Marine and coastal restoration plan consultation: Scottish Government response

Impact assessments

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

43% of those responding agreed that the Environmental Report was an accurate representation of potential impacts on the environment resulting from objectives and actions in the plan, with 10% disagreeing. Criticisms of the assessment related to views expressed about pressure management not being a primary focus of the plan. While some respondents felt the potential negative impacts were overplayed, others felt that ecological risks needed further consideration.

On the basis of the consultation, we have not made changes to the SEA Environmental Report, but a post-adoption statement will be published in due course which will further consider views raised.

Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA)

28% of those responding agreed that the partial BRIA was an accurate representation of the impacts associated with the objectives and actions proposed in the draft plan, with 15% disagreeing. This reflects the fact that the impact of some of the actions most likely to affect marine sectors like fishing – the protection mechanism in particular – cannot be fully assessed until we know how such a mechanism would work and where it could be applied.

We also asked respondents to provide any evidence on potential impacts to help us finalise the BRIA. Based on evidence gathered through the consultation we have updated the BRIA in a number of areas. Specifically, we have reflected that some inshore fishing operations work on tight margins and may be affected by costs assessed as low or negligible (while still concluding that this would need to be assessed as appropriate in future at a more defined scale); we have included illustrative examples of the cost of a business as usual scenario; and we have provided updated potential costs associated with funding for the SMEEF, based on core costs for 2025-2026.

Island Communities Impact Assessment

47% of those responding felt the plan would have a significantly different impact on some or all island communities, with 17% feeling that there would not be significantly different impacts.

A range of issues were raised, particularly views that carrying out restoration may be more challenging on islands (both in a practical sense and in relation to engagement with wider networks) and that islands may be more vulnerable to environmental change or to potential negative social and economic impacts. This suggests that in implementing the plan, we will need to take care to ensure that restoration opportunities can be realised on island communities as well as on the mainland.

An ICIA for the plan has been developed, taking into account evidence gathered from the consultation. We recognise that island communities may face unique challenges in undertaking restoration, and at this stage cannot rule out the potential for significantly different impacts been island and mainland communities in future, as a result of implementation of actions in the plan. We will therefore continue to assess potential impacts and consider mitigations as we implement the plan. The policy actions outlined in the plan are designed to support the acceleration of active restoration across the whole of Scotland in a way that is place-based, community led, and flexible and adaptable. The plan will need to accommodate local circumstances across all coastal communities. Embedding community focus/leadership in restoration efforts and promoting engagement between practitioners and other marine sectors will help to ensure outcomes and effects are felt as equitably as possible across Scotland.

Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA)

21% of respondents felt the plan would have an impact on protected characteristics, 25% did not.

Responses from the consultation have been used to support the development of an EQIA for the plan. We have reflected on points raised in the consultation within the EQIA, including the lack of racial diversity in environmental professions in the UK and inequality in access to blue spaces/coast for people of colour. We have also noted potential challenges to engaging with restoration activities for people with a long-term illness or disability, and the potential for opportunities to promote good relations among and between different age groups. While we have not added additional actions within the plan to address these points, these are considerations that should apply across the plan and particularly in relation to increasing participation and engagement of other marine and coastal users in restoration.

Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA)

32% of those responding felt that the objectives and actions in the plan will have an impact on children’s rights and wellbeing, 23% did not.

Responses reflected on a range of potential positive impacts which have been incorporated into a CRWIA for the plan, such as promoting environmental awareness and stewardship, and benefits from improved biodiversity, clean air and water and access to nature. There were also suggestions around ensuring that children can contribute actively, including designing family-friendly volunteering opportunities and youth leadership roles. There were also responses which flagged potential negative impacts on children and young people, for example if restoration led to restrictions on other activities with resulting negative social and economic impacts on families.