Marine and coastal restoration plan consultation: Scottish Government response

Theme 2 – Regulatory environment

Headlines from analysis

At least 74% of those answering felt each objective in Theme 2 was quite or very important. At least 62% of those answering felt that each action under this theme should be included in the plan. Support ranged from 62% for “Explore how best to implement a protection mechanism, in law, for habitats and species undergoing restoration” to 81% each for creating a one-stop-shop and encouraging early engagement with local communities and other stakeholders.

Response

Support post and one-stop-shop

We welcome the enthusiastic support for the concept of the one-stop-shop. We have noted and agree with the comments highlighting the need to make sure it does not duplicate effort with existing platforms.

Similarly, there was an encouraging level of support for “Identify opportunities to create and fund a support post(s) to help projects navigate regulatory requirements” (70% of those answering felt this should be included in the plan), with a range of points raised in comments. We will use this feedback as we consider the potential scope of this role, including how this interacts with and supports the one-stop-shop. A key challenge will be ensuring that any support post can maintain a level of national oversight while also being able to provide support and expertise at a more regional/local level.

Some respondents felt that a support post was a lower priority or should be considered for future plans, with some environmental organisations flagging that the focus should be on regulatory reform, rather than supporting projects in navigating the current system.

While we recognise that the marine licensing system was not designed to facilitate marine restoration activities, it remains our view that the regulatory environment needs to include suitable checks and balances to ensure that restoration activities are carried out in appropriate locations, with appropriate environmental safeguards in place and with consideration of other sea users.

Therefore, we have maintained the proposed approach to provide support in navigating the current regulatory environment for this first plan. This decision is a pragmatic one, and a proportionate response given the relatively small scale of current restoration activities. This does not rule out the potential for future regulatory reform and we will revisit this issue if the actions proposed under this plan do not sufficiently tackle barriers to accelerating active restoration. As noted in the plan, while we will not actively pursue legislative reform in relation to active restoration at the moment, we will keep a watching brief for any opportunities.

Protection mechanism

For the action “Explore how best to implement a protection mechanism, in law, for habitats and species undergoing restoration”, 62% of responses to this question felt that this action should be included, and 74% of responses rated the related objective as very or quite important. We note from the analysis that some respondents felt that this action should be reserved for future plans because of the time it would take to develop a mechanism and the risk this would delay publication of the plan.

A range of points were raised in relation to a protection mechanism, which will be important as we consider options for taking this action forward. Many of these focused on ensuring appropriate processes for implementing and using any protection mechanism, with specific points raised around consultation and ensuring that it could be used to protect habitats and species being restored by small, community-led restoration projects. This ties in with improving our knowledge of what restoration activity is planned or underway, via the proposed action to establish a database of restoration projects. There were also comments in relation to enforcement and compliance for any protection mechanism, which again we will need to consider as we develop proposals. Attendees at consultation events raised the issue of ensuring that donor seagrass beds are adequately safeguarded – this could mean from other activities which could impact them, or from removal to support restoration elsewhere.

A small number of respondents thought that establishing a protection mechanism is not necessary because existing measures could be used, with specific examples given of Marine Conservation Orders (MCOs) and licensing conditions for fishing vessels. As part of the development process for any protection mechanism, we will consider existing mechanisms and whether these could be used or adapted to support active restoration. However, while we recognise the wide array of mechanisms available to manage various activities within the marine environment, there is not currently a tailored mechanism to support habitats and species undergoing restoration, which could be used at all stages of restoration and easily adapted to suit changing circumstances. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders as we explore options.