Marine and coastal restoration plan consultation: Scottish Government response

Theme 4 – Supply chains and communities

Headlines from analysis

Responses in relation to the objectives under Theme 4 were more mixed. At least 66% of those responding felt that each of the three objectives was important to some extent (with 77% rating “Increase participation and engagement of other marine and coastal users in restoration” as important to some extent). At least 18% of respondents also rated each objective as not important to some extent. This theme also saw the highest and lowest percentages for ‘include in this plan’ across the entire plan: 87% of those responding felt that the action “Encourage early engagement with other marine users in project development” should be included in the plan, while 28% felt that “Explore the potential for a prize for restoration innovation” should be included in the plan (21% felt it should not be included in this or future plans).

Response

Communities of practice and engaging other marine users

We welcome the clear support for supporting knowledge exchange and data sharing within this theme. Some respondents rightly pointed out that there are a range of existing networks and forums that have a focus on, or support, restoration activities. We recognise and value the efforts the restoration sector already makes to marine nature restoration, and the proposed actions under this theme aim to complement and support these rather than duplicate effort. We understand community groups, particularly those reliant on volunteers, may not always have capacity to support knowledge exchange and data sharing, and we will explore how we can best facilitate this.

Participation and engagement with other marine and coastal users

Related to the comments about communities of practice, there was strong support in this theme for involving other marine sectors in restoration. “Increase participation and engagement of other marine and coastal users in restoration was” scored highest in this theme (77% quite or very important). Similarly, the action to “Encourage early engagement with other marine users in project development” was supported by 87% of respondents. Helpful suggestions were provided on how this might be achieved, including co-designing projects with communities, and we will explore this further as part of implementation.

Innovation prize

Reflecting on the rationale provided by respondents for not favouring the inclusion of an action relating to an innovation prize in the plan, we agree that innovation is not necessarily a crucial factor in a project’s success. However, innovation is happening within the restoration sector all the time (for example in relation to transplanting methods for seagrass) and we see this is something that should be recognised and celebrated, not least to help with knowledge sharing as methods are refined and help promote active restoration. An innovation prize could be a simple way to achieve this, and we have retained this action within the plan so that we can at least explore the possibility with potential funders. This could involve working with existing awards and institutions to include an innovation category, or similar. We also think an innovation prize could help stimulate research and development into restoration methods for habitats and species not currently targeted for restoration.