National Marine Plan 2 - planning position statement: consultation analysis

Sustainable marine economy

Questions six, seven and eight asked for views on the policy ideas proposed under the Sustainable marine economy section in the PPS:

Question 6: What are your views on both the cross-sector, and sector-specific policy ideas proposed under the 'Sustainable Marine Economy' section?

Question 7: What are your views on the definitions being proposed for ‘coexistence’ and ‘co-location’ as set out below?

Question 8: Do you think the policies relating to the 'Management of Pressures' should be updated, retained or accompanied by clearer implementation guidance?

These questions had a response rate of 89%, 76% and 77% respectively.

Overview

There was backing for planning policy to support coexistence in NMP2 and strategic compensation, with requests for transparency and clarity on how such policies would be implemented. It was noted that policies should be flexible enough to allow consideration of novel design and innovative mitigation as sectors develop.

The definitions for both terms were found to be generally okay, with minor criticism, but broadly it was felt that they could benefit from further clarification or refinement.

Suggestions for alterations included:

• changes to wording/terminology,
• provision of working examples to provide clarity for developers and decision makers, and/or
• inclusion of indicators to help understand if co-existence was working successfully and by all users.

With regards to the current policies relating to the management of pressures, close to half (43) of the respondents suggested that they should be updated, with 18 of those respondents asking for accompanying guidance in addition to updating the policies. This was echoed by many other respondents who called for accompanying implementation guidance regardless.

A small amount of respondents thought that the policies should be retained as they currently are, with a couple suggesting that while, most of the policies could be retained, some may also need to be clarified. This alludes to further support for accompanying guidance.

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

Aquaculture respondents generally had concerns with how a co-existence policy could be implemented in practice, querying the level of consideration that would be acceptable and what would happen should a proposal be “unable to co-exist with a specific development or sector”.

Some aquaculture respondents disagreed with co-location being referred to as a subset of co-existence, believing that activities can exist in the same area and not co-exist. They further added that guidance and improved spatial data would be required to ensure opportunities could be realised.

The sector respondents broadly supported the decision to retain specific policies on pressures from the existing NMP and suggested that any reviews or updates to those policies should be accompanied by a clearer understanding of impacts, which would help feed the implementation guidance.

There was also a call for more detailed implementation guidance, which would help lead to more consistent interpretation by regulators, local authorities, and industry stakeholders.

Fishing sector

Respondents from the fisheries sector felt “unfairly disadvantaged” in favour of new and emerging industries, believing that they are not given equal priority in spatial planning. It was urged that if livelihoods were impacted by offshore wind expansion or other industrial projects, there should be financial compensation and a plan for the transition for fishers affected by displacement, similar to that for oil and gas workers moving into offshore renewables.

Some fisheries sector respondents believed that the existing NMP policies required significant updates with clearer implementation guidance to help balance environmental protection with economic sustainability, believing there was a “disproportionate emphasis on regulating fishing”, while failing to acknowledge pressures caused by other marine activities.

However, respondents affiliated with the creel industry believed the policies from NMP should be retained.

Renewables sector

Whilst supportive of the potential policy direction, developers highlighted potential delays to offshore wind consenting and delivery if there was a specific requirement to demonstrate co-existence, noting that co-existence is not always possible. They encouraged NMP2 to define specific co-existence policies with tests that would enable delivery and help achieve sectoral co-existence.

However, the sector welcomed the inclusion of support for strategic compensation, further adding that a “strategic approach would be essential to maximise environmental outcomes and deliver the quantity of offshore wind required to meet the Government’s targets”.

Developers found the definitions to be appropriate and welcomed the separation of the co-existence and co-location terminology, whilst highlighting the important distinction that co-existence can occur both with and without co-location.

Environmental groups

There was support from ENGOs for co-location and co-existence approaches, suggesting lower impact activities should be given preferential access to marine space, where environmental conditions allow, to incentivise good practice.

Some ENGOs expressed concern on the proposed removal of sector-specific objectives from the NMP2, specifically for fisheries, fearing this would weaken environmental protection.

ENGOs mostly agreed that all current NMP policies on management of pressures are important, with some highlighting specific policies that remained clear and actionable for decision makers to consider in planning decisions.

Public sector (including Marine Planning Partnerships)

Public sector bodies welcomed co-existence and co-location proposals, believing they aligned with Scotland’s Blue economy ambitions. Respondents agreed that consideration of co-existence should be shown in applications and offered that there could be preference for proposals with co-existence as part of the design.

There was support for the proposed policy to encourage or require re-use of uncontaminated dredged material from marine dredging activities, providing that strong safeguards were in place to prevent biodiversity loss in sensitive habitats.

Opinions were mixed across local authorities with regards to pressures management policies, with some believing that certain policies could be retained if accompanied by clearer guidance, and others considered updates and clearer guidance more beneficial to support implementation and ensure consistency across all sectors. This was the sentiment echoed by marine and coastal partnerships.

Notable additions

Some developers also suggested guidance or examples could be produced to highlight where good practice had been demonstrated, such as with case studies. Policy ideas in the PPS could benefit from more clarity, either through guidance or by clear definition of threshold.

Spatial planning

Respondents highlighted the importance of understanding how factors would be assessed, and by whom, as uses can vary on a daily, monthly or seasonal basis.

The lack of spatial data was also highlighted as an issue which could create a barrier to seeking co-existence opportunities.

Community groups were unsure how aspirations could be met without application of spatial or zonal marine planning approaches and clear sector-specific policies. Some respondents believed zonal planning of fisheries could be established, to ensure fishing could operate in a busy marine space and that impacts were managed.

Some respondents also highlighted current mechanisms used to deal with coexistence, while offering spatial suggestions that could help manage interactions with others.

Criticism

Some respondents were critical of the proposed definitions, and found them to be unbalanced across all marine users. The implication being that they favoured particular uses over others.

Additional policy requests

Requests for policies on deep sea mining and oil and gas were noticeable, in recognition of the role of oil and gas has in the energy transition, while requests to limit further exploration were noted.

In addition to commentary on the proposals set out in the PPS, there were suggestions for the following, additional planning policies to be included:

• consideration of the five environmental principles in decision-making,
• support for community benefit,
• strategic approach to wet storage,
• support for transboundary cooperation in planning, and
• planning policy to minimise impact on shipping from development.

Consensus

A prevailing theme in this section was for NMP2 to provide clarity on circumstances where co-existence and co-location were not possible, and to provide clarity on what would be prioritised and how, to allow decisions to be made transparently and with confidence

Common observations found updates, refinements, and clearer guidance were needed to ensure consistent application across different sectors. There were requests for new planning policies to be accompanied by guidelines to ensure consistent interpretation and effective implementation of the policies to improve clarity and prevent ambiguity in decision-making.