Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan: Consultation and Modifications Report

4. Consultation Response Summary

4.1. Overview

This section of the report provides a summary of the issues raised in response to the consultation of the Plan and supporting questions, as detailed in Appendix 1: Consultation Response Form. The consultation questions relate to the Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Plan, and Plan appendices, in order of how they appear in the Plan. For clarity, references to Plan policies and paragraphs in this consultation response summary refer to those in the consultation draft Plan.

4.2. Section 1: Introduction

4.2.1. Purpose of the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan (Q1)

Summary of consultation response issues

The plan vision would benefit from a clearly stated time period to help monitor the implementation of the plan e.g. 2045 or 2050.

The plan should meet the needs and aspirations of Islanders and islands within the Orkney archipelago. In this regard, it is important that where local considerations need to be factored into decision making, the local context of Orkney is considered.

It is unclear the extent to which OIC has the powers to implement the plan in decision making.

Clarification is required in the plan on the role of OIC (the delegate) as a consultee on marine licensing decisions.

Clarification is required in the plan on the role of OIC and other public authority decision makers to ensure that the plan’s aim and objectives are addressed.

The plan should provide guidance on spatial and temporal allocation for different users, activities and developments.

The plan needs to be supported by clear guidance on enforcement and planning mechanisms to ensure policies lead to clear outcomes and decisions.

The plan should include spatial management to restrict development impacts on commercial fishing interests including fish breeding and nursery grounds.

4.2.2. Use of the Plan policy framework (Q2)

Summary of consultation response issues

It is welcomed that the plan policies include provisions to guide public authority decision makers to contribute towards the delivery of the plan objectives and that the policies should be applied proportionately.

The identification of key terms up-front in the plan is welcomed to ensure standardised and correct interpretation of policies.

It is unclear the extent to which OIC has the powers to implement the plan in decision making.

This section of the plan may need to make it clear where the ‘power lies’ in decision making, and the role of OIC, alongside the Marine Directorate, in implementing the policies.

It is important to ensure that the ecosystem approach is being used in plan implementation.

Clarification is needed on how the concept of ‘proportionality’ will be applied in practice to policy implementation.

It is unclear how upcoming plans will impact the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan, particularly National Marine Plan 2 (NMP2).

Consideration should be given to the inclusion of wording which more clearly states that the plan should be read and applied as whole, and that there may be conflicts between policies, that may need to be resolved.

There is some ambiguity over what/who falls within the definition of ‘Marine and/or Coastal Users’.

4.2.3. Vision, Guiding Principles, Aim and Objectives (Q3)

Summary of consultation response issues

The interests of Orkney communities extend beyond the Orkney Islands marine region and this should be acknowledged via the implementation of the plan objectives and policies.

The plan objectives and policies need to support better engagement with local communities in decision making.

The plan currently reflects a strong emphasis on managing environmental impacts from development, with less focus on supporting sustainable economic development.

The vision, guiding principles, aim and objectives should refer to the twin climate and nature crisis and the plan’s role in addressing this.

Greater clarity is needed on how a ‘rapid transition’ to net zero is defined within the plan objectives.

Food production and food security should be supported within the plan objectives.

Co-existence is vital for all sectors however, the fishing sector is often excluded from sites despite co-siting efforts; the plan needs to support a framework where co-existence is achieved.

The plan does not provide the level of guidance which would be expected in a regional marine plan as the objectives do not specify the particular steps that will be taken to meet the plan’s aim.

Greater detail is required on the meaning of and compliance with environmental limits.

The identification of cumulative impacts within the plan objectives is welcomed.

Greater clarity on Objective 3 (just transition) would be useful, particularly given the multiple definitions and tensions within just transition policies and narratives.

It is important that this marine plan embeds an approach of genuine accountability via effective, meaningful public engagement across Orkney communities.

The ambition for a low carbon economy, and achieving net-zero commitments through just transition, should not come at the cost of food security.

An ecosystem-based approach should supersede the implementation of individual sector policies, as if viewed in isolation, these policies will not take cumulative impacts into consideration.

All policies should be reviewed with the intention of replacing the word 'should' with a stronger word such as 'shall' to support effective implementation.

Visitors to Orkney could be specifically referenced in the plan’s aim, vision and objectives.

4.3. Section 2: General Policies

4.3.1. Introductory Information to the General Policies (GPs)(Q4)

Summary of consultation response issues

The plan currently reflects a strong emphasis on managing environmental impacts from development, with less focus on supporting sustainable development.

The plan should emphasise the need to optimise positive impacts and outcomes alongside the management of negative impacts.

The role of the plan in guiding the behaviour of applicants and developers, as well as public authorities, needs to be clearly stated.

Further clarity is required on the meaning of ‘proportionately’ in the implementation of the plan policies.

The inclusion of the mitigation hierarchy as an overarching principle that underpins the general and sector policies is welcomed.

4.3.2. General Policy 1: Sustainable development, activities and use (Q5)

Summary of consultation response issues

The plan needs to make stronger links to the delivery of Scotland’s Blue Economy Vision.

General Policy 1 should place a more significant emphasis on support for sustainable development to reflect the current National Marine Plan (NMP 2015) and emerging draft proposals for NMP2.

General Policy 1 should highlight the importance of using local knowledge in decision making.

Reference to the precautionary principle in General Policy 1 is welcomed.

Greater clarity is required on the application of the precautionary principle in decision making.

The plan needs to be careful not to take the precautionary principle too far, making it difficult for developments or activities to go ahead.

General Policy 1 should make further reference to the importance of adhering to the mitigation hierarchy.

“Appropriate mitigation” must only be used when all other options have been explored fully and the adverse impacts have been agreed to be “unavoidable”.

The plan needs to include spatial management to prioritise sustainable development in appropriate locations.

The plan should implement ecosystem-based management in recognition of the integrated nature of human and non-human activities.

4.3.3. General Policy 2: Safety (Q6)

Summary of consultation response issues

General Policy 2 should apply other areas of safety in addition to harbour areas and shipping.

Developments, such as aquaculture and offshore renewable energy, must ensure their design, layout and maintenance will not pose risks to the safety of fishers.

4.3.4. General Policy 3: Climate change (Q7)

Summary of consultation response issues

The prominence given to tackling the global climate crisis and supporting the displacement of fossil-fuel use is welcomed.

From a place-based perspective, General Policy 3c is exciting and ambitious.

The implementation of General Policy 3c will be key to ensuring the long-term sustainability of marine developments, and the health and wellbeing of communities and ecosystems alike.

The Orkney Partnership’s 2030 net zero target should be referenced in the contextual information to this policy.

There is no reference to the role of marine food production in the transition to more climate friendly sources of human protein.

The plan should recognise the potential contribution of e-fuels to decarbonisation.

The supporting text to this policy should refer to greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to carbon emissions.

The vision, guiding principles, aim and objectives should refer to the twin climate and nature crisis and the plan’s role in addressing this.

The supporting text to this policy should refer to Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029.

Additional guidance is required to help decision-makers and applicants understand what is meant by ‘significant weight’ to climate and nature crises and how this will be applied in practice.

There should be a requirement that proposals for developments or activities must demonstrate how they will help to meet net zero targets.

Emphasising the climate crisis is welcomed, however, to ensure that developments deliver on the ambitions of this plan, certain criteria should be incorporated to avoid potential greenwashing or bypassing of effects.

The identification of habitat restoration as a way to help adapt to a changing climate is welcomed.

This section should also reference underlying processes influencing climate change e.g. Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

4.3.5. General Policy 4: Supporting sustainable social and economic benefits (Q8)

Summary of consultation response issues

The plan needs to emphasise the importance of securing socio-economic benefits as well as addressing environmental impacts.

Supporting community wealth building principles is welcomed by many stakeholders.

The plan needs to be more specific about how community wealth building will be delivered.

The plan needs to address appropriate early engagement between fishers and developers to ensure sustainable use of the marine area.

The plan narrative and terminology should move away from the term ‘sustainable economic growth’ as there are increasing concerns regarding whether growth and sustainability are compatible in all cases. It would better align with the aim and objectives of the plan to focus on sustainable development including prosperous and sustainable economies.

There should be standardised community benefit packages across developments.

Further guidance is required on how ‘net’ economic benefit will be assessed and determined in decision making.

This policy should aim to facilitate marine developments which support the local economy, where appropriate, and the creation of skilled and well-paid jobs.

The supporting text to this policy should reference jobs created indirectly/downstream jobs, e.g. seafood processors.

The safeguarding of nature will provide social and economic benefits for Orkney through creating jobs in the tourism industry e.g. wildlife watching.

4.3.6. General Policy 5: Safeguarding natural capital and ecosystem services (Q9)

Summary of consultation response issues

Safeguarding natural capital for future generations should not deprive the current generation benefiting from it in a sustainable way.

The plan should enforce stricter protections in areas providing critical ecosystem services (e.g. breeding and nursery grounds).

Potential pressures from fish farming can be exaggerated, often unintentionally, with regulation disproportionate to impacts.

There are data gaps that will affect the delivery of natural capital and ecosystem service assessments.

The word ‘should’ in this policy should be replaced with the word ‘must’ or ‘shall’ to strengthen policy implementation by decision makers.

Bottom trawling damages ecosystem services in many instances, and we don't know what may recover from historic damage unless bottom trawling is banned and the ecosystem is given a chance to recover.

4.3.7. General Policy 6: Water environment (Q10)

Summary of consultation response issues

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) should advise on current River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) monitoring as it may affect the approach of this chapter.

This policy is an opportunity to highlight responsibilities of public authorities with terrestrial jurisdictions to have regard to downstream consequences on the coastal and marine environment.

This section focusses too heavily on the RBMP and should cover wider management priorities relating to water quality and benthic impacts.

This policy could include further spatial planning to protect water quality.

This policy stating that proposals should be accompanied by ‘sufficient information’ for an assessment on impacts on water quality and the benthic environment is welcome.

The intended outcome and wording of General Policy 6ii needs to be clearer.

4.3.8. General Policy 7: Coastal development and coastal change (Q11)

Summary of consultation response issues

It is welcomed that this policy recognises the importance of coastal and marine habitats and species in coastal protection, applying nature-based solutions and permitting managed future coastal change, wherever practicable.

It would be beneficial to highlight potential cross linkages with this policy area and the role of the Coastal Change Adaptation Plan for Orkney.

The management of coastal impacts (e.g. coastal flooding in settlements) should be more specifically addressed within the plan.

This policy will need to be applied proportionately so that implementation does not result in disproportionately expensive requirements on developers.

The plan should not prohibit the development of hard defence measures required for the safety of coastal communities.

It is necessary to protect assets from the impacts of climate change, particularly in coastal environments, to ensure that the integrity of wastewater and water assets can remain fully operational.

The linkages between this section and GP3 Climate Change should be acknowledged.

4.3.9. General Policy 8: Historic environment (Q12)

Summary of consultation response issues

The inclusion of a specific and detailed policy on the historic environment and the inclusion of a reference to the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland is welcomed.

A specific policy section on undesignated assets should be considered to ensure that these types of assets are given the same level of focus as designated assets and ensure that they are not undervalued by potential developers and wider stakeholders.

Suggested that the wording for General Policy 8c on World Heritage Sites (WHS) could be adapted to directly incorporate the wording from the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) WHS policy to better reflect and align with national policy.

This policy should mention living heritage such as building and maintaining historic boats and the importance of historic piers.

This plan could consider embedding marine-based socio-cultural heritage within policy e.g. the embodied knowledge, skill and tradition of fishing.

The context for General Policy 8 focusses almost entirely on physical archaeology and does not address maritime history, culture, people, etc.

Recommended that the wording for General Policy 8d on Historic Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) should directly incorporate the wording from NPF4.

4.3.10. General Policy 9: Nature (Q13)

Summary of consultation response issues

The alignment of this policy with NPF4 and the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy is welcomed.

This policy should highlight the importance of local knowledge in decision making.

The context for the policy focuses on global issues when it should address local issues.

In the absence of a biodiversity metric, General Policy 9 should refer to the need to utilise best practice methods.

The plan should directly address the gaps in the NPF4 Policy 3 concerning the exemptions for aquaculture regarding biodiversity enhancement actions.

Further guidance required on how significant weight will be applied to nature in decision making.

Need to update reference to and support to the delivery of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.

The plan should address how development and activities impact on existing restoration and enhancement projects and how these impacts should be addressed in decision-making.

The plan should include spatial management for fisheries, especially for fisheries such as dredging that have significant adverse impacts on the environment.

Care is needed for any restoration and enhancement approaches to ensure it isn’t a waste of effort and resources, and these efforts needs to be mindful of national policy process already ongoing.

There is a lack of guidance available for the provision of biodiversity enhancement in the marine environment and it is important that the application of this policy is consistent and proportionate given this current limitation.

Any future guidance on marine restoration and enhancement should be consulted on with members of OMPAG and other relevant stakeholders before being adopted.

Further monitoring is necessary for initial baseline data in Orkney’s marine environment to inform the policies in the plan; how can developments be deemed sustainable if the local environment baseline data is lacking?

General Policy 9: Nature should sit alongside General Policy 3: Climate change in the plan to a knowledge the connected nature of these policy issues.

Support stated for a departure from the National Marine Plan 2015 by giving significant weight to the global nature crisis, bringing the plan into line with NPF4 and the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.

Policy 9da) is helpful as it specifically applies the mitigation hierarchy to decision making on PMF impacts and may add additional weight to these considerations.

4.3.11. General Policy 9d: Specific policy provisions on how lower magnitude impacts on PMFs should be considered in decision making (Q13a)

Summary of consultation response issues

The protection of PMFs is a priority, not only for the conservation of biodiversity but for the ecosystem services they provide to local communities.

A new policy on lower magnitude impacts on PMFs would require significant additional assessment effort in Orkney when compared to other regions, and that this could be a deterrent to development and investment in Orkney.

The inclusion of specific policy provisions for lower magnitude impacts on PMFs would foster a more comprehensive and forward-thinking approach to marine conservation in Orkney.

Some policy provisions should be developed to protect PMFs in keeping with the consideration of cumulative impacts.

The loss of a small amount of a particular PMF should not stop high value projects from proceeding where these are in the general economic or social development interest of Orkney as a whole. However, PMFs should be protected from developments which are for the convenience of an individual or small group of people, for example, installing a waste water to sea outfall rather than building a suitable on shore treatment works for waste water.

While the intention to include specific policy provisions for lower magnitude impacts on PMFs is commendable, it is crucial to consider the practical implications for marine development.

Clear evidence-based thresholds would be required to assess the potential impacts of individual developments, without such thresholds a policy could pose significant challenges to developers and decision-makers.

Statutory agencies welcomed further discussion on a potential policy that will consider how lower magnitude impacts on PMFs (i.e. those impacts that do not constitute an impact on the national status) should be considered in decision making. These discussions could also be tied in with discussion on possible changes to the NMP policy and/or associated guidance.

The risk could be that if no policy addresses lower magnitude impacts on PMFs, there will be a clear gap that could result in long-term, unpredicted consequences.

Tools, metrics and science are needed to assess lower magnitude impacts on PMFs.

Lower magnitude impacts on PMFs should be addressed in regional policy as disregarding them would have an extremely detrimental impact on Orkney’s local biodiversity, with significant knock on effects.

Detailed coverage of regional protection of PMFs would provide much better policy guidance for both the environment and meaningful sustainable development.

Focusing solely on the national status of PMFs may overlook significant lower magnitude impacts that, while not immediately affecting national populations, could still have considerable consequences at the regional level.

There should be a presumption against all developments and activities which adversely impact any PMFs.

Existing measures are in place to ensure that anchorages do not adversely impact vulnerable PMFs; maerl beds are the most important feature in this context in Orkney.

Orkney regional approach to Priority Marine Feature policy

The Orkney regional approach to PMF policy, taken forward in response to Question 13a, is presented in Appendix 2: Orkney regional approach to Priority Marine Feature policy.

4.3.12. General Policy 10: Seascape and landscape (Q14)

Summary of consultation response issues

The impact of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to seascape and landscape should be identified in the contextual information to General Policy 10.

Any strategies to minimise or mitigate significant adverse effects on landscape, townscape and seascape should be practical and proportionate to the type of development.

This policy should not be used to prevent the construction of appropriate sea defences.

It is important to recognise that there may be conflicts between minimising the visibility of developments, such as seaweed farms and wave farms, and ensuring that they are adequately marked for the safety of mariners, particularly in adverse conditions.

4.3.13. General Policy 11 Surface and underwater noise, and vibration (Q15)

Summary of consultation response issues

The application of the mitigation hierarchy in relation to noise sensitive species is welcomed.

Further research should be undertaken to address data gaps on baseline noise levels in Orkney waters and noise related impacts.

The information on noise needs to be about Orkney and reflect the varying severity of noise impacts.

It is recommended that the plan includes a requirement for activities that create noise pollution to use proven mitigation measures.

The plan should refer to acoustic devices as opposed to acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) as there are novel acoustic devices being trialled in aquaculture for medicinal bath treatments. Removing ‘deterrent’ would permit both ADDs and novel technology to be encompassed.

ADDs should not be identified as a noise related pressure specifically in relation to aquaculture.

As there is policy provision for PMFs in General Policy 9, there isn’t a need for a specific policy strand on PMFs in General Policy 11.

A requirement for the assessment and consideration of electromagnetic field effect should be included in this policy.

The supporting text to this policy refers to the joint UK Protocol for In-Situ Underwater Measurement of Explosive Ordnance Disposal for unexploded ordnance (UXO), however it does not state that this protocol must be used.

There should be a requirement for activities that create noise pollution to use proven mitigation measures.

4.3.14. General Policy 12: Marine litter and waste (Q16)

Summary of consultation response issues

‘Bag the Bruck’ data should be considered in the context to this policy.

This policy should address lost, discarded or abandoned fishing gear.

‘Bag the Bruck' is a very positive initiative though there is a need to consider how collected litter can be disposed of during the rest of the year.

4.3.15. General Policy 13: Non-native and invasive non-native species (Q17)

Summary of consultation response issues

The updated Great Britain Invasive Non-native Species Strategy should be referenced in the supporting information to this policy.

Relevant aspects of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Delivery Plan should be considered for inclusion in the plan.

Developments or activities that pose a risk of introducing non-native species must be required to produce a comprehensive Bio-Security Plan.

This plan should ensure that the biosecurity impacts from any marine and terrestrial invasive non-native species are effectively managed.

There is an underappreciated risk of invasive non-native species being introduced from work vessels which are difficult to clean, such as dredgers and jack-up platforms.

4.3.16. General Policy 14: Amenity, wellbeing and quality of life of local communities (Q18)

Summary of consultation response issues

This policy is hugely welcomed and necessary, though as recognised in the plan, the associated values are often intangible or difficult to measure, and even unquantifiable. This however does not make them any less relevant, these values are often more important than short term production of a given good or short term economic investment.

Developers across all marine activities will need guidance to help implement this policy, there is a learning curve to thinking about this and embedding it in core considerations for any marine development project.

This policy should identify provision for an Orkney Islands Marine Region: Amenity, wellbeing and quality of life guidance.

Sustainable marine developments, not just activities such as recreation, positively contribute to wellbeing and quality of life.

Sustainable economic development in island communities delivers many socio-economic benefits including improvements to wellbeing and quality of life.

Protecting communities from consultation fatigue and tickbox engagement is essential.

This policy has no mention of the direct effects that marine developments have in contributing towards improving quality of life of rural and coastal communities through improvement of infrastructure and amenities within the places they operate.

Strong and inclusive community and stakeholder engagement is essential for the successful implementation of any management plan, particularly in this case, as the local community will be directly impacted by the plan.

Fishing activities in island communities deliver significant socio-economic benefits both directly and indirectly.

Policy 14 aii regarding the co-creation of mitigation to address impacts on amenity, wellbeing and quality of life of local communities should be reworded to make the meaning clearer.

This policy forms an important part of the plan, therefore it should not be listed as the last general policy.

Sailing and rowing make a particular contribution to wellbeing and social cohesion, and developments which improve the facilities and activities of clubs and other local groups should be encouraged.

4.4. Section 3: Sector Policies

4.4.1. Introductory information to the Sector Policies (3.1 – 3.16) (Q19)

Summary of consultation response issues

The sector policies should be as Orkney specific as possible and address local priorities.

It is important to consider cumulative impacts on other developments, activities and infrastructure not just cumulative impacts on nature.

All sector policies should be considered together to assist decision makers in making difficult decisions about the use of the marine environment.

“Appropriate mitigation” must only be used when all other options have been explored fully and the adverse impacts agreed to be “unavoidable”.

4.4.2. Sector Policy 1: Commercial fishing (Q20)

Summary of consultation response issues

This policy should be designed to support and enable the fishing industry to flourish.

Fishing is significantly at risk from marine economy developments that are planned into the future.

The plan should include spatial management measures for commercial fishing to address environmental impacts from scallop dredging and bottom trawling on seabed habitats and the ecosystem services they provide.

There is no justification for continuing to dredge for clams within the Orkney Marine area, which are already fished by divers without damage to the sea.

The policy is inconsistent with other sector policies and does not include avoidance of negative impacts caused by fishing activities on all other receptors and does not reference where fishing should be avoided or restricted.

Policy provisions that address significant adverse impacts from commercial fishing activities on other developments, and other economic sectors, should be included in this policy.

Additional guidance could be provided on nursery, spawning and feeding areas for commercially fished species.

The current text underplays upstream and downstream jobs created by fishing such as shoreside processors.

The policy wording could be stronger to protect fishing interests, such as using ‘must’ rather than ‘should’ or ‘have regard to’.

If fishing is a part of Orkney which we wish to preserve, greater connection of future generations in relation to sustainable fishing may be an opportunity stemming from this plan.

The recognition of the importance of nursery, spawning and feeding areas for commercially fished species, and associated habitats and species, as well as the recognition of the potential impacts of developments and activities on the wider marine environment is welcomed.

It would be helpful if this policy set out how the plan can contribute to sustainable management of commercial fisheries in Orkney and address the impact of fishing on habitats and species.

Areas previously damaged by dredging should be allowed to recover, with dredging and bottom trawling stopped, allowing other more sustainable fishing methods.

Reference to the Orkney Inshore Fisheries Management Plan is out of date.

Commercial fishing plays an important role in the Orkney economy and recreational boaters benefit from it through, for example, harbour maintenance and boatyards.

Best practice use of creel buoys should be promoted as these can pose a hazard to navigation.

4.4.3. Sector Policy 2: Aquaculture (Q21)

Summary of consultation response issues

Concerns raised about the sustainability of aquaculture including effects on biodiversity, the water environment (chemical pressures) and wild salmonids.

There is an opportunity for this policy section to mention how salmon farming is a global leader on producing high quality, low carbon protein, and link this to objectives and goals outlined in the Blue Economy Vision, Aquaculture Vision, and National Food Strategy.

It is welcomed that this policy recognises the importance of nature conservation considerations, the application of the mitigation hierarchy and considering cumulative impacts from development and activities.

This marine plan should address the effects of specific fish farms in Orkney.

There is a disproportionate and unjustified focus on potential negative impacts from fish farming.

The wording in this policy section exaggerates potential cumulative impacts from finfish expansion and does not consider the work done by the sector and regulators in ensuring scale, siting, operations, and design of fish farm developments are appropriately managed to limit cumulative impacts on the marine environment and other users.

The plan should include policy for decommissioning schemes to be put in place for aquaculture developments.

The contextual text to this policy should acknowledge that the degree of environmental impact from fish farming depends on the type, scale, location and mitigation associated with a specific fish farming development or activity.

There are provisions in this policy to safeguard and protect other marine users and infrastructure from aquaculture activities; this policy also needs to include adequate provision to protect of aquaculture assets.

This policy should specifically detail the mitigation hierarchy.

It is important that new aquaculture technologies are only implemented at scale where they have demonstrated they adhere to all relevant policies.

There is a presumption that the "baseline" for "sustainable" is the status quo. But what if there are current unsustainable aquaculture farms? It would be interesting to see if this plan can leave scope for potential reassessments of past-approved uses of the marine environment.

The plan states that fishing has widespread impacts on the environment however this is then heavily caveated by stating "however, the degree of impact depends on the amount of fishing taking place, the efficiency and selectivity of gear, the approach taken to targeting species, and the nature and sensitivity of species and habitats affected." Similar caveats are not provided for other marine sectors. This should be consistent between sectors, particularly recognising the highly regulated nature of fish farming which takes a highly precautionary approach.

Concerns were raised about proposed increases in the size and biomass of fish farms not resulting in economic benefits within local communities e.g. increases in the number of jobs.

There is a need for independent modelling of fish farm impacts.

4.4.4. Sector Policy 3: Shipping, ports, harbours and ferries (Q22)

Summary of consultation response issues

The plan policies should address the onshore impacts of port and harbour development e.g. on harbours, housing provision and the local economy.

Sector Policy 3 i. g should include reference to fallow but consented aquaculture sites.

This policy does not contain any requirement to consider the Local Development Plan or National Planning Framework unlike aquaculture and pipeline, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure; this needs to be consistent across the sectoral policies.

It is important that the potential environmental impacts and risks from port and harbour developments are carefully managed to safeguard the marine environment in Orkney.

The Scapa Flow North and East Coast Safeguarded Area should be more limited in extent and should not include the coastline within the National Scenic Area.

The recreational anchorages shown on Map 21 should also be included in Sector Policy 3a.

Map 16 should include the recreational anchorages on Map 21.

4.4.5. Sector Policy 4: Pipeline, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure (Q23)

Summary of consultation response issues

The marine plan spatial data should include future cable route planning.

Cables running from Eday to the European Marine Energy Centre test site should be identified in Map 18.

Sector Policy 4a iii. g should include reference to fallow but consented aquaculture sites.

A requirement for the assessment and consideration of electromagnetic field effect should be included in this policy.

Provisions for decommissioning cables and pipelines should be a key consideration in decision making.

4.4.6. Sector Policy 5: Offshore wind, wave and tidal renewable energy generation (Q24)

Summary of consultation response issues

This policy needs to have localism at its heart to maximise the local social, economic and environmental benefits from hosting renewable energy developments in Orkney waters.

Local socio-economic benefit policies in the plan should span beyond employment and supply chain opportunities.

Framing ‘just transition’ in terms of jobs and economic activity falls short, and risks forgoing opportunities for actual just outcomes which could come from renewable energy deployments.

The plan should include future scenario planning for offshore wind development.

Concerns were raised that fishers will not be adequately protected through Sectoral Policy 5 a ii and b ii.

The plan should acknowledge that European Marine Energy Centre are investigating and examining options for a national floating wind test centre in Orkney.

This policy should reference the need to have regard to impacts on nature, including cumulative impacts, and the need for compensation, where adverse impacts cannot be avoided, minimised, or mitigated.

Biodiversity enhancement projects should be considered as part of offshore renewable energy developments to maximise biodiversity benefits.

There is no specific approved methodology or guidance for offshore renewable energy installation impact assessment on commercial fisheries, which can lead to impacts on fishing vessels not being adequately addressed.

There should be an inclusion for Marine Net Gain in the plan following the UK Strategy for Marine Net Gain.

This policy focuses on the potential socio-economic benefits and contributions to emissions reduction from renewable energy developments; there are significant benefits to local communities from fish farming development, and in the context of the climate emergency, this should be taken into account in decision making.

Sectoral Policy 5a ii. g should include reference to fallow but consented aquaculture sites.

This policy does not contain any requirement to consider the Local Development Plan or National Planning Framework unlike aquaculture and pipeline, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure; this needs to be consistent across the sectoral policies.

4.4.7. Sector Policy 6: Zero carbon fuels, and oil and gas transition (Q25)

Summary of consultation response issues

Concerns were raised about the phrasing within Sector Policy 6 where it states "Zero carbon fuel"; it should instead state "zero fossil carbon fuels" as the use of e-fuels could be prevented without this correction, leading to delays/obstructions in viable options for net-zero delivery.

The 'just transition' focus throughout the plan is primarily on jobs and skills; this is an important but restrictive approach to the 'just transition'.

4.4.8. Sector Policy 7: Tourism, recreation, leisure and sport (Q26)

Summary of consultation response issues

The plan should set out a strategy for the future development of marine tourism.

Does this marine plan have a say on cruise liners coming to Orkney, either the ones that already come or about more coming in the future?

Sector Policy 7a ig of this policy should include reference to fallow but consented aquaculture sites.

There is a role for place plans to identify recreational and sporting facilities to enable marine recreational activities and tourism.

Map 21 should include Orkney’s three marinas.

Sector Policy 7a iii could make it challenging to develop a new private marina if it is not applied in a sensible and proportionate manner.

4.5. Section 4: Monitoring, Evaluation and Review of the Plan

4.5.1. Overall Section 4: Monitoring, Evaluation and Review of the Plan (Q27)

Summary of consultation response issues

Effective monitoring is crucial to the success of the plan.

A review of the plan every five years is an acceptable timeframe.

Integration guidance should be prepared during the plan’s lifetime.

There should be opportunities for the review and amendment of plan policies in response to changes to wider policy, improvements in the evidence base for Orkney’s marine environment and understanding of the impacts of development.

The effects of the plan on businesses should be monitored and evaluated.

There should be an earlier first review of this plan to take account of the adoption and publication of National Marine Plan 2.

To keep the plan up to date, the maps in the plan should be available online and updates provided as new data becomes available.

4.6. Appendices

4.6.1. Appendix 1: Licensing and Consenting Decisions (Q28)

Summary of consultation response issues

Section 36 applications should include reference to the Energy Consents Unit where relevant.

4.6.2. Appendix 2: Relevant Legislation, Plans, Strategies and Policies (Q29)

Summary of consultation response issues

The Bute House Agreement is no longer in operation and should not be referred to in the plan.

Include reference to the Planning Acts, Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture, Scotland's National Food Strategy and associated legislation, Scotland's Economic Strategy and the National Islands Plan.

Marine Tourism: Giant Strides 2020-25 should be included in Appendix 2.

4.6.3. Appendix 3: National Marine Plan interactive (Q30)

Summary of consultation response issues

New data in National Marine Plan interactive (NMPi) needs to be updated more promptly.

There should be a requirement for industries to upload relevant data into the NMPi.

Data on NMPi should inform the identification of indicators as part of a monitoring and evaluation process for the plan.

4.6.4. Appendix 4: Natural Capital and Marine Ecosystem Services (Q31)

Summary of consultation response issues

Appendix 4 needs to be more specific in terms of ecosystem services that are provided by Orkney’s habitats in order to make it more accessible for developers/users of the plan to know precisely which services are likely to be impacted by certain developments/activities and it would also be useful to signpost to examples of appropriate mitigation.

There would be merit in detailing and quantifying the ecosystem services in the Orkney marine region.

4.6.5. Appendix 5: Priority Marine Features (Q32)

Summary of consultation response issues

It would be very useful to include mapping of these habitats and species (where it is available) and if there are gaps in knowledge these should be addressed.

4.6.6. Appendix 6: Seaweed Harvesting (Q33)

Summary of consultation response issues

Hand harvested seaweed is a completely different operation from seaweed aquaculture which is mentioned in Sector Policy 2; this Appendix 6 should be consistent with the wording of Sector Policy 2.

Seaweed harvesting should not be undertaken to the detriment of bird species that forage and use these ecosystems.

The assessment for future hand-harvesting and related activities need to be undertaken on a site-specific basis.

4.6.7. Appendix 7: Definition of Key Concepts, Acronyms and Glossary (Q34)

Summary of consultation response issues

Improved and more targeted definitions of just transitions and sustainable development would support the plan's action and implementation.

In the definition of the mitigation hierarchy, the term “offset unavoidable adverse impacts” needs to have further explanation with an emphasis that offsetting is a very last resort.

4.7. Supporting assessments

4.7.1. Strategic Environment Assessment (Q35)

Summary of consultation response issues

The SEA: Draft Environmental Report is well laid out however would benefit from going into more detail in some areas, as in its current form, it is quite high level and lacks some detail.

Some of the SEA objectives could be expanded on, reworded, or additional objectives added to better cover certain topics (e.g. benthic environment).

Additional/updated information for various annexes was provided, for example reference to new legislation and strategy documents for Appendix A and an updated Scheduled Monument data for Appendix B.5.

More detail could be given on mitigation measures in Appendix C3.

Lack of clarity over how the plan policies will be monitored against the objectives, however it is noted that a separate Monitoring and Evaluation Framework is currently under development.

4.7.2. Children's Rights and Wellbeing Screening Sheet and Impact Assessment (CRWIA) (Q36)

There were no consultation responses requesting updates or changes on the CRWIA within the consultation responses.

4.7.3. Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) (Q37)

Summary of consultation response issues

The assessment notes that there are five areas in Orkney which are classified as being "fragile"; the areas identified have fish farming activity taking place which is critical in combating these issues and thus sustainable growth of the sector should be supported.

It was welcomed that the assessment highlights the importance of aquaculture for the island communities.

The assessment summaries the demographic/economic composition of Orkney generally well. However, to aid in the implementation of General Policy 5, there should be some reviewal of potential inaccuracies within the stated assessment summaries.

In Table 3b all but employment in wave and tidal is increasing, and not highlighting this paints wave and tidal subsets of marine energy in an inaccurate negative light.

It would be useful to understand the methodology for producing Table 3b, from the State of the Environment Assessment, as it’s unclear how the conclusions have been drawn.

The inclusion of the ICIA is welcomed, but is lacking in detail in terms of specific feedback from communities and identification of specific issues relevant to Orkney.

The recognition of the importance of the energy sector to island communities is welcome but perhaps the importance of the subsea cable network to provide energy requirements for the many island communities on Orkney and supporting potential for renewable energy generation (onshore and marine) could be made clearer.

4.7.4. Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Q38)

There were no consultation responses requesting updates or changes on the EqIA within the consultation responses.

4.7.5. Habitat Regulations Appraisal (HRA) (Q39)

Summary of consultation response issues

The conclusion in 5.1 of the HRA 'that it has been ascertained through this Habitats Regulations Appraisal that the adoption of the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan, alone or in combination, would have no adverse effect on the integrity of any European sites site' is welcomed.

Coordination with parts of Scottish Government responsible for the offshore wind sectoral plan, National Marine Plan 2, NPF4, and any other process relating to planning for ports and harbours is recommended.

For this specific Marine Plan, due to the potential changes ahead led by energy transition, we may see adverse impacts occurring from some marine sectors that cannot be mitigated. At this present time, it is difficult to see where these issues may occur, as each development and/or change in use, will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

For new large-scale port developments and expansion of existing ports/harbours, changes and/or new proposals/vessel routes have potential to alter the existing distribution of Special Protection Area (SPA) waterbirds, which may be outwith any mitigation solution and/or alternative option, and thus result in Adverse Impact on Site Integrity (AISE). Therefore, it may not be possible to arrive at an outcome conclusion of ‘no further action needed’, as noted within the summarised Appropriate Assessment (AA). Each development/proposal/port and harbour development will be assessed on a case-by case basis, supported either by existing data and/or new ecological survey work to help gauge level of impacts to European Sites.

At this present time, it is understood that anchor berths and Ship-to-ship anchor berths, as depicted on map 15 (p104) of the Plan are changes to baseline operational processes that have yet to be assessed through HRA on Protected Areas of European importance.

Floating turbine technology is developing rapidly. This may involve turbine construction and testing at quayside, as well as turbine towing to wet storage locations. It is too early yet to gauge the likely impacts of this development, until more information is forthcoming. It is possible that change to operational processes at port-side, may be so significant to SPA waterbirds, that it has potential to result in adverse effect on the integrity of a European site (AISE). It is recommended that the potential for this level of impact should be reflected within this HRA.

The Conservation Objectives (COs) listed for Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) are likely to be out of date. New COs for SAC features have been identified which are site/feature specific, with some of these requiring restoration objectives subject to the condition of the SAC feature. As COs are being tailored to specific qualifying interests and their condition, this makes listing COs in a generic fashion quite problematical, and they therefore may need to be reviewed.

The HRA should reflect the issues of AISE and acknowledge derogation (Imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)), as these factors are quickly becoming an acknowledged part of large-scale coastal development.

There are some missing qualifying features for Scapa Flow SPA and North Orkney SPA in Appendix 1.

4.7.6. Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (Q40)

Summary of consultation response issues

It was welcomed that interviews will be held with business to inform the preparation of final BRIA.

It was stated in relation to General Policy 1a that development could still be sustainable for various reasons even if it does not conform to the plan and that the policy wording could be overly restrictive. Views were expressed that there needs to be flexibility to consider changing circumstances and other relevant material considerations in decision making.

There is currently a lack of guidance to support the implementation of General Policy 3 and General Policy 9 which could create uncertainty and additional costs.

The requirement to take into account the Aquaculture Spatial Guidance may create additional costs for applicants in justifying developments.

Views were expressed that the plan is skewed towards the protection of some types of existing marine developments and their future expansion such as ports and harbours.

The summary of potential impacts identified in the BRIA in Section 2.2 does not include any statement on General Policy 9b which could have significant additional costs in relation to biodiversity enhancement requirements. It should therefore be recognised in this document that there will be costs here but that there is uncertainty as to the extent of measures and therefore costs.

4.7.7. Any other comments or feedback (Q41)

Summary of consultation response issues

Overall, it is an ambitious and great plan, with substantial work and targeted, comprehensive policies.

The plan raises issues that a lot of policy and legislation lacks, which is hugely important, and creates great scope to be ambitious, leading and to have genuine positive impact.

The plan refers to achieving a balance between environmental, social and economic issues, however, in the content presented there is a strong volume of material and sentiment focused upon ecology and archaeology compared to social and economic issues.

Support expressed for the OIC's role as a delegated authority for delivering a Regional Marine Plan for Orkney, in line with the Marine (Scotland) and Islands (Scotland) Acts; the local authority provides a democratically accountable governance structure to deliver effective marine planning, which is different to the Regional Marine Planning Partnerships.

Further work is required on spatial planning and the OIRMP should be a first step to create an action plan for further work in the marine environment to protect and enhance habitats and address the biodiversity and climate crises.

Across all policies, understanding to what extent these are recommendations, or to what extent these can be mandated and ensured will be crucial for local transparency and to understand the impacts of future projects more broadly.

The draft plan overall is balanced and proportionate and aligns well with the requirements of NPF4.

The plan is comprehensive and well written, however, the many associated supporting assessments should be screened out as unnecessary, as the associated issues have been assessed under the National Marine Plan.

There is a lack of recognition of the benefits of fish farming when compared to other sectors such as fishing and renewable energy throughout the draft plan.

Filling in the consultation response form was quite difficult, and it would be better if oral evidence at a consultation event could have been treated as an adequate and valid response to the consultation.