Marine and coastal restoration plan: consultation analysis report

9. Conclusions

A range of knowledgeable individuals and organisations with varied experiences responded to the consultation, sharing their views on the Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan. This report provides a high-level summary of the consultation responses. For more details, readers are encouraged to review individual responses, where permission was granted for publication, on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Overall, there was broad support for the plan. Among those answering, 64% believed the plan would support the acceleration of restoration on Scottish coasts and waters, and 68% agreed with the plan's content. At least half of all respondent types gave positive responses to these questions, except for nature conservation organisations.

When considering the objectives and actions in the plan's five themes, at least two thirds of those answering felt each of the objectives is important to some extent. The only exception was for “Explore potential contribution of citizen science to data collection and monitoring”, which was still considered important by just over half (54%). At least three fifths of respondents who answered also indicated that each of the plan’s actions should be included, with the highest support (87%) for including the action to “Encourage early engagement with other marine users in project development”. The only action that fewer than half of respondents felt should be included in the plan was “Explore the potential for a prize for restoration innovation” (28% ‘include in this plan’).

In open comments, several respondents welcomed or emphasised points in the plan that they felt were particularly important, or highlighted factors they felt needed greater consideration for the plan to be effective in accelerating active restoration. Key issues repeatedly noted by respondents included the plan’s commitment to open communication, early and open engagement with all marine users, community involvement, collaboration and knowledge sharing, and supporting projects to navigate existing regulations. While there was broad support for place-based approaches, respondents noted the need for flexibility to tailor restoration activities, ensure inclusive participation, and consider additional challenges faced by remote or island communities.

In contrast, two critical themes were raised by a minority of respondents, particularly nature conservation and restoration organisations. While the plan’s focus on active restoration was acknowledged by some, several respondents felt that the lack of consideration for passive restoration was a serious omission and believed this would ultimately mean the plan is unsuccessful or has little impact. Other respondents expressed the view that the plan lacks urgency, ambition, and actionable details, particularly regarding the undertaking of large-scale restoration and simplifying regulations. These and other respondents also called for the plan to include clearer links to other strategies.

The consultation allowed respondents to consider all aspects of the draft plan in detail. They provided positive and negative views, alongside suggestions for improvement and examples that they felt could support the plan’s implementation. It also enabled respondents to highlight issues they feel need to be addressed for the plan to be successful. These responses will provide a valuable evidence base for the Scottish Government to consider when finalising the plan.