Fisheries management measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): consultation analysis

Partial Business Regulatory Impact Assessments (BRIAs)

Respondents were also invited to comment on the partial Business Regulatory Impact Assessments (BRIAs) for the fisheries management measures.

Discussions around the stakeholder engagement process

Some respondents reiterated their views that the zonal measures (under Option 1) were initially developed under the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) with continued engagement post EU-exit to refine and develop measures as needed. They noted that the proposals for each site took into account views expressed by fisheries and environmental stakeholders from the UK and EU countries engaging in workshops, undertaking discussions with Advisory Councils and meeting with Member States which held a direct management interest. However, they highlighted that the full site measures (under Option 2) were not subject to the same extensive and inclusive stakeholder engagement process.

Discussions on the impact of displacement

These respondents also expressed concerns that the full site measures (Option 2) will result in a much higher level of displacement, and bear particularly negative impacts on mobile demersal fishing gear:

“The loss of opportunities to the demersal sector is considerably higher than in Option 1 with significant financial and employment loss yet, apparently, no real environmental benefits” - [Individual].

Another respondent countered this, noting:

“Fishermen are confident as an industry we have been told in discussion of protecting the areas they fish for future fishing activity and economic returns that allow for conservation measures from the industry themselves” – [Organisation]

Others noted how the vast majority of vessels in the areas specified will have already been fitted with VMS as part of existing vessel monitoring measures, therefore reducing the costs of complying with any new fisheries management measures.

Additional aspects for consideration in the BRIAs

Meanwhile, respondents related to the legal and criminal justice system noted intentions for legislative mechanisms to implement the chosen measures which, once in place, will mean that infringement of the management measures will be a criminal offence. They urged Scottish Government to consider that the creation of new offences and prosecutions will have impacts in relation to court time and relative court programming, associated staff and accommodation resources, and costs involved in relevant IT changes.

A small number of respondents suggested that the BRIA documents should include a welfare dimension. They felt that the partial BRIAs overlooked growing consumer demand for ethically sourced products, including seafood that is caught using humane practices, and considered it a missed opportunity to highlight how improved animal welfare could enhance marketability and potentially lead to premium pricing or access to new markets.

Points on the methodology of, and balance of views in, the BRIAs

Some said that the BRIAs presented unbalanced views on options and the associated costs and benefits, as well as methodological flaws that hinder a proper comparison of the proposed measures. In particular, they thought that a lack of monetary values for the estimated benefits to fisheries made it difficult to understand the financial impact of the regulations.

The same respondents believed the assessment contained insufficient analysis of the Option 3, which proposes no action, and saw information on the costs of inaction as especially critical in light of declining fish and shellfish stocks, and a decline in employment in the fishing industry:

“Without evaluating the consequences of inaction, decision-makers and respondents to this consultation cannot fully grasp the urgency of intervention. Similarly, the BRIAs consider the reduced annual output landing by the UK fleet as a consequence of the management measures in MPAs but fails to do so under Option 3” – [Organisation].

A few respondents noted that they had read the linked information on the Business Regulatory Impact Assessments and would refer to them when responding to questions on each of the sites.

Summary

In summary, feedback on the partial Business Regulatory Impact Assessments (BRIAs) for the fisheries management measures reflected various concerns and suggestions.

Many respondents highlighted the extensive stakeholder engagement process that shaped the zonal measures (Option 1), noting that full site measures (Option 2) lacked similar inclusive input. Concerns were raised about the potential negative impacts of displacement, particularly for the mobile demersal fishing sector, with some arguing that the benefits of Option 2 were unclear.

Others pointed out that most vessels in the designated areas were already equipped with vessel monitoring systems, reducing the compliance costs.

A few respondents suggested that the BRIAs should address the welfare of marine species and emphasise the growing market for ethically sourced seafood.

Additionally, some felt the BRIAs presented an unbalanced view, particularly in their lack of financial analysis of the benefits to fisheries and insufficient consideration of Option 3 (no action). They argued that assessing the costs of inaction was crucial to understanding the full impact of the proposed measures.