Scottish Marine Recovery Fund: consultation analysis report

8 Impact Assessments Consultation Analysis Results

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 The consultation posed 4 questions relating to impact assessments which are discussed below. All 4 questions include exclusively free text responses.

8.2 Question 16 - Do you have any comments on the findings of the partial BRIA?

8.2.1 The draft partial BRIA has found that by supporting the expansion of offshore wind development in Scotland, a Scottish MRF could have:

• positive impacts for the offshore wind industry and related businesses (e.g., supply chain businesses) as it will provide opportunities for a wider range of compensation to be secured for offshore wind development;
• negative impacts on commercial fisheries due to the expansion of offshore wind development and the introduction of spatially defined compensatory measures; and
• an impact on other marine users (e.g., commercial shipping) due to the expansion of offshore wind development and spatial demands for compensatory measures, which will increase demand for use of marine space.

8.2.2 18 respondents answered question 16. 8 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 0 individuals and 18 organisations.

8.2.3 Of the 18 responses, 9 did not directly address the question and included comments such as ‘No comment’ or similar non-substantive replies.

8.2.4 The 9 substantive responses received came from the Public Sector, Environmental NGOs, Fisheries Sector, Offshore Wind Sector, and Other Marine Industries, representing 3, 3, 1, 1, and 1 response from each sector respectively.

8.2.5 Respondents from the Public Sector provided a range of views on the partial BRIA. There was some agreement and support for the BRIA, the BRIA’s focus on climate and biodiversity goals and the acknowledged resource implications for SNCBs was welcomed. However, respondents felt it underestimated regional economic opportunities in the Highlands, called for more detail on secondary impacts to fisheries and tourism and requested that the full BRIA considers receiving communities and applies Just Transition principles to affected sectors. One Public Sector respondent suggested that covering SNCB advisory costs could help streamline processes.

8.2.6 Environmental NGO respondents provided a range of views on the partial BRIA. One respondent from the sector welcomed the environmental focus, but another criticised the BRIA for dismissing a full Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA), and cited evidence of disproportionate island impacts, and urged broader cost definitions that include engagement with non-statutory island networks. Another Environmental NGO respondent also called for greater transparency on cost calculations, economic implications of voluntary rather than mandatory participation, ecological effectiveness, and monitoring roles.

8.2.7 The respondent from the Fisheries Sector noted that the partial BRIA does not fully reflect the direct impacts on commercial fisheries due to omission of consequences of fisheries management measures in the portfolio of compensatory measures.

8.2.8 The respondent from the Offshore Wind Sector generally agreed with the findings of the BRIA however noted that compensatory measures could present some long-term benefits for commercial fisheries. The respondent suggested that the creation of a new MPA accompanied by a fishing restriction could restore the ecosystem and improve fish populations.

8.2.9 The respondent from the Other Marine Industries sector noted that the partial BRIA overlooks risks of competitive distortion over other marine sectors and Just Transition, emphasising tidal supply chains’ importance to coastal and island communities.

8.3 Question 17 - Do you have any additional information on the potential business or regulatory impacts of a Scottish MRF being established?

8.3.1 19 respondents answered question 17. 7 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 0 individuals and 17 organisations.

8.3.2 Of the 19 responses, 10 did not directly address the question and included comments such as ‘No comment’ or similar non-substantive replies.

8.3.3 9 substantive responses were received. The responses by organisational sector came from Environmental NGOs, the Offshore Wind Sector, Fisheries Sector, Other Marine Industries, and the Public Sector, representing 4, 2, 1, 1, and 1 responses respectively.

8.3.4 Environmental NGO respondents emphasised the need for investment in regulatory capacity and clearer costings, while also identifying potential for local green job creation and infrastructure development on islands. The responses included calls for better alignment with the existing Marine Litter Strategy^[21] and National Litter and Fly Tipping Strategy^[22]. There were also calls for the Scottish MRF to complement mandatory measures for polluting marine sectors, specifically implementing decommissioning bonds for aquaculture developments and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for fishing gear. One respondent stressed that clear coordination and guidance are essential for effective MRF implementation and called for clarity on participation requirements and enforcement responsibilities to prevent bureaucratic delays. The respondent also highlighted that uncertainties remain around whether participation will be voluntary or mandatory, and called for clarity on bodies responsible for compliance monitoring and enforcement, particularly regarding conditions tied to Section 36 consent.

8.3.5 Respondents from the Offshore Wind Sector welcomed the MRF’s potential to improve consenting timelines and cost predictability.

8.3.6 The respondent from Other Marine Industries sector raised concerns that the MRF might overlook tidal energy, suggesting its inclusion could unlock greater rural economic benefits. The respondent from the Fisheries Sector did not identify direct impacts and requested more detailed stakeholder engagement to support a full BRIA. The respondent from the Public Sector noted potential for long-term investment certainty in offshore wind but warned that increased developer costs could affect competitiveness in leasing rounds.

8.4 Question 18 - Do you have any comments on whether the establishment of a Scottish MRF will have any positive or negative impacts on consumers of Scotland?

8.4.1 The partial BRIA concluded that potential impacts from establishing the Scottish MRF are not anticipated to impact consumers as defined by the Consumer Duty Impact Assessment (CDIA). The reasoning behind this decision being that a Scottish MRF will not affect the quality, availability or price of any goods or services on the market.

8.4.2 20 respondents answered question 18. 6 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 1 individual and 19 organisations.

8.4.3 Of the 20 responses received, 8 did not directly address the question and included comments such as ‘No comment’ or similar non-substantive replies.

8.4.4 The substantive responses received represented responses from 1 individual and 11 organisations. The breakdown by sector includes responses from the Offshore Wind Sector, Environmental NGOs, Public Sector, Fisheries Sector, and Other Marine Industries, representing 4, 3, 2, 1, and 1 responses respectively.

8.4.5 Respondents from the Offshore Wind Sector, Environmental NGOs, and Public Sector highlighted the importance of streamlining consenting processes to support predictable renewable energy delivery, which could enhance energy security and reduce consumer costs. Respondents also noted the MRF may support local economies and green jobs. One respondent from the Offshore Wind Sector pointed to delays caused by complex compensation requirements under the Habitats Regulations, especially for seabird impacts, noting that the strategic compensation mechanism in the Scottish MRF could help lower project costs and Contract for Difference strike prices, which may lower consumer prices. Overall, simplifying processes was seen as key to delivering more affordable energy.

8.4.6 While respondents from the Public Sector and Environmental NGOs generally agreed that a Scottish MRF may provide lower energy costs for consumers, respondents from these sectors noted that the fund must be managed appropriately to prevent the transfer of compensatory costs to consumers, and to safeguard ecosystem service benefits for Scottish consumers. Respondents from Environmental NGOs called for transparency in compensation delivery measures and marine governance, as well as stakeholder engagement with Scottish consumers. The respondent from the Fisheries Sector noted that streamlining the consenting process for offshore wind developments may lead to difficulties in obtaining affordable local fish and shellfish due to resulting efficiency losses in the commercial fisheries sector.

8.5 Question 19 - Do you have any comments on whether the establishment of a Scottish MRF will have any positive or negative impacts on island communities, in a way which is different from other communities?

8.5.1 An ICIA scoping exercise was undertaken to support the Scottish MRF consultation, which did not identify any unique impacts to island communities from the establishment of a Scottish MRF and therefore concluded a full ICIA was not considered necessary. This conclusion will be updated before the policy is finalised to reflect any new evidence gathered in this consultation analysis report.

8.5.2 17 respondents answered question 19. 9 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 0 individuals and 17 organisations.

8.5.3 Of the 17 responses received, 10 did not directly address the question and included comments such as ‘No comment’ or similar non-substantive replies.

8.5.4 The 7 substantive responses received were from the following sectors: Environmental NGOs, Fisheries Sector, Offshore Wind Sector, Other Marine Industries, and the Public Sector, representing 1, 1, 1, 1 and 3 responses respectively.

8.5.5 Respondents generally highlighted the need for greater consideration of island-specific challenges and opportunities in the Scottish MRF. A respondent from the Public Sector criticised the lack of a full ICIA and another Public Sector respondent called for dedicated consultations to ensure local needs are addressed. Concerns were raised by the Fisheries Sector regarding negative impacts on island fishermen, particularly in Orkney and Shetland, while the respondent from the Other Marine Industries sector emphasised the importance of including tidal energy to support local jobs and energy security. There were also calls from Environmental NGOs to island-proof the Scottish MRF to tackle issues like marine litter and waste transport, and to ensure compensation measures benefit island communities without restricting access or overlooking biodiversity and community interests.