Draft marine and coastal restoration plan: partial business and regulatory impact assessment

Section 3: Costs, impacts, and benefits

An assessment of potential costs and impacts has been undertaken in relation to the three options outlined in Section 1. Due to data constraints, it is challenging to monetise the expected change in costs and benefits under and within certain options. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken where a quantitative assessment was deemed impractical. Furthermore, due to the limited number of costs and benefits that can be quantified, a financial assessment of the costs and benefits has been undertaken only.

Quantified costs to businesses

Option 1 – Business as usual (also known as a ‘do nothing’) scenario

This option would not create additional direct costs to the sectors and groups identified in assessment, as objectives and actions would not be implemented. However, restoration groups would continue to experience a lack clarity and uncertainty with licence applications, which could result in inefficiencies and higher costs in project development and assessment.

Option 2 – The Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan

Theme 1 – Restoration Opportunities and Priorities

The objectives under this theme are likely to have negligible cost implications for businesses and therefore have not been quantified.

Theme 2 – Regulatory Environment

The objectives under this theme are likely to have negligible cost implications for business and therefore have not been quantified.

The future use of any protection mechanism for restoration may have some impacts for other marine users, as this could involve restrictions on activities in order to protect habitats and species undergoing restoration. A legislative mechanism could also include provisions relating to fines for non-compliance, which would have cost implications for businesses if incurred. However, at this stage it is not appropriate or feasible to quantify these potential impacts as they will depend on a) the mechanism put in place (which has not been specified in the draft plan to provide flexibility to explore options) and b) it is not possible to predict how or where protection mechanisms might be applied in the future or the specific management measures. Any proposals to implement a legislative protection mechanism for restoration activity, and any subsequent proposals for use of such a mechanism would be subject to relevant impact assessments. This would allow costs to businesses to be assessed at an appropriate time.

Theme 3 – Funding and Finance

The objectives within this theme aim to improve the environment for funding and finance within the marine and coastal restoration space. These actions are expected to have negligible cost impacts on businesses.

Theme 4 – Supply Chains and Communities

The objectives under theme 4 focus on knowledge exchange, increased collaboration between marine users, and supply chains. The costs to achieve these objectives are expected to be negligible to businesses.

Theme 5 – Evidence and Monitoring

The objectives under theme 5 focus on improving evidence and monitoring. The actions in this theme are linked to an increase in monitoring by restoration projects. Monitoring is both costly and time consuming and could be considered to have a cost implication for businesses, in particular smaller businesses. The scale of impact would depend on the detail associated with implementation of actions under the theme (for example the development of standardised data collection practices). Therefore, at this stage it is not possible to quantify the potential cost implications for businesses. It should be noted that the additional staff time as part of this theme is likely to be more than offset by actions within other themes, such as those outlined within the Benefits to business section.

Option 3 – Actions considered but not taken forward at this time

The objectives that have not been taken forward as part of the plan are unlikely to have more than a negligible cost impact on business.

Public sector costs

Option 1 – Business as usual (also known as a ‘do nothing’) scenario

This option would not create additional direct costs to the public sector as no plan would be published.

Option 2 – The Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan

The plan is expected to have cost implications on the public sector. These costs have been set out under the relevant theme and summarised in Table 1. The costs have been estimated in 2026 prices over the life of the first plan (i.e. five years), using GDP deflators^[2].

Please note that as outlined later in this section, it is anticipated that the support post would update the database of restoration projects, therefore the database of restoration projects and the support post are shown as a single cost.

Theme 1 – Restoration Opportunities and Priorities

The opportunity maps will have cost implications for the public sector. In particular, the public sector will incur staff costs associated with the initial development of and updates to opportunity maps for different habitats and species. The costs associated with the opportunity maps have been estimated using average Scottish Government salaries^[3] as of 1 February 2025. These salaries have been adjusted to incorporate employer national insurance and pension costs to give a more accurate view of the total staff cost to the public sector. Note that these costs are an indicative estimate of staffing costs in February 2025, however they do not take into account overhead costs, such as facilities, and that the data precedes the increase in employer national insurance effective from 1 April 2025. The costs to develop an opportunity map for oyster restoration has been estimated to equal £27,015 in 2026 prices, whilst the cost to maintain and update the opportunity map has been estimated to equal £1,642. It has been assumed for prudence that the cost to maintain and update the opportunity map is required on an annual basis, but this is still to be determined and could be an overestimate. Therefore, the total costs to produce, maintain and update the opportunity map for a single habitat or species is estimated to equal £33,584 in 2026 prices over the life of the plan (i.e. five years).

It should be noted that the requirements to produce an opportunity map for a different species or habitat might differ from those of oysters, which would lead to the costs diverging. The total cost to the public sector for the opportunity maps will be determined by the number of opportunity maps that will ultimately be produced, which in turn will be considered in continued engagement with the relevant marine stakeholders.

Theme 2 – Regulatory Environment

There are likely to be cost implications for the objectives set out under theme 2. In particular, the costs to create and fund a project support post are likely to impact the public sector, although alternative funding sources could be explored. The exact grade, salary, and work pattern (i.e. whether the post would be a full-time or part-time) will not be known until further consideration has been given to requirements. To provide an illustration of the potential costs, the post has been assumed for the purposes of this assessment to be equivalent of a B3 in the Scottish Government, with a salary of £45,894 per year^[4]. The salary has been adjusted to account for national insurance and pension costs, which means that the impact on the public sector on an annual basis will total £70,503 in 2026 prices. Please note that the data does not take into account overheads and that the data precedes the recent increase in employer national insurance. The total cost to the public sector for the five year period of the plan would equal £352,517 in 2026 prices.

Theme 3 – Funding and Finance

Objectives and actions within theme 3 aim to improve the environment for funding and finance within the marine and coastal restoration space. A commitment to continue funding of the Scottish Marine Environmental Enhancement Fund (“SMEEF”) will have cost implications. The Scottish Government currently provide £60,000 per year to NatureScot to fund the core elements of SMEEF. The total cost to the public sector for the five year period of the plan would equal £300,000 in 2026 prices.

It should be noted that these are not “additional” costs given that Scottish Government already provides funding on an annual basis. However, the proposed action would guarantee this annual funding for the five year period of the plan.

Theme 4 – Supply Chains and Communities

Theme 4 is not expected to lead to substantial costs to the public sector.

Theme 5 – Evidence and Monitoring

The database of restoration projects could lead to cost implications for the public sector. It is assumed that the database would be light touch and not require significant IT system investment. Therefore, it has been assumed that the designated case-work post to help projects navigate the regulatory environment could manage this task. The costs that this post would incur are set out under theme 2.

Option 3 – Actions considered but not taken forward at this time

The majority of objectives outlined under this option are likely to have a negligible cost impact on the public sector. However, there are two actions that could have led to additional public sector costs.

A registration process for marine and coastal restoration projects would likely lead to additional costs, above those of the database of restoration projects. This could be as a result of additional information requirements, and (as a registration process would have replaced the need for a marine licence in some cases) an increased onus on the public sector to ensure that the information provided by projects was accurate. However, the costs of a registration scheme can vary substantially with regards to necessary inputs, such as staff time and IT infrastructure.

Secondly, establishing nationally funded hatchery or (regional) hatcheries would lead to significant costs on the public sector. An approximation for the costs of a nationally funded hatchery could be seen in the Argyll and Bute Growth Deal^[5]. The Scottish and UK Government have committed £3.33 million in funding to the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) Centre for Seaweed and Shellfish to provide the necessary capability to upscale Scotland’s seaweed and shellfish industries. It should be noted that this is likely to be an underestimate for the total cost of setting-up nationally funded hatcheries as the figure would need to be multiplied by the number of regional hatcheries that would be required.

Scottish firms’ international competitiveness

The outcomes of the plan are likely to make Scotland a more attractive place for international investment for investors and developers interested in restoration activities. In particular, the themes set out within the plan should provide for a more efficient regulatory experience for restoration organisations, an improvement in the funding environment for restoration activities and more resilient supply chains. These factors could lead to additional investment in Scotland.

Benefits to business

The benefits to business of the options assessed are as follows:

Option 1 – Business as usual (also known as a ‘do nothing’) scenario

This option would not create additional direct benefits to marine users as no plan would be published. However, restoration groups would continue to experience a lack of clarity and uncertainty with licence applications, which could result in a lower level of restoration activity taking place relative to Option 2 or 3.

Option 2 – The Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan

The overall aim of the plan is to facilitate restoration activity. If this is successful, this is likely to provide benefits to various marine sectors, principally businesses involved in marine and coastal restoration but also the tourism sector. The specific benefits expected for each theme have been set out below.

Marine and coastal tourism in 2022 generated £633 million of approximate gross value added (GVA) and employed 31,100 people^[6]. Furthermore, Visit Scotland estimate that there were 1.1 million trips and 4.5 million nights spent at the seaside and the coast in Scotland in 2023 by Great British residents. These visits are associated with a spend of £332 million^[7]. The marine tourism sector could benefit from improvements in the health and diversity of the marine environment. This could, for example, include improvements in water quality as a result of native oyster restoration or increased opportunities for wildlife spotting as a result of habitat provision from restoration.

Theme 1 – Restoration Opportunities and Priorities

The development of opportunity maps, criteria for priority habitats and species, and promoting the importance of baseline surveys should improve the quality and quantity of information regarding restoration activities. This could reduce the timescales involved in identifying suitable restoration locations and could also contribute to improved success rates for restoration projects by enabling activity to occur in appropriate locations and targeting appropriate habitats or species. In turn, these factors could reduce costs, such as staff costs for businesses or attract additional private investment.

Theme 2 – Regulatory Environment

The proposed support post for restoration projects to navigate the regulatory environment, and information sharing across regulators and public bodies should reduce the amount of time required by restoration organisations to complete administrative or operational type tasks.

The establishment of a protection mechanism should allow restoration projects a greater chance of success by avoiding damage from other marine activities. As noted above, the implementation of a legislative protection mechanism and subsequent proposals for use of the mechanism to protect specific projects would be subject to appropriate impact assessments. Therefore, the benefits to business will be assessed at the point of implementation once the approach and its application are known. However, broadly speaking benefits are likely to be realised directly by the restoration sector, or indirectly by wider marine sectors (for example increased success rates for restoration projects could benefit the fishing industry if increased species abundance where any protection measures are implemented leads to increased abundance in wider areas).

Theme 3 – Funding and Finance

Facilitating investment into restoration activities through addressing the funding gap between project development and groundwork phase and developing innovative funding streams should improve the success rate of restoration activities. For example, it is possible that some restoration projects suffer funding shortfalls at various stages of the project and due to this the project cannot proceed. This could lead to secondary benefits where the improvement in the success rate of restoration projects leads to the number and/or scale of restoration projects increasing. Finally, if funding restoration projects is facilitated, it should mean that restoration organisations can spend less time on sourcing funding for their projects, which can be used elsewhere in the project.

Theme 4 – Supply Chains and Communities

Theme 4 focuses on supply chains, knowledge exchange within the restoration sector, and improving participation and engagement with other sectors. It is likely that greater information availability regarding restoration activities will improve the likelihood of restoration project success, as knowledge sharing can include best practices, lessons learned and improve efficiency.

Actions to support more resilient supply chains for restoration could also benefit businesses by providing greater certainty for restoration projects and suppliers, and improved success rates for restoration projects (including in relation to mitigating the potential negative effects of invasive and non-native species (INNS)). Other potential benefits could include increased opportunities for commercial oyster growers to pivot towards supplying native oysters for restoration purposes, commercial nurseries (including on land) for other species like seagrass, and increases in demand for equipment and surveying services, alongside the potential for increases in overnight stays highlighted elsewhere. However, due to a lack of data it is not possible to quantify these benefits.

Theme 5 – Evidence and Monitoring

The objectives under theme 5 focus on improving the information base available regarding restoration activities. It is likely that this will improve the likelihood of success of a restoration activity, with the benefits of restoration activities in general set out in the Other Benefits section.

Option 3 – Actions considered but not taken forward at this stage

The benefits to business from the plan including the actions that are not being taken forward are expected to broadly resemble those set-out in option 2.

Other impacts

The primary benefits of Option 2 (the proposed package of objectives and actions set out in the draft plan) are likely to be seen through an increase in the number and/or success or restoration activities. This increase will lead to market and non-market benefits to society, which are outlined in the Ecosystem Services Benefits section. However, there are likely to be secondary and indirect benefits from additional restoration activity. This could include additional employment within the marine restoration sector and related sectors, such as marine tourism, or improved skills within the labour force due to the additional employment and information and knowledge sharing.

Ecosystem Services Benefits

This section is included to provide an indication of the potential benefits that restoration activity could provide. Due to data constraints and that different restoration activity will provide differing impacts, it is challenging to monetise the expected change in societal benefits under and within certain options. This section relies upon various data sources, such as studies conducted by the Scottish Government, the UK Government’s Green book and academic studies.

Option 1 – Business as usual (also known as a ‘do nothing’) scenario

This option would not create additional direct benefits to marine users as no plan would be published.

Option 2 – The Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan

The plan aims to contribute to the overall 2045 goals of the SBS, including “the health, condition, and resilience of pelagic, coastal, shelf, and deep-sea marine habitats will have been restored, supporting wider ecosystem function, providing increased benefits to society, and contributing to climate resilience and adaptation through nature-based solutions”. If the plan contributes to increased restoration activity and therefore improved health, condition, and resilience of marine habitats, this may lead to market benefits, such as improved catch for fishing vessels or an improved marine environment helping the marine tourism industry. However, it is recognised that active restoration is likely to make a relatively smaller contribution when compared with wider measures relating to management of pressures on the marine environment, such as Marine Protected Area management measures.

There are also likely to be non-market benefits, which are benefits that don’t hold a market-based monetary value but are valued by society, such as the value of a local beauty spot or an improvement in water quality. Non-market benefits are commonly underestimated using traditional market valuation techniques. A natural capital approach attempts to account for this issue by using non-market valuation techniques. This section aims to provide a monetary estimate of the benefits that could be experienced due to increased restoration activity, which includes estimates using market values and non-market values. This section uses the categories from the ONS Marine Natural Capital Accounts^[8].

Provisioning Services

Provisioning services are products from nature that meet human needs such as food, water, and materials. In terms of restoration, the key provisioning service that could benefit from restoration are fisheries.

Seagrass habitats are highly productive biological features that provide shelter, nurseries, spawning and feeding areas for birds, fish, and invertebrates^[9]. Jackson et al (2015) analysed the importance of seagrass habitats to commercial and recreational fisheries using a seagrass residency index. They calculated the seagrass residency index by determining the relative amount of time a species spends in seagrass during different life stages relative to other habitats. The seagrass residency index was then used to estimate the share of the total commercial and recreational fishing value associated with seagrass. They found that 4% of the value of commercial fisheries landings was directly associated with seagrass presence in the Mediterranean, with this rising to 6% for recreational fishing^[10]. Please note that as this study focuses on the Mediterranean, these results should be interpreted as a guide to the potential importance of seagrass to Scottish fisheries.

Kelp forests also share similarities with seagrass^[11]. The main kelp genera found in Scotland is laminaria/saccharina^[12]. Egan et al (2023) estimate that the economic value of kelp forests from a fisheries perspective varies dependent on the type of kelp forest and the location. They estimated that laminaria/saccharina has an economic value to fisheries between $17,661 and $61,810 per hectare per year in 2020 prices^[13]. These figures, when converted to Pound Sterling using HMRC average currency exchange rates for 2020^[14] and indicates an estimated economic value of £16,985 to £59,445 per hectare per year in 2026 prices.

Regulating Services

Natural assets provide several less visible services known as regulating services. These include sequestering carbon and regulating water flows to prevent flooding.

Oyster reefs and seagrass can reduce the likelihood of flood events^[15],[16]. Seenath et al (2025) investigated public perceptions of nature based coastal solutions in the UK^[17]. They collected survey data to identify the public perception of five coastal solutions to mitigate flood risk, which were:

a) authorities install hard defences (e.g. seawalls)

b) authorities do nothing. Homeowners and renters invest in flood insurance for their property

c) authorities, homeowners, and renters do nothing

d) authorities move people away from flood risk areas following consultation with the public. Homeowners will be compensated for the loss of their land

e) authorities introduce nature-based solutions (e.g. sand nourishment and salt marshes)

They found that the UK public were willing or very willing to support nature-based solutions (83%) or hard defences (76%) through higher council tax, whilst only a minority were unwilling to support these methods (7% and 10%). On the other hand, the UK public are unwilling to ‘do nothing’, also known as letting nature take its course, with 87% unwilling or very unwilling to support this option.

To provide a guide as to the damage that could be avoided if nature based solutions reduce the risk of flooding, the UK Government Green Book outlines the typical damage per property, per flood event in 2020 to 2021 prices. Their estimates vary from around £8,000 to £11,000 for a flood of less than 0.1 metres in depth (£9,600 to £13,200 in 2025 to 2026 prices), with this rising to £40,000 to £45,000 for a flood in excess of 1.2 metres in depth (£48,000 - £54,000 in 2025 to 2026 prices)^[18].

NatureScot published a literature review in 2023 on Blue Carbon^[19], which includes saltmarsh, seagrass, kelp beds, and seabed sediments. The report outlines the importance of blue carbon sources with regards to storing and sequestrating carbon. In particular, Scotland's blue carbon environments store around 360 megatonnes of organic carbon that has built up over very long timescales, the vast majority of which is in seabed sediments (over 98%). In addition, saltmarsh is estimated to sequester approximately 4,385 tonnes of organic carbon annually and seagrass is estimated to sequester around 1,000 tonnes of organic carbon annually. The UK Government Green Book estimates that the economic cost of mitigating a unit of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020 to 2021 prices under a low, central, and high scenario ranges from £121 (£145 in 2025 to 2026 prices) to £362 (£435 in 2025 to 2026 prices). If the organic carbon sequestered annually is converted into carbon dioxide equivalent in line with green book supplementary guidance^[20], the value of a 1% increase in blue carbon sequestration annually by saltmarsh would lead to between £2.3 million to £7.0 million of economic costs being avoided, whilst the value of a 1% increase in blue carbon sequestration annually by seagrass would lead to between £0.5 million to £1.6 million of economic costs being avoided.

Oyster reefs are associated with improvements in water quality^[21]. Hanley et al (2003) estimated the economic benefits of improvements to coastal water quality in south-west Scotland, estimating how an improvement in water quality to the EU mandatory standard would lead to changes in the number of visits by beach users and associated welfare impacts^[22]. They estimate that an improvement in water quality would increase trips to the beach by 1.3% and the increase in consumer surplus (i.e. the additional benefits a consumer would gain) per individual per year equals £6 in 2003 prices, which is equal to £10 in 2026 prices. As the study carried out surveys on beaches in North and South Ayrshire, the consumer surplus could be aggregated to a population level by multiplying the consumer surplus by the population of North and South Ayrshire in 2023, which was 245,400^[23]. Therefore, it could be estimated that the population would generate £3 million of consumer surplus in North and South Ayrshire from an improvement in water quality in 2026 prices.

The National Water Environment Benefits Survey^[24] estimates that the average benefits of improvements in the quality of waters in rivers, lakes, canals and coastal waters in England and Wales in 2020 to 2021 prices is equal to £22,000 (£26,400 in 2025 to 2026 prices) per kilometre per year for an improvement from bad water quality to poor, £25,400 (£30,500 in 2025 to 2026 prices) from poor to moderate and £29,500 (£35,400 in 2025 to 2026 prices) from moderate water quality to good.

Cultural Services

Cultural services are the non-material benefits people obtain from natural capital, such as recreation and aesthetic experience.

One type of recreation is tourism. In 2022, marine and coastal tourism generated £633 million of approximate gross value added (“GVA”) and employed 31,100 people^[25]. Furthermore, Visit Scotland estimate that there were 1.1 million trips and 4.5 million nights spent at the seaside and the coast in 2023 by Great British residents. These visits are associated with a spend of £332 million^[26].

There are also physical benefits from engaging with the marine environment. Papathanasopoulou et al (2016)^[27] estimates the health benefits from engaging with aquatic physical activities. The study uses the Health Survey for England to identify the type and amount of physical activity undertaken, with this multiplied by the gains that this physical activity would generate on average as quality adjusted life years (QALYs). At the lower bound of what the study estimated – given uncertainties and long time frames, a total QALY gain for the population equal to 24,853 was estimated, equivalent to around 3 weeks per person. In monetary terms, this increased in QALYs could lead to a societal gain of £176.7 million in 2012 prices, which is equal to £257.0 million, in 2026 prices, through non-occurring health expenditure.

The Scottish Government conducted a study in 2023 that estimated how much people in Scotland would be willing to pay for a number of marine and coastal characteristics^[28]. The results show that households in Scotland are willing to pay on average £24 in 2023 (£26 in 2026 prices) for a medium increase in wildlife and habitats, with this rising to £44 (£48 in 2026 prices) for a large increase in wildlife and habitats (i.e. a return to long-term natural levels). These values can be aggregated to a national level by multiplying the average willingness to pay by the number of households in Scotland, which totalled 2.6 million in 2024^[29]. Assuming no change in the number of households, this would imply that households in Scotland would be willing to pay a total of £66 million for a medium increase in wildlife and habitats and a total of £122 million for a large increase in wildlife and habitats (i.e. a return to long-term natural levels), in 2026 prices.

Option 3 – Actions considered but not taken forward at this stage

The ecosystem benefits from the plan including the actions not taken forward are not expected to be substantially different to those set-out in option 2.

Small business impacts

The impacts of the policy should be equivalent for small and large businesses on an absolute basis. The restoration sector and its supply chain is likely to be dominated by smaller organisations, although it should be noted that there is no concrete data on the size of the businesses. There may be some additional staff time required due to the plan (e.g. providing information for the database of restoration projects). However, this is likely to be more than offset by other aspects of the plan, such as the proposed support post which would reduce time spent navigating regulations, or the ‘one-stop-shop’ of information and guidance which should ensure that relevant materials are more readily accessible. Additional benefits may include attracting investment and promoting eco-tourism.

Overall, it is not expected that small businesses would be disproportionately impacted by the plan.

Investment

The outcomes of the plan are likely to make Scotland a more attractive place for global investment for investors and developers interested in restoration activities. In particular, the themes set out within the plan should provide for a more efficient regulatory experience for restoration organisations, an improvement in the funding environment for restoration activities and more resilient supply chains. These factors could lead to additional investment in Scotland. Furthermore, if the number and/or success of restoration activities increase, it’s probable that marine tourism businesses will benefit from an increased level of investment.

Workforce and Fair Work

The outcomes of the plan aim to contribute to the overall 2045 goals of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, which includes marine habitats will have been restored, supporting wider ecosystem function, providing increased benefits to society, and contributing to climate resilience and adaptation through nature-based solutions. It is likely that the plan will lead to increased employment in the restoration sector if the aim of the plan is achieved.

It is deemed unlikely that the plan will lead to any fair work impacts.

Climate change/Circular Economy

Marine and coastal restoration can contribute to nutrient cycling, biomass production, carbon sequestration, and waste detoxification. By setting out objectives and actions that aim to accelerate marine and coastal restoration projects in Scotland, the plan will increase the ability of businesses directly involved in restoration projects to contribute to climate targets. Restoration work can assist climate adaptation through nature based solutions (for example reducing flood risk) and mitigation, through the potential of some restored habitats to sequester carbon. See the section on ecosystem services above for more details.

It is not anticipated that the plan will contribute significantly to the reduction, reuse or recycling of resources by businesses, but we are aware that some projects are trialling the use of recycled materials in their restoration efforts.

Competition Assessment

How could competition be affected by the proposed policy options?

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

No, the plan should allow for more restoration activity to take place, which should create a greater incentive for organisations to enter the market.

• Will the measure limit the ability of suppliers to compete?

No, the plan should not impact suppliers ability to compete.

• Will the measure limit suppliers’ incentives to compete?

No, the plan should allow for more restoration activity to take place, thus increasing suppliers’ incentives to compete.

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

No, the plan should not impact 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?

Supplier’s ability and/or incentive to introduce new technologies, products or business models should be increased with the plan as more restoration activities should take place.

Consumer Duty

The definition of a ‘Consumer’ in the Consumer Scotland Act 2020 is broad and includes small businesses, such as restoration organisations. The plan is likely to provide benefits to restoration organisations through facilitating restoration activities, as well as the tourism sector, as outlined previously in this section. Impacts on other marine users would mainly be as a result of any future use of a protection mechanism for restoration, the impacts of which would be subject to appropriate assessment at the point of implementation.