Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment on Pelagic Fisheries Management Plans

Section 3: Costs, impacts and benefits

Quantified costs to businesses

Whilst the pelagic FMPs include a variety of policies and actions, these will not be implemented immediately following publication of the FMP. Instead, specific measures must be developed through the appropriate processes before being implemented; such development may require further consultation, evidence and/or input from stakeholders and policymakers. The pelagic FMPs do not result in direct measurable impacts at this stage because the FMPs do not introduce new measures upon publication. Therefore, this document is a narrative assessment and does not include monetised or quantified costs to businesses. As specific actions are implemented, further impact assessments (by all relevant authorities) will be completed that includes a more complete assessment of the monetised costs to business associated with that action.

Option 1: Publication of pelagic FMPs

The costs associated with adhering to new measures arising from actions outlined in the FMPs depend on the specific measures proposed. As these are currently unknown, they cannot be identified, or quantified. In general, the FMPs aim is to facilitate managing stocks sustainably through improved, evidence-based management via collaboration between Scottish Government, other UK Governments, industry, and stakeholders. Any measure that requires a change to fishing activity will likely incur costs associated with adapting to these changes. These costs could materialise through change in landings profile or the cost of complying with new gear and equipment regulations, as well as the subsequent overhead costs such activities might incur. There may also be administration costs associated with adapting to the changes, whether this be increased time spent ensuring compliance with regulations or time spent adhering to reporting requirements. Due to the current uncertainty of specific measures to be introduced, these costs are listed as example costs only. They are not exhaustive of the potential costs that may be incurred, nor are they indicative of the specific measures that may be introduced.

There may also be some environmental costs incurred through pursuing Option 1. This could be in the form of additional environmental pressures as a result of business adapting to new measures, for example if fishing effort is displaced towards other, further afield, fishing grounds meaning increased fuel use and higher GHG emissions. Again, as the specific measures to be implemented are unknown, the exact impact on the environment cannot be identified.

Option 2: Business as Usual – No FMP published

As a continuation of business as usual (BAU), implementing Option 2 is unlikely to result in any additional costs to businesses beyond those already incurred by the pelagic fishing sector, and associated business. Fishing opportunities would likely remain the same as previous years, subject to variances in TAC and quota negotiations which are beyond the remit of the FMPs. Option 2 may potentially increase the likelihood of stocks being overexploited without additional efforts made to strengthen the evidence-base, or manage stocks sustainably. This could in turn have a longer term negative impact on the future fishing opportunities for the species affected. Not publishing these FMPs, would not strengthen existing frameworks aimed at sustainable fisheries over and above existing measures. It is also likely to impact on consumer confidence in the long-run, potentially making UK fisheries less attractive to UK retailers and consumers who may question the overall sustainability of UK seafood. However, FMPs are not the only factor assuring the sustainability of UK fisheries and are therefore likely to have limited impact on retailer/consumer decisions.

If there was an intention to pursue Option 2, of not publishing the FMPs, amendments to the JFS would be required.

Benefits to business

Option 1: Publication of pelagic FMPs

As noted above, the benefits associated with measures arising from actions in published FMPs depend on the specific measures which are subsequently proposed. As these are currently unknown, the benefits cannot be identified or quantified at this time.

In general, the FMPs aim to manage stocks sustainably by bringing together information on existing measures and available evidence, mapping where there are gaps and opportunities to fill them. This sets out a clear framework to developing and introducing improved, evidence-based management in collaboration with industry and stakeholders. As such, the benefits to business associated with measures developed from FMP actions are likely to materialise in the form of sustainable stocks that will provide fishers with sustainable economic opportunities into the future. There may also be environmental benefits associated with this option, realised through improving the underpinning evidence base, facilitating management decision making that considers a wider and improved range of fisheries and environmental data. Whilst perhaps less immediately tangible to businesses in the short term, these benefits are likely to have a longer-term economic and environmental impact to businesses through sustainably safeguarding future fishing opportunities.

Option 2: Business as Usual – No FMPs published

Fishing activities and opportunities for the pelagic species covered by FMPs are likely to remain similar to previous years, subject to changes in quota and TAC which are outside the remit of the FMPs. In 2024, the value of pelagic stocks landed by the UK fishing fleet was £521 million.^[9] A breakdown by individual FMP is outlined in Table 1 above. £427 million (82%) of this was landed by Scottish vessels, with English vessels landing a further £53 million (10%), and Northern Irish vessels landed £41 million (8%). A negligible amount (less than 1%) was caught by other UK administrations.

Other impacts

Compliance and Resourcing Impacts

There are likely to be differing levels of compliance and resourcing costs incurred by Scottish Government (and the other relevant authorities) associated with each option.

Option 1 would likely involve compliance and resourcing costs for fisheries policy authorities additional to those currently incurred. These costs would be incurred through the subsequent process of implementing new measures which come out of actions identified in the FMP and ensuring compliance with such measures. The magnitude of these costs depends on the specific measures introduced, with more complex measures requiring greater and more specific compliance incurring a greater cost.

Option 2 is unlikely to generate any additional compliance and resourcing costs beyond those already incurred by current compliance and resourcing plans. If there was an intention to pursue Option 2, of not publishing the FMPs, amendments to the JFS would be required and additional resource would be required for this.

Environmental Impacts

There are likely to be differing environmental impacts realised as a result of pursuing each option.

Option 1 is likely to generate environmental benefits associated with sustainable stock management and improving the evidence base underpinning management decisions. However, there may be environmental costs associated with the FMP measures implemented via Option 1, such as the displacement of fishing effort and other unforeseen factors, which could detract from any environmental benefits generated. As the specific measures are yet to be confirmed, the extent to which environmental costs and benefits will be realised is unknown.

As a continuation of the status quo, Option 2 involves no additional efforts to manage stocks sustainably or improve the existing evidence base that may facilitate greater management decision making. As such, it is likely that this option would incur environmental costs associated with current fishing activities, represented by a potential decline in stock health and abundance through overexploitation and no improvement in the existing evidence base underpinning management decision making.

Scottish firms’ international competitiveness

The FMPs are not expected to have a significant impact on the Scottish businesses ability to compete internationally, nor will it affect Scotland’s attractiveness as a destination for global capital investment. The FMPs are intended to support sustainable and responsible fisheries management, which in turn supports healthy fish stocks and a sustainable fishing industry. This will help ensure that businesses remain competitive and have a strong international reputation and consumer confidence.

Small business impacts

There are unlikely to be any (disproportionate) direct impacts on small businesses due to publication of FMPs. In 2024, the section of the Scottish fleet primarily using pelagic-targeting gear consisted of 148 active vessels.^[10] 127 of these vessels (86% of this fleet) were ten metres or under in length, with 21 vessels (14% of the fleet) over ten metres. All of the over ten metres fleet were greater than 40 metres in length and used pelagic trawling gear, while almost all of the vessels 10 metres and under in length used pelagic handlines. Vessels using pelagic trawling gear accounted for 99% of all pelagic landings in 2024.

However, further policy development work will be needed for any new actions, which could include further evidence gathering or public consultation, along with the completion of appropriate impact assessments. Many of the actions are already underway and part of multi-year delivery programmes, and their development has also been subject to public consultation and appropriate impact assessments carried out by Scottish Government and the other relevant authorities, as required (such as BRIA).

In terms of the make-up of the groups affected, they are most likely small and micro businesses. The definition of small and micro business is based on employing fewer than 50 FTE from the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015^[11]. Every business in the Marine Fishing standard industry classification would be a small or micro business, as all employ fewer than 50 FTE^[12]. As marine fishing businesses are the most likely to be affected by the FMPs, the main group affected will be composed of small and micro business.

Investment

There are unlikely to be any direct impacts to make Scotland (or wider UK) a more, or less, attractive place for global investment.

Workforce and Fair Work

There are unlikely to be any direct impacts affecting the workforce.

The FMPs will not have any direct impact on Fair Work First principles.

Climate change/ Circular Economy

Climate change is already reshaping pelagic fish distributions, productivity, and ecosystem interactions, posing significant challenges for fisheries management systems that have traditionally relied on stable, historical conditions. Pelagic species are particularly sensitive to environmental change, responding rapidly to warming seas due to their strong dependence on temperature and plankton availability.

Observed changes include pronounced poleward shifts in both warm-water and temperate species, as well as large-scale movements such as the northeast Atlantic mackerel stock shifting markedly westward and northward between 2007 and 2016. Boreal species like herring and blue whiting are increasingly concentrated in more northerly waters, including around Norway, Iceland, and the Barents Sea. At the same time, warmer-water species such as sardine and anchovy are appearing more frequently in and around the North Sea (Baudron et al., 2020^[13]; Townhill et al., 2023^[14]; Pinnegar et al., 2023; Garrett et al., 2024; Montero Serra et al., 2015)

Climate change is also influencing pelagic fish productivity, particularly through effects on spawning success and larval survival. While warmer years have produced strong recruitment for some species, responses are highly variable across regions and species, creating uncertainty for stock management and forecasting.

These ecological shifts have important implications for marine food webs. Pelagic fish occupy a central “wasp-waist”^[15] role, linking lower and upper trophic levels, meaning changes in their abundance or distribution can have cascading ecosystem effects. Evidence already points to altered predator–prey dynamics, shifts in plankton communities, and increased interactions with species such as cephalopods, all of which influence feeding and migration patterns.

Given these complexities, traditional single-species management approaches risk overlooking important ecosystem feedback driven by climate change. There is increasing recognition of the need for ecosystem-based fisheries management, particularly for key forage species such as herring and sprat, to better account for interconnected ecological processes.

Pelagic FMPs aim to support the sector in adapting to these changes by promoting research into climate impacts on fisheries and their wider ecosystems, as well as the environmental effects of fishing activity. As the evidence base improves, these plans will evolve to refine actions that help reduce emissions, support industry adaptation, and align with broader climate and circular economy objectives, while complementary measures are developed and implemented alongside the FMP framework.

Competition Assessment

Will the measure directly or indirectly limit the number or range of suppliers?

Pelagic FMPs are unlikely to limit the number or range of suppliers.

Will the measure limit the ability of suppliers to compete?

Pelagic FMPs are unlikely to limit the ability of suppliers to compete.

Will the measure limit suppliers’ incentives to compete?

Pelagic FMPs are unlikely to limit suppliers’ incentives to compete.

Will the measure affect consumers’ ability to engage with the market and make choices that align with their preferences?

Pelagic FMPs are unlikely to affect consumers’ ability to engage with the market and make choices that align with their preferences.

Will the measure affect suppliers’ ability and/or incentive to introduce new technologies, products or business models?

Pelagic FMPs are unlikely to affect suppliers’ ability and/or incentive to introduce new technologies, products or business models.

Finally, it should be noted that while no impacts are expected, further policy development work will be needed for any new actions, which could include further evidence gathering or public consultation, along with the completion of appropriate impact assessments. Many of the actions are already underway and part of multi-year delivery programmes, and their development has also been subject to public consultation and appropriate impact assessments (such as a policy-specific BRIA).

Consumer Duty

What is the proposal trying to achieve?

The proposal is to publish FMPs for pelagic stocks as required by the 2020 Act 2020 and the JFS. FMPs set out the policies designed to restore one or more stocks of sea fish to, or maintain them at, sustainable levels or to contribute to that restoration or maintenance. Where there is not sufficient scientific evidence for MSY, plans may also consider steps to obtain scientific evidence for this. Each plan will specify the stock(s), type of fishing and the geographic area covered. Each FMP will also identify the measures that could be used to deliver its policies. Such measures may include both existing or new regulations, statutory instruments, technical measures, or non-statutory routes such as research plans, voluntary agreements, or codes of conduct. The precise mechanisms used will depend on the policies set out in the plan and, where appropriate, will be enforced by the relevant national fisheries authority. The proposed measures could be regulatory or deregulatory, and positive or negative to business

What are the impacts on consumers?

Pelagic FMPs are unlikely to have any impact on consumers.

Is it likely that harm will be experienced by consumers as a result of this proposal?

Consumers are unlikely to be harmed as a result of Pelagic FMPs.

What alternative proposals are there than can improve outcomes for consumers and/or reduce harm to consumers?

Not applicable.

How do these alternative proposals compare to the original proposal?

Not applicable.