Scotland's future catching policy - selectivity proposals consultation 2026: partial BRIA

Section 3: Costs, impacts and benefits

Quantified costs to businesses

Commercial fishing takes place throughout Scottish waters by UK-flagged vessels, as well as vessels from other EU Member States and non-EU countries. Within 12 nautical miles (NM), only UK-flagged vessels are permitted to fish. In 2024, Scottish vessels landed £756 million of sea fish and shellfish. These landings equate to 561 thousand tonnes of sea fish and shellfish in 2024^[11].

Scottish vessels are most active in two main ICES areas: the Northern North Sea (ICES Area 4a) and the West Coast of Scotland (ICES Area 6a). In 2024, 291 thousand tonnes of sea fish and shellfish with a value of £432 million were landed from the Northern North Sea (4a), representing 52 per cent of the tonnage and 57 per cent of the value of all landings by Scottish vessels (Table 28). 26 per cent of landings by Scottish vessels, by tonnage were caught in the West Coast of Scotland (6a), providing 27 per cent of the total value of all Scottish landings. Area 7 accounted for 11 per cent of the tonnage of all landings and six per cent of value^[12].

Known costs associated with implementing the proposed selectivity measures have been outlined here. Some costs cannot be easily identified or quantified at this stage in the consultive process as selectivity projects are still ongoing or we are using this opportunity to gather evidence to aid in filling evidence gaps. Costs and benefits will be broadly the same for non-UK flagged vessels although subject to some differences due to different domestic suppliers of nets etc.

The benefits associated with these proposed selectivity measures are considered to support sustainable fishing opportunities through reducing waste and helping fishers take positive action to reduce unwanted catch of fish and bycatch of sensitive marine species. Reducing unwanted catch and bycatch also supports wider ecosystem benefits.

There may also be time costs associated with adapting to the changes, whether this be increased time spent ensuring compliance with regulations or time spent adhering to reporting requirements. This may be balanced with any streamlining of regulations, making it easier to understand and search applicable measures for particular fishing activities and therefore also reducing compliance incursions.

Reducing unwanted catch has the potential reduce time spent sorting unwanted catch, which can decrease fuel consumption and emissions from fishing vessels and reduce fishing effort for the same yield, with less time and energy needed to achieve quotas.

It is considered that pursuing option 1 enables the Scottish Government to support delivery of sustainable fisheries for current and future generations. Option 1 would also support delivery of the objectives in the Fisheries Act 2020 as set out under the introduction to this BRIA.

Option 1 (preferred option): Implement selectivity improvements

Approximate costings have been set out below for each fleet segment:

Large mesh demersal fleet segment

1. What is currently in place

For fishing gear that is currently used the costs are set out below:

The approximate cost for a 120mm demersal diamond codend and extension piece ranges between £1,200-£2,760. This is dependent on the size of the vessel and whether the vessel operates as a twin rig or single rig.

The approximate cost for a 120mm square mesh panel in the top of the extension with 5mm single twine and 3m long is £80.

2. Proposed change

The costs for fishing gear for the selectivity proposals are set out below:

The approximate cost of a 100mm square mesh codend with lifting and extension piece ranges between £1,050-£1,680, depending on the size of the vessel.

Fishers would be able to choose whether they use the diamond mesh or square mesh codend depending on target species.

Effect on vessels profits

The operating profit per vessel, per year for the large vessel demersal fleet segment was between £150,000 and £205,000 between 2021 and 2024. The costs outlined above, of between £1,050 and £1,680 per vessel, range between 0.6 and 1.0 per cent of these vessels’ operating profits on average for those years. This means these costs are likely to be affordable for this fleet segment.

Mixed demersal fleet segment

1. What is currently in place

For fishing gear that is currently used the costs are set out below:

The approximate cost for a 120mm demersal codend and extension piece ranges between £1,200-£2,760. This is dependent on the size of the vessel and whether the vessel operates as a twin rig or single rig.

The approximate cost of a 100mm codend with lifting and extension piece ranges between £1,050-£1,680, depending on the size of the vessel.

2. Proposed change and outcome

The costs for fishing gear for the selectivity proposals are set out below:

The approximate cost for a 300mm square mesh panel at 3m ranges from £60-£195.

At this stage we are consulting on the principles of the proposed catch composition rules and do not have detail regarding percentages or ratios of the target catch. As such we currently cannot quantify material costs through a potential change in landing profile. We recognise that move on rules and any requirement to return to port to change nets does add steaming time and therefore associated costs with fuel.

The approximate cost for a dual codend separator gear rig is £12,000. It should be noted this for a single rig set up.

The approximate cost for separator codends with 80mm/120mm codends attached to the elevator panel in the bag ready to sew on range from £8,510-£2,950, depending on vessel size and material specification. This could be added to existing gear making it a cheaper option to pursue. The range in cost is due to gear specification. It must be noted this for a single rig set up.

Effect on vessels profits

The operating profit per vessel, per year for the mixed demersal fleet segment was between £30,000 and £95,000 between 2021 and 2024. The costs outlined above, of between £3,010 and £12,195 per vessel, range between 7.3 and 29.6 per cent of these vessels’ operating profits on average for those years. This is likely to vary depending on the gear configuration that fishers may choose to implement in regard to the dual codend separator net. These costs may therefore be a substantial portion of the vessels’ operating profits, and so may lead to changes in this fleet segment’s activity. However, we will explore ways of minimising costs to industry.

Small mesh demersal fleet segment

1. What is currently in place

For fishing gear that is currently used the costs are set out below:

The approximate cost of demersal bottom trawls with codend mesh sizes between 80mm and 119mm ranges between £1000-£2,760.

The approximate cost for a 200mm square mesh panel at 2m ranges from £60 -£195

The approximate cost for a 300mm square mesh panel at 3m ranges from £60-£195.

Selectivity requirements are often accompanied by power or vessel size exemptions, for example, most vessels in the Firth of Clyde using 80mm – 119mm codends, must have a square mesh panel installed of 3m length and 300mm mesh size – however if the vessel is below 112kw or 12m in overall length, they may use a square mesh panel of 2m and 200mm.

2. Proposed change and outcome

The costs for fishing gear for the selectivity proposals are set out below:

The approximate cost of a 100mm codend with lifting and extension piece ranges between £1,050-£1,680, depending on the size of the vessel.

It must be noted that there is no actual cost to industry as there is no change to the construction of a coverless or letter box trawl. However, for fullness the approximate cost for a coverless or letter box trawl rigged to fish ranges from £10,300-18,000, depending on vessel size.

As noted in the consultation, there is mixed evidence on whether low power exemptions are still required for selectivity purposes. We are seeking further evidence on low power exemptions and any impacts on marketable catch to further inform the evidence base.

As outlined under the mixed fleet segment measures, all directed fishing vessels are subject to additional management measures and catch composition rules. However, we understand that there is great variance in the small mesh fleet and so we would look to tailor these rules depending on the type of operation (e.g. varying reporting requirement thresholds depending on the length of the trip).

Square Mesh Panels

Current rules state that a square mesh panel, when installed must have no more than two open diamond meshes between the longitudinal side of the panel and the adjacent selvedge in the West of Scotland. In the North Sea licence conditions state there should be no more than five open diamond meshes between the longitudinal side of the panel and the adjacent selvedge. We are proposing to unify this measure across all of Scottish waters. Data suggests^[13] that we must ensure the rear most edge of the square mesh panel is not greater than 2 meshes from selvedge (stitched “seam” that joins the bottom and top half of the fishing net) as this prevents the panel being incorrectly inserted up the tapered section of the net with incorrect insertion having the potential to reduce selectivity. There would be a negligible cost for this change in regard to time to rig the net.

The proposed change to amend the positioning of the square mesh panel so it is closer to the cod line and therefore more selective has a negligible cost associated with the time to rig the net.

The use of floats around the square mesh panel is already practiced. We are proposing to specify how these should be attached if a fisher wishes to use them. Therefore there is no cost to industry.

Allowing an increasing twine thickness allowed in the square mesh panel when the mesh size exceeds 300mm. The approximate cost of a 300mm/400mm square mesh panel at 3m with double twine (8mm) ranges from £95-480, depending on material used and whether using knotless mesh.

Effect on vessels profits

The vessels in the small mesh demersal fleet segment had a relatively low annual operating profit between 2021 and 2024, with an average profit of £1,965 in 2022 and an average loss of -£41 in 2024. As noted above, there are no costs to the industry of the suggested policy changes as these amendments do not change gear requirements.

Gill Net

Within this consultation we are seeking a call for evidence on any further selectivity measures that may be implemented within this fleet segment to reduce bycatch of sensitive marine species or improve knowledge regarding bycatch. Therefore, costs are unknown.

Gill Net vessels had an average annual profit of between £76,000 and £97,000 per vessel between 2021 and 2024. When implementing any further selectivity measure for this fleet segment, we will consider how new measures will affect the profitability of these vessels.

Long Line fleet segment

1. What is currently in place

There is no legal requirement to deploy mitigation measures in the fishery in UK waters. However, some mitigation measures are used voluntarily by vessels fishing in Scottish waters.

2. Proposed change and outcome

The costs for fishing gear for the selectivity proposals are set out below:

We would require that the fleet deploy streamers as part of their fishing operation.

The approximate cost for streamers ranges from £260-350. This is dependent on the required technical specification.

Other best practice measures include reducing marine sensitive species interactions, include measures such as offal management and night setting.

If offal discharge requires to be re-routed so it takes place on the opposite side of where gear is hauled this would require some modification to the vessel. Cost would vary depending on the layout of the vessel and any changes would need to be approved by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) to ensure compliance with safety standards. Trial estimates give an approximate cost of £12,000.

Effect on vessels profits

Long Line vessels had an average operating profit per vessel, per year of between £81,000 and £131,000 per year from 2021 to 2024. The cost for streamers outlined above would reduce profits by between 0.2 and 0.3 per cent, and so are likely to have a small effect on the Long Line fleet.

The cost of re-routing the offal discharge could reduce profits by 11 per cent on average for vessels that would require this modification, and so will have a more significant impact on affected vessels’ profits.

Pots and Creels fleet segment

1. What is currently in place

Voluntary best practice to reduce entanglement risk of cetaceans therefore it is a decision for business on whether they deploy any mitigation measures.

2. Proposed change and outcome

The costs for fishing gear for the selectivity proposals are set out below:

The Scottish Entanglement Alliance have been undertaking trials with sinking groundline to test its practicality in creel fleets against normally used floating groundline.

Supporting the use of sinking groundline will help to reduce the entanglement of whales and basking sharks by decreasing interaction with gear, as the groundline will sit lightly on the seabed with minimal movement rather than floating in loops in the water column.

The approximate cost of floating rope ranges from around £30 to £70+VAT per coil (10mm to 14mm, which are the most frequently used diameters).

The approximate cost of sinking rope ranges from around £60 to £120+VAT per coil (10mm to 14mm, which are the most frequently used diameters).

The increased cost of sinking groundline may initially seem prohibitive to fishers, however options for us to explore in supporting the use and transition to sinking groundline could include a cost subsidy, and phased implementation whereby fishers who are replacing floating groundline as it wears out switch to sinking groundline.

Reducing entanglement is also a positive net outcome as less gear will be lost and/or damaged. The Scottish Entanglement Alliance have noted that the total cost to the Scottish creel sector as a result of entanglements over a 10 year period is calculated at £755,717, though this is thought to be an underestimate.^[14]

Haul by haul reporting does not represent any additional operational time or cost.

Effect on vessels profits

The annual operating profit for vessels using pots and creels was between £30,000 and £47,000 between 2021 and 2024. We do not have data on the gear usage to estimate how much rope is used by pots and creels vessels, and so cannot estimate the effect on profits of the change to the new gear type. However, the increased cost of the gear may be offset by reducing the cost of entanglements to the Scottish creel sector.

Option 2 - Business as Usual (Do Nothing) – no selectivity improvements implemented

A continuation of business as usual, through option 2, is unlikely to result in any additional costs to business in regard to fishing gear. There may be some benefit of continuing with business as usual as current technical conservation measures would continue to be enforced, however, this would fall short in proactively seeking improvements to further reducing unwanted catch under the bycatch objective.

If business as usual was continued there are potential implications for future landings with TAC cuts and therefore reduced quota availability. Introducing improved selectivity may mitigate reductions by reducing unwanted catch and therefore supporting increased sustainability of fish stocks.

Option 2 of not pursuing improvements to selectivity would lose the benefit of enabling the Scottish Government to support delivery of sustainable fisheries for current and future generations.

Option 2 – Business as Usual (do nothing) – is not recommended.

Other impacts

Fishing Manufacturers

Regarding fishing gear manufacturers and the supply of innovative selectivity measures in relation to the dual codend, bird scaring lines/streamers and sinking ground line there may be potential negatives and positives.

Perceived negatives in relation to costs associated with any required amendments to production processes these could include tooling machinery, different materials and sourcing strategies required and market dynamics in regards to demand creating temporary productions delays. These are thought to be short term disruption.

Such negatives may be mitigated by potential for long-term benefits with manufacturers who innovate may gain a competitive edge by offering compliant products and drive innovation for sustainable/selective gear to access new markets.

Impacts will be explored with fishing gear manufacturers as part of continued stakeholder engagement.

Environmental Impacts

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

Option 1 is likely to generate environmental benefits associated with improved selectivity and supporting sustainable stock management and improving the evidence base underpinning management decisions. However, there may be environmental costs associated with the selectivity proposals implemented via Option 1, such as reducing discards and effects on seabird populations and other unforeseen factors, which could detract from any environmental benefits generated. As the specific measures are yet to be confirmed, the extent to which environmental costs and benefits will be realised is unknown.

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

Scottish firms’ international competitiveness

The selectivity proposals are not expected to have a significant impact on the Scottish businesses ability to compete internationally, nor will it affect Scotland’s attractiveness as a destination for global capital investment. The selectivity proposals are intended to support sustainable and responsible fisheries management, which in turn supports healthy fish stocks and a sustainable fishing industry. This will help ensure that businesses remain competitive and have a strong international reputation and consumer confidence. It is our intention that proposals would be applied on a level playing field basis in Scottish waters, meaning all those carrying out fishing activity in Scottish waters would need to implement the required measures in order to remain compliant.

Benefits to business

Option 1 (preferred option): Implement selectivity improvements

As noted above, the benefits associated with the selectivity proposals are likely to support increasing sustainability in fishing activity and therefore the management of stocks. As such, the benefits to business associated with any introduction of selectivity proposals are likely to materialise in the form of sustainable fishing opportunities that will provide fishers with sustainable economic opportunities into the future. Whilst perhaps less immediately tangible to businesses in the short term, these benefits are likely to have a longer-term economic and environmental impact to businesses through sustainably safeguarding future fishing opportunities.

Option 2 - Business as Usual (Do Nothing) – no selectivity improvements implemented

Fishing activities will remain broadly similar to previous years. Fishing opportunities can vary year on year subject to changes in quota and TAC which are outside the remit of the selectivity proposals. However, not implementing selectivity improvements could feed into any quotas that decrease due to consideration of discarding figures.

Small business impacts

The sector most likely to be directly impacted by proposed fisheries management measures is the commercial fishing industry. The Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 2023 (SG 2024; corrected Mar 2025) shows that there were 1,658 active Scottish fishing vessels under-12 metres in length in 2023. Under-12 metre vessels accounted for 83% of the total Scottish fishing fleet vessels in 2023. Smaller vessels are more likely to be classed as small businesses. Note that the size of the crew may not correspond to the size of the (regular) annual employee headcount, and that standard small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) definitions may not fully reflect this sector.

The number of active licensed vessels and vessels’ crew numbers will also change year-on-year, with more recent management data showing that there were 1,818 licenced Scottish fishing vessels as of March 2025. Of these vessels, 1,366 were under 10 metres – which are more likely to be classed as small businesses than larger vessels.

This section already notes the limitations around using small vessels as an (imperfect) proxy for small businesses. The definition of small and micro business based on employing less than 50 FTE from the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015^[15]. For further context, according to Businesses in Scotland: 2024, 99.5% of registered businesses in Division 03: Fishing and Aquaculture had fewer than 50 employees. While this classification covers more than just the inshore fishing fleet, it does suggest the majority of affected small vessels are likely part of small businesses.

Costs and benefits will be broadly the same for non-UK flagged vessels although subject to some differences due to different domestic suppliers of nets etc.

Investment

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

Workforce and Fair Work

Employment levels could be indirectly affected by the introduction of selectivity proposals. The transition may, in some instances, temporarily reduce fishing effort, which can impact crew employment and create uncertainty for those dependent on daily catches. It is unknown whether this would affect employers’ ability to pay the real living wage.

In the long term, adopting sustainable practices helps secure jobs by increasing the sustainability of stocks and ensuring the continued viability of fisheries. Additionally, fishers may require training to use new gear effectively, presenting opportunities for skill development and capacity building, though this also demands time and resources to implement successfully.

Climate change/ Circular Economy

There are unlikely to be any direct impacts affecting climate change/circular economy from the selectivity proposals. However, introducing more selective fishing gear can indirectly support climate change targets, primarily through its role in promoting sustainable fisheries through supporting the sustainability of fish stocks and potential to reduce carbon footprint through improving efficiency by reducing time spent sorting unwanted catch, which can decrease fuel consumption and emissions from fishing vessels and reducing fishing effort for the same yield, with less time and energy need to achieve quotas, further reducing emissions.

Competition Assessment

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

Selectivity proposals are unlikely to limit the number or range of suppliers.

Will the measure limit the ability of suppliers to compete?

Selectivity proposals are unlikely to limit the ability of suppliers to compete.

Will the measure limit suppliers’ incentives to compete?

Selectivity proposals are unlikely to limit suppliers’ incentives to compete.

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

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

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

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

Finally, it should be noted that while no impacts are expected, in most cases further policy development work will be needed for any new actions, which could include further evidence gathering or public consultation, along with the completion of appropriate impact assessments.

Consumer Duty

What is the proposal trying to achieve?

Improving selectivity is essential to continue to reduce unwanted catch of fish and therefore rates of discarding and other sensitive marine species, supporting the wider conservation efforts of marine species. By adopting selective fishing practices, fishers can reduce catch of non-target species to sustain long-term fishing opportunities and food security. Enhanced selectivity also supports compliance with regulations like quotas and the landing obligation, ensuring reported catches accurately reflect what is taken from the sea.

By consulting on the selected selectivity proposals, our view is that these proposed measures will strengthen our ability to reduce waste and increase accountability, by improving the approach taken to reduce unwanted catch by building on and adjusting the technical rules that are in place. It is crucial for fisheries managers to continually review and refine existing regulations as this ongoing evaluation helps ensure that the rules remain effective, relevant, and capable of driving meaningful improvements where necessary.

What are the impacts on consumers?

Selectivity proposals are unlikely to have any impact on consumers.

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

Consumers are unlikely to be harmed as a result of selectivity proposals.

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

Not applicable.

How do these alternative proposals compare to the original proposal?

Not applicable.