Marine and coastal restoration plan: consultation analysis report

6. Theme 5 – Evidence and monitoring

Views on the final Theme: “Evidence and monitoring”, were collected in Q13 to Q15. This chapter presents the analysis of responses to those questions, outlining respondents’ views on the four objectives in Theme 5. These set out suggested ways to improve knowledge gaps, both in terms of finessing datasets to understand where restoration can happen, and how restoration supports and contributes to the good environmental status of Scotland’s marine and coastal ecosystems.

Mixed views were expressed by those answering Q13. At least seven in ten indicated that the first three objectives above were important, with 61% rating the need to “Support improved and more standardised evidence gathering and monitoring for active restoration” as ‘very important’. Conversely, just over half (54%) rated the final objective of “Explore potential contribution of citizen science to data collection and monitoring” as important to some extent, with one third (34%) considering this as ‘very important’.

Each of the four actions listed under Theme 5 recorded high levels of support among those answering Q14. Over three quarters (78%) were in favour of including “Help and encourage projects to capture data on social and economic impacts of active restoration”. Over four fifths were in favour of including each of the other three actions, with the highest level of support (83%) recorded for “Work with projects and research institutions to develop and share user-friendly, standardised data collection best practices for before, during and post-restoration activity”.

Q15: 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.

Just under three quarters of all respondents answered Q15. Around one in six of those who commented left broad statements welcoming this aspect of the plan and expressing support or agreement for the considerations under this theme. The analysis below presents comments made about each action, followed by other comments.

Support improved and more standardised evidence gathering and monitoring for active restoration

Several respondents commented on the need for and importance of evidence gathering and monitoring. These comments typically covered evidence gathering across all stages of a restoration project, ranging from baseline surveys to guide restoration work to post-project monitoring. A few also noted that broader social, economic, and spatial impacts should also be monitored (see the next objective).

Reasons why respondents stated there is a need to have data and evidence readily available included informing site selection, being able to map and track progress on specific projects and overall, to compare methods and develop best practice, to feed into other metrics, to understand and communicate the benefits of restoration, and provide an evidence base for future policy and investment decisions. Respondents were also clear on the value of standardised evidence in supporting comparison across restoration projects. A small number called for data to be available to evidence the contribution of restoration activities towards achieving Good Environmental Status (GES).

Guidance was called for to support both the evidence gathering and standardisation of data collection and reporting. A few organisations noted guidance from Fisheries Management Scotland and The Native Oysters Network, which they felt could be helpful. Conversely, Seawilding stated that existing guidance is available, but there is a backlog of inputting data into national databases.

A few respondents highlighted the need for evidence-gathering and reporting requirements to be proportionate, noting that many restoration projects are small-scale community initiatives that may lack the capacity or knowledge to collect the required data. Similarly, a small number noted that while there is a need for standardisation, monitoring requirements should also reflect place-based approaches and the nature of the group undertaking the work. However, the Scottish Association for Marine Science noted that new technologies such as eDNA, automated image analysis, or acoustic monitoring could play a role in reducing the cost and effort in monitoring and enhancing evidence bases. One individual suggested establishing an island restoration working group to co-develop island-specific monitoring indicators and participate in annual evaluation.

“Improving and standardising evidence collection is the top priority, as it underpins everything from site selection to regulatory protection and funding decisions. Developing standardised monitoring protocols and improving understanding of restoration outcomes should be included immediately. Evidence and monitoring are often underestimated but will determine whether the plan actually delivers measurable benefits.” – Thistle Wind Partners

“Monitoring these things is obviously key, standards are good, but there must be space for place-specific assessments and sharing of varied practices to allow a range of approaches to develop and flourish” - Individual

“It will also be important to consider anecdotal data using quantitative methods such as interviewing community groups. This could be done in collaboration with universities or projects involved in social science, and by involving local archives or libraries.” – Scottish Environment SE LINK

Improve understanding of how active restoration can contribute to targets and generate environmental, social and economic benefits

Some respondents agreed with the need to consider the wider contribution of active restoration. These comments highlighted a range of factors that respondents felt should be better understood, including:

• Economic impacts, for example, on coastal economies and local businesses, local employment, skills development, tourism, and community wealth-building
• How restoration projects have interacted with other marine users, for example, aquaculture, fishing, and tourism, and their impact on wider communities and ecosystems. A few respondents noted that any positive or negative impacts a project may have on existing projects should be assessed and understood
• Collecting feedback from local communities to understand how restoration projects have affected local wellbeing, access, and sense of place
• How restoration activities contribute to GES assessment
• Crown Estate Scotland noted that demonstrating the relationship between restoration and benefits to the marine protected area network could be critical concerning compensation measures for offshore wind

A few respondents stressed that, while it is important to understand benefits, it is also important to understand where restoration efforts have failed, fallen short, or had unintended consequences. These respondents felt it was equally important to reflect on these situations and apply learnings to future projects. Scottish Sea Farms suggested that this wider economic and social data would be better suited to a later plan, given the long timescales for restoration projects to become established.

“It is also important to capture the full spectrum of returns from restoration. We use the Four Returns Framework: financial returns to make projects investable and attract private capital; natural returns to secure ecosystem services; social returns to ensure communities benefit through health, access to green space, jobs and skills; and inspirational returns to connect people and align with national goals. Embedding this broader measurement lens will help demonstrate that restoration is not just ecologically valuable but also repeatable, replicable, and scalable as a model for resilience.” - Rebalance Earth Venture Limited

A small number of respondents called for more detail, requesting that the plan:

• Set out how any contributions to GES and other benefits will be measured
• Provide details on how projects will be helped and encouraged to capture data on social and economic impacts of active restoration. One respondent suggested the Scottish Government could “propose a standardised method to be completed in tandem with the ecological monitoring and/or provide resources for this data collection.”
• Ensure responsibility for data collection does not fall on restoration projects but should be the responsibility of regulatory bodies and government agencies

“We strongly support the collection of social and economic data to understand the wider benefits of restoration. Many projects, including Restoration Forth, already collect this information. However, it is unclear how the Scottish Government intends to “help and encourage” this. To make this deliverable, the plan should commit to funding this data collection directly or tasking a government agency to lead it. It should not become a requirement for individual restoration projects, which may lack the resources or expertise to do so effectively.” – WWF Scotland

Improve the availability of information on restoration projects in Scotland

Some respondents also agreed that there is a need to improve information availability. These respondents highlighted that while there is already a considerable amount of existing data, accessing and sharing it can be challenging. In particular, a few respondents expressed the view that not enough information is available about publicly funded projects.

Suggestions for improving the availability of information included:

• Collaboration and data-sharing between active projects and delivery organisations, local communities, academic institutions, regulators, and public bodies, such as local authorities, NatureScot and the Marine Directorate
• Ensuring there are clear pathways for public access to data. For example, Barra and Vatersay Community, facilitated by the "Muir is Tir" project, suggested that “all data collected on the island by any research body is readily available, with open access to both scientific papers and lay summaries of research”

“We would support increased transparency and accessibility of data from government bodies such as Nature Scot and Marine Directorate. Participants at the community-led marine management round table in March 2025 suggested a “get to know your local policy officer” scheme may be useful in terms of knowing who to go to with and/or for information. This could also be part of the one-stop-shop/marine facilitator role.” – Scottish Environment SE LINK

Some respondents commented on the action to “Establish and maintain a database of restoration projects in Scotland”. It was felt that providing a clear overview of restoration activity was important to support site planning, monitor progress, coordinate activities, and avoid duplication. A small number described the potential content or functionality of a database. For example, it was suggested that the information should include location, habitat type, project scale, and outcomes, and that it could be searchable, regularly updated, follow open access principles, and host data visualisations or interactive maps.

A small number highlighted existing databases and the need to avoid any duplication of effort. Respondents mentioned the existing Native Oyster network and NORA databases, and that the Marine Enhancement Directory is in the process of launching a database of restoration activity. One individual suggested that restoration projects should be enabled to feed directly into national datasets such as the Geodatabase of Marine features adjacent to Scotland (GeMS) and the Feature Activity Sensitivity Tool (FeAST).

Explore potential contribution of citizen science to data collection and monitoring

This objective recorded the most comments of the four objectives under Theme 4, with around half of those leaving a comment to Q12 referring to citizen science. A very broad range of views was expressed, with some respondents wholly supportive of citizen science, while others raised concerns.

Some respondents, notably nature conservation organisations and community groups, expressed the view that local communities and citizen science have a key role in data collection and monitoring and could complement professional and scientific studies. One respondent suggested that, for example, with training and simple reporting tools, citizens could conduct shoreline surveys or monitor water quality. A few respondents noted there are limitations on citizen science data collection, including overreliance on volunteers and a lack of funding.

“The value of citizen science contributions to these areas has long been recognised (Beachwatch, Seasearch, Bioblitz) - and so SIFT would argue that simply exploring this in the upcoming plan is insufficient: data collection and monitoring by citizen scientists must be integrated into this plan (e.g. part of the one-stop-shop) - including by endorsing standardised methodologies for this process. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, existing data gathered by these means should be made accessible and utilised.” – The Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust

“Citizen science must not be treated as an afterthought. With proper oversight and training, it has the potential to dramatically increase coverage, inclusivity, and intergenerational engagement in marine restoration. It also helps reinforce community ownership of projects. I recommend that all citizen science contributions be formally accredited through a national framework, and that open data licensing be adopted wherever possible to maximise impact.” - Individual

Conversely, some respondents highlighted concerns about the use of citizen science and data collected by non-professionals. Respondents from the fisheries sector were more likely than other organisations to make this point. These include a lack of knowledge and skills, as well as the potential to collect poor-quality or biased data, which could then compromise the robustness and value of the data or call into question a project's impact. It was noted, however, that quality assurance mechanisms could be implemented to verify data, and that developing robust and standardised methodologies could help mitigate variations in data quality. More broadly, a few respondents expressed the view that citizen science could be misused, for example, if a group chooses to use data selectively or misrepresents data. For a few respondents, these concerns led to calls for the use of only scientifically collected evidence for monitoring and decision-making.

“On citizen science, while we recognise its potential, we are critical of its misuse—particularly when data is collected through inconsistent or biased methods. Citizen Science initiatives should be subject to the same rigorous and reliable standards as other scientific projects.” - West of Scotland & Orkney Fish Producers Organisations

“Long-term monitoring and assessment of restoration outcomes can be costly, technically demanding, and, in some cases, hazardous. They require scientific expertise, specialist equipment, and robust methodologies to ensure credible results. While citizen science can provide valuable supplementary data, comprehensive monitoring (particularly where reporting obligations are linked to larger infrastructure projects through frameworks such as NMP2 must be carried out professionally. This ensures the reliability of results, the safety of those involved, and the credibility of the evidence base on which future policy and investment decisions will depend.” - Sunbird

Other themes

A few respondents commented on passive management in the context of this theme. These comments included calls for evidence on the impact and benefits of passive management to be considered, as well as for the monitoring of active restoration to be part of a broader, integrated programme that includes monitoring of passive restoration.

“[We] are of the view that data collection and filling data gaps in relation to PMFs etc. should also be considered under the term marine enhancement and restoration, and be open to funding opportunities in a similar manner to ‘active’ restoration. These data collection efforts should form part of the early stages of any restoration project, and this data collection, e.g. mapping habitat, assessing pressures on these habitats, etc., may lead to the identification of an active restoration opportunity, or it may not, depending on what the data finds. We shouldn’t expect all project planning phases for enhancement / restoration projects to result in active restoration as early phase data collection may indicate that active restoration is not a priority.” – Orkney Islands Council

One individual expressed the view that the urgency of the need for restoration means evaluation should not be prioritised.