Publication - Consultation analysis

Planning Scotland's Seas: Scotland's National Marine Plan. Consultation Response Analysis Report

Published: 2 May 2014
Part of:
Marine and fisheries
ISBN:
9781784124182

Planning Scotland’s Seas: Scotland’s National Marine Plan was published for consultation in July 2013. Independent analysis of all written responses to the consultation has been undertaken and is presented in this report.

Planning Scotland's Seas: Scotland's National Marine Plan. Consultation Response Analysis Report
18 BUSINESS AND REGULATORY

18 BUSINESS AND REGULATORY

Chapter summary

  • Of the 22 respondents who commented at this question, only nine respondents directly addressed potential impacts of proposals in the Plan. Of those who did, most pointed out potential negative economic and regulatory impacts.
  • There were also some mentions made about the relative emphasis of types of economic or regulatory impacts, without identifying these impacts as positive or negative.

Potential economic or regulatory impacts

18.1 Several summary questions about the National Marine Plan proposals were asked:

Question 37: Please tell us about any potential economic or regulatory impacts, either positive or negative, that you think any or all of the proposals in this consultation may have

18.2 As can be seen in table 18.1, twenty-two of the 124 respondents gave their opinions to this question.

Table 18.1 Question 37: Please tell us about any potential economic or regulatory impacts, either positive or negative, that you think any or all of the proposals in this consultation may have

Respondent group
Individuals (16) 2
Academic / scientific (7) 3
Aquaculture (5) -
Energy (12) 3
Environment / conservation (9) 3
Fisheries (13) 3
Historic / Heritage (5) -
Industry / transport (9) 2
Local Authority (15) 2
Local coastal partnership (7) 2
Local group (5) -
Other public sector (10) 2
Recreation / Tourism (7) -
Other (4) -
Total (124) 22

18.3 Only nine respondents directly addressed potential impacts of proposals in the Plan. Of those who did, most pointed out potential negative economic and regulatory impacts. These were:

  • Four respondents said more work was needed to clarify costs of implementation of Regional Marine Plans, Marine Planning Partnerships and Marine Action Plans, as specifically mentioned by single respondents;
  • One industry/ transport respondent pinpointed fuel cost increases for shipping operators as a concern;
  • Five respondents specified regulatory areas where a lack of coordination or integration might cause difficulties. These were perceived to be: Regional Marine Planning, the National Planning Framework, the interface across marine and land use areas, and the potential negative impacts on existing licences and consents (all one mention);
  • Two respondents noted the potential for new project delays due to a longer or more detailed process.

18.4 Only two - a Local Authority respondent and an organisation in the industry/ transport sector - said that the overall impact of the proposals would be positive.

18.5 Other mentions were made about the relative emphasis of types of economic or regulatory impacts within the Draft NMP, without identifying these impacts as positive or negative. Impacts included:

  • Less acceptance of business and commercial interests, or less economically based decision-making (six respondents, including three environment / conservation bodies);
  • A definition or redefinition of 'sustainable growth' (three respondents);
  • More importance given to the economic benefits of energy transmission upgrades (two energy respondents).

18.6 Concerns were expressed by three respondents (two fisheries and an environment/ conservation organisation) over the possible displacement of fishing activity by other activities, because of a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

18.7 An industry/ transport respondent also requested the Plan to be clearer in terms of regulations, both national and international, that sectors are subject to in order to avoid any unnecessary regulatory burden on businesses.


Contact