Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (North West Waters) - Fisheries Management Measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Options

The Scottish Government have assessed the three following options, each presenting differing levels of management.

There are three sites within this BRIA where a full site restriction to specified gears has been identified as the only suitable management option for supporting the achievement of the site conservation objectives. These measures are therefore the same under both Option 1 and Option 2 of this assessment.

For the assessment of the overall impact, the impact for these sites was calculated, and then added to the calculated collective impact of the zoned measure under Option 1 and to the calculated collective impact of measures under Option 2 to provide two figures for overall impact.

Option 1: Implement zonal feature based fisheries management measures under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

Option 1 represents fisheries management measures that have been informed with the best available evidence and advice from the appropriate Statutory Nature Conservation Body and developed with the fishing industry and Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (eNGOs).

These measures have been developed with a focus on protecting features to enable conservation objectives to be met whilst allowing sustainable fishing activity and practices to continue alongside. Gears requiring management were identified from advice and evidence provided by JNCC and supported by findings within the Fisheries Assessments undertaken for each site.

Under this option, 8 of the 11 sites addressed within this BRIA are zonal measures for specified gears. Only one management proposal is presented for three sites which is a full site exclusion for fishing with specified gear. This is the case where a full site level of protection from the specified gear has been identified as the only suitable option to support the achievement the conservation objectives of the site.

Measures for Option 1 are outlined in Table 2. Further detail for each site, including site maps is available in the Site Proposal Document.

Option 2: Prohibit damaging gears from the full site under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

Option 2 restricts specified fishing activity from the full site. This option does not account for the geographic distribution of features and presents a greater level of environmental protection through greater levels of fisheries restrictions. For most sites, this second option is assessed as having higher socio-economic impacts in comparison to Option 1.

Gears requiring management were identified from advice and evidence provided by JNCC and supported by findings within the Fisheries Assessments undertaken for each site. The JNCC advice and evidence is available for each site and can be accessed through the JNCC website: Resource Hub.

These measures are outlined in Table 3. Site maps can be found within the Site Proposal document in the supporting documents of the consultation.

Option 3: Do nothing - No additional Management

Option 3 is the ‘Do nothing’ option; this is the baseline scenario. Under this option, there is no change to the management measures already in place, such as the prohibition of deep sea trawling (deeper than 800m) (Regulation (EU) 2019/1241^[4]) and the use of set nets (deeper than 600m) (Regulation (EU) 2016/2336^[5]). These regulations apply to any area in Scottish waters which exceeds the depths referred to. The Sandeel (Prohibition Of Fishing) (Scotland) Order 2024 came into force on 26 March 2024 ahead of the 2024 fishery season and prohibits all targeted sandeel fishing within Scottish waters. The 20 sites being consulted on and their features have been identified as requiring fisheries management following advice from the relevant statutory nature conservation bodies (JNCC and NatureScot).

As outlined above in the Rationale for Government Intervention section, there are legislative drivers for implementing fisheries management measures in Scottish MPAs.

On the basis of these requirements, no additional management is not considered a viable option.

Sectors and groups affected

The following activities have been identified as present (or possibly present in the future) within the sites where proposed fisheries management measures are to be implemented in offshore MPAs;

• Commercial fisheries and fisheries processors
• Marine tourism
• Recreational activities
• Public sector
• Research/education bodies

The commercial fisheries sector is most likely to be directly impacted by MPA management measures, as a number of restrictions are placed on the type of vessel and gear that can be deployed within the MPA boundary. The measures under Option 1 have been developed with stakeholders from the commercial fisheries sector.

Approach to assessing costs and benefits

This section summarises the methodological approach taken to estimate the benefits and costs of the policy options presented in this BRIA. A more detailed methodology is available in Annex A.

Impacts to commercial fisheries and fisheries processors

Impacts to commercial fisheries have been estimated in terms of value of landings, gross value added (GVA) and full-time equivalent (FTE) employment. Impacts for both options are presented as a range to reflect the potential for the displacement of fishing activity to compensate for loss of landings from MPA sites. Displacement has been assessed using a displacement test (see Annex A for more detail).

Knock-on impacts to commercial fisheries supply chain (e.g. fish processors) has been assessed by estimating indirect GVA impacts, using multipliers from the Scottish Government's Supply, Use and Input-Output Tables.

Public sector costs

Public sector costs were estimated for the following broad areas based on discussions with information provided by Scottish Government Marine Compliance:

• Mechanisms to implement restrictions on fishing activity in offshore sites;
• Monitoring and Control of fishing activity.

Impacts to Ecosystem Services

The term ‘ecosystem services’ relates to the direct and indirect contributions that ecosystems provide to society.

Due to data constraints and scientific uncertainty, it is challenging to monetise the expected change in ecosystem services. Instead, a qualitative assessment has been undertaken.

The analysis of changes to ecosystem services has considered both on-site and off-site impacts of management options. Off-site impacts could be positive (e.g. by supporting healthier fish stocks in the area) or negative (e.g. due to the impacts of displaced fishing vessels). On-site costs could arise as a result of alternative fishing gears (e.g. creels, nets and lines) being deployed in MPAs where management measures have excluded mobile demersal gears. An overall level of impact for each site has been defined alongside a confidence level.

Other non-quantifiable impacts

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

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. Immediate impacts may include affected vessels being required to steam further to reach fishing grounds, fish on less productive grounds, or required to more to maintain catches, resulting in potential changes to vessels cost and revenue profiles. It’s also possible that the MPAs help 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. There is evidence that fishers catch near a MPA can be larger than in other areas ^{[6] [7]} which will benefit commercial fishers utilising areas around the protected areas. However, to increase the robustness of these estimates, this has not been accounted for in the benefits or costs of the MPAs.

Limitations and Uncertainties

All of the estimates of costs and benefits assessed within the SEIA are subject to significant uncertainties. Uncertainties around economic estimates arise from the assumptions on the level of displacement of fishing activity as it is not possible to establish the true levels. For example, for the higher end of the range for figures presented for each option, it is assumed that the entire value of landings affected would be lost, however in practice a level of displacement of activity is likely to occur which would mitigate that.

As the value of future landings cannot be forecast, it is assumed that the value of landings are constant over time for the analysis. The average value of landings per year estimated for each site is therefore assumed to be the same in each of the 20 years covered by the quantification of impacts. In reality, it is likely that the value of landings in each site would fluctuate over time, and hence the estimated loss in landings may underestimate or overestimate the true future value of landings. As the GVA and employment estimates are based on the value of affected landings, the same limitation applies.

These limitations and uncertainties are discussed further in the SEIA, Section 9.

Benefits

This section assesses the estimated benefits for each policy option. The benefits that are expected to arise under option 1 and 2 are primarily in the form of ecosystem service benefits. The term ‘ecosystem services’ relates to the direct and indirect contributions that ecosystems provide to society. The concept of ‘ecosystem services’ is used to capture the benefits provided. Ecosystem services are the outcomes from ecosystems that directly lead to good(s) and services that are valued by people^[8] and the benefits and the beneficiaries are not uniform and cover a wide range of ecosystem functions and interdependencies. The offshore marine environment is known to support vitally important ecosystem services^[9].

The majority benefits to arise from implementing fisheries management measures can be classed under ecosystem services. Although it has not been possible to monetise the expected ecosystem service benefits arising from this option, there are a number of relevant studies that have assessed the extent to which people value the protection of species in offshore waters. Previous work^[10] linked the features in the proposed Scottish MPAs to different ecosystem services to provide a guide to the levels of ecosystem services that may be provided by the sites.

An international study by Brander et al^[11] concluded that the benefits to people of expanding environmental protection from MPAs generally outweighed the costs. Another study by McVittie and Moran^[12] derived a primary estimate of benefits from the implementation of the nature conservation measures in the draft Marine Bill (specifically Marine Conservation Zones). They identified UK households’ aggregate willingness to pay in the range of £487-£698 million per year (high proportion of this value could be non-use value). Börger et al. 2014^[13] found that people held significant values for the protection of species in an offshore MPA in English waters.

Non-use cultural value relates to values people have for knowing that the marine environment is being protected, even though they never directly plan to make use of it. They may be motivated by altruism, bequest and existence value motivations, but the exact drivers of individual’s values can be hard to distinguish from the values they may hold for other marine ecosystem services. Though there is uncertainty associated with the quantification of ecosystem services, evidence does suggest that members of the public are likely to hold non-use values for deep sea protection, associated with protection of vulnerable species and habitats^[14].

Longer term benefits may be recognised by the fishing industry 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. There is evidence that fishers catch near a MPA can be larger than in other areas ^{[15] [16]} which will benefit commercial fishers utilising areas around the protected areas. The extent and time scale of this effect depends, amongst other things, on the size of site, impact of management options and mobility and lifecycles of the species concerned.

For research and education, the ecosystem service benefit from management options is higher when a larger area and number of features is protected, and when the state of features at a site is known. It is important to note that for many features the extent and / or condition are uncertain, which makes it harder to assess potential benefit, and results in some sites having lower research and education value, as less can be learnt on features response to management if their pre-management state is unknown.

Marine tourism and recreation impacts can be very significant, but are predominantly concentrated around inshore areas. These services are not assessed for individual offshore sites. However, by improving the health of Scotland’s seas, the management options could increase the abundance of distinctive mobile fauna (e.g. seabirds, cetaceans) which use offshore and inshore areas. These species can attract significant recreation and tourism activity. Therefore, the management options could collectively contribute to enhancing this service. This is supported by a study by the European Commission looking at the economic benefits of MPAs found that MPAs have been shown to deliver concrete benefits for the tourism industry in a number of case studies from additional environmental protection^[17].

For genetic resources, these are poorly measured for marine ecosystems, but are relevant - for example, Potts et al.^[18] identified medicines and blue biotechnology as an important marine service. Their future value cannot be quantified, but preserving them in Scottish waters is positively valued (Jobstvogt et al. ^[19]). There is potential a significant option value to preserving the genetic resources in offshore habitats, including where the extent and condition of habitats and species are poorly understood.

In general, there is moderate uncertainty on the extent of ecosystem service impacts, although this varies across services. The management options would provide protection to a wide range of seabed features from fishing gear identified as damaging, and therefore protect and enhance their role in food webs. This could result in improved ecosystem health, and provide benefits by supporting commercial fish stocks, carbon storage in seabed sediments (although this is highly uncertain) and through the cultural value to people in Scotland of managing a healthy marine environment. There is high uncertainty in the monetary valuation of these benefits, and robust values are not available to support cost-benefit analysis.

Option 1 Benefits: Implement zonal fisheries management measures under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

Option 1 represents fisheries management measures that have been developed with the fishing industry and Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (eNGOs).

These measures have been developed with a focus on protecting features to enable conservation objectives to be met whilst allowing sustainable fishing activity and practices to continue alongside. Under this option, measures may or may not be implemented across the full site.

Table 4 presents a summary of the assessment of ecosystem service benefits under Option 1 detailing the level of anticipated benefit, and the level of confidence in the estimation for each site based on the current available evidence. The classifications for level of benefit were nil, minimal, low, moderate, high (detailed in Table A 1). Further information on how level of benefit has been estimated is available in Annex A.

Under this option, all sites were identified as having beneficial impact on non-use cultural value, with four sites classified as having a low impact, and six having a low – moderate impact. Nine sites were identified as having a beneficial impact on fish stock recovery, one having minimal impact, three having a low impact, and five having a low – moderate impact.

For eight of the eleven sites there is ‘low’ confidence in the evidence used to draw the relevant conclusions. For the remaining three sites the confidence was ‘moderate’.

Option 2 Benefits: Prohibit damaging gears from the full site under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

Implementation of fisheries management measures under a full site restriction would allow conservation objectives to be achieved. Gears identified as damaging to the relevant protected features would not be permitted within the site. It is expected that the benefits realised under Option 1 would be realised under this option but to a higher degree. The level of this cannot be quantified using current evidence.

Table 5 presents a summary of the assessment of ecosystem service benefits under Option 2 detailing the level of anticipated benefit and the level of confidence in the estimation for each site based on the current available evidence. The evidence used to assess the level of anticipated benefit for eight of the eleven sites was categorized as having a low confidence rating. For the remaining three sites, there is moderate confidence in the evidence used to draw the relevant conclusions. This remains the same as the level of confidence assessed in Option 1.

In regards to level of benefit, nine of the eleven sites presented the same results as Option 1. Geikie Slide and Hebridean Slope is estimated to have a low- moderate level of impact for research and non-use culture values, in comparison to low impact for the same criteria under option 1. Wyville Thomson Ridge was assessed to have a low-moderate impact for fish stock recovery and non-use cultural values, in comparison to minimal impact under option 1. Further information on how level of benefit has been estimated is available in Table A1.

Option 3 Benefits: Do nothing

No additional benefits are expected to arise from this policy option.

Costs

This section estimates the costs for each policy option. Costs have been estimated in terms of ecosystem service costs, impacts to commercial fisheries, public sector costs and other non-quantifiable costs . Due to the variability in this, values presented are an estimate based on best available data, and it is acknowledged that impacts will likely fall between the figures given for the two impact levels.

The commercial fishing industry will be directly impacted, and associated costs may arise through employment levels, loss of landings or costs associated with displaced activity. There are further non-quantified impacts which may occur where 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. These may result in potential changes to vessels cost and revenue profiles.

Option 1 Costs: Implement zonal fisheries management measures under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

Ecosystem service costs may arise from displacement of fishing effort (off-site), the intensification of activities in areas where they already occur and use of alternative fishing gears (on-site). In general, the potential ecosystem services costs from this option is judged to be nil - low. A summary of the estimated ecosystem services costs in provided in Table 6. The classifications for level of cost were nil, minimal, low, moderate, high. Further information on how level of benefit has been estimated is available in Table A1.

Three of the eleven sites under Option 1 measures are estimated to have no costs to ecosystem services, three sites are categorised with minimal-low costs, and five sites at low cost.

In addition to ecosystem service costs direct financial costs may be incurred through GVA impact, FTE employment or a loss in value of landings. These estimates are summarised in Table 7. The ranges presented within the table represent the capacity for fishing activity to be displaced with the lower value in the range representing the impact when fishing activity can take place in other areas, and the upper end representing all fishing activity being lost. Further information is provided in Annex A.

Direct and indirect reduction in employment = The average (mean) reduction in FTE employment in the sector and the sector’s suppliers as a result of reduced expenditure by employees and suppliers.

N/D. = Value cannot be disclosed.

Where no range is reported, this is because the affected fishing activity cannot be displaced to surrounding areas.

Figures may not sum due to rounding.

Under Option 1, the quantified estimates for economic impacts would:

• Reduce the average annual average loss in value of landings by the UK commercial fisheries sector by between £0.64m and £1.4m;
• Reduce GVA (direct + indirect) by £5.4 m to £11.7 m over the assessment period (present value)
• Reduce the average (mean) number of FTE employment (direct and indirect) by between 8.1 and 17.4 and FTEs.

Option 1 is expected to have minimal impacts on fisheries at the lower end of the estimate. This is as the fishing activity affected by the measures is expected to be able to be displaced and take place within the surrounding area (in most cases, the ICES rectangles within which the sites are located), without significant socio-economic consequences. The loss in value of landings is expected to be nil for 8 out of the 11 sites under this option. The two sites with an anticipated impact under this option are Solan Bank Reef having an estimated loss of £555,000, and West of Scotland with an estimate loss of £85,000, each over 20 years. The loss in value of landings under this estimate would represent 0.11% of the gross value of landings by Scottish vessels in 2019^[20].

The impacts are expected to be more significant under the higher end of this estimate (where all affected landings are assumed to be lost) and at the highest estimate represents 0.24% of the gross value of landings by Scottish vessels was £582 million in 2019^[21].

Total employment on Scottish fishing vessels was 4,886 in 2019. The SEIA estimates that Option 1 has the potential to put between 1.3 and 16.3 FTE employment roles at risk in the commercial fishing sector and its supply chain.

Public Sector Costs

Option 1 would result in additional costs incurred by the public sector for compliance and enforcement. An estimate for the annual costs associated with compliance and enforcement for the proposed measures has been informed by Scottish Government Marine Compliance.

Option 2: Prohibit damaging gears from the full site under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

Ecosystem service costs may arise from displacement of fishing effort (off-site), the intensification of activities in areas where they already occur and use of alternative fishing gears (on-site). In general, the potential ecosystem services costs from the management options are judged to be minimal or low. Under Option 2 the level of displacement has potential to be higher in comparison to Option 1 due to the greater spatial restrictions on fishing activity within protected areas.

Three of the eleven sites are estimated to have no costs to ecosystem services, three sites are categorised with minimal-low costs, and five sites at low cost. Confidence levels in the assessment also remains the same as under Option 1.

In addition to ecosystem service costs direct financial costs may be incurred through GVA impact, employment or a loss in value of landings. These estimates are summarised in Table 10. The ranges presented represent the capacity for fishing activity to be displaced.

Direct and indirect reduction in employment = The average (mean) reduction in employment in the sector and the sector’s suppliers as a result of reduced expenditure by employees and suppliers.

N/D: Non-disclosure. Values relating to under 5 vessels cannot be disclosed.

Where no range is reported, this is because the affected fishing activity cannot be displaced to surrounding areas.

Figures may not sum due to rounding.

Under Option 2 management measures the quantified impact estimates are that the measures would:

• Reduce the average annual value of output landed by the UK commercial fisheries sector by between £1.2–2.7 million;
• Reduce GVA (direct) of the UK commercial fisheries sector over the 20-year period by £10.9–23.1 million (present value); and
• Reduce the average employment (mean number of jobs, direct and indirect) of the UK commercial fisheries sector by between 16-35 full time equivalents (FTEs).

In 2019 the fishing industry generated £329 million GVA, accounting for 0.22% of the overall Scottish economy and 6.5% of the marine economy GVA^[22]. The upper estimate for Option 2 would present the highest estimated cost to fisheries with an estimate £2.7 million of lost landings, and £23 million of lost gross value added (GVA) over 20 years.

Under Option 2 at the lower end of the estimate the annual average loss in value of landings is expected to be nil for 7 of the 11 sites. This is as the fishing activity affected by the measures is expected to be able to be displaced and take place within the surrounding area (in most cases, the ICES rectangles within which the sites are located), without significant socio-economic consequences. The total estimated loss in landings from the lower range of this option would represent 0.21% of the gross value of landings by Scottish Vessels in 2019.

The total impacts on loss of landings across all sites are expected to be more significant under the higher end of this management option (where all affected landings are assumed to be lost) and the highest estimate represents 4.7% of the gross value of landings by Scottish vessels (£582 million in 2019^[23]).

Total employment (headcount) in the sea-fishing industry was 4,886 in 2019, which is 0.2% of the labour force in Scotland^[24]. The SEIA estimates that Option 2 has the potential to put between 16 and 34.7 full time employment roles at risk in the commercial fishing sector and its supply chain year on year, representing 0.32 – 0.71% of the sea-fishing industry.

Public Sector Costs

The decision to implement fisheries management measures would result in additional costs incurred by the public sector for compliance and enforcement. An estimate for the annual costs associated with compliance and enforcement has been informed by Marine Directorate Compliance.

Compliance costs were estimated for the full 21 sites. Due to vessel traffic and site numbers, it is estimated that 40% of the costs would be assigned to the North Western Waters sites assessed in this BRIA.

Option 3: Do nothing

In the absence of the proposed measures a significant amount of Scotland’s offshore marine species and habitats are at risk to potentially damaging fishing activity, existing fisheries measures excepted. Under this option, environmental damage may occur, and therefore site conservation objectives would not be achieved.

Future costs may arise from this through processes outlined under Rationale for Government Intervention.

Cost summary tables

Table 12 outlines the overall estimated costs for each option detailing the GVA impact, loss in value of landings, public sector costs and impacts on employment, as discussed under each option above.

A full breakdown of costs per site is available in Annex B.