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback