Fisheries management measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) - Sustainability Appraisal

4 Results of the Sustainability Appraisal

4.1 Environmental effects

The key potential environmental effects that arise from the implementation of the proposals and that were assessed as part of this SEA are as follows:

• Potential benefits to habitats and species within the offshore MPAs;
• Potential spill-over benefits beyond site boundaries;
• Potential adverse effects resulting from the displacement of fishing activities and the likely intensification of activities in areas where they already occur or potentially in new unfished areas (this is based on the outcomes of the displacement test applied in the SEIA); and
• Potential adverse effects of increased fishing effort from other gear types that might not be targeted by the proposed fisheries management measures.

These potential impacts were assessed and categorised as neutral, beneficial, or adverse. The scale of impact has been categorised as major, moderate, minor, negligible, or none. Further information on these criteria is provided in Table 3 of the SEA.

Overall Environmental Effects of Option 1.

When taking into account of the balance of beneficial and adverse environmental effects, the overall (cumulative) effects of Option 1 across the suite of sites as outlined in Table 5

Table 5 are assessed as:

• None (1 site)
• Negligible neutral (3 sites)
• Minor beneficial (10 sites)
• Moderate beneficial (5 sites)
• Major beneficial (2 sites).

Further detail on the potential environmental effects that were considered to occur as a result of the proposed management measures for each site under Option 1 are set out with the supporting evidence base in Tables C1 to C21 in Appendix C of the SEA.

In terms of beneficial effects, for effects within the MPAs, the majority of the proposed management measures under Option 1 are assessed as having significant moderate or major environmental benefits. The scale of spill-over benefits outwith the MPAs are considered to be negligible or minor on the basis of available evidence. It is also recognised that the increased protection brought about by these measures will provide potential future benefits to habitats and species within the sites as they will restrict new fisheries using the targeted gear type from setting up in the area.

In terms of adverse effects, the effects from displacement of fishing activities from measures under Option 1 are assessed as generally being minor apart from two sites which are assessed as moderate (Central Fladen MPA and Solan Bank Reef SAC). Where fishing effort is most likely being displaced to areas already subject to fishing pressure, the impact of additional fishing pressure in these areas may not be considered significant as they are likely to already have a biological community composition which reflects this fishing pressure. Where fishing activity is displaced and more likely to result in new grounds opening up, there is considered to be a greater potential for significant adverse effects, such as has been assessed for Central Fladen MPA and Solan Bank Reef SAC.

The adverse effects associated with an increase in fishing effort within the site from gear types that are not targeted by the measures are not considered significant and are generally negligible or minor in scale, apart from at one site (Solan Bank Reef SAC) where the effects are assessed as moderate.

Where fishing activity is most likely to be displaced locally and there is either a low level, or no activity at all within or near to the site from gear types not restricted by the measures, the likely impact is considered to be negligible. Where fishing activity is likely to be displaced locally but there is a moderate to high level of activity from non-targeted gear types within or near to site, or where the fishing activity cannot be displaced locally but there is only a low level of non-targeted fishing activity, the impacts are considered minor in scale. Where fishing activity cannot be displaced locally and there is a moderate to high level of non-targeted gear type within or near to the site, the impacts are considered moderate.

Overall, the potential adverse environmental effects from displacement or increased fishing effort from other gear types are not considered significant. The measures proposed under Option 1 are unlikely to lead to displacement of fisheries activities outwith Scottish jurisdiction, and thus unlikely to cause transboundary environmental effects.

Overall Environmental Effects of Option 2.

When taking into account of the balance of beneficial and adverse environmental effects, the overall (cumulative) effects of Option 2 across the suite of sites as outlined in Table 6 are assessed as:

• None (1 site)
• Negligible neutral (3 sites)
• Minor beneficial (10 sites)
• Moderate beneficial (6 sites)
• Major beneficial (1 site).

In comparison to Option 1, only one site presents a different assessed impact, and this is the Barra Fan and Hebridean Sea Mount MPA which is assessed as having a Minor Beneficial impact under Option 2, in comparison to a Major Beneficial impact under Option 1.

There is one site where Option 2 is assessed as having an overall major beneficial impact (East of Gannet and Montrose Field MPA). This is because this option will prohibit damaging fishing practices in an area of existing high fishing intensity which will lead to major benefits in terms of the protection and potential recovery of habitats and species within the site, as well as the potential for moderate spill-over benefits. However, this option can potentially lead to minor adverse effects on the environment associated with the displacement of fishing vessels and potential change in gear type. On balance, the beneficial effects of this option at this site will outweigh the negative effects.

There are six sites where Option 2 is assessed as having an overall moderate beneficial impact (Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt MPA, Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA, Pobie Bank Reef SAC, Northwest Rockall Bank SAC, West Shetland Shelf MPA and Wyville-Thomson Ridge SAC). This is because this option will prohibit damaging fishing practices in areas where there are moderate to high levels of existing fishing activity, which will lead to moderate to major benefits in terms of the protection and potential recovery of habitats and species within the site, as well as the potential for minor to moderate spill-over benefits.

Option 2 will also result in minor to moderate adverse effects associated with displacement depending on whether the fishing activity can be displaced nearby, or whether the fishing vessels need to travel further to access existing fishing grounds or potentially open new grounds with associated increased adverse effects. The potential adverse effects associated with a change in gear types that are not targeted by measures under this option are categorised as negligible to minor. On balance, therefore, the beneficial effects at these sites will be significantly greater than the negative effects.

There are ten sites where the overall effects of Option 2 measures is assessed as a minor beneficial. This is because this option will prohibit damaging fishing practices, resulting in environmental benefits from the protection and potential recovery of habitats and species within the site. There is also the potential for negligible to moderate spill-over benefits, the scale of which is dependent on the level of benefits within the site, and the size of the protected site.

Fishing activity displaced as a result of Option 2 is assessed to result in negligible to moderate adverse environmental effects, depending on the level of such activity and the extent to which it is displaced. The potential adverse effects associated with a change in fishing gear types occurring within the site is negligible to moderate under this option. This is dependent on the existing fishing intensity of other gear types at and near to the protected site, and whether displacement effects are significant and more likely to lead to a change in gear type. On balance, therefore, the beneficial effects of Option 2 for these sites will be marginally greater than the negative effects.

Option 2 is assessed as having an overall negligible neutral impact at three protected sites (Anton Dohrn SAC, Solan Bank Reef SAC and Turbot Bank MPA). This is because Option 2 will prohibit damaging fishing practices in areas where the existing intensity of fishing activity is high which will lead to major benefits in terms of the protection and potential recovery of habitats and species within the site, as well as the potential for minor spill-over benefits given the relatively small size of these protected sites. Option 2 is assessed as having moderate adverse effects associated with displacement as the fishing vessels need to travel further to access existing fishing grounds or potentially open new grounds with associated adverse effects. The potential adverse effects associated with a change in gear types that are subject to measures is moderate, as the displacement effects are significant and more likely to lead to a change in gear type. Overall, the beneficial effects of Option 2 measures at this sites are likely to be balanced by the negative effects.

At sites where there is no increased protection under Option 2 (Braemar Pockmarks SAC, Scanner Pockmark SAC, Turbot Bank MPA, Anton Dohrn Seamount MPA, Darwin Mounds SAC and West of Scotland MPA) there is no difference in the level of protection and, therefore, no change in the assessment that was undertaken of the proposed measures (Section 4.1). There were also eight sites where the increased protection provided by Option 2 did not alter the overall outcome of the assessment (Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt MPA, Northeast Faroe-Shetland Channel MPA, Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain MPA, Pobie Bank Reef MPA, Geikie Slide and Hebridean Slope MPA, Northwest Rockall Bank SAC, Solan Bank Reef SAC, and Stanton Banks SAC).

Overall, the potential adverse environmental effects from displacement or increased fishing effort from other gear types are not considered significant. The measures proposed under Option 2 are unlikely to lead to displacement of fisheries activities outwith Scottish jurisdiction, and thus unlikely to cause transboundary environmental effects.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects can arise from the combined effects of plans. They can also arise as a result of interaction between different components of a single plan. The assessment of cumulative environmental effects has focused on the potential cumulative effects from the displacement of fishing activities from previous plans and the combined displacement from this plan.

Taken together, the proposed fisheries management measures under Option 1 are likely to result in benefits to the overarching topic of biodiversity, in terms of reducing damaging fishing pressures to sensitive habitats and species and providing the opportunity for spill-over benefits. However, there is also potential for adverse effects on biodiversity from displacement of commercial fishing activities and potential use of other gear types in the sites that are not restricted by the management measures.

The potential environmental impact associated with displacement at each site under Option 1 is assessed as no effect at one site, negligible at five sites, a moderate adverse effect at two, and minor at the remaining sites. The adverse environmental impact associated with a potential change in gear type is assessed as negligible at 12 sites, minor at five sites, moderate at one site and no effect at three sites. Although, the proposed management measures at Central Fladen MPA and Solan Bank Reef SAC could result in potential significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the displacement of existing fishing activities and/or a change in gear type, the overall cumulative adverse effects of the proposed measures under Option 1 as a whole are not considered to be significant across the 21 sites.

The first round of fisheries management measures for inshore MPAs were introduced in 2016 and, therefore, the areas into which the restricted fishing effort was displaced were primarily within the inshore area but there could still be a potential overlap with the displacement of fishing activities from the proposed measures in offshore MPAs. The SEA for the previous inshore measures concluded displacement from only one site (Luce Bay and Sands SAC) was likely to cause significant environmental impact. The nearest of the offshore MPAs to this site is Stanton Banks SAC which is located more than 240 km to the northwest, and which has an existing low to moderate level of fishing activity that is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Additional cumulative impacts are, therefore, not considered likely. Overall, the cumulative effects of the offshore MPAs with the existing Phase 1 measures for inshore MPAs are considered to result in a beneficial impact on the Scottish marine environment.

There may be cumulative adverse effects on the environment from the displacement of fishing activities resulting from the proposed measures in offshore MPAs in-combination with other plans. These include the new round of fisheries management measures which are due to be assessed for remaining inshore MPAs where these are not already in place, as well as PMFs identified as most at risk from bottom-contacting mobile fishing gear outwith MPAs (Section 3.2).

Other plans which could potentially interact with the proposed measures for offshore MPAs include wider marine spatial plans, including the Crown Estate Scotland’s first round of Offshore Wind Leasing in Scottish Waters (ScotWind), the Scottish Government’s Sectoral Marine Plan for Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas Decarbonisation (INTOG), National Grid Electricity System Operator’s (ESO) Holistic Network Design (HND) under the Offshore Transmission Network Review (OTNR) and development and deployment of Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) in Scotland.

Since the production of this Sustainability Appraisal, Crown Estate Scotland have awarded Exclusivity Agreements for seabed through the INTOG leasing round. One Target Oil and Gas Exclusivity Agreement is located within the East of Gannet and Montrose MPA whilst other potential agreements marginally overlap with other MPAs. Any potential in combination effects of proposed developments and the MPA management measures will be calculated within the relevant renewables sectoral marine planning assessments and additionally at project-level if projects progress to that stage.

All these other plans are currently under assessment and in consequence, it is not possible at this stage to ascertain whether there may be cumulative effects, resulting from the effects of displacement of commercial fishing activities associated with the proposed measures for offshore MPAs and the effects of these other plans for the marine environment. These potential cumulative effects will be assessed in the individual environmental assessments that are prepared for these other plans.

4.2 Economy and other marine users

Impact to commercial fisheries

Potential loss in value of landings by site

The estimated average annual loss in the value of landings per site is shown in Table 7 of the SEIA⁸. In aggregate, across the entire suite of sites and both management options, this ranges from £0.74 million to £8.0 million per year, out of a total annual turnover of around £600 million for Scottish vessels, but should also be considered on a regional and fleet segment basis. The corresponding loss in landings by volume is presented in Table 8 of the SEIA.

The marine regions^[39] most affected in terms of value of landings (Table 9 of the SEIA) are:

• Under Option 1: North Scotland Coast (up to £726 thousand per year); Fladen (up to £535 thousand per year); East Shetland (up to £430 thousand per year); and Rockall (up to £390 thousand per year); and
• Under Option 2: Fladen (up to £2.7 million per year); North Scotland Coast (up to £1.6 million per year); East Scotland Coast (up to £1.0 million per year); and Rockall (up to £713 thousand per year).

In terms of the percentage of total landings from each region that these impacts represent, the most affected regions (Table 9 of the SEIA) are:

• Under Option 1: Hatton (100% of total landings from the region affected)^[40]; Bailey (37–56%);
• Under Option 2: Hatton (100% of total landings from the region affected); Bailey (up to 44–58%); East Scotland Coast (up to 10–11%); and Rockall (2–7%).

The sites that account for the greatest loss in the value of landings under the lower estimate are Solan Bank Reef SAC and Central Fladen MPA. Under Option 2, the sites that account for the greatest loss in the value of landings are Central Fladen MPA and Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA. In Central Fladen, the impact mainly relates to over-12 m demersal trawls. In Firth of Forth Banks Complex the impact is mainly on over-12m mechanical dredges. In Solan Bank Reef, the impact mainly relates to over-12m demersal trawls.

Option 1 represents restrictions in line with the proposed management measures. Option 2 represents management measures that restrict affected fishing gears across the entire site boundaries. The lower end of the range in each case assumes that where the fishing activity affected passes the displacement test, that it can be displaced to nearby fishing grounds and compensatory landings taken and the effect on output is reduced. The higher end of the range assumes the worst-case assumption that all economic activity is lost. If the reduction in activity results in a business becoming unviable and ceasing all activity (in addition to the activity affected by the management options), the impact may be greater.

Impact of loss of landings on Gross Value Added (GVA) and employment

Table 7 summarises the impact on output of the commercial fisheries sector, direct, indirect and induced GVA, and employment, of the suite of measures across all sites for both management options. These are provided in more detail, by site, in Tables 10, 11 and 12 of the SEIA.

The annual average direct GVA effect ranges from £0.3 million to £3.5 million across the two management options, with the largest effects arising from Solan Bank Reef SAC, Central Fladen MPA and Pobie Bank Reef SAC (Option 1), and from Central Fladen MPA, Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA and Solan Bank Reef SAC (Option 2).

Taking into account knock-on effects on the supply chain (indirect GVA), and the induced GVA effects, the total effect is an impact of £0.4 million to £4.8 million on the Scottish economy (average annual reduction in direct, indirect and induced GVA).

In relation to the present value of the reduction in GVA across the 20-year time horizon of the assessment, the direct GVA effect ranges from £4.9 million to £50.7 million, and the direct, indirect and induced GVA effect ranges from £6.9 million to £71.0 million (across both management options, present value, 2022 prices, discounted over assessment period).

Under Option 1, a total of 9–34 jobs (direct and indirect) are lost across all sites, compared to 61–101 under Option 2. The losses of direct and indirect employment primarily arise from Central Fladen MPA and Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA (Option 2).

Non-Quantified Impacts

In addition to the cost, GVA and employment impacts, there are additional potential impacts that have not been quantified in the assessment.

Impacts on non-UK vessels have not been quantified in monetary terms, although the number of vessels that might be affected, and hours fishing are identified for each site by nationality. The nationalities likely to be most affected under the lower estimate are France, Germany, Norway and Faroe Islands. Danish, Irish, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch and Swedish vessels are also affected. If these vessels would normally land to ports in Scotland, there may be knock-on effects on the ports and down-stream supply chains.

The implementation of management measures restricting certain gear types from operating in the sites (or parts of the sites) may result in the displacement of fishing effort from the sites. At the lower end of the range of each estimate, where the fleet segment passes the displacement test, it is assumed that there is no change in output (no change to the value of landings), but the effort displaced to the surrounding ICES rectangles or wider region may result in additional seabed abrasion. Affected vessels may have to steam further to reach fishing grounds, and may be fishing on less productive grounds, having to fish more to maintain catches, resulting in potential changes to vessels’ cost and revenue profiles. These impacts (reflected in range of the estimates) are likely to be greatest for Pobie Bank Reef SAC, Central Fladen MPA and North West Rockall Bank SAC under the lower estimate, and for West Shetland Shelf MPA, Pobie Bank Reef SAC and Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt MPA under Option 2.

In sites where all mobile demersal gears are proposed to be excluded from the site or from areas within the site, this may provide an opportunity for static gears to operate in those areas. This may result in additional landings for those operators, but potentially contributes continued abrasion within the site (although at a lower level than from the mobile demersal gears which have been excluded). There are twelve sites with potential for static gear to operate in areas where all demersal mobile gears are excluded.

Impacts on the Fishing Sector In Combination with Other Marine Developments

There is potential for in-combination and cumulative effects on commercial fisheries, particularly with the potential for restriction on fishing areas due to existing, in construction and planned offshore wind farms, and offshore wind lease areas (Figure 4 of the SEIA). These impacts are expected to be greatest in:

• East Scotland Coast CSSEG region, where offshore MPA measures are predicted to affect between 1.8% and 11% of landings from the region by value (higher end of the Option 1 estimate range to Option 2). In this region, the impact of measures in Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA, combine with several offshore wind farms including the proposed 4 GW Berwick Bank wind farm, and also additional offshore wind farm lease areas that extend into Forties region. The overlap between Berwick Bank offshore wind farm and Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA may reduce the additive nature of the in-combination impact, but the extent of potential future developments could increase the synergistic impact (vessels going out of business due to spatial constraints);
• North Scotland Coast CSSEG region, where offshore MPA measures are predicted to affect between 0.5% and 1.1% of landings from the region by value. In this region, the impact of measures in Solan Bank Reef SAC and West Shetland Shelf MPA combine with offshore wind lease areas for fixed, floating and mixed technologies;
• Fladen CSSEG region, where offshore MPA measures are predicted to affect between 0.5% and 3% of landings from the region by value. In this region, the impact of measures in Central Fladen MPA combine with several offshore wind lease areas anticipated to use floating technology;
• East Shetland CSSEG region, where offshore MPA measures are predicted to affect between 0.6% and 1% of landings from the region by value. In this region, the impact of measures in Pobie Bank Reef SAC combine with three adjacent floating offshore wind lease areas.

It has not been possible to take into account a number of forthcoming plans and projects due to a lack of available information at the time the assessment was completed. This includes: the INTOG leasing round for up to 5.7 GW of offshore wind^[42], with potential for in-combination impacts on fisheries in the east of Scottish waters, and west of Shetland; marine SPAs that lie adjacent to or in proximity to the offshore MPAs under consideration particularly for Hebrides and West Shetland region..

4.3 People, population and health

This section summarises the potential distributional and social impacts of the proposed management options that could arise from impacts on commercial fisheries. It also includes potential costs to government, as these are costs borne by society. More detail on this analysis can be found in the SEIA. This section additionally summarises the review of potential impacts and benefits on ecosystem services, and the overall limitations and uncertainties in the SEIA.

Distribution of Economic Costs and Consequent Social Impacts

The distributional analysis considers the distribution of economic costs and consequent social impacts in relation to vessel sizes, gear types, regions, home ports and ports of landing, and the geographical (e.g. rural/urban, and mainland or island) and socio-economic characteristics of affected locations. The social impacts identified are a consequence of the impacts on fisheries – both in relation to the home port district of vessels (which is an indication of where revenues are realised and crews employed from), and the port of landing for catches (which is also linked to fish processing). The distribution of social impacts also considers the different areas of Scotland affected, how impacts are distributed across specific groups of people (e.g. by age, income, social group and gender), and assesses the likely significance of these impacts.

Reductions in the quantity of sea fish landed at Scottish landing ports, could reduce the supply of locally-landed catch to fish processing facilities and the hotel/restaurant, retail and wholesale trades. This could reduce confidence and hence investment in these sectors, in particular the fish processing industry, although reductions from some fleet segments may be offset by increases in landings from other fleet segments.

The key results of the distributional analysis are summarised in Table 14 and Table 15 of the SEIA. 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.

The impacts of the proposed management options on fisheries activity and employment, described above, have minimal impacts at the lower end of the Option 1 impact range, where restricted fishing activity is largely displaced to other fishing grounds. At the higher end of the Option 1 impact range (where all affected landings are assumed to be lost), the impacts are higher, but most port districts are estimated to have a reduction in total employment of less than 1% and therefore are not significant to the Scottish Economy. They create a risk of negative impacts in particular local communities. The home port districts with the largest absolute employment impacts are Fraserburgh, Orkney and Shetland, with the largest impacts relative to total employed in fishing in the home port district in Orkney and Shetland (up to 3% of employment lost). Option 2 has greater impacts (a total of £8.0 million of landings per year, and up to 106 FTE jobs and £4.8m of GVA annual average direct, indirect and induced). The highest employment impacts as a percentage of total employment at the Port District are estimated in a small number of ports Orkney, Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Shetland (3-4% of employment lost). These are rural or remote rural/ island coastal communities, and therefore may have fewer alternative employment options, exacerbating the social impacts of loss of employment.

Management measures have the potential to affect the quantity of seafish and shellfish landed locally at Scottish landing ports. The port that accounts for the largest proportion of the affected landings is Peterhead under both management options, but in terms of landings affected as a proportion of current landings to the port, the most significant impacts on Scottish ports are at Aberdeen (up to 3.6% of landings at the port are affected under the higher end of the Option 1 impact range), Cullivoe (Shetland) (2.8%) and Kinlochbervie (2.4%).

The impacts on employment are most likely to fall on those of working age, and on men who make up the vast majority of those employed in commercial sea fishing. There could be further employment impacts in downstream activities like fish processing, which are likely to be more evenly distributed between men and women. These impacts could generate economic and social costs for the individuals concerned and for their families (including children) at the upper levels of each impact range. However, some displacement of fishing activity is likely to occur and hence the impacts on employment are likely to be lower than the maximum estimate.

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 home port. Therefore, they are at increased risk of adverse negative socio-economic consequences from the combined effects of the site management measures.

4.4 Costs to the Public Sector

Table 13 of the SEIA summarises the estimated potential costs to the public sector at national level. These range from £3.2 million to £97.7 million under Option 1 and Option 2, respectively.

Public sector costs are related to the potential future monitoring and control (of fisheries activity) costs, including an increased VMS polling rate, increased resources at the UK Fisheries Monitoring Centre, and additional site-based inspection activity.

There are a number of uncertainties surrounding the estimates of costs to the public sector, in particular, the number of pings that would result from an increased polling rate in the sites (as vessels currently fishing there with restricted gear types would likely avoid the sites when measures are in place), and whether these costs would fall on the public sector or on the vessels themselves; costs for additional monitoring from the UK Fisheries Monitoring Centre; and additional site-based inspection activity.

4.5 Impacts to Ecosystem Services

Both ecosystem service benefits and costs could arise on-site or off-site. On-site benefits are the result of management protections resulting in enhancement of site features. Off-site benefits include potential spill-over effects, where maintaining healthy populations of particular species (including commercial fish or shellfish species, and other protected biodiversity) inside the site supports a larger overall population and therefore increased abundance outside the site. The extent of this effect depends, amongst other things, on the size of site, impact of management measures and mobility and lifecycles of the species concerned. It is discussed further in the SEA report⁸.

Ecosystem service costs could arise on-site, for example if there are negative impacts from alternative fishing activities (using different gears) enter areas where restrictions are introduced on existing fishing activities. Costs could also arise off-site – where a significant amount of fishing activity is expected to be displaced from a site to other areas there could be a negative effect.

The sites support a considerable range and value of ecosystem services, but evidence on the baseline condition of the site features, and on the expected nature of these changes in scientific or economic terms, is incomplete and uncertain. As a result, the assessment of changes in ecosystem services at individual sites is difficult to assess. The potential management options would likely increase the level of several provisioning services, including fish (and shellfish) for human consumption, in particular from protection of seabed habitats and food webs that are important to key stages (e.g. spawning, nursery grounds) in species life cycles.

Two regulating services have been assessed - carbon sequestration and waste assimilation. The latter is not considered significant for most sites. Protection and potential recovery of seabed habitats could increase carbon storage in seabed sediments, but this is highly uncertain.

Cultural services including recreation and benefits stemming from spirituality, health and wellbeing, and creativity and art, and protection of genetic marine resources may be enhanced by the management options through their overall contribution to marine ecosystem health. They are not assessed at a site level. The most significant cultural value is the benefit to people in Scotland of managing a healthy marine environment. Available economic valuation evidence suggests that the value of this benefit is significant, but does not support calculation of a monetary value for the expected impacts.

4.6 Limitations and uncertainties

All of the estimates of costs and benefits in the SEIA are subject to significant uncertainties. The range of impacts vary greatly depending on the management option and assumptions applied. The extent 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 (and these uncertainties also transfer to the SEA). In addition, the consequential socio-economic impacts in remote or fragile communities may have the potential to be greater than the estimates presented in this assessment.

The benefits assessment is subject to uncertainty and it has only been possible to develop qualitative estimates of potential benefits for ecosystem services. Nevertheless, this assessment suggests the benefits are significant, and that they would provide value to people in Scotland, through support for future commercial fish stocks, and through the benefit to people of managing a healthy marine environment.