Marine and coastal restoration plan: consultation analysis report

1. Introduction

Background

The Scottish Government is committed to addressing the twin climate and biodiversity crises. The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) outlines the vision for Scotland to achieve ambitious and urgent commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity decline, and to become Nature Positive by 2045. The first five-year SBS delivery plan commits to ‘Publish a plan for marine and coastal ecosystem restoration, including identifying actions to help prioritise habitats and locations suitable for restoration’. A marine and coastal restoration plan also provides an opportunity to identify and realise restoration potential in Scottish waters, both in terms of ecological and socio-economic benefits.

The draft plan is structured into five themes, each addressing a distinct aspect of what is required to accelerate restoration in Scotland’s coast and waters. Each theme has objectives, underpinned by the actions the Scottish Government will take to deliver those objectives. The five themes, which are the focus of much of the analysis in this report, are:

• Restoration opportunities and priorities
• Regulatory environment
• Funding and Finance
• Supply chain, enabling drivers and communities
• Evidence and monitoring

A public consultation on the marine and coastal restoration plan ran from 29 July to 19 October 2025. Across 15 open and 17 closed questions, the consultation sought stakeholders’ views on the plan and how it could be implemented. An Environmental Report and Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Report were also prepared for the consultation. In addition, the Scottish Government held 14 in-person information events across Scotland, allowing attendees to learn more about the plan, what restoration entails, and how it can benefit Scotland’s environment and communities.

Respondent profile

In total, 88 consultation responses were received. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 27 responses to the consultation; the remaining 61 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped according to the nature of their work. Table 1 presents the number and proportion of each respondent type.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The primary purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and, where possible, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views using closed questions. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website. Similarly, the technical nature of some of the measures outlined in the plan means it is impractical to fully repeat or explain these within this report. Further information can be found in the plan.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 17 closed questions, which mostly asked respondents for their views on the plan’s objectives and actions. As not all respondents answered each closed question, each table in this report shows the percentage of responses among those answering each question. Note that figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged. In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes. When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider:

Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population (or of everyone with an interest in this topic)

• Most open questions allowed respondents to elaborate on the views they recorded at the closed questions. However, not all respondents chose to comment, with those who did providing varying levels of detail. The qualitative analysis can therefore only be based on the information provided by those who commented
• In addition, qualitative comments do not always align with the results of the quantitative questions. For example, a respondent may agree in principle but use their open comment to caveat their agreement or suggest an alternative approach
• Some respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition
• Where appropriate, quotes from a range of respondents are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information. In some instances, these quotes are lengthy, but they have been included to ensure that the detail and complexity of the points raised are accurately reflected

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses to each question and is structured according to the objectives and actions under each of the five themes in the plan.

All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority. Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Several respondents: more than 20 comments, a prevalent theme
• Some respondents, between 10 and 20 comments, another theme
• A few / a small number, fewer than 10 comments, a less common theme
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view in only one or two responses

This framework is used solely to present the prevalence of themes within consultation responses. This does not necessarily represent the importance of a theme, given the subjective nature of attributing importance and the self-selection of consultation respondents.