Marine and coastal restoration plan: consultation analysis report

5. Theme 4 – Supply chains and communities

The next three consultation questions, Q10 to Q12, sought views on Theme 4: “Supply chains and communities”. This chapter presents the analysis of responses to these questions, which addressed the three objectives and related actions in this theme. The focus of this part of the plan is tackling some of the more practical aspects of restoration, and the questions explored how the Scottish Government can support and scale up community-led restoration.

Views of those answering Q10 were slightly more mixed. While the objective to “Increase participation and engagement of other marine and coastal users in restoration” recorded the lowest percentage rating it as ‘very important’ (44%), a total of 77% rated this objective as important to some extent. The other two objectives on Theme 4 were each considered important to some extent by around two thirds of those answering.

Respondents answering Q11 indicated that all but one of the actions included in Theme 4 should be included in this plan. Support ranged from 62% who felt “Work with interested institutions to explore the potential for a biennial conference and other workshops or training events for practitioners and academia, with a focus on sharing practical learning” should be included, to 87% who supported the action to “Encourage early engagement with other marine users in project development”. The one exception was the action to “Explore the potential for a prize for restoration innovation”. At 28%, this was the only action in the plan to record less than 50% in favour of being included, with 29% indicating it should be in a future plan, 21% that it should not be included at all, and 21% unsure.

Q12: Is there any further information you would like to share with us on the objectives or actions in this theme? This could include your reasons for selecting the answers to the previous two questions, or any further reflections on the overall content of the theme.

Seven in ten of all respondents left a comment at Q12 to elaborate on their views on Theme 4. Some respondents expressed broad support for this theme and its objectives, though some also provided more detailed considerations under each objective.

Support knowledge exchange, data sharing and best practice learning on active restoration between projects and across the sector

Several respondents commented on this objective. Some left general comments, typically outlining their support for prioritising actions to encourage knowledge exchange and data sharing. Plans to increase participation and engagement, as well as foster collaboration, were welcomed. A few respondents had caveats to their agreement. These included the need for training and skills development of a restoration workforce, a degree of protection for innovation within data sharing to incentivise investment, and the need to avoid “talking shops” and get on with restoration.

“Supporting and planning in-person conversations is a welcome idea and would help to break down barriers between regulators and projects. We all have a shared goal of protecting Scotland’s seas and should work together more often so the direction of restoration in this country can move in the right way.” - Mossy Earth - Wilder Firths Hub

A similar number of comments were made about each action under this objective. Some respondents, particularly nature conservation organisations and restoration organisations, noted a range of views about the action: “Foster communities of practice, both through existing networks and new networks and platforms where helpful”. A few outlined who they thought should be included in such communities. Suggestions included local communities, industry, training providers, aquaculture producers, developers, supply chain partners, academia, researchers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), public bodies, and local and national government. The benefits of communities of practice were also noted, including fostering innovation and inclusivity, and avoiding siloed approaches. One organisation questioned how the Scottish Government would foster this activity, and one individual called for networks to be adequately resourced and connected to wider decision-making structures.

Respondents cited a few existing networks and communities as examples of effective knowledge sharing, with the caveat that there is a need to avoid overlap with existing activities. These included the Coastal Communities Network (CCN), the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), the Native Oyster Restoration Alliance (NORA), the Native Oyster Network, and the upcoming Scottish Seagrass Collaborative.

Some respondents commented on the action “Work with interested institutions to explore the potential for a biennial conference and other workshops or training events for practitioners and academia, with a focus on sharing practical learning”. Comments were typically brief and supportive of these approaches, although a small number noted that several forums already exist and that adding new gatherings could be a focus for later. A few respondents emphasised the importance of ensuring that conferences and meetings remain accessible to local groups, with funding provided to support their attendance.

In line with the less positive closed-question results, some respondents expressed mixed views on the proposal to “Explore the potential for a prize for restoration innovation”. Views were relatively evenly split. A few respondents believed a prize could be valuable and help to recognise progress or celebrate successes. However, others felt that there were more important priorities at this stage, noting that innovation is not necessarily a key factor in a project's success, that local groups are already sufficiently motivated by the benefits they bring to their communities, and that there is a danger that funders push projects to deviate from successful ways of working to come up with something ‘innovative’.

“A prize for innovation is particularly valuable for the seaweed sector, where methods are still evolving and cross-pollination of ideas (from aquaculture, biotechnology, and conservation) is needed.” – Scottish Seaweed Industry Association

“A prize for restoration innovation is a good idea if it does not disproportionately reward high-tech or private sector solutions — impact and replicability in real-world Scottish communities must be part of the judging criteria.” - Individual

Finally, only a few respondents directly addressed the action “Use the one-stop-shop noted in Theme 2 as a platform for knowledge exchange, case studies and data sharing (including citizen science)”. However, these respondents expressed a range of views, all of which have been included in the analysis of views on Theme 2.

Increase participation and engagement of other marine and coastal users in restoration

Reflecting the large proportion of respondents who felt the action “Encourage early engagement with other marine users in project development” should be included in this plan, several respondents commented on the importance of early engagement. Community groups and the fisheries sector were more likely than other groups to comment on this theme, as were the organisations grouped in the ‘other’ category for analysis purposes. It was believed that this action could identify partnership opportunities, prevent conflicts, and enhance the long-term success of restoration projects.

“Without participation from other affected marine users, the chances of success are reduced. Getting their buy-in and support, ideally from the start, but really at any stage, will likely increase the project's chances of long-term success. Grassroots projects have an advantage being rooted in local communities, and they should be supported in reaching out to other marine users so that they are engaged, their voices are heard, and any conflicts can be resolved.” – National Trust for Scotland

Community participation and engagement across various marine and coastal users was suggested, including fishers, aquaculture, renewable energy, commercial developers, harbour authorities, and recreation. The Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust highlighted the value of marine spatial planning in establishing who the relevant marine users could be in a particular area. Specific examples of opportunities for engagement included the British Ports Association, which noted that the Scottish Ports Group can be used as a sounding board at the national level, and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation noted that their clubs “manage thousands of hectares across Scotland, Solway Firth, Tay Estuary, Findhorn Bay, delivering habitat management aligned with restoration objectives”.

“Recreational boaters can also assist the implementation of restoration projects, for example, by providing boats or personnel. Indeed, this is something that the RYA would like to encourage throughout the UK. The Green Blue initiative of the RYA has already partnered with Natural England in the ReMEDIES seagrass restoration project, and there are examples in Scotland where sailing clubs have been actively involved with restoration projects.” – Royal Yachting Association (RYA)

Some respondents stressed the need to ensure meaningful, open, and transparent engagement. A few respondents from the fisheries sector noted previous negative experiences with restoration projects that they felt did not adequately engage with other marine users. Suggestions for more effective engagement included co-designing projects with communities and ensuring that future funding and networks encourage wide participation to ensure a range of views are heard.

A small number cited the value of using place-based approaches, while Orkney Islands Council noted the importance of considering potential cumulative effects on marine users if multiple restoration projects are taking place in the same area.

“We agree that having a place-based approach is important, rather than creating marine local place plans separately, we could look to embed the marine environment in current local plans. The plan should also include support for including community-led restoration and management in regional marine planning.” – Scottish Environment SE LINK

Similarly, some respondents expressed broad support for the action to “Promote the socio-economic development potential of restoration as a sector.” Respondents felt it was vital to communicate potential benefits clearly and back them up with evidence, to ensure there is long-term support and engagement with restoration efforts. Economic benefits included the potential for restoration projects to create employment, encourage training, skills development and capacity building, strengthen local supply chains and create tourism. The social value of projects was also noted, for example, increasing knowledge of local traditions, educational programs, volunteering, and improving wellbeing through connecting with nature. A few suggested these “Ecosystem Services” should be monitored as part of restoration activities, this is the direct or indirect impact that ecosystems, in this case the marine and coastal environment, have on human wellbeing and quality of life.

Seawilding, with its active restoration projects at Loch Craignish and Loch Broom, has been a significant economic boost to the community. In 2025 alone, over 530 visitors (academics, school-children, donors, policy-makers, journalists, commercial divers, volunteers and interns) have come to visit the projects; and there have been over 400 overnight stays bringing revenue to local pubs, cafes and B&Bs. Furthermore, we employ 6 (about to be 7) people, have created 18 part-time seasonal jobs and have boosted the local supply/service chain, including commercial divers.” - Seawilding

A few respondents emphasised the need to consider all socio-economic impacts on all marine users, highlighting the interconnectedness of different users and acknowledging that impacts could be both positive and negative.

“For many marine users, particularly fishers, there is a legitimate concern that restoration could be perceived as restricting access or threatening existing ways of life… Restoration can also deliver direct economic benefits to existing marine users, particularly fishers, whose skills and equipment, and local knowledge can support the restoration activities. In this way, restoration can be seen as an opportunity shared by all marine stakeholders rather than as an externally imposed constraint.” – Oyster Heaven

Given the desire for the benefits of restoration to be well-evidenced, a few respondents commented on the action to “Publish case studies on how restoration activities can benefit multiple marine users and/or where cross-sectoral efforts have been successful”. Views were mixed, however. While a few left comments about the value of using case studies, a small number called for case studies to show not only successes, but also instances where restoration projects had not been successful.

“As well as publishing case studies on positive impacts of restoration, equally important is the need to challenge misconceptions. The idea that restoration is inherently high-risk and requires the same level of regulation as industrial activities is a major barrier to progress. The plan should include a clear commitment to ‘myth busting’, using evidence from successful projects to demonstrate that restoration is low-risk, high-benefit, and essential to ecosystem recovery. This narrative shift is crucial to unlocking support for restoration.” – WWF Scotland

“When highlighting the benefits and successes of restoration projects, it’s equally important to share examples where outcomes were less positive. This includes cases where poor stakeholder engagement led to community conflict, unintended impacts on other sea users, or where seemingly ideal conditions still resulted in project failure. Learning should come from both successes and setbacks to improve future planning and implementation.” - West of Scotland & Orkney Fish Producers Organisations

Support more resilient supply chains for restoration while maintaining high standards of biosecurity

Several respondents, in particular nature conservation and aquaculture organisations, commented on this objective and the action “Support new and existing enterprises aimed at developing supply chains”. They typically made general comments that highlighted the importance of the supply chain to existing and new active restoration projects. Respondents stressed the importance of having a robust and reliable supply chain if active restoration efforts are to be scaled up in the future. A few also noted that strong and reliable supply chains could enhance local capacity and benefit coastal communities.

While a small number felt that there was already a well-established supply chain, comments often cited limited supplies of materials needed for restoration, such as oysters and oyster spat, kelp, and seagrass, as a bottleneck. As a result, a few respondents called for the creation of larger-scale nursery and hatchery infrastructure. Suggestions included: a decentralised but coordinated network of nurseries and suppliers; a community-run nursery with appropriate licensing to provide seed and stock for restoration projects; support for local shellfish businesses to take a leading role in restoration; and for the Scottish Government to create and run its own nursery (which the respondent felt could also be used as a knowledge hub). One respondent called for a clearer definition of ‘support’ in the plan, querying if this covered financial support, guidance, or both, while another called for more detail to be included on this objective.

“We and other groups are actively working to establish hatcheries, but it is unclear how the Scottish Government intends to support these efforts. The direction of funding to supporting infrastructure development for these facilities is one way that the government could support them.” – WWF Scotland

“There is significant innovation required to develop this supply chain, and we recommend that a quadruple helix approach be taken to this innovation. This approach purposefully integrates academic, industrial, regulatory, and societal stakeholders into the innovation process as a method to accelerate the development and adoption of new technology. Initiatives such as the Centre for Seaweed and Shellfish Innovation and Ecological Restoration (C-SSIDER) can offer a focus for such innovation.” – The Scottish Association for Marine Science

“A list of pre-approved contractors to use for restoration activities would be very useful, as it would mean less work for projects when procuring and recruiting for contractors or services. This would speed up the process and foster a community of eco-conscious and productive contractors, which can become highly specialised in the field and promote a greener-led economy. This would also pave the way for more contractors to diversify into green projects and facilitate a market for restoration.” – Mossy Earth - Wilder Firths Hub

Respondents also agreed with the need to maintain high biosecurity standards, though most did not elaborate on this point beyond the need to avoid the introduction of pathogens or invasive species. Scottish Sea Farms highlighted the importance of recognising links between the supply chain and regulations, such as non-native species licenses and species translocation licenses, and called for seamless information sharing to support the plan’s objectives. One individual recommended “mandatory biosecurity protocols and genetic integrity verification as eligibility criteria for all government-supported restoration grants”. Responding to Q19, Aberdeenshire Council expressed a desire for the plan to support mechanisms for control of Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) plants.

Only a few comments were made on the action “Update and expand guidance on supply chain best practice, for example, biosecurity and genetic diversity.”. Shetland Islands Council highlighted that Shetland UHI has produced a Biosecurity Plan for the Shetland Islands, which it felt projects in Shetland should consult alongside national plans. The Royal Yachting Association Scotland noted that the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) is developing guidelines for restoration, which include best practices for the supply chain, including biosecurity and genetic diversity. Two respondents felt there is already sufficient academic evidence and best practice guidance, and the priority should be “learning by doing” and updating and expanding the guidance. One individual called for increased capacity and funding within the Marine Directorate to respond to the needs of projects which require analysis and guidance on biosecurity.

Other themes

As with other questions, some respondents commented on the lack of consideration of passive restoration in the plan (see Chapter 7). Comments related to this theme typically expressed the view that the socio-economic benefits envisaged from restoration will only be fully realised if an integrated approach with both passive and active measures is used. Four respondents cited the Lamlash Bay No Take Zone (NTZ) and the South Arran MPA as examples of where a passive restoration approach has environmental, economic and social benefits to an area. Two respondents cited Restoring Meadow, Marsh and Reef (ReMeMaRe) as an initiative that could be replicated.

“As Community of Arran Seabed Trust (COAST) on Arran has shown with the Lamlash Bay NTZ and the South Arran MPA, passive restoration projects can bring huge social and economic benefits to the local community through jobs in surveying and monitoring, but also in areas such as academia, wildlife tourism, environmental education, and sustainably managed fisheries.” – Flora & Fauna

One organisation raised a concern about the structure of this part of the plan:

“We feel that there are risks associated with incorporating the supply chain and communities within a single theme. We agree that communities should have access to self-organised restoration, which includes supply chains. However, given that our coastal and island communities face the brunt of climate change risks to livelihoods and access to healthcare, there is an opportunity here to place coastal communities and their wellbeing at the centre of restoration. This goes beyond supply chains and traditional economics, embracing a wellbeing economy and a "One Health" lens. The integration of these two separate aspects into a single theme weakens the importance of both communities and the development of supply chains, and we recommend that these be developed as separate strands.” - The Scottish Association for Marine Science