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

7 Appendix A: Screening and Scoping Consultation Comments

Consultation responses were received from the following Consultation Authorities during the screening and scoping exercise. The key points raised are captured below in Table 1 - Table 5, along with an explanation of how their views have been considered in this Environmental Report. To note, references to individual Sections/Tables, refer to Sections/Tables of the Screening and Scoping report, rather than Sections of this SEA Environmental Report.

Table 2 - Consultation Response from Nature Scot

Geographical scope

Clarity is needed on the geographical scope of the plan – specifically the inland limit of the coastal restoration outcomes. It would be worth specifying that the geographic scope of outcomes may differ from that of actions – given the acknowledgement that the management of some pressures at their source on land may be appropriate for supporting active restoration project outcomes at sea and the coast.

Response

It has been specified within the SEA that should these actions take place on land, terrestrial processes will be required.

Plan aims and iterations

Section 2.1.2 states aims for the plan. In addition to ecological benefits and economic opportunities, we suggest social and well-being benefits are an explicit part of the aims. The phrase ‘Give more confidence in…’ could be interpreted different ways. It may be useful to clarifying its full meaning, including the provision of policy and/or regulatory protection of restored sites, and the associated monitoring and adaptive management approaches needed.

Response

Population and Human Health has been scoped into the SEA to ensure assessment of social and well-being effects.

Regulatory environment

It may be worth flagging that regulatory procedures for licensing or registration of restoration projects may interact with multiple other regulatory processes. For example, some restoration efforts may come forward in association with licensed infrastructure development and in relation to either a ‘Nature Positive’ policy (in development for NMP2) or HRA derogation requirements. A restoration proposal may also more broadly trigger regulatory procedures for designated sites, protected species or other environmental protections.

Response

Interactions with other regulatory processes has been considered in both Section 4.2 and Section 4.5.

Investment and funding

The funding of nature restoration should consider both private and blended investments. It should also distinguish voluntary donations from those associated with market-based mechanisms, and from those associated with satisfying ‘nature-positive’ development planning policy and HRA compensation/MEEB requirements. The recently published Principles for Responsible Investment in Natural Capital, and the preparation of Biodiversity Investment Plan for Scotland are relevant strategic links.

Response

The detailed investment and funding sources and differentiations have been discussed in Section 4.5.

Population and Human Health

We recommend not scoping out the 'Population and Human Health' topic. This would be a missed opportunity to give attention to the positive social/wellbeing benefits that can be associated with nature restoration (and to consider whether there could be any unintended negative risks). Links between restoration and well-being are well documented, from volunteer involvement in projects, to recreational interaction with the restored habitats, or delivery of ecosystem services by the restored habitat. These benefits would not be adequately recognised by the BRIA.

Response

Scoped in. See Section 3.3.

Soil

For the soil topic, clarify how this topic relates to coastal habitats, which will also help to clarify the landward geographic scope of restoration actions and outcomes. This should include recognition of the climate vulnerability and dynamism of soft-sediment shores, the need for nature-based solutions to coastal change, and in some places the need for managed retreat and/or realignment of the shore.

Response

This has been explained under Section 8.4.

Soil and Water

Under the soil and water topics, reference to RBMP actions under this topic should refer not just to ‘inland waters’, but also to ‘land-based’ actions.

Response

This has been discussed in Section 8.5.3.

Material Assets

We suggest the ‘Material assets’ topic is scoped in. The primary reason for this is that existing built structures may be modified or removed for restoration purposes - for example the breaching of sea walls to allow managed realignment / retreat of coastal wetlands. However, it would be useful to consider specific aspects of the material assets topic to leave out of scope, in connection with a broader understanding of the scope of the plan - while restoration may involve putting structures into the sea to deliver a restoration outcome, we suggest that structures with a different primary purpose (for or associated with infrastructure development) are out of scope. As such, artificial reef effects or ‘nature-inclusive design’ of built infrastructure should not be part of this restoration plan, being given a different policy framing under NMP2.

Response

Scoped in. See Section 3.3.

Cultural Heritage

For the Cultural Heritage topic, clarify whether any intangible heritage / culture is being considered here.

Response

Within Section 4.2, and Section 9.9 both tangible and intangible heritage have been considered.

Landscape/Seascape

For the landscape/seascape topic, please note we consider this relates only to visual amenity and coastal character above the surface of the water. There is a different policy approach in England to include underwater visual amenity/aesthetics, which sometimes causes confusion in the Scottish context.

Response

Clarification provided in Section 3.3.2.

Assessment Methodology (Section 3.3)

We welcome the inclusion of direct and indirect effects, the latter potentially including the environmental effects of sectoral activity displaced from the location of a restoration project. We welcome the statement that previous SEA work will be drawn upon. Importantly, there are several linked SEA processes moving forward in parallel – these will be important to coordinate with, including those for the National Marine Plan revision, the Nature Positive Policy, and the Offshore Wind Sectoral Plan.

Response

Direct and indirect effects and the displacement of other activities have been discussed in Section 4.2.

Cumulative impacts have been assessed considering the NMP revision, Strategic Compensation for Offshore Wind and the Offshore Wind Sectoral Plan in Section 4.5.

SEA Objectives (Table 2)

The objectives are themed for convenience, but the assessment could recognise and seek synergies across multiple objectives – conceptual framings like nature-based solutions or a natural capital/ecosystem services approach can support this. The second bullet associated with the landscape/seascape objective is very broad and meaning specific to this objective not clear (support enhancement of marine and coastal ecosystems).

• Across all topics the objectives should be double-pronged:
• To optimise / accelerate / enhance / enable / deliver the positive outcomes
• To avoid or minimise any negative consequences or risks

Risks and unintended consequences associated with restoration projects would be useful to reflect in the objectives and or assessment methods. As a useful starting point, a summary is provided in the risks section of our marine and coastal enhancement guidance https://www.nature.scot/doc/marine-and-coastal-enhancement-projects-within-scottish-inshore-waters-guidance-scoping-proposal, but we will be happy to advise further.

Response

Guidance for scoping a proposal has been used and referenced in Section 4.2.

The SEA objectives are themed according to SEA topics. This offers a systematic and structured approach to the assessment and also offers a strong link to the evidence base (the baseline and policy context sections are structured according to SEA topics).

Related Plans, Programmes and Policies (Section 4.2)

Scotland’s Blue Economy Vision and its associated delivery strategy are not mentioned (Section 4.2.1) but are highly relevant.

National Marine Plan 2 is rightly identified as a key interface for a restoration plan, although we suggest further detail on the relevance of NMP2 would be useful - with reference to the emerging Nature Positive policy, plan-led approaches to HRA derogation / compensatory measures, and discussions ongoing about possible policy protection of locations where restoration is delivered, underway and/or a priority opportunity. Our recent response to the NMP2 Planning Position Statement consultation includes detailed advice.

The development of the Nature Positive policy is subject to its own SEA process, so it is important to coordinate clearly with this restoration plan. Links with the new iteration of the Offshore Wind Sectoral Plan may also be relevant. It would also be useful to actively consider links to forthcoming SEA processes, for example for the next round of River Basin Management Planning.

Regarding water-related plans and policies (Section 4.2.4), note that provisions descended from the Water Framework Directive extend to three nautical miles in Scotland.

Regarding climate strategy and policy links (Section 4.2.5) note the importance of the restoration plan being coordinated with parallel work on the Blue Carbon Action Plan for Scotland.

Also, in accordance with the principles of the Scottish National Adaptation Plan, restoration ambitions should also be guided by the need to future proof their success (their resilience and adaptation to) likely future climate scenarios and associated environmental conditions. Regarding the statement in Section 4.2.5(d), note that the requirement of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2012 is to mitigate and (not ‘or’) adapt, which is a recognition that mitigation remains essential, but we must also be prepared for change that is ‘locked-in’.

Also note that a number of regional marine/coastal restoration plans or guidance are coming forward from third-party organisations, some with delegated powers – these may be important for the national plan to coordinate with. At the coastal interface, existing Shoreline Management Plans, and or emerging Coastal Adaptation Plans, may also be relevant.

There is reference to National Planning Framework 3, but this has been updated by National Planning Framework 4.

Response

Blue Economy Vision and the Blue Carbon Action Plan included in policy context in Section 8.2.

Clarity provided on spatial extent of WFD in Scotland in Section 8.5.4.

Cumulative effects in Section 4.5 have considered interactions with other policies being developed such as Strategic Compensation Policy for Offshore Wind, NMP2, and the draft updated SMP-OWE.

Climate change mitigation within active restoration projects has been noted in Section 4.2. The requirement of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2012 has been noted.

Shoreline Management Plans and Coastal Adaptation Plans have been noted and referenced where applicable to capture the guidance from third party organisations.

The National Marine Planning Framework 4 has been described as part of the policy background for the SEA (8)

Environmental Baseline

Limited information has been provided on the approach to establishing the environmental baseline for the assessment. Rather than extensive exercise of repeating previous advice, we request that you refer to advice we have given in the last year for the:

• Baseline environmental assessment for the most recent three-year review of the National Marine Plan
• SEA scoping for National Marine Plan 2
• SEA scoping for the Offshore Wind Sectoral Plan

As for these, we recommend starting from the Scottish Marine Assessment 2020, as the most recent cross-cutting national assessment, supplementing it with more recent and detailed evidence as appropriate. Climate variables and risks, and the status of bird populations are particularly worthy of more updated baseline information.

For example, on the impacts of climate change on habitats and species, changes in temperature, salinity, acidification, stratification of seawater, oxygenation, circulation, storminess and sea level will have impacts. However, the complexity of marine ecosystems will make the impacts of climate change hard to predict and hard to mitigate against. Reducing pressure from human activities will increase resilience to climate change through healthier ecosystems, including by supporting ecological connectivity and space for facilitating range shifts. Key sources of emerging information include MCCIP and reporting associated with the UK climate risk assessments.

Section 5.2.2 should be clear on its focus of both marine and coastal environments, and (as recognised elsewhere) the role of pressure management where it can support active restoration efforts.

Regarding Cultural Heritage baselines (Section 5.3), Historic Environment Scotland may advise on whether and how to reflect intangible heritage values, potentially including links to and synergies with the natural environment.

As baseline for landscape/seascape (Section 5.4), see information available on national coastal character types.

Response

The National Marine Plan review, NMP2 SEA, SEA for Offshore Wind Sectoral Plan and the Scottish Marine Assessment 2020 have been reviewed and referenced within this SEA where applicable. The Birds baseline information has referenced the Scottish Marine Assessment 2020 and used further sources to ensure it is up to date.

The impacts and role of pressure management has been explained where applicable within the SEA, particularly within Section 4.2.

Climate change impacts have been explained within Section 4.2 and the environmental baseline.

Intangible heritage has been included within Section 4.2 and the environmental baseline as per Historic Environment Scotland.

National Coastal Character types have been included within Section 4.2

Reasonable Alternatives

We would welcome discussion on the reasonable alternatives to be assessed as part of the SEA. A common mistake is to include ‘alternatives’ that are unlikely to be approved by senior officials or Ministers, often because they are presented as alternatives at the extreme ends of a spectrum of possibilities.

Response

Truly feasible alternatives are typically more nuanced, within a spectrum of possibilities. Reasonable alternatives have been developed with the Scottish Government team to ensure feasibility. Alternatives have been developed based on future ambitions for the Plan, and legal obligations.

Table 3 - Consultation responses from Natural England

Comment

We have no further detailed advice/comments to make at this time on your screening/scoping report. However, we would welcome further consultation as the plan develops noting consultation is likely towards summer this year. Ahead of the formal consultation we would welcome an informal conversation with you to aid our understanding of the proposals/policies coming forwards so we can consider the need for our advice

Response

No action required

Table 4 - Consultation responses from SEPA

Baseline Information

SEPA holds significant amounts of environmental data which may be of interest to you in preparing the environmental baseline, identifying environmental problems, and summarising the likely changes to the environment in the absence of the PPS, all of which are required for the assessment. Many of these data are now readily available on SEPA’s website. Other sources of data for issues that fall within SEPA’s remit are referenced in our SEA topic guidance notes for air, soil, water, material assets, climatic factors and human health.

Response

Publications from SEPA have been referenced throughout the document.

Alternatives

We note that alternatives are still being considered. Any reasonable alternatives identified during the preparation of the plan should be assessed as part of the SEA process and the findings of the assessment should inform the choice of the preferred option. This should be documented in the Environmental Report.

Response

Reasonable alternatives have been assessed in Section 4.2.43 and have informed the conclusions of the SEA within this environmental report.

Scoping in/out of environmental topics

It is noted that population and human health is to be scoped out of the assessment as the restoration plan is unlikely to lead to any significant environmental effects on this topic. We would advise you to consider scoping this topic into the assessment. For example many of the River Basin Management Planning objectives to protect and improve the water environment, including Bathing Waters, Shellfish Water Protected Areas, also help to tackle human health issues. It would be useful to consider whether any remedial/restoration work to tackle population and human health issues is having any unintended negative effects on biodiversity. There are also likely to be positive environmental effects that result from restoration that should be assessed and we would encourage the enhancement of these effects to be considered.

Response

Population and human health has been scoped into the assessment. Possible positive, neutral and negative impacts have been considered on population and human health as detailed in Section 4.2.

Methodology for assessing environmental effects

We support the use of SEA objectives as assessment tools as they allow a systematic, rigorous and consistent framework with which to assess environmental effects. We are content with the proposed SEA objectives to be used in the assessment. It would however have been useful to have included a worked example of the proposed approach to assessment.

Response

No action required.

Mitigation and enhancement

We encourage you to use the assessment as a way to improve the environmental performance of individual aspects of the final option; hence we support proposals for enhancement of positive effects as well as mitigation of negative effects.

Response

Each theme of the Plan has been evaluated to highlight both positive and negative effects that may come as a result of its implementation. These are discussed in Section 4.2. Should any mitigation or monitoring be required, this is discussed within Section 4.6.

Monitoring

Although not specifically required at this stage, monitoring is a requirement of the Act and early consideration should be given to a monitoring approach particularly in the choice of indicators. It would be helpful if the Environmental Report included a description of the measures envisaged to monitor the significant environmental effects of the plan.

Response

Mitigation and monitoring recommendations are made within Section 4.6. These are particularly applicable should negative environmental impacts be highlighted. However, no significant negative effects as a result of the Plan have been identified.

Consultation Period

We are satisfied with the proposal for a 12 week consultation period for the Environmental Report.

Response

No action required.

Table 5 - Consultation response from Historic Environment Scotland

Scope and level of detail

It is our understanding that the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan will focus on the restoration of habitats in inshore and offshore waters. We note that the historic environment has been scoped into the assessment and we are content to agree with this.

Response

No action required.

Our view

On the basis of the information provided, we are content with the assessment methodology provided and are satisfied with the scope and level of detail proposed. We have given our detailed comments below.

Response

No action required.

Table 2 – Proposed SEA Objectives

We welcome the inclusion of an objective for cultural heritage. When considering the performance of the plan components in relation to this objective we welcome that direct and indirect pathways for significant effects resulting from restoration activities will be considered. Such pathways could include where actions and interventions aimed at delivering habitat restoration projects interact with (positively or negatively) cultural heritage features such as wrecks and archaeological sites to historic coastal infrastructure.

Response

The positive, negative and neutral impacts from active restoration on historic coastal infrastructure has been considered in Section 4.2. Both direct and indirect impacts have been considered.

Related Plans, Programmes and Strategies

4.2.6 Cultural Heritage While the scoping report references Our Place in Time we would note that this strategy has now been superseded. Scotland’s new strategy for the historic environment Our Past, Our Future (OPOF) was published in April 2023. The strategy sets the direction of travel for the historic environment sector and identifies the priority areas of action to focus work to support the collective mission to sustain and enhance the benefits of the historic environment. The 3 priorities set out are Delivering the transition to net zero, Empowering resilient and inclusive communities and places and Building a wellbeing economy.

Furthermore. in terms of the reference to the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage we would note that the UK has not ratified is although the Annex to the 2001 Convention – Rules Concerning Activities Directed at the Underwater Cultural Heritage provides an accepted model of ‘best practice’ for underwater archaeology.

The UK has recently ratified the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in March 2024

We would also note that there are a number of references to both Scottish Planning Policy and National Planning Framework 3 which have both been superseded by NPF4.

Response

Our Past, Our Future has been utilised and referenced within Section 9.9 and intangible and tangible heritage have been referenced in Section 4.2 and below. The UK ratification to the intangible heritage convention has been detailed.

Thank you for the clarification about the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. This differentiation has been noted.

Consultation period for the Environmental Report

We note that a 12 week consultation period for the environmental report is proposed and we are content to agree with this timescale. For our purposes the consultation period starts when the SEA Gateway receives the relevant documents.

Response

No action required.