Final Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment
Title of Proposal
Scottish Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area (MPA) Project, Socio-Economic
Analysis, Turbot Bank (TBB)
Purpose and intended effect

Background
The Scottish Government is committed to a clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically
diverse marine and coastal environment that meets the long term needs of people and
nature. In order to meet this commitment our seas must be managed in a sustainable
manner - balancing the competing demands on marine resources. Biological and geological
diversity must be protected to ensure our future marine ecosystem is capable of providing
the economic and social benefits it yields today.
The introduction of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act
2009 means the Scottish Government now has the authority to introduce statutory marine
planning for Scotland's seas. The Marine (Scotland) Act provides powers to designate MPAs
out to 12 nautical miles (nm), and the Marine and Coastal Access Act provides powers to
designate out to the rest of Scottish waters. The advice to Marine Scotland from their
Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee (JNCC)) recommended the designation of a minimum of 29 of the
33 MPAs identified would be required to achieve an ecologically coherent network.
Following recommendations from a Marine Scotland commissioned independent review of
the science underpinning the network, Marine Scotland have put forward 30 MPA sites for
designation, each with their own impact assessment, that adequately represent search
features (features is a collective term for species, habitats and geology) in the network.
The Turbot Bank MPA proposal lies in offshore waters to the east of Aberdeen. The MPA
proposal encompasses the Turbot Bank shelf bank and mound large-scale feature, as well
as relatively high densities of settled adult sandeels and appropriate sandeel habitat. There
are two broad conservation objectives for the creation of a Scottish network of MPAs: either
to conserve features in their current state, or to afford them protection to enable recovery to
a state in which they remain healthy and productive. For the proposed Turbot Bank site the
conservation objective for all features is to conserve but with the caveat that our knowledge
on the condition of the proposed protected features is uncertain. JNCC have proposed the
shelf banks and mounds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels protected features as
science-based alternatives to the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA proposal.
Summary of Features and Conservation Objective - Turbot Bank
Biodiversity Features
Conservation Objective
Offshore subtidal sands and gravels
Conserve (feature condition uncertain)
Shelf banks and mounds
Conserve (feature condition uncertain)
Sandeels
Conserve (feature condition uncertain)

Objective
The purpose of Nature Conservation MPAs is to safeguard nationally important species,
habitats and geology across Scotland’s marine environment. MPAs are being designed to
complement existing site-based measures. The intention is to designate and manage MPAs
under the sustainable use principle.
An MPA network will support greater national and international ecological coherence as
stipulated by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010
the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
the Convention on Biological Diversity
the World Summit on Sustainable Development
the OSPAR1 convention
the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Proposed MPAs are based primarily on scientific evidence, and MPA search features have
been used to underpin the initial selection of possible MPA locations. MPA search features,
identified by SNH and JNCC, represent species, habitats and natural features of
conservation importance for which spatial measures are thought to be an appropriate
conservation measure.
Evidence in this BRIA is drawn from the work of statutory nature conservation body JNCC2
and consultants ABPmer and eftec3. It brings together the science-led arguments for
designation and the projected potential social and economic consequences of such action.
This will enable Scottish Ministers to make a balanced judgment on whether the proposed
Turbot Bank site should be designated as an MPA. The site has been identified for
designation as an MPA due to the confirmed presence of biodiversity features detailed
above.
This BRIA examines the socio-economic impact of designating the proposed Turbot Bank
site as an MPA. The assessment period covers the 20 year period from 2014 to 2033 reflecting the time horizon within which the majority of impacts are expected to occur. As
with any socio-economic assessment related to environmental designations, the findings
should be considered as estimates, and in cases where greater uncertainty exists, such as
for fisheries, are deliberately presented as worst-case scenarios to build in necessary
caution.
In addition a range of scenarios are presented to account for the inherent uncertainty
associated with such proposals. Lower, intermediate and upper scenarios have been
developed to reflect the requirements for management measures, the spatial extent of
features and the extent to which OSPAR/BAP4 features are already afforded protection. The
intermediate scenario is viewed as the best estimate. The estimated impacts across the
three scenarios commonly vary quite significantly.

Rationale for Government intervention
The Scottish Government has a number of international commitments to deliver a network of
MPAs. Scotland’s marine environment provides: food; energy sources (wind, wave and tidal
power, minerals and fossil fuels); routes and harbours for shipping; tourism and recreational
opportunities; and sites of cultural and historical interest. Scotland’s seas contain important
distinctive habitats and support a diverse range of species that require protection in order to
be conserved or for recovery to be facilitated. Due to the competing demands placed upon
Scotland’s marine resources, more effective management is required so that a balance
between conservation and sustainable use can be struck. Currently there is not sufficient
protection in place to ensure that the marine environment is properly protected and complex
1
Oslo and Paris Commission
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5469
3 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/08/9645
4 Biodiversity Action Plan
2
ecosystems safeguarded. With the aid of the Marine (Scotland) Act and the Marine and
Coastal Access Act the Scottish Government is better able to offer conservation measures to
those features most in need of protection via the designation of a new MPA network. This
network will afford greater assurance to features which are considered to most deserve our
protection, either because they are rare, threatened or declining.
An ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs is vital to conserve and regenerate
our seas, in turn protecting the many goods and services they provide now, and for
generations to come.
Consultation

Within Government
Consultation has been undertaken with policy colleagues within Marine Scotland, including
aquaculture, nature conservation, marine renewables, fisheries and fresh water fisheries, as
well as Transport Scotland, which has responsibility for ports, harbours and ferries. Historic
Scotland and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency have also been consulted.
Meetings were held with policy officials within these Government departments and agencies
to discuss the development of the Nature Conservation MPAs. We have also been working
with Defra and other UK Departments on the join up between Scottish MPAs and the wider
UK contribution to the OSPAR North East Atlantic MPA network.

Public Consultation
Over the summer of 2013, Marine Scotland consulted on a number of proposals to take
forward integrated marine planning for Scotland’s seas, including MPAs. This consultation
provided an opportunity for all stakeholders to comment, formally, on the proposed MPA
network. The consultation sought views on whether 33 areas should be considered as
possible Marine Protected Areas to supplement existing protected areas and create a wider
network. Comments were also sought on a range of management options. Responses were
submitted using the consultation questionnaire, by email or in paper copy. Submissions were
received from 14,703 individuals and organisations. This included 332 standard consultation
responses.

Business
Discussions with businesses, including representatives from oil and gas, aquaculture,
renewables, fishing and ports as well as ecotourism and recreational interests have taken
place both preceding and during the consultation period. In addition, industry representatives
are updated regularly via the Marine Strategy Forum and bilateral discussions. Marine
Scotland is continuing engagement with stakeholders through regular bi-lateral meetings
with key organisations, ad hoc meetings with other interests, and regular sectoral meetings.
In addition, Marine Scotland oversaw a Project Advisory Group whose membership
comprised of one member from each marine interest as well as four fishing interests, to
ensure wide representation.
Options
Option 1: Do nothing
Option 1 is the ‘Do nothing’ option; this is the baseline scenario. Under this option, there is
no change to the management measures in place at the at the proposed Turbot Bank site.
Accordingly, no additional management measures would be required.
Option 2: Designate site as a Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area
Option 2 involves the formal designation of the Turbot Bank site. Designation would provide
recognition and protection to the natural features of the site while also contributing to the
wider Scottish and UK MPA network.

Sectors and groups affected
The following sectors have been identified as present (or possibly present in the future)
within the proposed Turbot Bank site and potentially interact with one or more of the
features:
Turbot Bank:



Commercial Fisheries
Oil and Gas
Public Sector
Affected sectors may be impacted to a greater or lesser degree by designation depending on
which scenario is pursued and which management option is preferred.

Benefits
Option 1: Do nothing
No additional benefits are expected to arise from this policy option.
Option 2: Designate site as a Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area
Designation will help to conserve the range of biodiversity in Scottish waters. It will
complement (not duplicate) other types of designation and provide an essential contribution
to establishing an ecologically coherent network of MPAs. In the absence of MPAs, there
would be areas of Scotland’s marine environment and a high number of species and habitats
that would continue to be unprotected.
On designation, appropriate management will reduce the risk that the extent, population,
structure, natural environmental quality and processes of features protected will decrease or
degrade over time. The risk that the features will be adversely affected by human activities is
greater if not protected by an MPA. In addition, beyond a certain point of degradation,
changes to ecosystems may be large and irreversible, resulting in a significant societal cost.
Avoiding such a reduction in ecosystem services is thus a key benefit of designation.
While it may not be possible with current levels of research to monetise benefits with a
satisfactory degree of rigour, it is clear that many of the benefits relate to aspects of our lives
that we take for granted and for which it is good practice and common sense to maintain
through protection measures such as MPAs.
Contribution to an Ecologically Coherent network
Scotland's seas support a huge diversity of marine life and habitats, with around 6,500
species of plants and animals, with plenty more no doubt to be found in the undiscovered
deeps of the north and west of Scotland. Our seas account for 61% of UK waters and remain
at the forefront of our food and energy needs, through fishing, aquaculture, oil and gas, and
new industries such as renewables, as well as recreation activities and ecotourism. An
ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs is vital to conserve and regenerate our
seas, in turn protecting the many goods and services they provide now, and for generations
to come. Furthermore it is likely that a network of Nature Conservation MPAs will
demonstrate beneficial network effects, i.e. the benefit from the network as a whole may be
greater than the sum of the benefits from the individual MPAs. These effects are potentially
of great importance in marine protected areas because of the lack of barriers and mobility of
species.
Ecosystem Services Benefits
Ecosystems are very complex, and it is thought that the more complex an ecosystem is the
more resilient it is to change. Therefore, if it is damaged or if a species or habitat is removed
from that ecosystem, the chances of survival for those services reduce as the ecosystem
becomes weaker. However, by conserving or allowing the species and habitats that make up
that ecosystem to recover, we can be more confident of the continuation of the long term
benefits the marine environment provides.
Non-use value of the natural environment is the benefit people get simply from being aware
of a diverse and sustainable marine environment even if they do not themselves ‘use it’. We
take for granted many of the things we read about or watch, such as bright colourful fish,
reefs and strange shaped deep sea curiosities, to lose them would be a loss to future
generations that will not be able to experience them. Due to the scientific uncertainty
involved it is challenging to put a true value on this, but the high quality experience and
increasing knowledge of Scotland’s seas can be better preserved through measures such as
MPAs. It is expected that non-use value will be attained as a result of designation both from
the knowledge that the features are receiving adequate protection along with the wider
conservation objectives that designation supports. Whilst ecosystem services benefits at an
individual site level cannot be easily calculated, the non-use value to Scottish households of
marine conservation in Scottish waters generated by a well-functioning MPA network as a
whole is estimated to be within the range of £239–583 million5 over the 20 year assessment
period.
For more details on the anticipated benefits to ecosystem services see appendix A.

Costs
Option 1: Do nothing
This option is not predicted to create any additional costs to the sectors and groups outlined
above. However, it should be noted that the societal cost of not designating could be both
large and irreversible relative to the current condition of the marine environment. The
absence of management measures to conserve the identified features may produce future
economic and social costs in terms of increased marine habitat and biodiversity degradation.
The option to not designate holds the potential to undermine the overall ecological
coherence of the Scottish MPA Network. This potentially large and irreversible societal cost
avoided is presented within the benefits section of the ‘do designate’ scenario (option 2) to
avoid double counting the same impact.
Option 2: Designate site as a Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area
Costs have been evaluated based on the implementation of potential management
measures. Where feasible costs have been quantified, where this has not been possible
costs are stated qualitatively. All quantified costs have been discounted in line with HM
5
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/08/9645
Treasury guidance using a discount rate of 3.5%. Discounting reflects the simple actuality
that present consumption is preferred to future consumption.
Commercial Fisheries:
According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, whitefish trawls,
dredges and pelagic trawls (over-15m) and pelagic trawls, pots, whitefish trawls, lines and
dredges (under-15m vessels) operate within the proposed MPA. The value of catches from
the area was £155,000 (over-15m vessels) and £11,300 (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 Peterhead (85%, by value) and Fraserburgh
(7%). For the over-15m fleet, there was sparse activity by dredgers and whitefish trawlers
across the whole proposed MPA over areas of subtidal sands and gravels and sandeels.
Non-UK VMS ping data indicate that 10 non-UK vessels were active in the area in 2012: 8
from Denmark; 1 from France and 1 from the Netherlands. The majority fish with pelagic,
static or unknown gear types and, therefore, would be unlikely to be affected by proposed
management scenarios. Two Danish vessels fish with bottom trawl gear and, therefore, may
be affected by the proposed management measures assessed under the intermediate and
upper scenarios.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate
Intermediate Estimate
Assumptions for cost
 No additional
 Closure to sandeel
impacts
management.
fisheries and hydraulic
dredging across the
pMPA.
 If Firth of Forth is not
designated, reduce
mobile bottom-contact
gear pressure
(whitefish, nephrops
and other trawls and
seines, beam trawls
and dredges) by 50%
across the pMPA.
Description of one-off
 None.
 None.
costs
Description of recurring
 None.
 Loss of >15m fishing
costs
income (annual values,
£ million, 2012 prices):
 Whitefish trawls
(0.056);
 Whitefish seines
(<0.001);
 Dredges (0.031);
 Other affected
gears (<0.001).
 Loss of <15m fishing
income (annual values,
£ million, 2012 prices):
 Dredges (<0.001);
 Nephrops trawls
(<0.001);
 Whitefish trawls
(0.001);
 Other affected
gears (<0.001).
Description of non None.
 Loss of value of
quantified costs
catches from non-UK
vessels using bottom
Upper Estimate
 Closure to sandeel
fisheries and hydraulic
dredging across the
pMPA.
 If Firth of Forth is not
designated, closure to
mobile bottom-contact
gear (whitefish,
nephrops and other
trawls and seines,
beam trawls and
dredges) across the
pMPA.
 None.
 Loss of >15m fishing
income (annual values,
£ million, 2012 prices):
 Whitefish trawls
(0.111);
 Whitefish seines
(<0.001);
 Dredges (0.031);
 Other affected
gears (<0.001).
 Loss of <15m fishing
income (annual values,
£ million, 2012 prices):
 Dredges (<0.001);
 Nephrops trawls
(<0.001);
 Whitefish trawls
(0.001);
 Other affected
gears (<0.001).
 Loss of value of
catches from non-UK
vessels using bottom
contact gears in the
proposed MPA
(Denmark (2 vessels));
 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.
contact gears in the
proposed MPA
(Denmark (2 vessels));
 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.
Commercial fisheries costs are presented below in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA). GVA
more accurately reflects the wider value of the sector to the local area and economy beyond
the market value of the landed catch. Stating costs purely in terms of landed value would
overstate the true economic cost of not fishing. If fishermen are prevented from catching fish
they forgo the landed value of those fish but subsequently forgo the payment of intermediate
costs such as fuel (it is assumed that no fishing activity is displaced). Costs are also
presented in terms of the reduction in full-time equivalent (FTE) employment. It is also
possible that effort not continuing in the area could be transferred to other locations resulting
in no or reduced loss of income.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total change in GVA
0.000
0.733
(2014–2033)
Average annual change
0.000
0.037
to GVA
Present value of total
change in GVA (2014–
0.000
0.255 – 0.539*
2033)
Direct and Indirect
0.0 jobs
1.0 jobs
reduction in Employment
1.120
0.056
0.255 – 0.824*
1.6 jobs
* The lower estimate relates to the designation of sandeels only.
Possible social impacts may flow from the economic costs resulting from designation. The
possible economic impacts identified are the loss of landings, reduction in the value of
landings and hence GVA. The quantification of job losses assume a worst case scenario i.e.
vessels choosing not to fish elsewhere. In reality this is unlikely to apply to all such activity.
The loss of employment within the commercial fisheries sector (direct) and the upstream
supply-chain (indirect e.g. net makers) is likely to be felt across the following ports:
Peterhead (47%), Oban (30%), Fraserburgh (6%) and Lerwick (6%).
The impact on fish processors - resulting from a reduction in local landings - is likely to felt
across the following ports: Peterhead and Fraserburgh.
There may be wider social impacts including potential health issues for those who do not find
alternative employment (i.e. mental stress and the loss of self-esteem) and an increase in
social tension within fishing communities.
The estimates of costs are explicitly based upon conservative assumptions to ensure an
appropriate degree of caution. For example:

It is assumed that, where fishing activity is impacted upon, it ceases altogether as
opposed to relocating elsewhere. In reality, some activity is likely to be ‘displaced’
rather than lost entirely.

They are not offset against any improvement in stocks that may occur over time as a
result of the MPA designation.

They do not factor in the possible opportunity for fishermen to trade quota or effort to
mitigate the direct impact.
The results presented here represent a ‘worst case’ scenario. In reality vessels are likely to
react to any management measures in place in order to maintain profitability (i.e. by
changing target species/gear type). Displacement could well negate some of the cost
impacts stated above (i.e. by fishing ‘elsewhere’), but conversely could also add to them (i.e.
the extra fuel cost associated with fishing ‘elsewhere’). This uncertainty is the reasoning
behind not attempting to quantify this cost impact. Other non-quantified costs include:
potential conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental consequences of targeting new
areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear
development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.
Oil and Gas:
The proposed MPA boundary encompasses one licence block (20/16) that was awarded
under the 27th UK oil and gas licensing round and overlaps with MPA features proposed for
designation. The awarded licence block overlaps with feature extents for offshore subtidal
sands and gravels and sandeels under all scenarios.
Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate
Intermediate Estimate
Assumptions for cost
 Additional costs to
 Additional costs to
impacts
assess potential
assess potential
impacts to MPA
impacts to MPA
features for 26th and
features for 26th and
27th licensing awards
27th licensing awards
that overlap with MPA
that overlap with MPA
features – Assessment
features – Assessment
Phases 1 – 3 only (as
Phases 1 – 3 only (as
no significant
no significant
discoveries present
discoveries present
within awarded
within awarded
blocks).
blocks);
 Minimising alterations
to seabed habitat; any
deposited material
should meet local
habitat type.
Description of one-off
costs
 Assessment Phase 1:
 Assessment Phase 1:
surveys and evaluation
costs; consultancy fees
and additional operator
staff input - £2k per
well (1 well (2018));
 Assessment Phase 2:
surveys and evaluation
costs; consultancy fees
and additional operator
staff input - £2k per
well (1 well (2018));
 Assessment Phase 2:
Upper Estimate
 Additional costs to
assess potential
impacts to MPA
features for 26th and
27th licensing awards
that overlap with MPA
features – Assessment
Phases 1 – 3 only (as
no significant
discoveries present
within awarded
blocks);
 Minimising alterations
to seabed habitat; any
deposited material
should meet local
habitat type;
 Micro-siting of
infrastructure in areas
of more representative
habitat types for
offshore subtidal sands
and gravels using data
held by JNCC and
collected by operators.
 Assessment Phase 1:
surveys and evaluation
costs; consultancy fees
and additional operator
staff input - £2k per
well (1 well (2018));
 Assessment Phase 2:
Description of recurring
costs
Description of nonquantified costs
drilling and exploration;
consultancy fees and
additional operator
staff input - £4k per
well (1 well (2020));
 Assessment Phase 3:
drilling and appraisal;
consultancy fees and
additional operator
staff input - £4k per
well (1 well (2020)).
drilling and exploration;
consultancy fees and
additional operator
staff input - £4k per
well (1 well (2020));
 Assessment Phase 3:
drilling and appraisal;
consultancy fees and
additional operator
staff input - £4k per
well (1 well (2020)).
 None.
 None.
drilling and exploration;
consultancy fees and
additional operator
staff input - £4k per
well (1 well (2020));
 Assessment Phase 3:
drilling and appraisal;
consultancy fees and
additional operator
staff input - £4k per
well (1 well (2020));
 Micro-siting survey
costs - £230k per well
(1 well (2020)).
 None.
 Costs of project delays
 Costs of some
 Costs of some
during consenting;
potential impact on
investment
opportunities.
 Future
decommissioning costs
assessed at national
level.
mitigation measures
should be covered by
industry best practice;
 Costs of project delays
during consenting;
potential impact on
investment
opportunities.
 Future
decommissioning costs
assessed at national
level.
mitigation measures
should be covered by
industry best practice;
 Costs of project delays
during consenting;
potential impact on
investment
opportunities.
 Future
decommissioning costs
assessed at national
level.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014–2033)
0.010
0.010
Average annual costs
0.001
0.001
Present value of total
0.008
0.008
costs (2014–2033)
0.240
0.012
0.008 – 0.195*
* The lower estimate relates to the designation of sandeels only.
Possible social impacts may flow from the economic costs resulting from designation. There
may be reduced future employment opportunities if additional costs are significant and
render development projects economically unviable or if delays arising from designation
impact on potential investment opportunities.
Public Sector:
The decision to designate the Turbot Bank site as a Nature Conservation MPA, would result
in costs being incurred by the public sector in the following areas:






Preparation of Statutory Instruments
Development of voluntary instruments
Site monitoring
Compliance and enforcement
Promotion of public understanding
Regulatory and advisory costs associated with licensing decisions
The majority of these costs will accrue at the national level and as such have not been
disaggregated to site level. Only the preparation of Statutory Instruments and regulatory and
advisory costs associated with licensing decisions have been estimated at the site level.
Site-specific Public Sector Costs (£Million, 2014-2033)
Lower Estimate
Intermediate Estimate
Preparation of Statutory
0.000
0.005
Instrument
Regulatory and advisory
costs associated with
0.001
0.001
licensing decisions
Total Quantified Public
0.001
0.006
Sector Costs
Upper Estimate
0.005
0.001
0.006
Total Costs
Total quantified costs are presented in present value terms. Commercial fisheries costs are
presented in terms of GVA.
Total Present Value of Quantified Costs (£Million, 2014-2033)
0.000
Intermediate
Estimate
0.255
Oil and Gas
0.008
0.008
0.008
Public Sector
0.001
0.006
0.006
Total Present Value of
Costs
0.009
0.269
0.269
Sector
Commercial Fisheries
Lower Estimate
Total Non-Quantified Costs
Scenario
Low
Sector/Group
 None.
Commercial Fisheries
 Costs of project delays
during consenting;
potential impact on
investment
opportunities.
 Future
decommissioning costs
assessed at national
level.
0.255
Intermediate
Upper
 Loss of value of
 Loss of value of

Oil and Gas
Upper Estimate



catches from non-UK
vessels using bottom
contact gears in the
proposed MPA
(Denmark (2 vessels));
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.
Costs of some
mitigation measures
should be covered by
industry best practice;
Costs of project delays
during consenting;
potential impact on
investment
opportunities.
Future
decommissioning costs
assessed at national
level.




catches from non-UK
vessels using bottom
contact gears in the
proposed MPA
(Denmark (2 vessels));
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.
Costs of some
mitigation measures
should be covered by
industry best practice;
Costs of project delays
during consenting;
potential impact on
investment
opportunities.
Future
decommissioning costs
assessed at national
level.
Scottish Firms Impact Test
This section is informed by evidence gathered during the consultation phase. In addition to
the formal consultation process there has been regular and ad hoc meetings with a number
of businesses and interests potentially affected by this proposal. Many of the businesses
potentially affected include some small and micro-sized firms. Additional costs imposed by
designation have the potential to fall on small businesses.
Officials undertook three series of visits inviting local fishermen and related interests. The
first was pre-consultation to encourage these businesses to respond, during the consultation
as part of the wider joint marine consultations, and lastly as part of a study that was
considering the potential effects of fisheries displacement which may occur as a
consequence of future MPA management.
In total there were over 70 events across the country and the locations were designed to
take in local interests that may be affected or interested in any of the proposed MPAs. These
events were well attended by fishermen as well as their federation or association
representatives, particularly: the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Shetland Fishermen’s
Association, the Orkney Fishermen’s Association, the Scottish Whitefish Producer’s
Association, the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, the Mallaig and North-West Fishermen’s
Association, and the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association.
The development of the MPA proposals has been undertaken in dialogue with marine
stakeholders, including national, international and local fishermen and fishing interests. The
Marine Strategy Forum has provided strategic level engagement on MPA network
development, and Fishing Focus provides a further national forum for engagement on MPAs.
We are continuing engagement with stakeholders, including businesses through regular bilaterals with key organisations, ad hoc meetings with other interests, and regular sectoral
meetings. In addition, Marine Scotland oversaw a Project Advisory Group whose
membership comprised of one member from each marine interest as well as four fishing
interests, to ensure wide representation.

Competition Assessment
Designation of the proposed Turbot Bank site as an MPA may affect marine activities where
businesses operate within a given spatial area or require a spatial licence for new or
amended operations. At the proposed Turbot Bank site such activities include commercial
fisheries and oil & gas.
Competition Filter Questions
Will the proposal directly limit the number or range of suppliers? e.g. will it award exclusive
rights to a supplier or create closed procurement or licensing programmes?
No. It is unlikely that designation of the proposed Turbot Bank site as an MPA will directly
limit the number or range of suppliers.
Will the proposal indirectly limit the number or range of suppliers? e.g. will it raise costs to
smaller entrants relative to larger existing suppliers?
Limited / No Impact. Designation of the proposed Turbot Bank site as an MPA could affect
the spatial location of commercial fisheries activity and may restrict the output capacity of
this sector. However, restrictions on fishing locations may well be negated by displacement
i.e. vessels fishing elsewhere. It is not expected that the distribution of additional costs will
be skewed towards smaller entrants relative to larger existing suppliers.
Designation could affect the preparation of applications, location of marine developments
and activities, or requirements for marine developments which would apply to any developer
of an affected licensed activity when preparing and submitting an application. Additional
costs will potentially be incurred by developers submitting new licence applications, but they
will apply to both new entrants and to incumbents looking to expand or alter their operations.
Will the proposal limit the ability of suppliers to compete? e.g. will it reduce the channels
suppliers can use or geographic area they can operate in?
No. Designation of the proposed Turbot Bank site will not directly affect firms’ route to
market or the geographical markets they can sell into.
Will the proposal reduce suppliers' incentives to compete vigorously? e.g. will it encourage
or enable the exchange of information on prices, costs, sales or outputs between suppliers?
No. Designation of the proposed Turbot Bank site is not expected to reduce suppliers’
incentives to compete vigorously.
Test run of business forms
It is not envisaged that designation of the proposed Turbot Bank site will result in the
creation of new forms for businesses to deal with, or result in amendments of existing forms.
Legal Aid Impact Test
It is not expected that the proposed Nature Conservation MPA will have any impact on the
current level of use that an individual makes to access justice through legal aid or on the
possible expenditure from the legal aid fund as any legal/authorisation decision impacted by
the proposed MPA will largely affect businesses rather than individuals.
Discussions with Scottish Government Legal colleagues are on-going but at this stage it is
not envisaged that new MPAs will have any legal aid impacts.
Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring
Responsibility for compliance, monitoring and enforcement of the provisions will be carried
out by Marine Scotland. Reserved issues will continue to be addressed by the respective
departments within the UK government. The Plan will be delivered through the existing
marine licensing system, nature conservation measures, in addition to Scottish Planning
Policy and other licensing/consenting frameworks. Enforcement and authorisation decisions
within these frameworks carried out by public authorities must have regards to new MPAs,
these include: local authorities, The Crown Estate, port and harbour authorities and
terrestrial planning authorities.
Implementation and delivery plan
The suite of new MPAs will be put before the Scottish Parliament in 2014 and if adopted they
will have statutory status. Once in place, public bodies will have to take any authorisation or
enforcement decision in accordance with appropriate MPAs unless relevant consideration
indicates otherwise. The MPA network will be reviewed every six years to ensure that they
are meeting, or are capable of meeting, the agreed conservation objectives and whether any
additional management is likely to be required.
Summary and recommendation
Option 2 - designate the site as a Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area - is the
preferred option.
Designation will help to conserve the range of biodiversity in Scottish waters. It will
complement (not duplicate) other types of designation and provide an essential contribution
to establishing an ecologically coherent network of MPAs. In the absence of MPAs, there
would be areas of Scotland’s marine environment and a high number of species and habitats
that would continue to be unprotected. On designation, appropriate management will reduce
the risk that the extent, population, structure, natural environmental quality and processes of
features protected will decrease or degrade over time. The risk that the features will be
adversely affected by human activities is greater if not protected by an MPA.
Declaration and publication
I have read the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that (a) it
represents a fair and reasonable view of the expected costs, benefits and impact of the
policy, and (b) that the benefits justify the costs. I am satisfied that business impact has
been assessed with the support of businesses in Scotland.
Signed:
Date:
21st July 2014
Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment
Scottish Government Contact point:
Marine_Environment_Mailbox@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Appendix A - Ecosystem Services Benefits, Turbot Bank
Summary of Ecosystem Services Benefits arising from Designation of the Site as an MPA
Services
Relevance
Baseline Level
Estimated Impacts of Designation
Value
to Site
Weighting
Lower
Intermediate
Upper
Fish for human
Moderate.
Stocks not at
Nil
Low – Moderate: possible recovery
Low – low level
consumption
Habitats make
MSY6
of fish stocks in medium/long term.
of landings
contribution to
Features provide low level of
Fish for nonStocks reduced
food webs,
supporting services to support
human
from potential
particularly via
recovery, although sandeels are
consumption
maximum
sandeels.
important for repopulating fished
grounds.
Gas and
Nil - Low
Nil - Low
Nil, or at best a very low level of protection of parts of
Low
climate
ecosystem providing these services.
regulation
Natural hazard
Nil - Low
Nil - Low
Low
protection
Regulation of
Nil - Low
Nil - Low
Low
pollution
Non-use value
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
Nil
Low
Low - Moderate
Low - Moderate
of natural
environment
Recreation
Minimal
Minimal
Nil
Nil
Nil
Minimal
Research and
Minimal - Low
Minimal
Nil
Low
Low
Low
Education
Total value of changes in ecosystem services
Fisheries likely to drive benefits from scenarios ranging from low to
moderate benefits.
6
Maximum Sustainable Yield
Scale of
Benefits
Low
Confidence
Nil - Low
High
Nil - Low
High
Nil - Low
High
Nil - Moderate
Low
Minimal
Low
Moderate
Low
Nil - Low
Low
Moderate