Offshore wind energy - draft updated sectoral marine plan 2025: consultation analysis report

6 Supporting assessments consultation analysis results

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 The consultation posed nine questions relating to the supporting plan level assessments and RLG which are discussed below.

6.2 Question 11 - A policy review has identified that no aspects of the draft plan will impact on children's rights, as outlined briefly in Annex C. Do you agree with these findings? If you have identified any impacts on children's rights and/or wellbeing, please explain.

6.2.1 The total number of responses in relation to the multiple choice component of the question regarding findings of no impact on children’s rights was 169. 135 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown of responses is provided in Figure 4.

6.2.2 49 respondents answered ‘Yes’, with 34 responses from individuals and 15 responses from organisations.

6.2.3 73 respondents answered ‘No’, with 71 responses from individuals and 2 responses from industry bodies / member organisations.

6.2.4 47 respondents answered ‘Don’t Know’, with a breakdown of 36 individuals and 11 organisations.

6.2.5 A breakdown by sector shows that most fisheries left the question unanswered, with the remaining responses equally split between ‘No’ and ‘Don’t Know’. Historic environment / cultural heritage respondents were equally split between ‘Yes’, ‘Don’t Know’ and unanswered. Local authorities generally agreed with the statement, with only 1 response indicating ‘Don’t Know’. 6 responses received from the offshore wind sector answered ‘Yes’, 2 responded ‘Don’t Know’ and 7 left the question unanswered.

6.2.6 For the free text component of Question 11, there were 146 responses. 158 respondents did not answer this question. The breakdown by respondent type was 118 individuals and 28 organisations.

6.2.7 Most responses from organisations were from public bodies, energy company / developer / association, and industry bodies / member organisations, with 13, 7 and 5 responses respectively.

6.2.8 A breakdown by organisation-sub type shows that most organisational responses were obtained from offshore wind, nature conservation and fisheries, with 10, 5 and 5 responses respectively.

6.2.9 Prominent topics that arose in free text section of the question are described below.

6.2.10 Many respondents did not identify specific impacts on children's rights or wellbeing in relation to the draft updated Plan. A number of responses explicitly stated that no adverse effects had been observed.

6.2.11 However, a number of individual responses raised concerns regarding the future of traditional industries, especially fishing, and their influence on children’s prospects and wellbeing. Respondents highlighted the risk that young people may lose opportunities to follow family traditions and secure livelihoods in the fishing industry due to offshore wind developments, which are seen as making such careers less viable for future generations. This perceived threat to the continuity of local industries was often linked to broader apprehensions about community cohesion and the stability of rural life.

6.2.12 Environmental and ecosystem impacts were a recurring theme, with respondents stressing that the health and stewardship of marine environments are vital for securing a sustainable and equitable future for children. The loss of biodiversity, disruption of marine life, and changes to landscapes were viewed as undermining children’s rights to a healthy environment. Respondents also connected the degradation of nature and local heritage, including language and culture, to risks for children's sense of belonging and cultural continuity, emphasising the importance of protecting ancestral lands and traditions from large-scale development. Concerns also included possible impacts on health and wellbeing, such as noise or pollution, and the need to safeguard mental and physical health, particularly for vulnerable groups within affected communities.

6.2.13 A limited number of respondents recognised the potential for positive outcomes, noting that effective marine planning and the deployment of renewable energy could contribute to cleaner, healthier surroundings for future generations.

6.3 Question 12 - Do you have any comments on the partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment?

6.3.1 The total number of responses in relation to the partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) was 110. 194 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by organisation sub-type was 70 individuals and 40 organisations.

6.3.2 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, industry bodies / member organisations, and public bodies, with 13, 9 and 11 responses respectively. There were 3 responses from other commercial sector and 4 responses from NGOs.

6.3.3 The breakdown of responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 12 responses. The next most represented sectors were fisheries, nature conservation and local authorities with 6 responses each respectively.

6.3.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

6.3.5 Many applicants responded to this question with descriptions of wider socio-economic considerations that are covered in the social and economic impact assessment and not in the partial BRIA.

6.3.6 Some responses raised specific issues relevant to the BRIA including apparent contradictions between the BRIA and the draft updated Plan in relation to future applications for development, the feasibility of ambitious compensation timeframes under environmental regulations and the uncertain status of already-consented projects under the updated Plan and whether they will be subject to further scrutiny.

6.3.7 The importance of recognising the strategic economic value of offshore wind was acknowledged, particularly by the offshore wind sector. However, there were comments that the BRIA should more fully capture the long term investment opportunities throughout the supply chain. Adding that clarity on opportunities would support for workforce planning and reduce investment risk.

6.3.8 Some respondents critiqued aspects of the socio-economic and business and regulatory impact assessment, describing its binary approach to project impacts as overly simplistic and calling for a case-by-case evaluation.

6.3.9 A number of responses raised concerns about the impact of offshore wind developments on local economies, communities, and traditional industries. Many highlighted the vulnerability of fragile island economies, particularly in relation to loss of income, property value, and the sustainability of established sectors such as fishing. A recurring theme from individual responses was the perception that local communities bear a disproportionate share of the risks and costs, while the benefits of these developments flow mainly to external companies. These responses also pointed to the potential negative effects on tourism.

6.3.10 The need for local procurement, infrastructure upgrades, measures to address fuel poverty, and equitable benefit distribution were also mentioned, with many advocating for a more holistic approach that places social, environmental, and economic wellbeing at the centre of future planning and assessment processes.

6.3.11 Individual responses raised concerns about the impartiality of current assessments, lack of meaningful engagement with communities and stakeholders, and an overreliance on non-binding commitments. Many respondents urged greater transparency, more frequent reviews, and clearer criteria for when and how post-adoption reviews of the draft updated Plan should be conducted.

6.4 Question 13 - Do you have any comments on the partial Island Communities Impact Assessment?

6.4.1 The total number of responses in relation to the partial Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) was 235. 69 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 195 individuals and 40 organisations.

6.4.2 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, industry bodies / member organisations, and public bodies, with 14, 9 and 11 responses respectively. There were 3 responses from other commercial sector and 3 responses from NGOs.

6.4.3 The breakdown of responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 13 responses. The next most represented sectors were fisheries, local authorities and nature conservation with 6, 6 and 5 responses respectively.

6.4.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

6.4.5 Respondents provided a range of views on the partial ICIA, with many expressing reservations about its scope and depth. Responses from individuals and local campaign groups suggested that the assessment did not sufficiently reflect the potential impacts of offshore wind development on island communities, with concerns raised about the conclusions drawn and the procedure behind the partial ICIA. Some respondents perceived the partial ICIA to be poorly communicated and too generalised, with many advocating for more tailored, island-specific evaluations.

6.4.6 Cultural and social identity emerged as a recurring topic. Respondents described strong connections between island communities and their surrounding environments, highlighting the importance of local traditions, Gaelic language, and traditional ways of life, expressing concern that large-scale development could disrupt these cultural foundations. There were references to historical experiences of land use and displacement, with offshore wind development viewed by some as a continuation of these patterns. Respondents also expressed concern about the potential for depopulation, particularly among younger residents, if local opportunities, the local environment and quality of life were perceived to be at risk.

6.4.7 Respondents also raised environmental and economic considerations, discussing the potential effects of offshore wind development on marine ecosystems, wildlife, and traditional industries such as fishing, crofting, and tourism. These sectors were described as integral to both the economy and the identity of island communities, with respondents linking ecological preservation to economic sustainability and claiming that disruption to natural systems could have broader consequences for livelihoods and community resilience.

6.4.8 Respondents highlighted existing local challenges related to housing, transport, healthcare, and public services, and questioned whether these services could accommodate increased demand associated with offshore wind development. There were calls for more comprehensive planning that accounts for local characteristics and provision of services. There was a widespread view that any transition to renewable energy should be developed in partnership with island communities, ensuring that their perspectives are considered and their needs addressed throughout the planning and implementation stages.

6.4.9 The majority of individual responses related to the N4 Option Area and the Isle of Lewis, with 121 voicing opposition to the N4 Option Area. Impacts on Orkney and Shetland were also described, and other specific islands were mentioned to a lesser extent.

6.4.10 The issues raised in the consultation will be explored in the final ICIA, which will be published alongside the final plan.

6.5 Question 14 - Do you have any comments on the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report?

6.5.1 The total number of responses in relation to the SEA was 144. 160 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 94 individuals and 50 organisations.

6.5.2 Responses by organisation sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 14, 18 and 12 responses, respectively. There were 5 responses from NGOs and 1 response from other commercial sector.

6.5.3 The breakdown of responses by sector shows that offshore wind sector is the most represented with 13 responses. The next most represented sectors were fisheries, nature conservation, and regulatory agency / authority with 7 responses per sector respectively, while 6 responses were received from local authorities.

6.5.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

6.5.5 A number of responses addressed the SEA report structure, analytical depth, and methodological choices, with some concerned about the adequacy of the environmental context provided and whether the report’s conclusions were grounded in robust evidence. Baseline data, tabular assessments, and worst-case scenario assumptions were mentioned specifically. Some felt the approach to impact assessment was overly simplistic and called for more nuanced, site-specific analysis to better capture the complexity of cumulative and project-specific effects.

6.5.6 Responses raised concern about potential effects on marine ecosystems, fisheries, bird populations, and heritage assets, with some indicating that the SEA underestimated the value of unspoiled landscapes, wildlife, and cultural heritage for visitor numbers and tourism, community identity and sustainability. Responses from local groups and individuals highlighted the risks borne by local populations, the vulnerability of island economies, and the disproportionate distribution of benefits and costs, with large commercial enterprises seen as the main economic beneficiaries while local communities bear environmental costs.

6.5.7 Mitigation strategies proposed by the SEA were also scrutinised with respondents emphasising the need for transparency and realism in assessing the feasibility and proportionality of mitigation measures, particularly as to whether proposed strategies were appropriate at plan-level versus project-level implementation. There was a call for clear criteria, practicality, and ongoing transparency in mitigation, with some respondents doubting whether the proposed mechanisms could be effectively implemented given technological and site constraints. The nature conservation sector also highlighted that the mitigation hierarchy should be applied and that compensation should be treated as a last resort.

6.5.8 Procedural and regulatory aspects of the SEA and the broader planning process emerged as another recurring topic. Comments focused on the importance of post-adoption reviews, stakeholder engagement, and the need for a dynamic and responsive planning framework. There were calls for greater inclusiveness, transparency in data availability, and better representation of sector-specific concerns, particularly from the fisheries and local authority sectors.

6.5.9 The nature conservation sector provided feedback on specific aspects of the SEA including specifics on Option Areas and specific receptors such as marine mammals. General concerns were raised around the inclusion of data within the SEA and how newer data may be incorporated into the updated Plan. The sector also cited uncertainty around how the draft updated Plan aligns with NESO’s processes.

6.6 Question 15 - Do you have any comments on the Habitats Regulations Appraisal Appropriate Assessment Information Report?

6.6.1 The total number of responses in relation to the HRA AAIR was 87. 217 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 59 individuals and 28 organisations.

6.6.2 Responses by organisation sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 8, 8 and 7 responses, respectively.

6.6.3 The breakdown of responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 8 responses. The next most represented sectors were local authorities, fisheries, and nature conservation with 5, 4, and 4 responses respectively.

6.6.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

6.6.5 Many respondents focused on the procedural aspects of the HRA process itself, expressing a desire for transparency, proportionality, and evidence-based decision-making. There was broad support for the multi-stage approach, particularly the intention to supplement current reporting with further quantitative analysis. However, some respondents from the offshore wind sector raised concerns about embedding overly precautionary assumptions, which they felt could lead to disproportionate ecological compensation requirements and increased costs.

6.6.6 Concerns about the methodology used to determine AEOSI were raised. Respondents questioned the generic nature of the impact pathways and called for more site-specific assessments, particularly in relation to the classification of Option Areas and their contribution to AEOSI. Respondents from the offshore wind sector also requested clearer definitions of "Low" and "High" effects with regards to plan-level AEOSI and the implications of these definitions for project-level assessments, derogation cases and compensation measures.

6.6.7 Respondents raised concerns about species and habitats, including seabirds, marine mammals, migratory fish, and benthic organisms and specific risks facing them, including collision, displacement, underwater noise, and cable-related impacts. Many respondents emphasised the importance of cumulative impact assessment, arguing that the HRA should not treat offshore wind developments in isolation and that the precautionary principle be applied rigorously, with some respondents suggesting that uncertainty should preclude development until further evidence is available.

6.6.8 Some respondents welcomed the inclusion of strategic compensation pathways and others called for more detail and clarity. There was a call for these mechanisms to be proportionate and strategically aligned with project-level consenting. Respondents also called for greater visibility into how plan-level assessments would translate into project-level decisions, particularly in relation to derogations and consenting timelines. Respondents also emphasised the importance of involving developers and affected communities in shaping compensation mechanisms, to ensure that outcomes are both effective and equitable.

6.6.9 Nature conservation respondents expressed concern that there is a lack of qualification of impacts on seabird species where AEOSI has been determined, although there is acknowledgement that data is still being gathered. These respondents also referenced the importance of the mitigation hierarchy, and highlighted concerns about the treatment of existing and non-Scottish windfarms in the in-combination assessment.

6.7 Question 16 - Do you have any comments on the Social and Economic Impact Assessment?

6.7.1 The total number of responses in relation to the SEIA was 150. 154 respondents did not answer the question.

6.7.2 The breakdown by respondent type was 108 individuals and 42 organisations.

6.7.3 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 14, 12 and 11 responses, respectively. There were 2 responses from other commercial sector and 3 responses from NGOs.

6.7.4 The breakdown of the responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 13 responses. The next most represented sectors were fisheries, local authorities and nature conservation with 8, 6 and 5 responses per sector respectively.

6.7.5 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

6.7.6 Several responses from the offshore wind sector highlighted opportunities for supply-chain growth, inward investment, and skilled employment, particularly in the Highlands, Islands, and northern coastal communities. These respondents welcomed the recognition of new economic opportunities in the SEIA but felt that the assessment underestimated the potential upside, particularly in reversing depopulation trends.

6.7.7 There was a consistent call for benefits to be felt locally via local procurement, job creation, and infrastructure investment. Respondents also indicated that the SEIA should more accurately reflect the realities of life in smaller communities including pressure on housing, transport, and public services.

6.7.8 Some respondents also raised community-level impacts and social wellbeing, noting that the SEIA addresses economic indicators in overly general terms and lacks detail on how offshore wind development might affect specific communities. These respondents also called for greater attention to sub-regional disparities, the capacity of local infrastructure, and the wellbeing of families and children, emphasising the importance of meaningful engagement with these communities. They furthermore indicated that a Just Transition should provide long term opportunities and address social pressures.

6.7.9 Fishing emerged as a major topic of concern, with respondents challenging the assumptions used in the SEIA regarding the displacement of fishing activity. The offshore wind sector particularly felt that the assumption that fishing ceases within project areas and does not resume elsewhere is unrealistic and unsupported by evidence. Respondents from local authorities and the fisheries sector called for fisheries-specific data, stakeholder engagement, and more nuanced analysis of gear types and species movement. The fisheries sector as well as a number of individuals expressed concern about the impact of offshore wind on fishing and stressed the need for strategic mitigation measures and fair compensation where exclusion from productive fishing grounds occurs. Respondents from the offshore wind sector suggested that co-existence between offshore wind and fisheries is possible but requires careful planning, transparent assumptions, and collaboration with the sector.

6.7.10 Tourism was another area where respondents offered detailed critique. Many in the offshore wind sector questioned the methodology used to estimate tourism impacts, describing it as overly precautionary and based on outdated data from onshore wind perception studies. They argued that the geographic methods used do not reflect actual tourism patterns and that assumptions linking landscape objections to revenue loss are speculative, citing studies from Biggar Economics and Vattenfall that found no significant negative impacts on tourism, even in sensitive landscapes. These respondents called for a more refined and evidence-based approach to assessing tourism impacts. In contrast a large number of individuals and the tourism sector voiced concerns about damage to the tourism industry and highlighted that the impact on small businesses and island communities is not fully reflected.

6.7.11 Underlying these sector-specific concerns was a broader concern regarding the SEIA’s methodology. Respondents expressed unease about the use of worst-case scenarios, generic impact pathways, and unclear terminology. They called for greater transparency in how data and assumptions are used, clearer definitions of impact classifications, and more proportional analysis. There was also support for involving developers, stakeholders, and communities in shaping the assessment process.

6.8 Question 17 - Do you have any comments on the Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area Assessment?

6.8.1 The total number of responses in relation to the NCMPA Assessment was 134. 170 respondents did not answer the question.

6.8.2 The breakdown by respondent type was 93 individuals and 41 organisations.

6.8.3 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 14, 11 and 10 responses, respectively. There were 5 responses from NGOs and 1 response from other commercial sectors.

6.8.4 The breakdown of the responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 13 responses. The next most represented sectors were nature conservation, fisheries and local authorities with 7, 6 and 6 responses per sector respectively.

6.8.5 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

6.8.6 A high proportion of respondents raised concerns about the clarity and transparency of the assessment process, raising questions as to how conclusions were reached, particularly in relation to cumulative effects and mitigation strategies. The methodology was often described as overly high-level or precautionary, especially regarding benthic features. Respondents recommended that the final plan provide clearer interaction with conservation objectives and implications for consenting, and that accurate project footprints be used to demonstrate where impacts may be insignificant.

6.8.7 Another topic raised was the alignment of the NCMPA Assessment with strategic compensation principles and nature recovery objectives. Offshore wind sector respondents suggested that current efforts, such as the Marine Recovery Fund, should be extended to cover compensation for MPAs. They called for robust evidence to support nature recovery goals and for the final updated Plan to explicitly integrate these principles. Respondents were not necessarily opposed to compensation mechanisms but wanted them to be strategically designed, evidence-based, and aligned with broader environmental commitments.

6.8.8 Infrastructure planning, particularly around grid connection, was also a key area of concern. Respondents noted that transmission infrastructure for ScotWind and INTOG projects, such as cables and substations, is currently being assessed separately by NESO and is not fully considered in the draft updated Plan. This separation raised questions about how cumulative and locational impacts are being addressed, especially where export cables may pass through MPAs. Nature conservation respondents recommended that NESO’s findings be integrated into the final Plan and Post Adoption Statement to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated approach to planning and environmental protection.

6.8.9 Site-specific mitigation measures were highlighted as essential to ensuring that development activities do not hinder conservation objectives. They stressed that project-level mitigation should be clearly defined and implemented to support the broader goals of the plan, reflecting a desire for practical, evidence-based solutions that address the characteristics of individual sites.

6.8.10 Nature conservation respondents broadly agreed with the conclusions of the NCMPA Assessment and questioned whether the Option Areas overlapping NCMPAs could be excluded from the final Plan or moved to avoid protected features. One respondent expressed disappointment about the lack of inclusion of Measures of Equivalent Environmental Benefit (MEEB) in the assessment, and a further responded questioned why cetacean NCMPAs had not been screened into the assessment.

6.8.11 Finally, some respondents expressed agreement with the general conclusions of the NCMPA Assessment, particularly the finding that draft updated Plan activities will not significantly hinder conservation objectives if appropriate mitigation is applied. While supportive, these respondents also emphasised the importance of maintaining a strong focus on mitigation in the final Plan.

6.9 Question 18 - Do you have any comments on the Sustainability Appraisal report?

6.9.1 The total number of responses in relation to the SA report was 117. 187 respondents did not answer the question.

6.9.2 The breakdown by respondent type was 80 individuals and 37 organisations.

6.9.3 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 13, 11 and 9 responses respectively. There were 3 responses from NGOs and 1 response from other commercial sector.

6.9.4 The breakdown of the responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 12 responses. The next most represented sectors were fisheries, local authorities and nature conservation, with 6, 6 and 5 responses per sector respectively.

6.9.5 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

6.9.6 Many respondents expressed concern about the limited role the SA currently plays in the planning process, indicating that it collates environmental, social, and economic data but stops short of interpreting that evidence or offering strategic guidance. This lack of conclusions on the acceptability of Option Areas at regional or national levels was seen as a missed opportunity. Respondents felt that without a clear stance, the SA remains passive and leaves decision-makers without a coherent framework to guide implementation.

6.9.7 Closely tied to this was a strong call for clear conclusions and actionable recommendations. Respondents recommended the final SA and Post Adoption Statement to move beyond description and provide strategic clarity, identifying which options are sustainable, where impacts are unacceptable, and what mitigation measures are necessary. They asked for thresholds to be defined and for the appraisal to justify key policy decisions. This shift from “what is known” to “what should happen” was seen as essential for the SA to fulfil its intended purpose.

6.9.8 This was also related to concerns about proportionality in the consenting process. Respondents argued that a robust SA with clear conclusions would streamline project-level assessments by establishing a strategic baseline. This would allow individual applications to focus on design and operational specifics, rather than revisiting broader questions of suitability. Such an approach was seen as more efficient and fairer, reducing duplicative efforts.

6.9.9 Respondents also raised issues with the quality and integration of the evidence base. Respondents emphasised the need for current, spatially detailed and methodologically robust data. Some respondents called for a more holistic approach that integrates environmental, social, and economic dimensions into a coherent narrative, rather than treating them as isolated strands. Concerns were raised about vague impact classifications and unclear links between the SA and other assessments such as the SEA and SEIA. A more transparent and joined-up methodology was seen as critical to improving the SA’s credibility and utility.

6.9.10 They called for the SA to take a more active role in shaping sustainable development, including embedding statutory protections, enabling data updates, and involving communities in interpreting findings. Rather than sitting on the periphery of the consenting process, the SA was seen as needing to occupy a central role by guiding decisions, setting direction, and ensuring that sustainability objectives are achieved.

6.10 Question 19 - Do you have any comments on the Regional Locational Guidance?

6.10.1 The total number of responses in relation to the RLG was 121. 183 respondents did not answer the question.

6.10.2 The breakdown by respondent type was 80 individuals and 37 organisations.

6.10.3 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 13, 12 and 9 responses respectively. There were 3 responses from NGOs and 1 response from other commercial sector.

6.10.4 The breakdown of responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 12 responses. The next most represented sectors were fisheries and local authorities with 6 responses per sector respectively. 5 responses were received from the nature conservation sector.

6.10.5 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

6.10.6 Integration and usability of the RLG was a recurring topic, with some responses acknowledging the RLG as a useful reference tool, provided it is better integrated with refined project boundaries and realistic deployment assumptions. Respondents emphasised that the RLG should support proportionate and consistent regional decision-making rather than duplicate project-level assessments. Suggestions included clearer mapping and clearer articulation of planning confidence to improve usability. This aligns with broader calls for the RLG to be adaptive and responsive to evolving technologies and evidence.

6.10.7 Concerns were raised about data sources and transparency, including the use of outdated or insufficient data lacking the granularity needed for site-specific assessments. Respondents also found it difficult to trace how data sources informed baseline usage classifications and how these connected with other assessments like the SEA. The lack of clear definitions for terms like "low," "moderate," and "high" usage was seen as a barrier to transparency and consistency. Respondents also highlighted that regional summaries are broad in scope and may not be capable of identifying specific problems.

6.10.8 Respondents stressed the importance of factoring in ecological sensitivity, migratory patterns, and cumulative impacts when assessing regional suitability. Several responses called for statutory protections to prevent development in ecologically sensitive areas such as MPAs and emphasised that spatial data presented in the RLG was insufficient to mitigate impacts without legal safeguards and community involvement. The seasonality of species like white-beaked dolphins was particularly noted, with respondents urging that classifications reflect year-round data rather than peak seasonal snapshots.