Planning Scotland's Seas: 2013 - The Scottish Marine Protected Area Project – Developing the Evidence Base for Impact Assessments and the Sustainability Appraisal Final Report - Appendix E - Marine Site Reports

• Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment

• Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment

• Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment

• Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment

• Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment

• Possible costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment

• None.

• Displacement impacts.

• Displacement impacts.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• See national assessment.

• See national assessment.

• See national assessment.

• Relocation of anchorages/ mooring areas away from features of high sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Relocation of anchorages/ mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Relocation of anchorages/ mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Cost of anchorage/mooring relocation.

• Cost of anchorage/mooring relocation.

• Cost of anchorage/mooring relocation.

There are seven finfish farms (Ardessie A, Ardessie B, Ardmair, Corry Farm, Fada, Isle Ewe and Tanera) within the boundary of the NWS proposed MPA. All sites, apart from Fada, directly overlap with the Burrow Mud feature under all scenarios. Fada directly overlaps with Burrowed Mud under the intermediate and upper scenarios only.

Ardessie A, Ardmair and Isle Ewe directly overlap with the Circalittoral muddy sand communities under all scenarios. In addition, Ardessie B and Fada are within 1km of this feature under all scenarios. Corry Farm and Isle Ewe are within 1km of this feature in the intermediate and upper scenarios.

Three sites, Fada, Isle Ewe and Tanera, directly overlap with the Maerl beds and Maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers features under the upper scenario. In addition, Fada and Tanera are within 1km of the features under all scenarios. Ardmair and Isle of Eweare are within 1km of the features in the upper scenario.

Ardessie A, Ardessie B, Corry Farm and Isle Ewe directly overlap with the feature sublittoral kelp and seaweed communities on sediment under all scenarios and Fada and Tanera directly overlaps under the intermediate and upper scenarios only. Ardessie A, Ardessie B, Corry Farm, Fada and Isle Ewe are within 1km of the feature under all scenarios and Ardmasir and Tanera are within 1km of the feature under the intermediate and upper scenarios only.

There is no public information on potential future development within the proposed MPA. In the absence of infomation on potential future developments, the assessment has focused on the costs associated with obtaining new CAR licences. A national assessment of the costs of obtaining planning permission for new developments is provided separately.

• Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features.

• Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features; and
• Additional survey costs incurred once every 10 years (2019 & 2029) to inform new CAR licence applications.

• Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features; and
• Additional survey costs incurred once every 10 years (2019 & 2029) to inform new CAR licence applications.

• Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application.

• Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application; and
• Additional baseline visual survey costs -£1.6k per CAR licence application

• Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application; and
• Additional baseline visual survey costs -£1.6k per CAR licence application

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

There are two shellfish farms (Loch Ewe and Loch Kanaird) within the boundary of the NWS proposed MPA.

Loch Ewe directly overlaps with Burrowed Mud under all scenarios. Loch Kanaird directly overlaps with this feature under the intermediate and upper scenarios only. Both sites are within 1km of this feature under all scenarios. . There is an additional shellfish farm (Badluarach) within 1km of the proposed MPA boundary which is within 1km of the Burrowed Mud feature under all scenarios.

Loch Ewe and Loch Kanaird directly overlap with the Maerl Bed and Maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumber features under the upper scenario. There is an additional shellfish farm (Badluarach) within 1km of the proposed MPA boundary which is within 1km of the features under all scenarios.

Loch Ewe directly overlaps with the Sublittoral kelp and seaweed communities on sediment under all scenarios. Loch Kanaird directly overlaps with this feature under the intermediate and upper scenarios only. Loch Ewe is within 1km of the feature under all scenarios. Loch Kanaird overlaps with this feature under the intermediate and upper scenarios. . There is an additional shellfish farm (Badluarach) within 1km of the proposed MPA boundary which is within 1km of this feature under all scenarios.

Badluarach is within 1km of Circalittoral muddy sand communities under intermediate and upper scenarios and Loch Ewe for all scenarios respectively.

Badluarach is also located within 1km of the Northern feather star aggregation feature under the upper scenario.

There is no public information on potential future development within the proposed MPA. In the absence of infomation on potential future developments, no site specific assessment has been possible. A national assessment of the costs of obtaining planning permission for new developments is provided separately.

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, Nephrops trawls, dredges, whitefish trawls, lines and other gears (over-15m), and other gears, nephrops trawls and dredges (under-15m) operate within the NWS proposed MPA. The value of catches from the NWS area was £380,000 (over-15m vessels) and £510,500 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m vessels were predominantly into Lochinver (28% by value), and Ullapool (35%). For the over-15m fleet, nephrops trawlers operated in particular in the western part of the proposed MPA and across areas of burrowed mud. There was also dredger activity in the central area in areas of circalittoral muddy sand communities.

Provisional ScotMap data indicate that the annual average earnings from the NWS proposed MPA was £996,200, with 65% of this from nephrops pots and 19% from nephrops trawls. The spatial distribution of value from nephrops trawls indicates that the majority of value in the NWS proposed MPA and surrounding area is derived from close to the shore. ScotMap data would indicate an annual cost impact of around £0.19 million on <15m nephrops trawls under the Upper Scenario, the estimate from ICES rectangle data may be a slight under-estimate. However, ScotMap data indicate no dredge activity within the NWS area, therefore the estimated impact on dredges from ICES rectangle data is likely to be an over-estimate. The coverage for ScotMap interviews in the region was 71.9% (total value of reported landings from the Fisheries Information Network for those vessels included in the ScotMap value analysis expressed as a percentage of the total reported landings for all vessels <15m). Therefore the ScotMap estimate is likely to under-represent the value of fishing by under-15m vessels, and the spatial representation of the value of fishing is less robust than in regions where coverage is higher.

VMS data indicate that there were 12 non- UK vessels within the NWS proposed MPA (3 French, 3 Irish, 3 Spanish, 2 German and 1 Norwegian), but these vessels will not have been actively fishing within the proposed MPA, which is within 6nm, and are more likely to have been transiting to Ullapool port.

Management measures for the scenarios have been developed based on the sensitivity and vulnerability of the features to the pressures caused by different gear types and SNH recommendations. No cost impacts are anticipated under the lower scenario because the features that would be protected (flame shell beds, maerl beds and native oysters) cover very small areas in which trawling and dredging are unlikely to be taking place.

Unlike most other sectors, the potential cost of designation on commercial fisheries is a loss or displacement of current (and future) output, caused by restrictions on fishing activities. Any decrease in output will, all else being equal, reduce the Gross Value Added ( GVA) generated by the sector and have knock-on effects on the GVA generated by those industries that supply commercial fishing vessels. The costs estimates for this sector have therefore been estimated in terms of GVA.

GVA estimates have been generated by applying fleet segment-specific 'GVA/total income' ratios to the value of landings affected. The GVA ratios have been calculated using data on total income and GVA from the Sea Fish Industry Authority Multi-year Fleet Economic Performance Dataset (published March 2013). Further details on the GVA ratios and the methodology for estimating GVA and employment impacts applied are presented in Appendix C7.

It is important to note that all costs presented below assume that all affected landings are lost, that is, there is no displacement of fishing activity to alternative fishing grounds. In reality, some displacement is likely to occur and hence the cost, GVA and employment impacts presented in this table are likely to overestimate the costs.

• No cost impacts expected.

• Reduce mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) pressure by 50% across burrowed mud feature (full extent of MPA);
• Closure to hand collection of native oyster across feature extent; and
• Limit further expansion of static gears.

• Closure to mobile bottom-contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across full extent of MPA; and
• Limit further expansion of static gears.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.156);
• Dredges (0.026);
• Other affected gears (0.006).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.067);
• Dredges (0.001);
• Other affected gears (0.001).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.313);
• Dredges (0.052);
• Other affected gears (0.012).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.133);
• Dredges (0.002);
• Other affected gears (0.001).

• None.

• Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.

• Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.

There are no energy generation activities currently operating within the NWS proposed MPA boundary or corresponding buffer zones. Thus, economic costs and management measures associated with energy generation in this proposed MPA are described in light of known possible future developments.

Within the NWS proposed MPA boundary, one potential future export cable route for a wave energy Area of Search (AoS) could overlap the MPA features burrowed mud, circalittoral muddy sand communities, flame shell beds, sublittoral kelp and seaweed communities on sediment, maerl beds, maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers and northern feather star aggregations on mixed substrata under all scenarios ( i.e. lower, intermediate and upper extent), with the exception of northern feather star aggregations on mixed substrata which only overlaps this energy generation activity under the upper scenario.

The MPA feature burrowed mud is sensitive to permanent change of one marine habitat type to another (through changes in substratum) and physical damage to species living on or within the seabed. Therefore, it is possible that mitigation costs could be incurred.

• Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to all MPA features within 1km of proposed activities.

• Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to all MPA features within 1km of proposed activities.
• Additional survey costs incurred to inform new licence applications; and
• Re-routing of cables.

• Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to all MPA features within 1km of proposed activities;
• Additional survey costs incurred to inform new licence applications;
• Re-routing of cables; and
• Additional post-licence monitoring of any features within 1km of development footprint in year 3 following construction.

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k. Application estimated for submission in 2024 (wave energy AoS export cable route).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k. Application estimated for submission in 2024 (wave energy AoS export cable route);
• Additional survey costs - £5k per linear km of development (45km); and
• Re-routeing of cable (2026) - £1.01m per km (burrowed mud, 10% of 30km = 3km).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k. Application estimated for submission in 2024 (wave energy AoS export cable route);
• Additional survey costs - £5k per linear km of development (45km);
• Re-routeing of cable (2026) - £1.01m per km (burrowed mud, 10% of 30km = 3km); and
• Additional post-licence monitoring costs - £5k per linear km of development in year 3 following construction (45km).

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

One coastal military location (Loch Ewe fuel jetty) overlaps with the NWS proposed MPA. The Loch Ewe fuel jetty overlaps with sublittoral kelp and seaweed communities on sediment (all scenarios). The Loch Ewe fuel jetty also overlaps with burrowed mud (intermediate and upper scenarios), maerl beds (upper scenario) and maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers (upper scenario).

Nine military practice areas (Ewe (X5813) and Minch South (X5814), and seven submarine exercise areas) overlap with the NWS proposed MPA.

The two military practice areas Ewe (X5813) and Minch South (X5814) overlap with the burrowed mud feature (all scenarios). In addition the military practice area Ewe (X5813) overlaps with circalittoral muddy sand communities (all scenarios), flame shell beds (all scenarios), maerl beds (all scenarios), maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers (all scenarios), Northern feather star aggregations on mixed substrata (all scenarios) and sublittoral kelp and seaweed communities on sediment (all scenarios).

The seven submarine exercise areas overlap with the features of the NWS proposed MPA to varying degrees under the different extent scenarios. In addition, one submarine exercise area overlaps with native oyster (all scenarios).

The features and associated habitats which overlap with military activities have not been described as vulnerable to MoD activities in this proposed MPA. It is assumed that management relating to MoD activity will be coordinated through the MoD's Maritime Environmental Sustainability Appraisal Tool ( MESAT) which the MoD uses to assist in meeting its environmental obligations. This process will include operational guidance to reduce significant impacts of military activities on MPAs. It is assumed that the MoD will incur additional costs in adjusting MESAT and other MoD environmental assessment tools in order to consider whether its activities will impact on the conservation objectives of MPAs and also incur additional costs in adjusting electronic charts to consider MPAs. However, these costs will be incurred at national level and hence no site-specific cost assessments have been made.

• See National Assessment.

• See National Assessment.

• See National Assessment.

There are five ports/harbours (Achiltibuie, Gruinard, Rhu Coigach, Ullapool and Poolewe) within the NWS proposed MPA boundary. All five ports/harbours overlap the MPA feature burrow mud under all scenarios within the 1km buffer. In addition to burrowed mud, all five ports/harbours overlap sublittoral kelp and seaweed communities on sediment under all scenarios, with the exception of Achiltibuie (intermediate and upper only). Three of these ports/harbours overlap circalittoral muddy sand communities (Achiltibuie, Gruinard and Rhu Coigach). Rhu Coigach (all scenarios), Achiltibuie, Gruinard, and Poolewe (upper scenario only) overlap maerl beds (and maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers). Therefore, management costs may be incurred under the assumption that small ports/harbours will undergo one new development within the relevant time frame (2014-2033), assumed for the year 2024.

There are two anchorages/mooring areas within the NWS proposed MPA boundary. Both anchorages/mooring areas overlap the MPA feature burrowed mud under the intermediate and upper scenarios, with one of the two also overlapping burrowed mud under the lower scenario as well. Costs may be expected to relocate anchorages/mooring areas to less sensitive areas, although any associated costs are non-quantifiable.

There is one small active disposal site (approximately 500m ³ per dredge) within the NWS proposed MPA boundary associated with the port/harbour Ullapool. The disposal site overlaps the MPA feature burrowed mud under all scenarios. Therefore, management costs may be incurred under the assumption that a disposal licence will be applied for every ten years within the relevant time frame (2014-2033). Given that the most recent application is being submitted in 2013, it is assumed that future licence application will occur in the years 2023 and 2033.

• Additional licensing costs for small port developments (up to 7 in total); and
• Relocate anchorages/mooring areas away from all features with a high sensitivity.

• Additional licensing costs for small port developments (up to 7 in total); and
• Relocate anchorages/mooring areas away from all features with a high or medium sensitivity. If not possible to relocate away from medium-sensitivity features, relocate to more representative areas.

• Additional licensing costs for small port developments (up to 7 in total); and
• Relocate anchorages/mooring areas away from all features with a high or medium sensitivity. If not possible to relocate away from medium-sensitivity features, relocate to more representative areas.

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application estimated for submission in 2024 (Achiltibuie, Gruinard, Rhu Coigach, Ullapool and Poolewe).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application estimated for submission in 2024 (Achiltibuie, Gruinard, Rhu Coigach, Ullapool and Poolewe).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application estimated for submission in 2024 (Achiltibuie, Gruinard, Rhu Coigach, Ullapool and Poolewe).

• Additional assessment costs for disposal site licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application estimated for submission in 2023 and 2033 (Ullapool disposal site).

• Additional assessment costs for disposal site licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application estimated for submission in 2023 and 2033 (Ullapool disposal site).

• Additional assessment costs for disposal site licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application estimated for submission in 2023 and 2033 (Ullapool disposal site).

• Relocation of anchorages/mooring areas away from features of high sensitivity; and

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Relocation of anchorages/mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Relocation of anchorages/mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

0.002

There are five cruising routes for recreational boating that intersect the NWS proposed MPA; three light traffic and two medium traffic, although vessels transiting these cruising routes are not assessed as requiring any additional management measures.

Under the upper scenario, there are 27 recreational boating anchorages (and associated 100m buffer zones) that overlap with features proposed for protection within the MPA proposal boundary. Twenty anchorages overlap with kelp and seaweed communities, one overlaps with flame shell beds and six overlap with burrowed mud. Also under the upper scenario are four Crown Estate mooring points and two mooring areas. One additional mooring point lies within one of the mooring areas, although it is expected that this is an underestimate and that additional mooring points are present within the mooring areas that are not represented by the data. The Crown Estate moorings overlap with burrowed mud, circalittoral muddy sand communities, sublittoral kelp and seaweed communities, maerl beds, maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers, flame shell beds and northern feather star aggregations on mixed substrata.

Under the intermediate and lower scenarios, SNH have identified four recreational anchorages that overlap with proposed protected features and one mooring area owned by The Crown Estate. One anchorage in Loch Ewe overlaps with kelp and seaweed communities and native oyster point data records. An anchorage in Loch Broom overlaps with flameshell bed records; one in the 100m zone and two in the 200m zone. Another anchorage in Loch Broom overlaps with flameshell bed point records and kelp and seaweed communities in the 200m zone. Also of note in Loch Broom are clustered flameshell beds around the area. At Tanera Beg, Summer Isles, one anchorage overlaps with a point record of kelp and seaweed communities and a polygon record of maerl beds within 200m.

There is uncertainty as to the exact location of The Crown Estate's mooring within the MPA proposal area and therefore the degree of interaction with proposed protected features. Of most concern is the concentration of flame shell beds in the narrows of Loch Broom.

• No additional management required for Ob na Ba Ruaidhe, (Loch Ewe), Isle of Ewe and Tanera Beg. Sensitivity of kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment to surface abrasion is low. The maerl bed at Tanera Beg is further north and away from bay where anchoring would occur so don't believe there would be actual overlap between anchoring and feature; and
• Relocate anchorages/moorings away from the narrows of Loch Broom due to overlap with flameshell beds. If not possible to relocate away from feature, relocate to less sensitive or more representative area.

• No additional management required for Ob na Ba Ruaidhe, (Loch Ewe), Isle of Ewe and Tanera Beg. Sensitivity of kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment to surface abrasion is low. The maerl bed at Tanera Beg is further north and away from bay where anchoring would occur so don't believe there would be actual overlap between anchoring and feature; and
• Relocate anchorages/moorings away from the narrows of Loch Broom due to overlap with flameshell beds. If not possible to relocate away from feature, relocate to less sensitive or more representative area.

• Relocate all anchorages/moorings away from all features with a high or medium sensitivity to surface abrasion pressure associated with anchoring: flame shell beds; maerl beds; maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers; northern feather star aggregations; burrowed mud. If not possible to relocate away from features, relocate to less sensitive or more representative area.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Cost of anchorage/mooring relocation.

• Cost of anchorage/mooring relocation.

• Cost of anchorage/mooring relocation.

• Healt h (increase in illness, mental stress, loss of self esteem

• Increase in crime; and
• Reduction in f u ture emp lo y me n t prospects/future earnings.

• Empl o y m e nt - reduced employment due to changes in costs and earnings profile of vessels ( e.g. increased fuel costs, gear development and adaption costs, additional quota costs);
• Conflict/Loss of social cohesion - diminishing fishing grounds may increase conflict with other vessels/gear types, increase social tensions within fishing communities and lead to a loss of social cohesion among fleets. Could also lead to increased operating costs as a result of lost or damaged gear. Equally, gear conflict could reduce where gears are restricted/prohibited;
• Healt h - increased risks to the safety of fishers and vessels and increased stress due to moving to lesser known areas;
• E n v ironmental - increased impact in targeting new areas, longer streaming times and increased fuel consumption; and
• Cul t ur e a nd her i tag e - change in traditional fishing patterns/ activities.

Future employment opportunities - if the delays deter investments there will be a negative impact on economic activity and future job creation in this sector.

Environment - possible negative impact in relation to climate change and the ability of the Scottish Government to meet its 2020 renewables targets, decarbonisation targets and climate change targets. There would also be consequent financial implications of climate change impacts.

This impact is uncertain and is only likely to arise under the upper scenario. JNCC's current advice is that the intermediate scenario represents their best view on management requirements.

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

xx

North-West West North-East North

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Ullapool (43%), Stornoway (13%), Campbeltown (13%), Buckie (9%), Kirkwall (5%), Scrabster (4%), Oban (4%), Peterhead (3%).

xx

Coastal and Island

Rural and Urban

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if parent loses job/becomes unemployed.

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if individuals lose job/become unemployed.

xx

Potential negative effect if retirees own affected vessels or live in households affected by unemployment.

xxx

0-6 job losses

Potentially significant negative effect on individuals that lose job/become unemployed.

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if member of household loses job/becomes unemployed.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

x

North-West

x

Lochinver Ullapool Gruinard- Aultbea Stornoway Gairloch

x

Coastal and Island

Rural and Urban

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

x

Information only available on average incomes not the distribution of income. Therefore, not clear whether this group will be affected.

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports