Publication - Impact assessment
Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) - fisheries management measures: island communities impact assessment (ICIA)
This assessment had been undertaken to consider the impacts of the measures under consideration on island communities in Scotland. It has been updated following public consultation.
Annex B Distribution of economic costs and impacts
| Sector/ Impact | Location - Regions | Location - Port (s) | Location - Rural, Urban, Coastal or Island | Age - Children | Age - Working Age | Age - Pensionable Age | Gender - Male | Gender - Female |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial Fisheries Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment, linked back to home port of vessels | Share of total reductions in landings: Scotland: 76%, with Fraserburgh, Orkney and Shetland most significantly impacted Other UK: 11% Unknown registration: 11% | Largest absolute employment impact for higher end of Option 1 is at Fraserburgh 9 FTEs and Orkney 7 FTEs. Largest relative employment impact (reduction in FTE as % of total regularly employed in fishing in home port district) for the higher end of Option 1 is at Orkney (3%) | x Impacts concentrated in coastal areas; rural in North-East, remote rural in North and North-West, and Islands. | x Potential negative effect if parent loses job/ becomes unemployed | x | 0 | x 34 FTE job losses | x Potential negative effect if member of household loses job/ becomes unemployed |
| Fish Processors Reduction in local landings at landing ports | x Peterhead, Scrabster, Kinlochbervie and Ullapool are most significantly affected in Scotland. | Largest relative impact (based on landings affected compared to total landings to port of landing for the higher end of the estimated impact of Option 1 is outside Scotland at Londonderry (5.4%). In Scotland, the largest relative impacts are at: Aberdeen (3.6%) Cullivoe (2.8%) Kinlochbervie (2.4%) | x Impacts concentrated in coastal areas; rural in North-East, remote rural in North and North-West, and Islands. | x | x | 0 | x 60% of processors male | x 40% of processors female* |
Impacts: xxx: significant negative effect; xx: possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected.
* Seafish (2022) Processing Enquiry Tool. Updated Jan 2022.
| Sector / Impact | Fishing Groups - Vessel Category <12 m, >12 m | Fishing Groups - Gear Types / Sector | Income Group - 10% Most Deprived | Income Group - Middle 80% | Income Group - 10% Most Affluent | Social Groups - Crofters | Social Groups - Ethnic Minorities | Social Groups - With Disability or Long-Term Sick |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial fisheries Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment, linked back to home port of vessels | Impacts on >12 m vessels | Main gear types affected for vessels are demersal trawls. | X Possible negative impact on 10% most deprived | x Possible negative impact on middle income group | x Possible negative impact on upper income group under upper estimate of Option 1, but wage data not available to confirm | 0 | EU/EEA nationals account for 14% of employment on Scottish vessels, and non-EEA nationals 7% (mostly Filippino) Approximately a third of employment is of non-UK nationals (mostly from outside of the EU) [4] | 0 No employment data |
| Fish Processors Reduction in local landings at landing ports | Impact on different types of processing units: Demersal fish processing units that cannot offset reductions in local landings with imported fish: x | X | x | 0 | 0 | 51% of employment in fish processing in Scotland is of EEA nationals, 1% of ‘other/ unknown’[5] | No breakdown of fish processing employment data around disability or long-term sick |
Impacts: xxx: significant negative effect; xx: possible negative effects; x: minimal negative effect, if any; 0: no noticeable effect expected
| Home Port District | Estimated reduction in employment (FTEs) - Option 1 | Estimated reduction in employment (FTEs) - Option 2 | Affected value of landings as % of total landings by vessels registered to Home District - Option 1 | Affected value of landings as % of total landings by vessels registered to Home District - Option 2 | In employment as % of total regularly employed in fishing 1 - Option 1 | In employment as % of total regularly employed in fishing 1 - Option 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aberdeen | 0 - <1 | <1 | 0% – <0.1% | 0.1% | 0%– <0.1% | <0.1% |
| Ayr | 0 - 1 | 8 | 0% – 0.8% | 4.0% | 0%–0.4% | 1.9% |
| Buckie | 0 - <1 | 3 | <0.1% – 0.2% | 1.4% | 0%–0.3% | 2.4% |
| Campbeltown | 0 - <1 | <1 | 0% – <0.1% | 0.1% | 0%–<0.1% | 0.1% |
| Eyemouth | 0 - <1 | <1 | 0% – 0.1% | 0.1% | 0%–<0.1% | 0.1% |
| Fraserburgh | 0 - 9 | 30 | 0.1% – 0.5% | 1.4% | 0%–1.2% | 3.7% |
| Kinlochbervie | 0 | 0 | 0.1% - 0.2% | 1.3% | 0%–0% | 0% |
| Lochinver | 0 - 1 | 4 | <0.1% – 0.3% | 2.4% | 0%–0.3% | 2.1% |
| Mallaig | 0 | 0 | 0% – <0.1% | 0.4% | 0%–0% | 0% |
| Oban | 0 - <1 | <1 | 0% – 0.2% | 0.4% | 0%–0.1% | 0.2% |
| Orkney | 0 - 7 | 8 | 1.6% – 2.5% | 3.2% | 0%–3.0% | 3.9% |
| Peterhead | 0 – 3 | 10 | <0.1% – 0.2% | 0.9% | 0%–0.8% | 2.9% |
| Pittenweem | 0 - <1 | <1 | 0% – 0.1% | 0.1% | * | * |
| Portree | 0 | 0 | 0% – <0.1% | <0.1% | 0%–0% | 0% |
| Shetland | 0 – 4 | 6 | <0.1% – 0.3% | 0.4% | 0%–1.8% | 2.5% |
| Stornoway | 0 | 0 | 0% – <0.1% | <0.1% | 0%–0% | 0% |
| Ullapool | 0 | 2 | 0% – 0.3% | 1.7% | 0%–0% | 1.3% |
| Wick | 0 | 0 | <0.1% – 0.1% | 0.2% | * | * |
| Unknown | 1 - 4 | 12 | N/A | N/A | * | * |
1 As reported in Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 2019
* Employment data for these districts were not available
No impact is shown as 0%
N/A: Unable to calculate affected landings as a percentage of total landings for vessels where home district registration is unknown.
Contact
Email: Marine_biodiversity@gov.scot