National Marine Plan 2 - planning position statement: consultation analysis

Climate change mitigation and adaptation

Question three focused on the ‘Climate change mitigation and adaptation' section of the PPS:

Question 3: What are your views on the policy ideas proposed under the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation section?

This question received a response rate of 86%.

Overview

In general, respondents were in favour of the proposals set out in this section, agreeing that translating NPF4 Policy 1 to “give significant weight to the climate and nature crises” into the NMP2 would help create greater consistency between plans and provide the required steer required by government agencies and marine planning partnerships to aid in decision-making.

Sector themes

Themes and general consensus from across the identified stakeholder groupings have been collated within this analysis, and suggest the following general sentiments:

Aquaculture sector

The responses from this grouping suggested emissions reduction must be balanced with maintaining food affordability for consumers. They further noted that new approaches and innovation would be essential to combat the impacts of climate change “already being felt by established marine industries".

Fishing sector

Some respondents from the fishing sector raised concerns that current climate mitigation and adaptation policies in NMP2 were “unbalanced” and “failed to protect the fishing industry”. It was felt that by giving significant weight to the climate and nature crises an “unfair burden” would be placed on the fishing sector, leading to displaced fishing activity and a decline in traditional fishing practises and communities.

It was stated that fish stocks and habitats are already being altered due to climate change, so support for adaption of the sector should be prioritised.

Renewables sector

Respondents representing developers broadly agreed with climate change policies aligning with NPF4 and felt that consideration of climate change mitigation should be applied to all proposals, with action on the climate crisis being prioritised.

Environmental groups

Respondents within this grouping saw the climate and nature crises as intertwined, and as such should be dealt with together, given equal weighting. The need to prioritise action on climate, in tandem with actions for nature protection and restoration, was considered of particular importance.

It was noted that biodiversity loss and climate change are “intrinsically linked”, therefore net zero ambitions should not come at a detrimental cost to the wider environment and biodiversity. Some ENGOs further suggested projects should be required to consider the lifetime of a development; through preplanning and licencing to decommissioning.

Tourism

Some responses were made in relation to the tourism industry, and proposed wording amendments to provide clarity, highlighting the need to “not be too prescriptive” to account for changes in technology and availability of solutions, while stressing the importance of consistency between NPF4 and NMP2 to ensure appropriate plans can be made for coastal areas.

Consensus

While there were a variation of views with regards to exact wording and policy, the intention to align NMP2 with NPF4 and give significant priority to climate change was welcomed.

Food protection and the climate resilience of ports and harbours were often highlighted as an area of significant importance and worthy of further consideration within NMP2.