Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (Northern North Sea) - Fisheries Management Measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
This assessment is undertaken to estimate the costs, benefits and risks of proposed management measures for sites within Northern North Sea that may impact the public, private or third sector.
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 A 1.
| Site | Estimated level of cost | Anticipated ecosystem service | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Braemar Pockmarks | Nil | No ecosystem service costs will arise. | Moderate |
| Central Fladen | Low | Fish stock recovery, climate regulation and non-use cultural value | Low |
| East of Gannet and Montrose Fields | Minimal - low | Fish stock recovery, climate regulation and non-use cultural value | Low |
| Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt | Minimal - low | Fish stock recovery, climate regulation and non-use cultural value | Low |
| Firth of Forth Banks Complex | Low | Fish stock recovery, climate regulation and non-use cultural value | Low |
| North-East Faroe-Shetland Channel | Nil | No ecosystem service costs will arise. | Moderate |
| Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain | Nil | No ecosystem service costs will arise. | Moderate |
| Pobie Bank Reef | Low | Fish stock recovery, climate regulation and non-use cultural value | Low |
| Scanner Pockmark | Nil | No ecosystem service costs will arise. | Moderate |
| Turbot Bank | Nil | No ecosystem service costs will arise. | Moderate |
Five of the ten sites are estimated to have no costs to ecosystem services, two sites are categorised with minimal-low costs, and three 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.
| Site | Direct + indirect GVA impact (PV) (£000s) | Direct + indirect reduction in FTE employment | Annual average loss in value on landings (£000s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Braemar Pockmarks SAC | 0.0 - 34.2 | 0.0 - 0.1 | 0.0 - 4.3 |
| Central Fladen MPA | 1,007.8 - 4,118.1 | 1.3 - 6.2 | 103.7 - 493.2 |
| East of Gannet and Montrose Field MPA | 0.0 - 90.1 | 0.0 - 0.1 | 0.0 - 11.3 |
| Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt MPA | 0.0 - 969.6 | 0.0 - 1.5 | 0.0 - 119.6 |
| Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA | 0.0 - 1,644.4 | 0.0 - 2.4 | 0.0 - 194.3 |
| North-East Faroe-Shetland Channel MPA | 0.0 - 104.9 | 0.0 - 0.2 | 0.0 - 13.1 |
| Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain MPA | 0.0 - 307.9 | 0.0 - 0.5 | 0.0 - 38.2 |
| Pobie Bank Reef SAC | 0.0 - 3,441.7 | 0.0 - 5.4 | 0.0 - 425.7 |
| Scanner Pockmark SAC | 0.0 - 31.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 - 4.0 |
| Turbot Bank MPA | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| All sites | 1,007.8 – 10,742.6 | 1.3 - 16.4 | 103.7 - 1,303.4 |
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.
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 £0.1 m-1.3 m;
- Reduce GVA (direct + indirect) of the UK commercial fisheries sector over the assessment period by £1.0 m –£10.7 m (present value); and
- Reduce the average (mean) number of jobs (direct and indirect) by between 1.3 and 16.4 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 9 out of the 10 sites under this option. The one site with an estimate impact under this option is Central Fladen MPA with an estimated loss of £104,000 in present value terms over 20 years. The loss in value of landings under this estimate would represent 0.02% of the gross value on 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), which is equal to 0.22% of the gross value of landings by Scottish vessels (£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.
| Activity | Lower estimate |
|---|---|
| Increased VMS polling rate | 46.1 |
| Increased resources at UKFMC | 5,790.7 |
| Total | 5,836.7 |
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) or the intensification of activities in areas where they already occur and use of alternative fishing gears (on-site). The potential ecosystem services costs under Option 2 are judged to be nil or minimal - 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. Further information on how level of benefit has been estimated is available in Table A 1.
| Site | Estimated level of cost | Anticipated ecosystem service | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Braemar Pockmarks | Nil | No ecosystem service costs will arise. | Moderate |
| Central Fladen | Low | Fish stock recovery, climate regulation and non-use cultural value | Low |
| East of Gannet and Montrose Fields | Minimal - Low | Fish stock recovery, climate regulation and non-use cultural value | Low |
| Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt | Minimal - Low | Fish stock recovery, climate regulation and non-use cultural value | Low |
| Firth of Forth Banks Complex | Low | Fish stock recovery, climate regulation and non-use cultural value | Low |
| North-East Faroe-Shetland Channel | Nil | No ecosystem service costs will arise. | Moderate |
| Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain | Nil | No ecosystem service costs will arise. | Moderate |
| Pobie Bank Reef | Low | Fish stock recovery, climate regulation and non-use cultural value | Low |
| Scanner Pockmark | Nil | No ecosystem service costs will arise. | Moderate |
| Turbot Bank | Nil | No ecosystem service costs will arise. | Moderate |
Five of the ten sites are estimated to have no costs to ecosystem services, two sites are categorised with minimal-low costs, and three 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.
| Site | Direct + indirect GVA (PV) (£000s) | Direct + indirect reduction in employment (FTE) | Annual average loss in value on landings (£000s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Braemar Pockmarks SAC | 0.0 - 34.2 | 0 - 0.1 | 0 - 4.3 |
| Central Fladen MPA | 21,153.4 – 21,153.4 | 33.0 | 2,620.3 |
| East of Gannet and Montrose Field MPA | 0 – 2,460.4 | 0 - 3.9 | 0 - 308.1 |
| Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt MPA | 0 - 4,536.9 | 0 - 7.1 | 0 - 566.3 |
| Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA | 7,902.0 – 9,093.8 | 11.7 - 13.6 | 932.0 - 1,080.3 |
| North-East Faroe-Shetland Channel MPA | 0 - 282.1 | 0 - 0.4 | 0 - 35.3 |
| Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain MPA | 0 - 379.5 | 0 - 0.6 | 0 – 45.5 |
| Pobie Bank Reef SAC | 0 - 4,891.3 | 0 - 7.6 | 0 - 606.1 |
| Scanner Pockmark SAC | 0 - 31.7 | 0.0 | 0 - 4.0 |
| Turbot Bank MPA | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| All sites | 29,055.4-42,863.3 | 44.7 - 66.3 | 3,552.0 - 5,270.3 |
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.
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 £3.5–5.3 million;
- Reduce the present value GVA (direct and indirect) over the assessment period by £29.1–42.9 million (present value); and
- Reduce the average employment (mean number of jobs, direct and indirect) of the UK commercial fisheries sector by between 45-67 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 estimated £5.3 million of lost landings, and £42.9 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 8 of the 10 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 0.61% 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 where all affected landings are assumed to be lost and the highest estimate represents 0.91% 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 44.7 and 66.3 full time employment roles at risk in the commercial fishing sector and its supply chain year on year, representing 0.9 – 1.35% of the sea-fishing industry.
Contact
Email: marine_biodiversity@gov.scot
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback