Marine Planning Zones extension proposals: consultation analysis

Analysis of responses

An analysis of the responses was conducted by the Aquaculture Policy Unit, within the Marine Directorate of Scottish Government. Throughout the report, “respondent” is used to refer to organisations, groups and individuals. Response results are outlined below.

Question 1: Do you agree with the proposal to extend marine planning zones out to 12 nautical miles?

• 40 respondents answered “agree”
• 11 answered “disagree”
• 2 did not answer the question but both respondents stated they neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal in their additional comments.

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide reasons for their answer, with 38 respondents providing additional comments.

Academia

The Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) disagreed with the proposal to extend marine planning zones.

SAMS stated that “some local authorities lack sufficient resources adequately to deal either with operational planning (i.e. considering applications for planning permission at single sites) or strategic planning (e.g. allocating zones for aquaculture) in offshore waters.” They also noted that statutory consultees for licensing may not have the resources necessary to support offshore site licensing and monitoring.

SAMS also stated that “there is no mechanism attached to this extension to enable potential synergies between aquaculture and offshore renewable energy generation”.

Aquaculture sector

Of the 4 aquaculture organisations that responded to the consultation, 3 agreed with the proposal to extend marine planning zones and 1 did not answer the question, but noted they neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

Salmon Scotland and Seafood Shetland noted that the proposals would close an existing regulatory gap. Salmon Scotland and Simply Blue Aquaculture both referred to developments in aquaculture technology allowing farms to be located further from the shore, in deeper more energetic waters.

Scottish Sea farms, who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal, stated that there was opportunity to consider different approaches to fish farm consenting processes, such as removing fish farming from the planning system, introducing sectoral planning for fish farming, having planning applications determined by Scottish Government and investigating the implementation of a new Aquaculture Act.

Salmon Scotland did note that the proposal may have a detrimental effect on the quality of determinations and consents made by local authorities, referencing inherent issues in the planning process.

Environmental and animal welfare groups

Of the 4 organisations that responded, 3 agreed with the proposal to extend marine planning zones and 1 disagreed.

Both Marine Conservation Society and Aquatic Life Institute noted that the proposals would close an existing regulatory gap.

Aquatic Life Institute recommended that animal welfare guidelines be integrated into the planning process.

Marine Conservation Society referenced the nature of new technologies being used would require more resource from regulators to make informed decisions and that resource to regulate such developments would also be higher. They also stated that “The current SEPA CAR licence process also only extends out to 3 NM. There needs to be consideration for what equivalencies would need to be put in place for any approved future sites located between 3 and 12 NM.”

Soil Association Scotland noted that they currently disagreed with the extension of marine planning zones, citing concerns that “that the regulatory framework that currently guides the process of licensing and maintaining those licenses is not appropriate for sites beyond three nautical miles.” They also highlighted risks of escapes and a lack of clarity on which authorities would be responsible for regulating environmental impacts.

Fisheries groups

Of the 9 fisheries groups that responded to the consultation, 6 agreed with the proposal, 2 disagreed and 1 did not answer the question, but noted they neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The 2 respondents that disagreed with the proposal, including the Scottish Fisherman’s Federation, stated that the proposal would result in further spatial conflict between commercial fishing and aquaculture. References were also made to increased risk of entanglements from aquaculture equipment, increased pollution risks and the capacity and competency of local authorities to ensure the fishing industry is treated fairly in decision making processes related to aquaculture planning.

Respondents that agreed with the proposal included a number of Regional Inshore Fisheries Groups, Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust and Skye and Lochalsh Rivers Trust. It was noted by some that the proposals would allow developments to be appropriately assessed.

Fisheries Management Scotland neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal, noting caution if it “enables further fish farming developments to occur that do not robustly account for the potential risk and impacts to wild salmonids.” Fisheries Management Scotland noted they would not be supportive “if SEPA’s regulatory boundary is not extended to 12 nautical miles also”, referring to SEPA’s role in managing the risk posed by sea lice to wild salmon and sea trout.

Individuals

Of the 24 individuals that responded to the consultation, 17 agreed with the proposals and 7 disagreed.

A number of respondents that disagreed with the proposals suggested there should be no further expansion of salmon farming due to negative environmental impacts.

One respondent noted how the proposals would not introduce any new safeguards or strengthen existing ones for fish farm consents and that issues with local authority capacity and modelling accuracy led to weakness in the regulatory framework for aquaculture.

One respondent stated that the proposals would lead to increased regulation which would be detrimental to the industry.

A number of the respondents that agreed with the proposals noted that they would close an existing regulatory gap.

One respondent stated that the proposal would give a greater area of development for fish farms, particularly in deeper water where new farming technology can be used.

One respondent suggested dedicated research zones should be established to support innovation.

Local authorities

All 4 local authorities that responded to the consultation agreed with the proposal to extend marine planning zones. Additional comments noted that this would close an existing regulatory gap.

Orkney Islands Council also stated that “current technical innovation in the sector will enable finfish farm development in locations further offshore. These innovations have the potential to reduce future development pressure in more sensitive near-shore locations.”

Shetland Islands Council also stated that “extension to 12 nautical miles would reflect the Scottish Marine Regions created under the Marine (Scotland ) Act 2010. These are to be supported by Regional Marine Plans, and in our case the Shetland Islands Regional Marine Plan is currently with Scottish Ministers for adoption.”

Navigational bodies

Both the Northern Lighthouse Board and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency agreed with the proposal to extend marine planning zones.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency noted that requirements for the assessment of the impact on shipping, safe navigation and emergency response should continue, and a proportionate Navigation Risk Assessment would be required for developments in this area.

Other marine organisations

The Clyde Marine Planning Partnership and Royal Yachting Association Scotland both agreed with the proposal to extend marine planning zones. Additional comments noted that this would close an existing regulatory gap.

Other public bodies

Crown Estate Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland both agreed with the proposal to extend marine planning zones.

Crown Estate Scotland noted that this would close an existing regulatory gap.

Question 2: Do you agree with the proposed marine planning zones, extended out to 12 nautical miles, as presented in the illustrative and interactive maps?

• 40 respondents answered “agree”
• 11 answered “disagree”
• 2 did not provide a response to the question

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide reasons for their answer, with 28 respondents providing additional comments.

Of the respondents that disagreed, 6 referred directly to their reasons given under Question 1 of the consultation.

One respondent included comments related to the content of the Islands Communities Impact Assessment, which has been considered along with other points made in relation to impact assessments under Question 4 of the consultation.

Four respondents raised potential inaccuracies with the proposed marine planning zones.

One respondent stated that “the designation of Argyll Southwest of the Mull of Kintyre appears not to follow the median line suggesting prospective overlap with potential extension of the jurisdiction of Antrim to the median line where this distance is less than 12 nautical miles.”

One respondent stated: “I believe it should be all along the coast to Durness”. The respondent was contacted to seek clarity on whether this comment related to a specific marine area and any other reasons why any of the proposed boundaries may be inaccurate, but no further clarity on this matter was provided.

Orkney Islands Council stated the marine planning zone for the Orkney

Islands “should be the same as the boundaries for the Orkney Islands Scottish Marine Region”. It was noted that there may be a minor mismatch in the Pentland Firth between the boundary of the proposed extended marine planning zones and the Orkney Islands Scottish Marine Region.

Crown Estate Scotland noted that there may be discrepancies in the placement of the boundaries in Clackmannanshire and North Rona. Further information on the potential discrepancies was subsequently provided by Crown Estate Scotland.

Simply Blue Aquaculture referred to the current presumption against fish farm development in the North and East coasts and suggested these should be reconsidered for the 3-12 nautical mile zone.

The Scottish Association for Marine Science stated that “existing, and proposed extended, marine planning zones are purely administrative divisions, unrelated to processes in the marine environment that can carry water, wastes and organisms between zones” and referenced hydrographic connections between a number of marine planning zones which should not be subdivided. It was then stated that “strategic planning - allocation of areas prioritised for aquaculture - should bring together all relevant authorities and take account of cumulative effects from multiple farms and other sea-uses”.

Question 3: Do you have any other points you wish to raise regarding the proposal to extend marine planning zones out to 12 nautical miles?

• 33 respondents provided a response to this question

A number of respondents reiterated points raised in answers given to previous questions in the consultation.

A number of respondents queried whether the marine planning zones would be involved in managing fishing and renewable energy activity.

A number of respondents referenced the need for guidance on aquaculture development beyond 3 nautical miles to be included in the National Marine Plan 2.

A number of respondents provided comments on the theme of ensuring applications are suitably assessed, giving consideration to impacts on the environment, communities and other marine sectors.

A number of respondents commented on the need to ensure that other aquaculture consenting processes were aligned with the extension of planning powers out to 12 nautical miles.

One respondent stated that Government should focus on river pollution and that fish farms should be moved onshore.

The Scottish Fisherman’s Federation stated the proposals could lead to the spread of disease and invasive non-native species.

Seafood Shetland noted the proposals could lead to new applications for new Classified Shellfish Harvesting Areas which may pressure Food Standards Scotland resources.

The Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) stated that a joint Regional Marine Planning Partnership should be established for the waters of the West Coast and Western Isles of Scotland to define zoning plans for aquaculture, with the RMPP including a role for local authorities, key stakeholders and potentially local academic researchers. SAMS also suggested funding the extra work of local authorities could be achieved through drawing on Crown Estate Scotland’s lease income or through a production tax on farms.

Crown Estate Scotland referred to the need for engagement with Marine Directorate Licensing Operation team to avoid conflict with other types of marine development.

Salmon Scotland noted the opportunity to develop a more streamlined system between 3 and 12 nautical miles, reducing the number of separate regulatory bodies involved in aquaculture consenting. Salmon Scotland also stated local authority marine planners are under resourced, and noted the role an aquaculture planning hub could have in improving capacity in this area. They also recommended consideration of a new Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) strategy for fish farms beyond 3 nautical miles, with work to be taken forward by the Scottish Government’s Consenting Task Group.

Soil Association Scotland suggested production beyond 3 nautical miles may not comply with existing organic standards, thereby placing organic producers at a disadvantage compared to non-organic producers in respect to the available space to develop new farms.

Question 4: Do you agree with our approach to the impact assessments for the proposed extension to marine planning zones?

• 38 respondents answered “agree”
• 11 answered “disagree”
• 4 did not provide a response to the question

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide reasons for their answer. 25 respondents provided additional comments which are grouped by impact assessment. A miscellaneous category has been used to capture views outwith the scope of the impact assessments carried out for this consultation.

Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) – Partial

All respondents who referenced the BRIA directly disagreed with the approach to the impact assessments.

The aquaculture sector raised a variety of concerns relating to the BRIA including a lack of pre-consultation engagement, Salmon Scotland stated that despite aquaculture business being “identified by the assessment as a relevant group for pre-consultation discussions, no such process took place before release of this public consultation”. Other concerns raised by Salmon Scotland include:

• the lack of resourcing and funding for local authorities and other regulators to effectively carry out their duties in the current system “or its effects on meeting consenting and determination timelines for applications as a cost on businesses”
• “the BRIA does not currently recognise recent initiatives from Scottish Government and sectoral working groups aiming to simplify finfish regulatory and licensing processes”.
• the options considered and the detail at which they were considered. This concern was shared by another respondent from the aquaculture sector who said: “The BRIA only considers two options and does not do so in appropriate level of detail or in a balanced way”.

The lack of resourcing and funding was echoed by Orkney Island Council, who stated: “Fish farm applications are complex and are frequently EIA developments, therefore they are very resource intensive to process. Planning application fees for fish farms should be increased to address this issue, and further resources made available for planning authorities to discharge their wider functions for strategic planning and management of the fish farming sector.”

A respondent from the Fisheries Group noted that the partial BRIA “does not consider the impact of the proposals on the commercial fishing sector and this is an omission, as the proposals are likely to have an impact on our sector”.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Three respondents provided further comment on the SEA, 1 of which agreed with the approach taken to the impact assessments while the other 2 disagreed.

Historic Environment Scotland noted that they were content with the SEA following participation in a screening request.

A respondent from the fisheries group stated “We also don’t agree that a Strategic Environmental Assessment is not required. Whilst assessments will be carried out of the environmental effects of specific applications out to 12 nm, this was an opportunity to carry out a cumulative assessment, rather than a site-specific assessment.”

An individual noted that although the SEA is included it “focuses on ensuring compliance with existing environmental laws rather than introducing new protective measures.”

Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) – Partial

The Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) referred to the ICIA and disagreed with the approach taken. SAMS expressed their concern around funding and resourcing for local authorities to adequately respond to the current marine planning zone limit and noted that ports in the Hebrides would require upgrading to support “servicing of large offshore aquaculture structures”.

SAMS stated, “It appears therefore that these island communities could be disadvantaged by the planning zone extension, unless there is more support for marine planning and port development.”

One respondent disagreed with the assumption that there are no anticipated unique impacts on Island Communities arising from the proposal.

Another respondent questioned the effectiveness of the impact assessments noting, “We do not want to see a process similar to ICIA which does not deal with issues”

Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment

Seafood Shetland responded and agreed with the approach taken in the impact assessments, however they noted that the “Child Rights' and Wellbeing Impact Assessment appears rather out of context in this particular instance.”

Comments on all impact assessments

Four of the respondents who agreed with the approach taken for the impact assessments provided general comments in support. However it should be noted that one responded who agreed stated that they “didn’t properly understand the question”.

Miscellaneous

Some of the respondents provided further comment on impact assessments that did not refer to those carried out for this consultation including some wider comments.

Four of these respondents agreed with the approach to the impact assessments and 4 did not. Of those who indicated their agreement:

Crown Estate Scotland noted that they “partially agree” and that a Habitats Regulation Appraisal (HRA) was missing from the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) stating, “A HRA is a statutory requirement under the Habitat Regulations to protect European designated sites and should be included in the list of assessments/ screening to be undertaken”.

The Aquatic Life Institute noted that species specific welfare impacts should have been considered for potential impacts on both farmed and wild species interactions, which would “enhance the robustness of the impact assessments, ensuring that the extended zones support both economic and welfare outcomes.”

A respondent from the Fisheries group indicated that they would like to see “extensive pre-development surveys delivered and substantial baseline data collected as part of the environmental impact assessment”

One respondent suggested that there should be “dedicated ‘research zones’ to support innovation and development in the marine environment” which would create “more value for Scotland”.

Four individuals disagreed with the approach to the impact assessments and provided comment on a wider narrative.

Two of the 4 individuals noted their disagreement with the expansion of aquaculture with one respondent highlighting concerns over the impact of “unregulated fish waste, fish food and antiparasitic treatments” on the environment and the impact offshore structures may have on large marine creatures, citing Cetaceans, and a “distinct potential for obstruction and entanglement of these species as well as increased disturbance of such larger cetaceans habits”. The respondent also raised concerns that this would run contrary to the Scottish Government’s Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture principle of “ensuring “nature protected and activities managed using an ecosystem-based approach to ensure negative impacts on marine ecosystems are minimised and, where possible, reversed.””

This was echoed by a third individual who commented on the lack of wildlife studies on the topic.

Contrary to the previous comments a fourth respondent noted that there are “more than enough regulations already.”