Proposed Fisheries Management Measures within Scottish Inshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and proposed Priority Marine Feature (PMF) Management Areas - Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA)

4. Step Four – Assessment

4.1 Unique impacts on island communities

Island areas may experience a number of unique or distinct impacts compared to mainland communities, even where the overall scale of impact is similar. In particular, fishing often plays a more central role in island economies and employment, meaning changes in activity can have wider ripple effects across the community.

There are also wider social and economic consequences, such as risks to local processing, supply chains, and community resilience, which are more tightly linked to fishing in island settings. As a result, even relatively small changes in landings may translate into more significant local impacts on livelihoods, population stability, and the sustainability of skills and services.

4.2 Demographics

Island communities involved in fishing tend to have characteristics that shape how impacts are experienced. They are often smaller, more remote populations with a higher reliance on fishing for employment, income, and community identity. These areas typically have fewer alternative job opportunities and a greater presence of small-scale and under 10 metre vessels, meaning a larger share of the local workforce is directly or indirectly dependent on fishing activity. As a result, even modest reductions in landings can have disproportionate local effects, influencing population stability, economic resilience, and the sustainability of services and skills within these communities, particularly in areas such as the Western Isles, including the Uists, Barra, and Lewis and Harris.

4.3 Gaelic

Fishing is important to heritage and a communal sense of place, particularly in the Western Isles, where there is a historic relationship between Gaelic culture and language, and fishing. The Western Isles make up around 50% of Gaelic speakers in Scotland. In recent research participants talked about the value of the Gaelic language, and how their culture was “defined” by its language, with the Gaelic language found to be used by fishers both at work and in their families.^[1]

If fishing and Gaelic are inextricably linked it is possible any impact on the future of certain fisheries could lead to an impact on Gaelic culture, especially on the Western Isles. Where possible documentation supporting the public consultation will be translated to Gaelic, including this ICIA.

4.4 Economic Impacts

The introduction of fisheries management measures will impact vessels currently fishing within inshore MPAs and proposed PMF management areas. The measures will add restrictions on certain gear types and have spatial or temporal restrictions.

This ICIA outlines cumulative economic benefits and costs, and associated potential social impacts, of implementing the proposed fisheries management measures at each site and area. The impacts relating to the distribution of the economic costs and consequent social impacts because of these proposed fisheries management measures are most relevant for this ICIA.

The analysis presents a lower and higher estimate for Options 1 and 2. The lower estimate assumes that some fishers can adapt and change fishing grounds to offset the potential loss in landings. For this to be the case, the vessel needs to pass a ‘displacement test,’ the method for which is outlined in the SEIA, Appendix 6. The higher estimate assumes no displacement takes place for example all affected landings are assumed lost.

Across the full suite of sites, if the proposed fisheries management measures were implemented, shows:

• The estimated annual loss in UK vessel landings into Scotland (in 2024 prices) because of the proposed fisheries management measures totalled between £0.5 million and £1.4 million under Option 1. Under Option 2, estimated annual impacts range between £9.6 million to £10.3 million.
• The estimated loss of landings into Scotland accounts for most impacts on total UK vessel landing impacts, with a further £44,000-£50,500 (Option 1) to £63,000-£65,000 (Option 2) of impacts seen from UK vessel landings outside of Scotland.
• Comparing the estimated impacts on UK vessel landings into Scotland to total UK vessel landings into Scotland^[2] shows that the annual estimated impacts of fisheries management measures account for 0.1%-0.3% (Option 1) and 1.8%-1.9% (Option 2) of total UK vessel landings into Scotland.

4.5 Island Regions Impacts

The estimated annual impacts by landing or home port can be categorised by the 2023 Scottish Island Region geography^[3] to show relative impacts on islands compared to the mainland. This allows a particular focus on Scottish islands but potentially obscures the varied impacts on ‘mainland’ Scotland – with rural and remote rural areas like Mallaig potentially also facing high impacts.

4.6 Landing port impacts

Estimated impacts by landing port can be grouped by their respective Scottish Island Region. A reduced landing volume or value can have potential detrimental impacts on the local supply chain (i.e. processors, retailers, hospitality) and, by extension, the local economy. If a fisher chooses to fish in different fishing grounds as a result, they may also choose to land their catch into different ports.

As shown in Table C below, the Uists and Barra Islands could be particularly impacted under Option 1, with a proportional impact of between 1.2% and 2.0% (as a proportion of total landings by UK vessels into this island region). This is higher than the mainland’s overall estimated impact (between 0.1% and 0.3%).

The remaining island regions had comparable or smaller impacts than that seen in the mainland with impacts on Lewis and Harris, Great Bernera and Scalpay estimated to be between 0.1% and 0.3%, marginally higher than the mainland average and the Argyll Islands, Highland Islands, the outer Shetland Islands, Arran, Bute and the Cumbraes, the outer Orkney Islands, and the mainland and connected Shetland Islands all seeing decreases in landing values of up to 0.1%. It should be noted that all proportional impacts under Option 1 are shown to be (proportionally) small.

The impacts on landing ports, by port district, fall mostly on the west coast and Outer Hebrides under Option 1. The port districts most affected on the mainland are Mallaig (0-2%), Ullapool (1%), Eyemouth (0-1%) and Buckie (1%).

Under Option 2, only the Uists and Barra Islands (2.2-3.4%) had a larger proportional impact than the mainland (2.3-2.4%). However, this does not consider the relative access to other fishing grounds, infrastructure, opportunities for diversification, and wider support networks – which may all be higher in some mainland areas affected (e.g. Buckie, Fraserburgh, or Peterhead). There are also inherent limitations to the estimation of impacts, particularly regarding under-12m vessels which potentially could mean a greater uncertainty in estimated impacts for smaller, more remote, ports.^[4]

Under Option 2, the impacts fall predominantly on port districts in the Moray Firth and North East with Buckie (51%), Mallaig (10-12%),) and Fraserburgh (7%).

Table C. Impact on UK vessel landing values by Scottish Island Region of landing, all site/management area types, annual average, £000’s, 2024 prices.

Scottish Island Region	Option 1 £000s	Option 1 %	Option 2 £000s	Option 2 %
1 The Uists and Barra Islands	100 - 166	1.2 -2	184 - 276	2.2 – 3.4
2 Lewis and Harris, Great Bernera and Scalpay	10 - 26	0.1 – 0.3	16 - 48	0.2 – 0.6
3 Argyll Islands	0 - 23	0 – 0.3	16 - 48	0.2 – 0.6
4 Mainland	400 – 1,051	0.1 – 0.3	9,224 – 9, 592	2.3 -2.4
5 Highland Islands	1 - 18	0 – 0.2	36 - 67	0.4 – 0.7
6 Shetland – Outer Islands	0 - 13	0 – 0.1	67 - 92	0.8 - 1
7 Arran, Bute, and the Cumbraes	0 - 0	0 – 0.1	1 -1	0.5 – 0.7
8 Orkney – Outer Islands	0 - 1	0 – 0.1	0 - 1	0 – 0.1
9 Shetland – Mainland and Connected	4 - 51	0 – 0.1	61 - 138	0.1 – 0.2
10 Orkney – Mainland and Connected	2 - 4	0 - 0	5 - 13	0.1 – 0.1
Total Islands	118 - 302	0.1 – 0.2	374 - 663	0.3 – 0.5
Total Scotland	518 – 1,353	0.1 – 0.3	9,598 – 10,255	1.8 – 1.9

*Percentages show the proportional impact on total UK vessel landings into the region (2016-2019, 2022 annual average). Table sorted by proportional impact under Option 1 without displacement. Source: Preliminary analysis by SG and ABPmer analysts, 2025.

4.7 Home port impacts

By showing impacts on landings associated with vessels’ home ports, the potential decrease in fishers’ income, employment and livelihood is highlighted.

Table D below shows that fishers on the Uists and Barra Islands, Lewis, and Harris, Great Bernera and Scalpay, and the Argyll Islands are the most impacted compared to the mainland under Option 1 (assuming no displacement of fishing takes place). Fishers on the mainland still face comparatively high impacts compared to those on islands, however, with the remaining island regions seeing smaller proportional impacts under Option 1.^[5]

Under Option 2, the picture looks largely the same barring higher impacts across the board – with fishers on mainland Scotland (2.1-2.2%) now seeing higher estimated impacts than those on the Argyll Islands (1.3-1.9%) as well as the Uists and Barra Islands (0.7-1.9%).

Table D. Impact on UK vessel landing values by the Scottish Island Region of vessels’ home ports, all site/management area types, annual average, £000’s, 2024 prices.

Scottish Island Region	Option 1 £000s	Option 1 %	Option 2 £000s	Option 2 %
1 The Uists and Barra Islands	11 - 27	0.5 – 1.2	16 - 43	0.7 – 1.9
2 Lewis and Harris, Great Bernera and Scalpay	26 - 58	0.3 – 0.7	179 - 218	2.1 – 2.6
3 Argyll Islands	0 - 18	0 – 0.5	50 - 69	1.3 – 1.9
4 Mainland Fleet	310 - 768	0.1 – 0.2	6,926 – 7, 250	2.1 – 2.2
5 Highland Islands	0 - 10	0 – 0.2	39 - 51	0.6 – 0.8
6 Orkney – Mainland and Connected	13 - 19	0.1 – 0.1	114 - 120	0.7 – 0.8
7 Shetland – Mainland and Connected	4 - 52	0 – 0.1	81 - 138	0.1 – 0.2
8 Orkney – Outer Islands	0 - 3	0 – 0.1	0 - 4	0 – 0.1
9 Shetland – Outer Islands	0 - 6	0 - 0	69 - 82	0.2 – 0.2
10 Arran, Bute, and the Cumbraes	0 - 0	0 - 0	0 - 0	0 - 0
Total Islands Fleet	54 - 194	0 – 0.1	548 - 724	0.4 – 0.5
Total Scottish Fleet	365 - 962	0.0 – 0.2	7,474 – 7, 974	1.6 – 1.7

*Percentages show the proportional impact on total UK vessel landings into the region (2016-2019, 2022 annual average). Table sorted by proportional impact under Option 1 without displacement. Source: Preliminary analysis by SG and ABPmer analysts, 2025

The estimated impacts on employment were also compared to the total employment by Scottish Island Region.^[6] Due to the relatively small impact compared to the total workforce in these regions (≤0.1% for all island regions and mainland), the lack of data on fisheries sector employees in these regions, the lack of regional sector-specific multipliers/effects, and the potential mismatch between the number of employees (headcount) and the FTE equivalent number of employees, results are not shown here.

The comparatively small proportional impacts on the mainland (0.1% to 2.4% depending on the Option, displacement assumptions, and landing/home port focus) are masking areas with large proportional impacts, particularly under Option 2. A selection of these areas is highlighted below.

4.8 Significantly Impacted Ports

In the SEIA’s estimation of impacts on the commercial fisheries sector, home and landing port districts were identified as seeing substantial potential impacts – whether by landing value (i.e. turnover) or employment (using multipliers). These are detailed in the SEIA Sections 4.2 to 4.5.

Section 5.1 of the SEIA draws further attention to the most highly impacted ports and surrounding areas, and uses the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) to identify other existing issues in these areas. Access to services is a particularly important issue for communities in the Scottish coastline area (defined in the SEIA by being near the coast and excluding the Clyde and Forth & Tay Regions), while crime and health score relatively higher compared to the Scotland average (there are of course areas within the broad ‘Scottish coastline’ geography that do not fit this trend).

The SIMD data analysed at port level show that access to services is a more significant problem around the most highly affected ports than for the coastal areas of marine regions. The 21 most significantly affected ports except Peterhead have a higher-than-average proportion of data zones in the lowest 20% for access to services. Peterhead has higher levels of deprivation for the crime and education indicators. Stranraer also has worse performance against multiple indicators, as well as access, it is significantly worse for crime, employment, and income.

The SEIA’s analysis of SIMD data shows that there is no other evidence of significantly higher levels for these 21 ports under the other SIMD indicators, but some data show areas with higher levels for a single indicator than is typical for Scotland:

• 2 ports are significantly worse (>30% of zones in bottom 20%) for crime.
• 2 ports are worse for housing, and
• 1 port is worse for education.

Potential socio-economic impacts were highlighted by grouping affected ports by Scottish Marine Region (SMR). These SMRs are different to the islands regions but uses the same data in tables C & D. The key findings are outlined below:

• Orkney: There is a low risk of negative effects in relation to loss of landings for the Orkney ports district. Options 1 and 2 would not have a significant negative socio-economic impact at Orkney region level.
• Shetland Isles: The main risk of negative effects is in relation to loss of employment opportunities under Option 2 for the port district, but the impact on catches is low overall (up to 0.2%), but more significant for specific gear types with low levels of use. Option 2 would have a possible negative socio-economic impact on the Shetland Isles region.
• West Highlands: The main risk of negative effects is in relation to loss of employment opportunities under Option 2 at the main ports affected: Kinlochbervie, Lochinver, and most significantly Mallaig. Vessels with Mallaig as a home port may lose over £0.5m of landings, affecting 6 FTE jobs (14% of jobs in fishing); and landings to Mallaig are predicted to be reduced by £1.13m (12% of landings to the port), impacting related employment such as in fish processing and transportation. Option 2 would have a significant negative socio-economic impact on Mallaig, and a possible negative effect at the West Highland region level. This data is from a SMR split but for illustrative purposes Scottish home port districts with potentially large annual impacts on the value of landings (2024 prices), and employment impacts on the fishing sector and its supply chain, Option 1 and Option 2 shown in tables E & F outlines impacts based on Scottish Island Regions split. The proportional value impacts shown in these tables may differ slightly from proportional home district impacts presented in the SEIA but can be used for a comparative analysis.
• Outer Hebrides: Barra is a rural island community where fishing remains central to local life. Any decline in fishing could lead to population loss and diminish essential skills. Poor infrastructure, including unreliable ferry services and inadequate housing and health services, exacerbates these issues. Fishing is vital for the local economy and food supply. Under both Option 1 and Option 2, the Uists and Barra islands are likely to have the most pronounced impacts on island communities. The main risk of negative effects is in relation to loss of employment opportunities under Option 2 at the main port affected: Stornoway. Vessels with Stornoway as a home port may lose up to 1.6% of catches; and landings to Stornoway are predicted to reduce by 1.3% of landings to the port, impacting related employment such as in fish processing and transportation. Option 2 would have a possible negative socio-economic impact on Stornoway, and a possible negative effect at the Outer Hebrides region level.
• Argyll: The main risk of negative effects is in relation to loss of employment opportunities under Option 2 at the main ports affected: Oban. Vessels with Oban as a home port may lose 2.5% of landings impacting employment; and landings to Oban are predicted to be reduced by 0.6%. Option 2 would have a possible negative socio-economic impact on Oban, and a possible negative effect at the Argyll region level.

Potential impacts on the other SMRs are available in SEIA Section 5.2.6. These include the Forth and Tay, North East, Moray Firth, North Coast, Clyde, and Solway, as well as the offshore SMRs North and West Shetland Shelf and Hebrides Shelf. Further detail on impacts in each of these SMRs are provided in Appendices E to Q in the SEIA.

For illustrative purposes, economic impacts on the top ten Scottish home port ‘districts’ under Option 1 and 2 are highlighted below.^[7] These tables show that many districts on the mainland are among the most highly impacted: Mallaig, Eyemouth, Lochinver, Campbeltown, and Oban, for example, were among the top five most severely impacted home port districts under Option 1 (both by value and by proportion), while Buckie and Mallaig faced particularly high impacts under Option 2:

Table E. Scottish home port districts with potentially large annual impacts on the value of landings (2024 prices), and employment impacts on the fishing sector and its supply chain, Option 1

Rank	Home district	Home ports in district	Approx vessels in district*	Annual impact*** %	Annual impact*** £000’s	Annual impact*** FTE
1	Mallaig	3	37	1.8	76	0.9
2	Eyemouth	8	93	1.6	97	1.1
3	Lochinver	2	25	1.4	199	2.2
4	Campbeltown	11	126	1.0	123	1.4
5	Oban	7	103	0.9	98	1.1
6	Buckie	6	76	0.9	95	1.1
7	Stornoway	15	177	0.8	85	1.0
8	Anstruther	7	93	0.3	12	0.1
9	Ayr	12	109	0.2	29	0.3
10	Portree	11	105	0.1	10	0.1
N/A	Remaining 8 districts**	49	917	0.1	137	1.5
N/A	Total Scotland	131	1,862	0.2	962	10.8

* Unique vessels by RSS during the 2016-22 (excl. 2020-21) baseline period (some overlap or double counting may occur). These are based on January vessel lists published by the MMO and may therefore differ from published Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics. ** Including ‘unknown’ home port.

***Annual impact, not accounting for potential displacement. Preliminary analysis by SG and ABPmer analysts, 2025

Table F. Scottish home port districts with potentially large annual impacts on the value of landings (2024 prices), and employment impacts on the fishing sector and its supply chain, Option 2

Rank	Home district	Home ports in district	Approx vessels in district*	Annual impact*** %	Annual impact*** £000’s	Annual impact*** FTE
1	Buckie	6	76	20.4	2,206	24.8
2	Mallaig	3	37	13.3	560	6.3
3	Ullapool	4	92	4.4	401	4.5
4	Oban	7	103	3.6	401	4.5
5	Campbeltown	11	126	3.2	398	4.5
6	Ayr	12	109	2.9	357	4.0
7	Eyemouth	8	93	2.8	175	2.0
8	Kinlochbervie	3	20	2.6	106	1.2
9	Stornoway	15	177	2.4	261	2.9
10	Anstruther	7	93	2.0	69	0.8
N/A	Remaining 8 districts**	55	936	0.8	3,041	34.2
N/A	Total Scotland	131	1,862	1.7	7,974	89.7

* Unique vessels by RSS during the 2016-22 (excl. 2020-21) baseline period (some overlap or double counting may occur). These are based on January vessel lists published by the MMO and may therefore differ from published Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics. ** Including ‘unknown’. ***Annual impact, not accounting for potential displacement. Preliminary analysis by SG and ABPmer analysts, 2025

4.9 Ecosystem Service Impacts

Both ecosystem service benefits and costs could arise within a site or area or outside of it (relates to the location of the ecosystem providing the services, not the location of beneficiaries).

Benefits within the site or area are the result of management protections resulting in enhancement of site or area features. Benefits outside of the site or area include potential spill-over effects, where maintaining healthy populations of species (including commercial fish or shellfish species, and other protected biodiversity) inside the site or area supports a larger overall population and therefore increased abundance outside the site or area. The extent of this effect depends, amongst other things, on the size of site or area, impact of proposed fisheries management options and mobility and lifecycles of the species concerned. This is discussed further in the SEA.

Examples of notable ecosystem service benefits include maintaining and potentially enhancing:

• Provisioning services: healthy stocks of commercial fish species.
• Regulating services: sequestration of carbon by some biogenic habitats, and storage of carbon in habitats and sediments.
• Supporting services: healthy marine food webs and ecosystems; and
• Cultural services: the role of healthy ecosystems and distinctive species in recreation and the visitor economy.

There is also, particularly in the longer term (over 20–60 years after management measures are implemented) potential for further benefits from ecosystem recovery or avoided degradation than would be expected under the baseline. This could support higher commercial fish stocks, enabling higher commercial landings, but only if enabled by other management (e.g. of fishing pressures). Evidence to assess and/or quantify these effects robustly is not available. More can be found in section 6.3 of the SEIA.

Ecosystem service costs could arise within the site or area, for example if there are negative impacts from alternative fishing activities (using different gears such as pots) that enter locations where restrictions are introduced on existing fishing activities (e.g., demersal trawls). Costs could also arise outside of the site or area due to displacement of fishing activity (see costs of degradation in the SEIA).

The ecosystem service costs are broken down in the SEIA however this is based on the Scottish Marine Regions not the Islands regions outlined in section 2.1 of the ICIA.

A summary of ecosystem services benefits across MPAs, SACs SPAs, and PMFs are below:

• NCMPAs and SACs: The range of protected features, sizes of sites and proposed fisheries management measures mean that there is significant variation in the potential ecosystem services benefits by region, ranging from minimal to high. Most regions have moderate expected benefits for all four types of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating, supporting cultural).
• SPAs: Most regions have minimal provisioning, regulating, and supporting ecosystem services benefits, as proposed fisheries management measures are specific to birds, rather than the wider marine ecosystem. Most regions have low-moderate cultural services. Many of the features have high cultural benefits, but the proposed fisheries management measures provide benefits by protecting from future threats rather than removing current pressures. Therefore, the level of benefit from the proposed fisheries management measures is low.
• PMFs: Most regions have low provisioning ecosystem services benefits. Many of the features are a productive part of marine ecosystems, but the areas of proposed fisheries management measures are often relatively small. For regulating and supporting ecosystem services benefits, four regions have minimal expected benefits, and three have low to moderate benefits due to a larger size.

4.10 Distribution of Economic Costs and Consequent Social Impacts

4.10.1 Income

The average wages for employees in the fishing and fish processing sectors, as well as the Scottish average, are shown in Table G below. They highlight the lower wages (and wage volatility) in the fishing industry, and therefore the potential for fisheries management measures to have a greater impact on lower income groups.

Table G1. Gross wages and salaries per head for employees in the Scottish fishing and processing sectors, 2016-22, £000’s

Standard Industrial Classification	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
03.1 – Fishing	9.9	19.8	5.4	15.4	15.2	11.6	18.0
10.2 – Processing and preserving of fish, crustaceans, and molluscs	21.2	21.6	22.8	24.5	22.8	23.7	28.3
Scotland average*	21.3	22.0	22.3	23.0	23.2	23.8	26.5

* Excludes financial sector & parts of agriculture and the public sector. Source: SG, 2024. Scottish Annual Business Survey 2022

Note that the data period shown above coincides with the Covid-19 pandemic (particularly 2020 and 2021) and therefore might not provide an accurate reflection of normal market conditions. Wages and salaries are shown per employee and include both full and part-time employees. In addition, wages shown are nominal and not adjusted for inflation.

4.10.2 Geography

Further to the estimated impacts by Scottish Island Region, which highlight the impacts seen in particularly on the Uists and Barra Islands, Lewis and Harris, Great Bernera and Scalpay, as well as mainland Scotland, we can break down GVA from the fishing sector by Local Authority using data from the Marine Economic Statistics 2022 details below in Table H.

Table H2. Proportion of GVA from Fisheries Sector by Local Authority, 2022

Local authority	Fishing aGVA 2022 (£m)	All industries GVA 2022 (£m)	Proportion from Fishing (%)
Shetland Islands	83.3	759	11.0%
Aberdeenshire	175.6	6,545	2.7%
Orkney Islands	7.1	553	1.3%
Na h-Eileanan Siar	6.5	581	1.1%
Argyll and Bute	13.1	2,185	0.6%
Highland	21.8	6,298	0.3%
South Ayrshire	5.2	2,263	0.2%
Scotland	334.9	165,715	0.2%
Dumfries and Galloway	5.6	3,537	0.2%
Moray	3.3	2,375	0.1%
East Lothian	1.7	1,918	0.1%
Scottish Borders	2.2	2,512	0.1%
North Ayrshire	1.1	2,379	0.0%
Angus	0.9	2,186	0.0%
Fife	2.1	7,718	0.0%
Aberdeen City	1	9,544	0.0%
City of Edinburgh	c*	26,582	..

* c = data suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information.

Source: SG analysis of data from Scotland’s Marine Economic Statistics 2022 (SG, 2024) and Regional gross value added (balanced) by industry: local authorities by ITL1 region (ONS, 2024).

Table I shows the relative importance of the fishing sector to the local economy of the Shetland Islands, Aberdeenshire, the Orkney Islands, Na h-Eileanan Siar, Argyll and Bute, Highland, and South Ayrshire local authorities.

The Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics publication similarly publishes fishing sector employment by Local Authority. Table 46 from Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 2022 (SG, 2024) is reproduced below:

Table I. Proportion of employment from Fisheries Sector by Local Authority, 2022

Local authority	Total employed in fishing*	Total employed**	Employment in fishing as a percentage of total employed***
Shetland	585	12,800	4.6%
Na h-Eileanan Siar	301	13,900	2.2%
Orkney	238	11,500	2.1%
Argyll & Bute	396	39,800	1.0%
Aberdeenshire	1,163	136,800	0.9%
Highland	688	107,700	0.6%
South Ayrshire	142	45,400	0.3%
Moray	141	47,400	0.3%
Dumfries & Galloway	90	59,500	0.2%
East Lothian	69	52,000	0.1%
Scottish Borders	69	56,000	0.1%
Angus	36	53,500	0.1%
Fife	122	174,200	0.1%
North Ayrshire	31	60,200	0.1%
Aberdeen City	43	116,000	0.0%
City of Edinburgh	3	288,900	0.0%

* Number of fishers employed on Scottish-registered vessels. ** Employment levels (16+) rounded to the nearest hundred. Source: Annual Population Survey (APS), Jan-Dec 2022, ONS. *** Proportions are based on unrounded estimates. Source: SG, 2024. Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 2022. Note: table notes 27, 31, 32, 33, and 34 apply (see publication).

This highlights further the relative importance of the fisheries sector to islands like Shetland, Na h-Eileanan Siar, Orkney, and areas such as Argyll & Bute, Aberdeenshire, and the Highlands (including both islands and mainland Scotland).

4.10.3 Impacts on Seafood Processing

The Scottish seafood processing sector, particularly those near or supplied by the most impacted landing ports, might also experience substantial impacts.

In 2022, the Scottish seafood processing sector generated a GVA of £412 million: 0.25% of the Scottish economy, and 8% of the Scottish marine economy GVA. The sector employed 6,400 people, 9% of the Scottish marine economy, and 55% more than employment in the fisheries sector (4,117 in 2022).^[8]

Data on the UK-wide seafood processing sector from Seafish shows that in 2023, there were 126 seafood processing sites in Scotland, 36% of all seafood processing sites in the UK. Of these 126, 48 (38%) were in Northeastern Scotland, and 45 sites (36%) were in the Highlands and Islands. 40% of the Scottish processing sites employed between 1-10 (FTE) employees.^[9]

Table J. Seafood processing sites and employment in Scotland, 2023

Area	Sites	Total FTE**	Male FTE	Female FTE
Northeastern Scotland	48	3,404	1,487	1,357
Highland and Islands	45	1,460	785	377
Eastern Scotland	17	920	579	333
Southern Scotland	11	1,034	624	406
West Central Scotland*	5	338	132	74
Total Scotland	126	7,156	3,607	2,547
Total UK	353	17,729	8,487	5,355

* Data calculated by subtracting other NUTS2 regions from total; might be inaccurate due to rounding. ** Total FTE is the sum of male, female, and unreported FTE employees. Source: Seafish, 2024. Seafish Processing Enquiry Tool.

Given the large geographic spread, and the small size of many processors, we can assume many processors are potentially impacted by these proposed fisheries management measures in some way. For example, the availability of raw product may be reduced, and processors’ turnover and income may reduce as a result.

Some of the processing sites shown above may focus on species not majorly impacted by the proposed fisheries management measures (e.g. pelagic species or farmed Atlantic salmon). For example, 20% of all mixed-species FTE jobs and 52% of all pelagic FTE jobs in the UK were in the Northeast, and 52% of all salmon or trout FTE jobs in the UK were in the Highlands and Islands region.

A more granular breakdown of site numbers and FTE employment by Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS)3 small region (as opposed to NUTS2 basic region) is available from the Seafish processing enquiry tool however some of this data might be suppressed. This potentially makes it difficult to highlight processing sites in specific areas, particularly small, and/or rural areas like those on islands, although we have discussed with individual stakeholders impacts on specific sites. We do know, for example, that in 2023:

• Na h-Eileanan Siar (the Western Isles) are reported to have 8 sites,
• the Shetland Islands are reported to have 7 sites,
• Lochaber, Skye and Lochalsh, Arran, Cumbrae, Argyll, and Bute are reported to have 18 sites, and
• Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire are reported to have 48 sites.

Data received from Seafish also shows that the Orkney Islands and Inverness, Nairn, Moray, Badenoch, and Strathspey regions have a combined 6 seafood processing sites.

While some of these processing sites may not process the most-affected species (data on species was not available for these sites), it is likely that some are supplied at least in part by those fishers most likely to be affected by the fisheries management measures.

4.11 Social Impacts

Social impacts on island communities are likely to be to some extent contingent on the nature, scale, and distribution of economic impacts (on both income and employment). Impacts focus on those most likely to be affected by the introduction of fishery management measures within MPAs and proposed PMF management areas such as fishers and related communities. Further information of the socio-economic impacts can be found in the SEIA and the Social Research report.

Scotland’s 2022 Census data^[10] provides a breakdown of employment by industry for each local authority area. The only fully island local authorities are Shetland Islands, Orkney Islands and Na h-Eileanan Siar. Employment data is provided for the industry group: agriculture, forestry, and fishing, note this data is not specifically just focussed on fishing. However, the proportion of people who work in these industries is much higher in these island local authorities (Shetland Islands: 8.6%, Orkney Islands: 9.2% and Na h-Eileanan Siar: 5.1%) than in Scotland as a whole (1.6%). Within these mainland statistics the highest % of people employed in these industries by local authority on the mainland are Aberdeenshire (0.32%), Dumfries and Galloway (0.29%) and Highland (0.27%).

This is further corroborated by the proportion of GVA generated by the fishing industry in each local authority referenced above. It could therefore be assumed that any impacts on fishing may more greatly affect these island areas than for the rest of Scotland, where fishing makes up a smaller proportion of employment.

Fishing businesses are often located in rural or island areas, where there are limited options for employment and therefore fishing can be integral to sustainable livelihoods in these areas^[11]. Studies have emphasised the important contribution of fishing to rural and island economies^[12][13]. The loss of even a small number of jobs will be experienced more keenly in an area where there are few other employment options^[14].

A decline in fishing in economically vulnerable areas may lead to depopulation as people leave to find jobs elsewhere, which in turn has implications for the social sustainability of a place (e.g. schools and other businesses, shops and services are not sustainable)^[15].

The loss of jobs can lead to further decline, as wider businesses cease to be sustainable, which has implications for the long-term viability of the industry in an area and could potentially lead to depopulation of islands if people need to move to work^[16],[17]. Islanders are more likely to be working multiple jobs than residents of the Highlands and Islands and are less likely to be managing financially than residents of Scotland as a whole^[18]. Part-time fishing is also noted as helping to supplement incomes^[19]. Impacts of MPAs and the proposed PMF management areas fisheries management measures on the economic viability of coastal communities must therefore be considered, as impacts on fishing may have disproportionate impacts on communities on islands^[20],[21].

There is a case that a healthy marine environment could in fact boost other industries such as eco-tourism. The Scottish marine environment already supports extensive recreation and tourism activities, with the most recent Scottish Government marine economic statistics show that marine and coastal tourism is the largest marine employer outside oil and gas.^[22] According to data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), approximately £2.53 billion is spent annually in Scotland on activities motivated by ecosystems. Of this, £729 million per year is attributed to marine habitats, with a further £927 million linked to coastal habitats (all in 2019 prices). It is reasonable to expect that these figures would increase alongside improvements in the health of marine ecosystems. Therefore, the economic value of certain ecosystem services provided by the marine environment can be estimated using observed data, such as tourism and recreation expenditures.

4.11.1 Contribution of fishing to Community Identity, Culture and Heritage

Fishing is often important not just as a source of employment but also as a historical feature of a community and part of a community’s cultural heritage, local identity, and way of life^[23]. There are deep cultural and generational ties to fishing which influence fishers’ decisions to remain in the industry^[24]. This is not something that can be easily valued or quantified in monetary terms but may play a vital role in maintaining strong cohesive communities. A loss of fishing jobs and/or the decline of fishing therefore has implications beyond the economic, but these may be overlooked if economic indicators are the primary focus of the assessment^[25]. On some islands, such as Barra, fishers have had a significant role in local society, with some using their vessels to provide supplies to an island supermarket or providing volunteers for lifeboat operations (as is also the case in other coastal communities)^[26]. A reduction in fishing could therefore affect the long-term social sustainability and culture of island societies.

It has been reported that Gaelic language is inextricably linked to the fishing industry in some areas, with the language used on fishing vessels and among fishing families^[27]. In recent research participants talked about the value of the Gaelic language, and how their culture was “defined” by its language^[28]. If fishing is linked to Gaelic use, impacts on fishing could result in adverse impacts for use of the language and culture, where ties are recognised as being particularly strong. 57.2% of the population on the Western Isles/Na h-Eileanan Siar have some skill level in Gaelic (the next highest area is Highland Council, with 8.1%) compared to a Scottish average of 2.5%^[29]. If fishing is affected on the Western Isles/Na h-Eileanan Siar, this could cause an impact on Gaelic culture – an impact that will be more extensively felt than on the mainland.

4.11.2 Industry Adaptation and Operational Changes in Response to Management Measures

Previous studies^[30] have found evidence that some fishers have adapted to enable them to be able to continue fishing in the face of the Phase I management measures, implemented in 2016, where they faced restrictions to the areas they could fish in^[31]. Adaptations include fishing in other grounds (often further offshore), purchasing larger boats to enable them to go further afield, switching to alternative forms of fishing, such as using creels, targeting different species, and this can potentially affect profitability^[32].

Further fisheries management measures in MPAs and proposed PMF management areas could lead to more fishers needing to diversify or adapt. If fishers need to move offshore to access fishing opportunities, this may have particular implications for island communities, where alternative inshore fishing opportunities may be limited.

4.11.3 Healty, Safety and Wellbeing Considerations in Response to Management Measures

Fishers’ mental and physical health and wellbeing may be affected by the introduction of management measures. This could be due to increased exposure to poor weather, greater transit times and therefore longer working days^[33]. In the previous SG study^[34], some fishers reported that they had reduced access to sheltered fishing grounds in MPAs which could make fishing more dangerous, especially during severe weather, leading to greater risk taking.

Fishers also reported^[35] that they (and sometimes other members of their family) are experiencing an increase in stress and worry due to the pressures of competition for space, the worry about the future of their business, and the need for adaptive behaviour as discussed above, to continue fishing. This in turn could disincentivise future investment in fishing businesses. Mental wellbeing scores have been found in the Scottish Islands Survey to be lower on islands than on the mainland^[36]. Further stresses related to fishing could exacerbate these effects in island communities.

4.12 Social Impacts Research

As outlined in section 3.1 and referenced in above sections the Scottish Government has sought to better understand the social values of coastal and island communities that inform their perceptions of changes in the management of the marine environment and how these impact on their lives.

Findings from island participants indicate that fishing is central to these communities, supporting the economy, culture, and essential services. Decline in the sector could lead to wider impacts, including job losses, reduced investment, and population challenges, while existing pressures such as housing and transport issues add to local vulnerability.

Building on the themes outlined in this report, and focusing on the Island Regions identified in the ICIA alongside areas where quantitative data indicates potential impacts, further engagement was undertaken with SG Fisheries Offices to gather insights on perceived localised effects of the proposed fisheries management measures.

The views presented are qualitative in nature and may not have quantitative data at this scale to back up any statements made. This is localised knowledge that is important in understanding the possible wider impacts of any management measures introduced and will help feed into any further mitigation and locations that may require further engagement once the consultation has concluded and Ministers have made a decision on what fisheries management measures will be put in place.

We sought further comments from areas including:

• Kirkwall, Scrabster and Lerwick.
• Ullapool, Lochinver, Kinlochbervie and Stornoway.
• Ayr, Campbeltown, Oban, Mallaig and Portree.
• Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Buckie.

In most locations, there is broad agreement that restrictions on mobile bottom contacting fishing gear within MPAs and proposed PMF management areas may lead to increased competition for space, reduced access to traditional fishing grounds, and heightened risk of gear conflict between mobile and static operators.

These pressures could be most evident in areas such as Scrabster and Kirkwall, where displacement of scallop dredgers into creel grounds may intensify conflict, and in Ullapool and the Minch, where cumulative pressures from quota changes, visiting vessels, and spatial constraints are already tightening available space. Similar issues may also arise in Portree and the Clyde (Campbeltown), where aquaculture expansion and dense creel deployment are already limiting access. Across all regions, these effects may fall disproportionately on smaller and less mobile vessels, particularly under 10 metre fleets in Lerwick (Shetland) and the Western Isles, with potential knock‑on consequences for employment, livelihoods, and the wider network of industries that depend on fishing activity.

Displacement may create additional pressures beyond direct spatial loss, particularly where grounds are already heavily utilised. In Lochinver, limited alternatives and high levels of static gear activity may raise safety concerns and increase the risk of gear conflict if vessels are required to operate further afield. In the Western Isles (Stornoway, Barra, Uist), where effort is already concentrated, further displacement could increase pressure on stocks, exacerbate conflicts between sectors, and affect the viability of small-scale and part-time operations. Similar risks may be present in Kinlochbervie, where incoming displaced activity could disrupt established creel fisheries. Overall, there is concern that displacement may reduce the total amount of viable fishing space rather than simply redistributing effort.

There is also concern regarding coastal community resilience. In areas such as the Western Isles, Fraserburgh and Peterhead, and Shetland, fishing supports extensive supply chains including processing, transport, and marine services. Any reduction in landings, already observed in parts of Shetland’s scallop sector, could have wider economic effects, potentially affecting business viability and employment. These risks may be particularly acute in more remote communities such as Lochinver, Kinlochbervie, and parts of the Western Isles, where alternative employment opportunities are limited and even small reductions in activity could have disproportionate socio‑economic impacts.

Demographic and structural challenges may further increase vulnerability. Areas including the Western Isles, Campbeltown, and Ayr already face ageing workforces, declining fleet sizes, and difficulties attracting new entrants. In the Western Isles, where fishing often supplements limited local employment, reduced opportunities could contribute to continued population decline. Smaller ports such as Lochinver and Kinlochbervie may be especially exposed, where reduced fishing viability could affect community cohesion and long-term economic sustainability. Limited availability of affordable housing, combined with any wider socio-economic impacts linked to reduced fishing activity, may further constrain the ability of younger people and new entrants to remain within these communities.

At the same time, environmental protection measures and improvements in ecosystem condition may support growth in tourism, particularly in areas such as Mallaig, Oban, and Portree, where wildlife and nature-based tourism are already important. Healthier marine environments may enhance the appeal of these areas for visitors and offer opportunities for economic diversification across hospitality and service sectors. However, these benefits may not be evenly distributed and are unlikely to fully offset losses in fishing‑dependent areas. Reduced landings may also affect the availability and cost of locally sourced seafood, with potential implications for hospitality sectors in locations such as Scrabster, Kirkwall, and Skye.

4.13 Benefits to Marine Features

The proposed fisheries management measures are designed to protect a wide range of marine features (species, habitats, and other features) from current and/or potential future pressures. Removal of pressures is expected to halt declines, and enable recovery of features in unfavourable condition, but the extent and speed of these changes is uncertain and not possible to quantify.

The Scottish marine environment provides a large number of valuable benefits to people. Ecosystem service analysis helps identify the range and type of benefits provided by marine ecosystems. The list of ecosystem services considered in the assessment is shown Appendix A of the SEIA. Details of the qualitative approach adopted is described in Section 3.4, and a discussion of the evidence considered is provided in Appendix B of the SEIA.

Protecting and potentially enabling recovery of marine features will increase the health of marine ecosystems. The material ecosystem services across the different marine components (i.e. designated features and PMFs) covered by proposed fisheries management measures are summarised in section 6.3.2 of the SEIA. Results are also reported in the individual Regional Appendices E to Q of the SEIA.

4.14 Cumulative Benefits

Treating sites and areas as a collection of individual and separate marine components providing separate ecosystem services potentially ignores any network effects that could occur from a set of sites and areas. A group of functionally connected MPAs and proposed PMF management areas may demonstrate network effects, i.e. the benefit from the networks may be greater than the sum of the benefits from the individual sites and areas Some sites and areas will protect replicates of habitats and features, and they may be connected through larval dispersal, thus making the MPA network more resilient to impacts. These effects are potentially of significant importance in assessing the benefits of fisheries management measures in MPAs and proposed PMF management areas because of the lack of barriers and mobility of species.

The ecosystem service benefits from the proposed fisheries management options were not quantified at a site or area level because of a lack of site- or area-specific data. However, they are considered relevant to the sites and areas as a network. This results in benefits from the health of marine ecosystems, which the fisheries management measures would contribute to. The impact of individual sites or areas cannot be distinguished within the overall potential benefit. Some ecosystem services (e.g. genetic resources; cultural benefits stemming from spirituality, health and wellbeing, and creativity and art; and tourism and recreation) are potentially significantly more valuable at a network level than an individual site or area level.

4.15 Genetic Resources

Genetic resources are poorly measured for marine ecosystems but are relevant, for example Potts et al^[37] identified medicines and blue biotechnology as an important marine service. Their future value cannot be quantified but preserving them in Scottish waters is positively valued.^[38] There is potentially a significant option value to preserving the genetic resources in marine habitats, including where the extent and condition of habitats and species are poorly understood.

4.16 Tourism and Recreation

Marine tourism and recreation, and other cultural ecosystem services, can be significant. These services are assessed for each site and area type, but significant potential network effects should be noted, including in relation to distinctive mobile fauna (e.g. seabirds, cetaceans) which may use several protected sites or areas in both inshore and offshore waters. When in inshore waters, these species can attract significant recreation and tourism activity.

4.17 Other benefits

Other potential benefits from the collective contribution of the proposed fisheries management measures to the health of marine ecosystems are notable.

For example, they could contribute to an increase in abundance of fish species, which as well as supporting commercial fisheries (as discussed above) are also targeted by recreational anglers (from shore or boats, usually in inshore areas). They could therefore help maintain, and potentially enhance, the value of recreational sea-angling in Scotland.

4.18 Does your assessment identify any potential barriers or wider impacts?

As identified within the SEIA the estimated costs and benefits are subject to significant uncertainties. The range of impacts vary on the management options chosen and the assumptions applied.

The impacts on volume and value of landings have the potential to impact the upstream and downstream supply chains and have wider impacts on communities where fishing is an important component of employment, culture and heritage.

In-combination effects of the proposed measures on ecosystem services may be influenced by network effects and the added environmental benefits arising from the measures. Network effects could enhance the benefits of the proposed fisheries management measures. However, the additionality of the benefits could be reduced if existing management measures already help protect the features considered. This is accounted for to some extent in the ecosystem services assessment, which is specific to the features protected and considers the degree to which fishing pressures on marine ecosystems could be alleviated.

In addition, there are considerable uncertainties concerning the estimate of potential impacts. These particularly relate to uncertainties concerning the actual value of landings at risk within each site or area and uncertainties concerning how much of this activity might be displaced (and to where) or removed from the system.

Under Option 1, some island areas appear more affected overall, as they show higher proportional reductions in landings compared to the mainland, with impacts concentrated in certain island communities. Under Option 2, however, impacts are more evenly distributed and similar in scale across regions, meaning the mainland is likely to be more affected in practice due to its larger volumes of landings and greater reliance on extensive supply chains and infrastructure, resulting in more significant overall economic consequences.

4.19 Are there mitigations already in place for these impacts raised?

The proposed fisheries management measures option 1 has been developed with stakeholders where possible to avoid impacts. In addition, a Mitigation Plan for the MPA and proposed PMF management areas fisheries management measures is being developed with stakeholders, to support the most impacted coastal communities regardless of their location. The specific form and scope of the mitigation will be co-designed with stakeholders and that development is currently underway. Specific mitigations have been put in place for Western Isles and Coll and Tiree to determine seabird bycatch in bottom set tangle nets to consider if there is potential to review the Conservation and Management Advice in the future, based on feedback from fishers that this is lower than in published scientific papers.

See previous Section 2.4 on details of mitigation steps.

4.20 Are there mitigations in place for the impacts identified and noted above from stakeholders and community consultations?

See previous section 2.4 on details of mitigation steps taken.

If through the public consultation process any impacts are raised from stakeholders and communities that have not been considered, Marine Directorate will address these impacts and develop suitable mitigation options, if relevant and required. The final ICIA will be updated to note these changes

4.21 Does the evidence show different circumstances or different expectations or needs, or different experiences or outcomes (such as levels of satisfaction, or different rates of participation)?

Engagement with the fishing industry and environmental organisations to date have shown various levels of ambition of fisheries management to be delivered. A range of options have been assessed within the reports and assessments to show level of impact to the environment and socioeconomics under each proposed option. The

consultation will help to inform of the stakeholders' issues and concerns of these.

options. It will then be for Ministers to decide on the option taken forward for the final fisheries management measures.

4.22 Are these different effects likely?

The evidence suggests that different effects are likely in some areas, but these will depend on location, the type of fishing activity affected, and the management option chosen.

Under Option 1, impacts are generally smaller and more concentrated, with the most noticeable effects seen in specific island areas, particularly the Uists and Barra Islands, where proportional losses in landings are higher than both other island regions and the mainland. At the port level, impacts tend to be more limited but can vary between locations. For example, Stornoway is one of the few island ports appearing among the more affected areas, though impacts remain relatively modest compared to some mainland ports.

At a regional level:

• Orkney is expected to see minimal impacts on landings
• Shetland may face some employment risks under Option 2, though overall catch impacts are lower
• The West Highlands (including Mallaig, Lochinver, and Kinlochbervie) show some of the most significant risks, particularly under Option 2
• The Outer Hebrides (Stornoway) and Argyll (Oban) may experience moderate impacts, particularly affecting local processing and related employment.

This suggests that differences in impacts are more closely associated with specific locations and fisheries than with whether an area is island or mainland. However, qualitative evidence indicates that impacts may still be experienced differently, even where the scale is similar. In many island and remote coastal communities:

• fishing plays a larger role in employment and the local economy
• alternative job opportunities are limited
• small-scale and under 10 metre vessels are more common

Because of this, even smaller changes in fishing activity may have greater local consequences, particularly in areas such as the Western Isles, Lochinver, and Kinlochbervie. There is also evidence that both options, particularly Option 2, may lead to:

• increased competition for space
• displacement of fishing effort
• gear conflict and pressure on existing grounds

These pressures are likely to be more noticeable in areas where fishing activity is already concentrated and may be particularly challenging for smaller vessels to manage. At the same time, there is a significant degree of uncertainty. The final impacts will depend on:

• the outcome of the consultation process
• whether Option 1, Option 2, or a combination of both is implemented
• how fishers adapt, including displacement to other grounds

Overall, while the scale of impacts is not consistently different between island and mainland areas, different effects are likely in certain locations, particularly due to local economic structure, fishing patterns, and capacity to adapt. The extent of these differences will only become clearer once final decisions are made and measures are implemented.

4.23 Conclusion

The overall picture shows that the two options are likely to have different types of impacts rather than one clearly being worse everywhere.

Under Option 1, impacts are likely to be smaller and more localised, but they may be felt more strongly in certain island areas. In particular, reductions in landings appear more concentrated in places like the Uists and Barra Islands and Lewis and Harris, suggesting that some island communities, especially on the west coast, could be more exposed than others. While many island regions may experience impacts similar to or lower than the mainland, this clustering indicates a greater vulnerability in specific locations, rather than across all island groups.

Under Option 2, impacts are expected to be larger overall and more evenly spread across both island and mainland areas. However, because the mainland has a larger fishing sector, more landings, and stronger links to processing and supply chains, similar proportional reductions are likely to translate into greater overall economic consequences on the mainland. This is particularly evident in mainland port areas such as Mallaig, Buckie, Ullapool, and Oban, which may face some of the largest losses.

Even so, smaller island communities may still potentially experience disproportionate local impacts, because they depend more heavily on fishing and have fewer alternative opportunities. In simple terms, the mainland may see bigger losses in total, but island communities may feel the impact more, at a local level.

More broadly, both options, particularly Option 2, may lead to increased competition for space, displacement of fishing activity, and gear conflict, especially in already busy areas such as North East Coast, Orkney, North West Coast and the Minches. These pressures are likely to be felt most by smaller vessels, including under 10 metre boats common in areas like the Western Isles and Shetland, which may have less ability to adapt or move to alternative grounds.

At the same time, it is recognised that the final impacts remain uncertain. The outcome will depend on which measures are taken forward for each site following consultation, and there may be variation between different island regions and between islands and mainland areas. Work has already begun with the fishing industry to explore mitigation measures, and further clarity on impacts will be needed once final decisions are made.

4.24 Are these effects significantly different?

When looking at the distribution of impacts, the data shows that effects are spread across a range of ports based on landings linked to vessel home ports. In some cases, mainland coastal ports such as Mallaig, Lochinver, and Oban appear among the most affected, particularly in terms of employment and total value. Overall, island communities are not significantly more impacted than mainland areas or other island groups when viewed at this level.

However, the type of impact may differ, even where the scale does not. Island communities often:

• rely more heavily on fishing for local employment and income
• have fewer alternative job opportunities
• depend more on small-scale or part-time fishing

Because of this, even relatively small changes in fishing activity may have potentially significant consequences in these areas.

Qualitative evidence also highlights a range of issues that are not fully captured in the quantitative analysis, including displacement of fishing effort, increased competition for space, potential gear conflict, and safety concerns. These pressures may be more challenging for smaller and less mobile vessels, which are more common in island fleets. The qualitative evidence suggests that impacts across regions are broadly similar in nature, and not clearly disproportionate between island groups or between islands and the mainland. However, there remains a degree of uncertainty. The final impacts will depend on the outcome of the consultation and the mix of measures ultimately implemented. As this could involve a combination of Option 1 and Option 2, it is difficult at this stage to determine whether significant differences will emerge. It is possible that some areas may experience more pronounced impacts than currently expected, and this will need to be reviewed alongside any mitigation measures once final decisions are made.

4.25 Could the effect amount to a disadvantage for an island community compared to the mainland or between island groups?

There is a real possibility of disadvantage in certain circumstances, particularly for specific island communities. This is less about the size of the impact and more about the local context in which it is experienced.

Because of this, even relatively small reductions in fishing activity could have greater social and economic consequences. There may also be differences between island groups, with more remote or economically fragile communities potentially more affected than those with better infrastructure or opportunities to diversify. In addition, wider socio-economic impacts in rural and island communities could potentially be greater than those captured in the modelling, particularly where local economies are more fragile or less diversified.

Overall, while impacts are not consistently greater for island areas, there is a reasonable likelihood that in some cases they could amount to a relative disadvantage, both compared with the mainland and between different island groups. The extent of this disadvantage will depend on the final set of measures implemented and the effectiveness of any mitigation developed in response.

4.26 Do you consider a full Islands Community Impact Assessment (ICIA) to be required?

The evidence available at this stage suggests that impacts are not consistently or significantly different for island communities compared with mainland coastal areas, particularly when considering the overall scale of economic impacts. However, there remains a high level of uncertainty around how these impacts will ultimately be experienced.

This uncertainty reflects several factors. The public consultation process has not yet concluded, and it is not yet clear which option, or combination of Option 1 and Option 2, will be taken forward. As a result, the scale, nature, and distribution of impacts may change, and it is possible that more pronounced or localised effects could emerge in certain island communities once final decisions are made.

In addition, while quantitative impacts may appear similar across regions, earlier analysis highlights that island communities may experience impacts differently, due to their greater reliance on fishing, more limited alternative employment opportunities, and the importance of small-scale fishing activity. This means that even modest changes could have greater local and social consequences in some island areas, which may not be fully captured in the current assessment.

Undertaking a full ICIA is therefore considered appropriate. This will ensure that any emerging, location-specific, or unintended impacts on island communities are fully identified, understood, and taken into account. It will also support the development of targeted and proportionate mitigation measures, informed by consultation feedback and final Ministerial decisions, and help ensure that the assessment process remains robust, transparent, and responsive to the needs of island communities.