Consultation Report on the Draft Scottish Marine Regions Order 2013
Report following the consultation on the Draft Scottish Marine Regions Order 2013.
4. Analysis of Responses
The consultation was on the identification and establishment of Scottish Marine Regions in legislation. The consultation was open to anyone to respond, and 37 responses were received. An analysis was conducted by the Marine Planning and Strategy Team, within Marine Scotland in the Scottish Government. Initially all responses were individually recorded in a spread sheet. The analysis combined counts of closed responses, and an analysis of additional comments to identify key themes and issues. Throughout the report, "respondent" is used to refer to both individuals and groups.
For Question 1:
Do you agree with the proposals set out in the draft Scottish Marine regions Order 2013? If no, please explain why not and your suggested alternative(s).
20 respondents answered "Yes"
11 answered "No".
1 respondent did not tick the box to Q1, but comments were in agreement with the proposals.
3 respondents did not tick the box, but comments were such that they did not agree with the proposals.
2 respondents did not tick the box, and gave general comments only.
Additional comments on the boundaries were provided by 21 respondents: the 11 respondents that answered "No"; the 3 respondents that did not tick the box; and also 7 of those respondents that answered "Yes" that they agreed with the proposals.
More information on alternative boundaries and the key issues raised and the response taken can be found in Section 5 below.
For Question 2:
Do you have any further comments? In particular we are seeking views on
- the drafting of the Order;
- the co-ordinates establishing the marine region boundaries;
- the boundaries outlined in paragraph 8 (of the consultation paper)
- the names of the regions suggested; and
- the illustrative map
2 respondents commented on the drafting of the Order. One respondent sought referencing to the "Solway" region throughout the Order, and another respondent suggested the addition of an advisory note to the Order showing the coordinates in other formats.
1 respondent (the MMO) highlighted that the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 coordinates had been copied into the schedule of the Order without any transformation between OSGB36 datum and WGS84 datum and that this needed to be rectified. An individual who did not submit a formal response also contacted Marine Scotland and highlighted this discrepancy.
17 respondents commented on the names of the Regions. There was sometimes a view that the region names were too generic, and that they would benefit from more specific names rather than for their geographical location in Scotland. This would more accurately reflect the area, and avoid confusion with marine planning areas in England. 15 of the 17 respondents suggested alternative name changes, particularly for the Western Isles, South East, South West and Moray regions. The remaining 2 respondents supported the names for "Argyll" and "Clyde" regions.
6 respondents commented on the illustrative map. 4 of which felt the illustrate map gave a helpful, clear overview. Orkney Islands Council felt the illustrative map did not make it clear how the Orkney SMR relates to the Pentland Skerries. Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority felt it would also be helpful to have insets covering those areas where marine boundaries and the terrestrial environment interact, particularly around Fraserburgh where the boundary was not located at an existing boundary or geographical feature.
For Question 3:
Do you believe that the creation of Scottish Marine Regions discriminates disproportionately between persons defined by age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, race and religion and belief?
A total of 33 responses were received in response to this question. All of those who responded felt that the creation of Scottish Marine Regions would not discriminate disproportionately between persons defined by age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, race and religion and belief.
Although out with the scope of this consultation, some respondents provided additional comments on Inshore Fisheries Groups boundaries, Marine Planning Partnerships, regional marine planning more generally and the National Marine Plan. Further information on these can be found at the end of Section 5 below.
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback