Draft marine and coastal restoration plan: strategic environmental assessment environmental report

4 Results of the SEA

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The purpose of this Section is to report the results of the SEA. A high-level SEA has been undertaken to consider the type of impacts that could arise from the implementation of the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan and its proposed inter-related themes.

4.1.2 As outlined in Section 3.5.8, only indicative criteria to define the nature or type of potential effects that may result from the proposal and reasonable alternatives have been used (i.e. positive, negative or neutral).

4.1.3 Taking forward the proposals outlined will provide evidence to support the implementation of the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan which will aim to bring forward actions under the following five themes:

• Restoration opportunities and priorities;
• Regulatory environment;
• Funding and finance;
• Supply chain and communities; and
• Evidence and monitoring.

4.1.4 These inter-related themes will support and encourage existing and new active restoration projects, and seek to ensure that active restoration can contribute to achieving GES and Objective 1 of the SBS. As such, it is considered that the proposed Plan has the potential to lead to significant positive environmental effects.

4.1.5 A high level overview of the implications of the Plan’s inter-related themes on the topics and SEA objectives, is provided in this section. The approach to the assessment is outlined in Section 3.5 and a summary of the assessment against each SEA topic and objective is given in Section 4.2.43.

4.1.6 As part of the assessment of reasonable alternatives which is a requirement of the 2004 Regulations, consideration has also been given in this section to the potential impacts that could arise from:

• “Do nothing”, i.e., a Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan is not created; and
• Pursuing regulatory reform.

4.2 Environmental effects

4.2.1 Within Section 4.2, the environmental effects have been summarised for potential positive, neutral, and negative effects. Contained within these sections, is an assessment for each SEA topic and the relevant SEA objectives.

4.2.2 The creation of the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan has the potential to have significant environmental effects through supporting and enabling active restoration projects, and in some instances passive restoration (or pressure management). The SBS delivery plan from 2024- 2030 sets out the action to “Publish a plan for marine and coastal ecosystem restoration, including identifying actions to help prioritise habitats and locations suitable for restoration”. The Plan may affect a wide range of marine users, uses and sectors across the offshore, inshore, intertidal and occasionally terrestrial zones. As outlined in Section 8, the Plan seeks to deliver the vision of clean, healthy, safe, productive, and biologically diverse oceans and seas and contribute to achieving or maintaining GES for Scotland. As a result, the Plan may facilitate the expansion of active restoration projects in their numbers, species and habitats covered, size and location, and contribute to ensuring they are successful.

4.2.3 The key potential effects or impact pathways that are likely to arise from the Plan are as follows:

• Potential positive effects to marine biodiversity and the marine ecosystem;
• Potential positive effects to intertidal and terrestrial biodiversity and their respective ecosystems;
• Potential positive spillover effects beyond restoration project boundaries;
• Potential positive effects from improved wellbeing for coastal populations;
• Potential negative effects from displacement or removal of coastal material assets;
• Potential negative effects may arise from the accidental introduction of INNS, which is a biosecurity concern; and
• Potential negative effects resulting from the displacement of activities from restoration areas into new areas and the intensification of activities in areas where these activities already occur.

Potential positive effects

4.2.4 The adoption of the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan and subsequent active restoration is assessed to result in overall positive effects on the topic Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna, (including the topics Soil, Water and Climatic Factors). The Plan would contribute to the achievement of the SEA objectives as it encourages and facilitates ecosystem recovery and biodiversity enhancement through active restoration.

4.2.5 Continuing pressures from development of marine industry and wider human activities such as fishing or recreation are likely to be the key factors in driving changes from the current baseline and environmental degradation. This includes effects from fishing practices, coastal development and other activities in the marine environment (recreation, aquaculture, anchoring, commercial shipping, dredging etc.). Whilst the Plan does not focus on pressure management, it aims to contribute towards GES and produce positive outcomes by mitigating against losses of species and habitats that may have been impacted, lost and degraded by these aforementioned activities.

Biodiversity Fauna and Flora, Soil, Water, and Climatic Factors

4.2.6 SEA objectives:

• Accelerate ecosystem restoration and regeneration, to support achievement of the SBS vision for 2030;
• Enhance marine and coastal habitats, species and ecosystems;
• Promote climate change mitigation;
• Contributing to maintaining or achieving GES of the marine environment;
• Contribute to Water Framework Directive ‘Good Ecological Status’ of water bodies that fall under the scope of the Plan; and
• Support resilience of Scotland’s biodiversity to the potential effects of climate change (adaptation).

4.2.7 The Plan aims to facilitate the creation and expansion of existing active restoration projects, which will therefore help to achieve and maintain GES as part of the SBS vision.

4.2.8 Active restoration has numerous positive ecological interactions and provides many ecosystem services which is an important motivator. For example, seagrass forms a sheltered environment which is preferable for young flatfish, demonstrating its use at providing nursery habitat, and further provides habitat for native seahorses (Hippocampus guttulatus and Hippocampus hippocampus) ^[58]. Acting as a food source, wigeons (Anas penelope) and brent geese (Branta bernicla) also eat intertidal seagrass at low tide⁵⁸.

4.2.9 Seagrass can increase the annual sediment accumulation on vegetated subtidal flats, removing wave energy and can increase coastal resilience and protection from flooding^[59]. Sand dunes provide natural protection from coastal flooding and winds during storms and provide a buffer that absorbs the impact of erosion^[60]. The structure provided by native oyster habitats can stabilise sediments and moderate wave energy, as well as provide a home for other species in its reef system^[61]. The positive effects provided by these restoration efforts are extended to coastal material assets, coastal communities and habitats, and historical assets as the reduction in wave energy can prevent coastal erosion.

4.2.10 The reintroduction of currently declining species and historically present species can enhance ecosystem services as well as attracting opportunities for nature tourism. In a terrestrial context, this can include species such as beavers (Castor fiber)^[62], and the western capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus)^[63]. The reintroduction of cranes in the Cairngorms will help improve previously lost biodiversity, whilst simultaneously helping the return of wetlands to provide habitat for them. This further provides additional habitat for plants, insects and other bird species^[64]. The previously reintroduced White-Tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) has played a crucial role in ecosystem dynamics limiting populations of their prey species and further affecting the species on which the prey depends. They also have a key role in nutrient cycling, moving nutrients between marine and terrestrial ecosystems ^[65].

4.2.11 There is also potential for positive spillover effects beyond the boundaries of restoration projects. Spillover occurs when there is a population surplus in the newly protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the restored area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of management. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of marine species outwith the area.

4.2.12 The restoration of saltmarsh through active restoration has the ability to improve both soil and water quality. Saltmarsh can filter water, absorb pollutants including pesticides, heavy metals and hydrocarbons which is important for coastline populations and human health^[66]. Saltmarsh restoration also plays a pivotal role in soil stabilisation with above ground vegetation and roots combining to physically protect against erosion^[67]. Native oysters can also improve water quality through filtration and purification^[68], and these processes will be realised on a greater scale should restoration advance.

4.2.13 Soil stability, the regulation of nutrient and sediment transfer into waterways, and reduced flood risk is also realised through restoration projects involving riparian tree planting, planting trees along riverbanks and watercourses to protect and enhance the ecosystems^[69],[70]. The structure provided by native oyster habitats also help stabilise sediments, moderate wave energy and support a vast number of reef associated species^[71].

4.2.14 The Plan may also have positive effects to the SEA topic of Climatic Factors. The management of and increase in areas that include blue carbon habitats (such as seagrass, saltmarsh, kelp beds^[72]) could contribute to the achievement of the Climatic Factors SEA objective. For example, a study which investigated the effects of marine conservation on carbon sequestration found significant increases in carbon sequestration in preserved or restored seagrass^[73].In Scotland, seagrass is estimated to sequester approximately 1,000 tonnes of organic carbon annually, while saltmarsh is estimated to sequester approximately 4,385 tonnes^[74].

4.2.15 Future active restoration projects should also be mindful of climate change mitigation and adaptation within their project planning and plan against future climate change scenarios and the associated environmental conditions. This may be incorporated into project level EIAs, if EIA is required.

4.2.16 Whilst active restoration projects are the main focus of the Plan, should pressure management be required, this may reduce pressure from anthropogenic activities. This may increase resilience to climate change through healthier ecosystems, including by supporting ecological connectivity and space for facilitating range shifts. An example of positive climate effects may be that sediments in untrawled seabed in certain circumstances may sequester significantly more carbon than areas exposed to trawling^[75]. However, it should be noted that there are complex bio-geochemical linkages between organic carbon in seabed sediments, the water column and the atmosphere which means that the overall impact of trawling on seabed carbon stores remains uncertain and inconclusive^[76].

Population and Human Health

4.2.17 SEA objectives:

• Supporting the physical health, mental health and wellbeing benefits for people from nature;
• Reducing risk of harm to people from natural hazards, including storms, flooding and coastal erosion; and
• Limiting the human health impacts of water pollution.

4.2.18 The Plan has the potential to improve and create physical health, mental health and wellbeing benefits for coastal Scottish communities. Beyond positive effects to coastal communities, active restoration may create positive effects for Scottish communities as a whole. This could be through the improved ecosystem services provided through the restored habitats and species^[77].

4.2.19 Encouraging active restoration provides more green spaces for coastal communities which has been proven to be beneficial for wellbeing^[78]. The restoration of habitats such as seagrass, saltmarsh, blue mussels and native oysters (amongst others) provides positive effects. Their restoration can entail the involvement of volunteers which boosts wellbeing through not only physical benefits, but psychological benefits through having a positive environmental impact, acquiring and sharing knowledge, caring for the environment, social interactions and community, and human health and wellbeing^[79].

4.2.20 For example, Restoration Forth is a community-inspired marine restoration project aiming to reintroduce 40,000 European flat oysters (Ostrea edulis) and restore seagrass meadows in the Firth of Forth. The project has worked with local communities since 2022 and empowers them to be involved through education, training and volunteering opportunities^[80].

4.2.21 Restoration efforts can also encourage job creation and nature-based tourism. For example, the reintroduction of the White-Tailed Eagle has created £4.9 - £8 million of economic benefits to Mull every year, and this money supports between 98 – 160 full time jobs, and between £2.1 - £3.5 million of local income annually^[81],65.

4.2.22 In combination with the Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna objectives including the topics of Soil and Water, restored species can act to reduce flood risk and coastal inundation by acting as a natural barrier. Restoration activities including riparian tree planning and saltmarsh restoration, if implemented, can act to improve water quality, supporting population and human health. As a result, restoration activities positively support the SEA objectives.

Neutral effects

Cultural Heritage

4.2.23 SEA objectives:

• Support the conservation/ enhancement of cultural and historical heritage associated with the marine environment.

4.2.24 In terms of the Cultural Heritage SEA objective, the effects have been assessed as neutral. Whilst some heritage features are located in the coastal zone, it is not expected that there would be overlap with active restoration projects. Terrestrial assets such as historical coastal infrastructure including Iron Age structures, forts and bronze age burnt mounds are noted to be at risk from coastal erosion^[82]. However, these are not expected to intersect with active restoration, as many restoration projects for species such as seagrass, native oyster and blue mussels occur in the intertidal zone. In respect of sand dunes, it is not thought that sites chosen for their restoration would interfere with assets, unless the dunes were also anticipated to act as a coastal defence.

4.2.25 It is anticipated that submerged heritage features including wrecks will not be directly affected, as active restoration projects are able to take place elsewhere, or they will occupy different depths and thus not interfere with assets. Potentially indirect effects are discussed under ‘potential negative effects’ below.

4.2.26 When considering intangible heritage, as there are no expected impacts to the built environment, it is expected that impacts to intangible heritage are also neutral.

4.2.27 It is recognised that the extent and number of many submarine historical assets is unknown. However, restoration projects may include surveys and research as part of the planning and, where required, licensing process to avoid these. As such, with no anticipated overlap it is not expected that cultural heritage will be significantly affected by the Plan.

4.2.28 Consideration should be made in the making of restoration projects to potential displacement effects onto cultural heritage features (although this assessment recognises there is limited potential for displacement effects).

Landscape/Seascape

4.2.29 SEA objectives:

• Minimise adverse landscape/seascape character and/or visual impacts; and
• Support enhancement of marine and coastal ecosystems.

4.2.30 In terms of the Landscape/Seascape SEA objective, in particular ‘Minimise adverse landscape/seascape character and/or visual impacts’, the effects have been assessed as neutral. Given the species most commonly the focus of active restoration projects, namely seagrass, native oyster and blue mussel, have their habitats formed largely underwater. Saltmarsh, sand dunes and riparian tree planting are an exception, however restoration would aim to expand existing habitat or sympathetically add to the environment, thus reducing the changes in the landscape and seascape. With little terrestrial influence and infrastructure required, it is anticipated that there would be no significant changes to landscape or seascape. Consideration may be paid where intertidal landscapes are created or expanded, but the Plan is assessed to achieve the SEA objective.

4.2.31 The Plan directly supports the enhancement of marine and coastal ecosystems as it seeks to encourage active restoration projects which will strengthen existing ecosystems and create new habitats in place of those which have been previously degraded. As the Plan further seeks to encourage innovation, restoration projects may take place in new areas, which has further potential to create an enhanced marine and coastal ecosystem.

Potential negative effects

Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna, Soil and Water and Climatic Factors

4.2.32 SEA objectives:

• Accelerate ecosystem restoration and regeneration, to support achievement of the SBS vision for 2030;
• Enhance marine and coastal habitats, species and ecosystems;
• Promote climate change mitigation;
• Contributing to maintaining or achieving GES of the marine environment;
• Contribute to Water Framework Directive ‘Good Ecological Status’ of water bodies that fall under the scope of the Plan; and
• Support resilience of Scotland’s biodiversity to the potential effects of climate change (adaptation).

4.2.33 For the Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna topic, potential negative impacts may arise as a result of any scaling up of active restoration activities, from the accidental introduction of INNS, which is a biosecurity concern. This can take place through INNS being transferred on the restored species themselves, or on cultch, which forms oyster beds.

4.2.34 Restoration projects will ultimately need to demonstrate they have appropriate and rigorous biosecurity protocols in place before carrying out any work. It would be expected that active restoration projects would need to develop a Biosecurity Measures Plan, which will require scaling up over time as the project develops. Overall, a precautionary approach may be requested and recommended biosecurity measures introduced, even where no INNS or disease are thought to be present. The Check Clean Disinfect Dry procedure may be advised by NatureScot on a case-by-case basis^[83].

4.2.35 The Plan includes an action to establish a mechanism to protect restoration projects if required. If implemented, potential negative effects may result from the displacement of activities into other areas. This may cause the intensification of activities in areas where sectors have been displaced as a result. The scale of the impact and the sector impacted by the displacement would be dependent on the specifics of any active restoration projects. Displacement may have negative effects on intangible heritage should fishing, particularly creeling be restricted or changed. An example of where creeling has particular intangible heritage links is in the Ross of Mull and Iona^[84]. In locations with strong cultural links such as these, any displacement should be carefully considered.

4.2.36 The Plan will also seek to encourage restoration projects and other sea users to explore opportunities for co-location of activities, including encouraging early engagement during project development, which would reduce the potential for displacement. It is also recognised that active restoration projects may not require pressure management, so displacement would not occur.

4.2.37 In terms of restoration and enhancement projects, the scale and nature of projects to date have limited potential for displacement effects and this is likely to remain the case over the lifetime of the first version of the Plan. The Scottish Marine Environmental Enhancement Fund (SMEEF) facilitates investment in marine and coastal enhancement in Scotland and has mapped a number of existing marine restoration projects in Scotland^[85]. These are currently predominantly located inshore, in shallow water focusing on habitats and species such seagrass and native oyster. However, there has been some interest in horse mussels and further species and habitats may be looked at in future. As part of the Plan, opportunity maps may further demonstrate where active restoration could take place. However, this is not prescriptive and only aims to highlight possibilities.

4.2.38 Potential negative effects could be experienced to the SEA topic of Climatic Factors if the area of displaced activity includes blue carbon habitats. Threats to carbon stores can be considered mostly habitat specific and can include: physical disturbance to biogenic reefs from increased storminess; impacts from trawling; coastal erosion and coastal development impacts to seagrass and saltmarsh^[86]. However, there are complex bio-geochemical linkages between organic carbon in seabed sediments, the water column and the atmosphere^[87] which may mean that negative impacts vary in severity. Threats to habitats where carbon is sequestered are important on a local scale for Scotland’s marine habitats^[88].

Material Assets

4.2.39 SEA objectives:

• Consideration of impacts to existing infrastructure (e.g. formal flood defences) to aid in environmental enhancement.

4.2.40 With the implementation of the Plan, there is the potential that material assets could be removed should restoration need to occur in the same area, or the material asset is preventing restoration and expansion of existing habitats. Consideration should be paid to the extent of removal and reasonable alternatives to prevent damage and losses to material assets.

4.2.41 Material Assets may be directly negatively impacted by newly introduced active restoration projects. This could potentially include coastal access routes and flood defences. Due to the inshore nature of many restoration projects, there have been instances of existing coastal assets to be changed to allow for restoration activity. For example, as part of the Nigg Bay Managed Realignment Scheme, two 20 m wide breaches were made in existing sea defences to allow the flooding of a 25 hectare field. This increased the area of saltmarsh in Nigg Bay by 23%^[89]. However, the required changes to material assets will be dependent on the scale of the restoration activity, and modifications to material assets may not require their full removal or be required at all.

4.2.42 It should also be noted that if material assets were modified or removed to facilitate restoration activities, in some instances the restored habitat such as saltmarsh may provide the same function as the removed or modified material asset. The expansion of saltmarsh presents a nature-based solution to protect against coastal flooding, providing a sustainable and cost effective way in which to compensate for any loss of structures such as sea walls^[90].

4.2.43 It is expected that alterations to assets, if required, may be small scale in line with the restoration project scale. Impacts would be considered and managed through relevant consenting frameworks, such as local planning permission or marine licensing.

4.3 Summary of effects

4.3.1 Overall, the positive environmental effects from active restoration as a result of the Plan are anticipated to be greater than the negative environmental effects associated with the risk of accidentally introducing INNS, the potential displacement of activities, and the potential modification of material assets.

4.4 Reasonable alternatives

4.4.1 A high level assessment of the potential environmental effects that may arise from the reasonable alternatives below are also considered:

• “Do nothing”, i.e., a Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan is not introduced; and
• Pursuing regulatory reform.

4.4.2 Whilst the reasonable alternative for regulatory reform is specific to the regulatory reform theme within the Plan, the “do nothing” alternative will be considered for each of the five themes.

“Do nothing” scenario

4.4.3 In the “do nothing” scenario, the current barriers to active restoration would remain, and the proposed objectives and actions under the Plan will not contribute to accelerating marine restoration.

4.4.4 It has been noted that the Plan is being created to help Scotland ‘achieve ambitious and urgent commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity decline and become Nature Positive by 2030 as part of its SBS for 2024-2030. The creation of the Plan is not a statutory requirement, and so “do nothing” is a possible scenario.

4.4.5 Under this scenario, the future evolution of the baseline identified in Appendix 3 would be expected to occur, but the level of this would be dependent on the extent to which currently existing restoration projects are progressed and whether the SBS set out alternative restoration mechanisms.

4.4.6 In the absence of the Plan, positive environmental effects of active restoration will still be realised but on a smaller, and less ambitious scale.

4.4.7 The themes within the Plan seek to maximise environmental benefits of active restoration. This would be achieved via a range of actions, including those to help identify suitable (and unsuitable) locations for restoration, ensure restoration projects can be protected if required, provide support in navigating regulatory processes, and highlighting/facilitating funding opportunities. As such, in the “do nothing” scenario, current barriers to active restoration will remain. A wide range of measures are being pursued to support progress towards GES, and active restoration is one element of this. However, while it is anticipated that active restoration may make a relatively small overall contribution to achieving GES and the SBS vision, the Plan will seek to maximise this contribution.

4.4.8 In the absence of the Plan, with limited restoration efforts and thus fewer positive environmental effects, there will also be reduced positive population and human health effects as previously detailed in Section 4.2. The “do nothing” scenario may provide some wellbeing aspects from the continuation of existing projects and the creation of green spaces. However, those positive effects will be limited in comparison to those with the implementation of the Plan. Fewer restoration projects on smaller scales will limit volunteering opportunities which are associated with positive wellbeing.

4.4.9 Under a “do nothing” alternative, the current situation with regards to ability to protect active restoration projects will continue. Demonstration and Research (D&R) MPAs offer an existing potential route for protection, as they are a means to promote the ‘demonstration of sustainable methods of marine management or exploitation’ or ‘research into such matters’. A proposal must meet certain criteria laid down by the Scottish Government, including demonstrating the novelty of the proposed investigation, how the proposal fits within broader national objectives and whether there is sufficient support from stakeholders^[91]. However, not all nature restoration and enhancement projects will be able to meet the requirements for D&R MPA designation.

Regulatory Reform

4.4.10 The regulatory environment theme within the Plan does not currently seek to make any changes to the existing regulatory environment relating to restoration projects (beyond the inclusion of an action to establish a protection mechanism for projects). The focus is instead on streamlining the processes within the current regulatory landscape. It aims to do this through:

• Supporting restoration projects navigating the regulatory environment; and
• Encouraging better join up, transparency and information sharing across regulators and public bodies.

4.4.11 Should actions to pursue regulatory reform be included within a future edition of the Plan, positive environmental and social effects may be greater. Regulatory reform may remove obstacles preventing restoration from occurring. It would be expected that restoration could expand more easily and occur faster in a more streamlined approach. Therefore, this would aid in the restoration and regeneration ambitions for Scotland.

4.4.12 However, the need for future regulatory reform will be considered during the lifespan of the first Plan and may not be necessary if the actions and objectives included in the first Plan achieve positive outcomes.

Reasons for progressing with the Draft Plan

4.4.13 While it is noted that pursuing regulatory reform may remove obstacles to allow restoration to occur in a more streamlined manner, the Plan as proposed may facilitate the acceleration of active restoration without the need for regulatory reform and produce the GES benefits which would not be realised to the same extent under the “do nothing” scenario. Whilst not pursued in this Plan, it is recognised that regulatory reform may be pursued in future plans.

4.5 Cumulative effects

4.5.1 Cumulative effects have been considered in two ways in the assessment:

• First, as the cumulative effect of the implementation of the five inter-related themes outlined in Section 2.1.3; and
• Second, the cumulative effect of the implementation of the Plan alongside other plans and programmes.

Cumulative effects of the implementation of the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan Themes

4.5.2 The five inter-related themes under consideration within the Plan are summarised in Section 2.1.3. The cumulative effects of the Plan’s implementation are dependent on which, if not all of the five themes are taken forward.

4.5.3 The five themes within the Plan (and associated objectives and actions) are designed to act in conjunction to support and enable active restoration. Should not all five themes be implemented within the Plan, there are still likely to be some positive environmental effects. However, as each theme addresses different aspects of the restoration process, without all five, existing obstacles may still be present, restricting the positive effects realised by the Plan.

4.5.4 It is noted that should all five themes be taken forward, this may also augment potential negative effects. However, this assessment recognises the limited potential for displacement effects and suitable biosecurity measures can be put in place to manage the potential risk of INNS.

Cumulative effects of the introduction of the Plan with other plans, programmes and strategies

4.5.5 Other plans, programmes, and strategies that may impact key environmental receptors include the Strategic Compensation Policy for Offshore Wind, the draft updated Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy (draft updated SMP-OWE), National Energy System Operator’s Holistic Network Design (NESO’s HND) and Holistic Network Design Follow Up Exercise (HND-FUE) work, the NMP2, proposals for management measures applying to offshore MPAs, and proposals for management measures applying to PMFs and inshore MPAs^[92].

4.5.6 The Strategic Compensation Policy for Offshore Wind is being assessed under a separate SEA, although the results are not published at the time of writing. High level cumulative effects may include neutralising and positive effects from compensatory measures as a result of offshore wind farms. However, there may be potential for negative effects from the displaced activities which may have additional effects in combination with the Plan.

4.5.7 The draft updated SMP-OWE is also being assessed under a separate SEA^[93]. There may be cumulative negative effects of displacement (if fishing activity is displaced from areas of offshore wind development and also displaced from areas of active restoration). The full environmental effects of the policy will depend on the details of implementation and project level mitigation.

4.5.8 The results from the SEA for NESO’s HND and HND-FUE are not published at the time of writing. It is therefore only possible to identify potential high level cumulative effects. Potential positive effects from transmission infrastructure could include habitat enhancement, such as the creation of artificial reefs, new roosting structures and exclusion of habitat damaging activity. This could bring potential positive cumulative effects with the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan. Transmission infrastructure could result in the potential displacement of fishing activity (if they cross fishing grounds), both during installation and operation when cables may become exposed or if hard protection is used, which has the potential to intensify activities elsewhere should active restoration also require pressure management. However, potential displacement effects from the Plan have not been assessed at this stage to be significant. Potential negative cumulative effects are therefore expected to not be significant if they occur.

4.5.9 Scotland’s National Marine Plan 2 is under development and an SEA scoping report has been undertaken^[94]. As this assessment has not yet been undertaken, it is not possible to identify in detail potential cumulative effects.

4.5.10 A new round of fisheries management measures are being assessed under the SEA provisions (and consulted upon) for the remaining inshore MPAs (where management is not already in place), as well as PMFs identified as most at risk from bottom-contacting mobile fishing gear outwith MPAs. The proposed fisheries management measures for offshore MPAs have also recently been assessed under the SEA provisions. Depending on the themes implemented under the Plan, there could be cumulative positive effects from enhanced protection and restoration as well as cumulative negative effects from potential displacement of fishing activity. Overall, the proposed measures for offshore MPAs are assessed as having a positive impact for the overarching topic Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna. In terms of negative effects for offshore MPAs measures, the effects from displacement of fishing activities are assessed as generally not being significant.

4.6 Mitigation and monitoring

4.6.1 Monitoring is an important component of SEA, as it seeks to ensure that plans avoid generating unforeseen negative environmental effects. UK Government planning policy guidance^[95] advises that details of monitoring arrangements may be included in the report, the post-adoption statement or in the plan itself. Monitoring arrangements should be sufficient to enable any unforeseen negative effects to be identified at an early stage and to enable appropriate remedial actions.

4.6.2 Overall, there are no anticipated significant negative environmental effects from the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan. Potential negative effects related to accidental introduction of INNS, displacement of activities, and modifications to material assets through its implementation are likely to be less than the positive environmental effects realised through an increase in active restoration projects.

4.6.3 The Environmental Report has not identified any additional factors beyond those addressed in policy-making that would need to be monitored. If a monitoring strategy were to be developed, it should be undertaken in a proportionate manner, with existing data sources, environmental indicators, and monitoring programmes being utilised where possible. It should be noted however, that positive environmental effects can take many years in some cases to be measurable.

4.6.4 Final proposals for mitigation and suggested monitoring will be provided in the Post Adoption Statement. These will focus on the environmental effects identified in this assessment.

4.7 Conclusions

4.7.1 The Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan falls under Part 2 of the 2004 Regulations and is therefore subject to SEA. The outcome from the Screening and Scoping Report and the consultation responses confirmed the need for an SEA as there is potential for significant environmental effects to occur as a direct result of the Plan. This SEA provides a high-level and qualitative assessment of the potential environmental effects that are likely to result from the Plan.

4.7.2 In the longer term, continuing pressures from development of marine industry and other human activities are likely to be the key factors in driving changes from the current environmental baseline. This includes effects from fishing practices, coastal development and other activities in the marine environment (recreation, anchoring, aquaculture, commercial shipping, dredging etc.).

4.7.3 In generic terms, the adoption of the Plan would potentially result in overall positive effects on the overarching topic Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna (including the topics Soil, Water, and Climatic Factors), and Population and Human Health. The Plan can also contribute to the achievement of the SEA objectives due to the facilitation of active restoration projects, allowing for ecosystem recovery and biodiversity enhancement, as well as improved wellbeing for Scottish communities.

4.7.4 As discussed in Section 4.4.6, restoration projects are currently being undertaken in the absence of the Plan, contributing to biodiversity enhancement and recovery in Scotland. However, implementation of actions included within the five themes of the Plan will:

• Achieve a better understanding of where active restoration can best take place, and how we can prioritise species and habitats;
• Maximise ecological benefits and social and economic opportunities from active restoration; and
• Support community-led restoration and enable investment in restoration efforts.

4.7.5 As such, the Plan will facilitate and accelerate restoration beyond current efforts and aid in Scotland’s ambition to halt and reverse biodiversity decline and become Nature Positive by 2030.

4.7.6 The Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna (including the topics Soil and Water) objectives are met through the introduction and expansion of species which are key to accelerating ecosystem restoration and regeneration, enhancing marine and coastal areas and improving and maintaining water and air quality.

4.7.7 The restoration of blue carbon habitats (such as seagrass, saltmarsh and kelp beds) could contribute to the achievement of the Climatic Factors SEA objective.

4.7.8 The Population and Human Health objective is met as the Plan has the potential to improve and create physical health, mental health and wellbeing benefits for coastal Scottish communities, and for Scotland as a whole.

4.7.9 The Plan has been assessed to not significantly impact cultural heritage features, landscape or seascape. Effects on these topics have been assessed as neutral.

4.7.10 Overall, there are no anticipated significant negative environmental effects from the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan. Potential negative effects related to accidental introduction of INNS, displacement of activities, and modifications to material assets through its implementation are likely to be less than the positive environmental effects realised through an increase in active restoration projects. This assessment recognises there is limited potential for displacement effects and suitable biosecurity measures can be put in place to manage the potential risk of INNS. It is noted that should negative impacts be identified for material assets, such impacts would be considered and managed through relevant consenting frameworks, (e.g., local planning permission or marine licensing).

4.7.11 In line with the 2004 Regulations, consideration has also been given to reasonable alternatives of:

• “Do nothing”, i.e. the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan is not introduced; and
• Pursuing regulatory reform.

4.7.12 Under the “do nothing” scenario, positive environmental effects will still be realised but on a smaller, and less ambitious scale.

4.7.13 Whilst not considered within this iteration of the Plan, regulatory reform may be considered in future editions and has therefore been included as a reasonable alternative. With regulatory reform, positive environmental and social effects may be greater than with the current regulatory framework should processes become more accessible for stakeholders. However, this may not be necessary should the Plan adequately enable users to interpret and navigate the existing policies and processes.

4.7.14 In terms of cumulative effects of the Plan as a whole, the positive environmental effects would be additive should all five themes of the Plan be implemented. Should themes be excluded from the Plan, restoration may still continue but less effectively. This is because each theme of the Plan, designed to be used in combination, seeks to improve different aspects of the restoration landscape, and should therefore be used in conjunction.

4.7.15 When considering cumulative effects with other plans, programmes, and strategies, there could be cumulative positive effects resulting in greater restoration opportunities as well as cumulative negative effects from potential displacement of activities such as fishing activity, should restoration require pressure management (e.g., from fisheries management measures being considered for inshore MPAs and PMFs, currently under assessment).

4.7.16 In summary, the positive environmental effects of enhanced ecosystem restoration and regeneration with accompanied wellbeing benefits resulting from the Plan are anticipated to be greater than the potential negative effects related to the potential accidental introduction of INNS, displacement of activities, and modifications to material assets through its implementation.