Unconventional oil and gas policy: SEA

SNH

Environmental baseline

Consideration of the Environmental Baseline in Section 5 focusses on ‘Potential pressures associated with unconventional oil and gas development’ for each SEA topic. It will be important to ensure that the preferred policy option is the focus of the assessment and is not lost in consideration of the alternative scenarios. For example, it will be interesting to note the effect of the preferred position on the potential pressures on biodiversity detailed in section 5.15.

The environmental baseline sets out the current trends and pressures on each SEA topic area, in the absence of unconventional oil and gas development, it also includes a summary of additional pressures which could result from unconventional oil and gas. This approach provides the required baseline to inform the assessment.

HES

We are broadly content with the summary baseline provided for the historic environment, but consider that subjective phrases such as ‘iconic’ or ‘landmark’ are not helpful in this context. Given the nature of the assessment, we are content that assessment will focus on more generic (in terms of heritage asset type and/or location) historic environment baseline, but recommend that you ensure that where varying levels of detail occur across the assessment, the baseline is tailored accordingly.

Historic baseline language has been updated.

SEPA

We are generally content with the gathering and presentation of the baseline information; however, the section on material assets appears inconsistent. Sections 5.77 includes mineral resources, environmental pollution, the treatment of waste products, and land use change. This description does not appear to be consistent with the issues which appear in the latter sections. For example the current state and existing pressures sections refer to peat and mineral resources but do not refer to waste or pollution issues.

Additional data included on waste trends and water quality trends.

SNH

Reasonable alternatives

We are content with the KPMG scenario approach taken in the ‘Reasonable alternatives’ section. However, we would reiterate that we consider the focus of the assessment should be on the preferred policy option with comparisons drawn across the three alternative scenarios. This does not necessarily come across clearly in the scoping report, particularly where the emphasis is on the ‘environmental effects of unconventional oil and gas development avoided’ rather than on positive or negative effects of the position statement.

The approach to the assessment is described in Section 2, Methodology. This describes the approach to the assessment and explains the approach to the assessment of the alternatives, including the emphasis on environmental effects of unconventional oil and gas avoided.

HES

The diagram at 4.10 suggests that assessment of the PPP will be defined by the findings of the assessment of the other alternatives, rather than considering the effects that the PPP may have in its own right. We recommend that for transparency and clarity, all four alternatives should be assessed on their own merits, to the same level, and that there should be parity in terms of the consideration of ‘avoided’ effects.

The approach to the assessment is described in Section 2, Methodology. This describes the approach to the assessment and explains the approach to the assessment of the alternatives, including the emphasis on environmental effects of unconventional oil and gas avoided.

SEPA

We note that the three alternatives described in the KPMG 2016 report i.e. the Central, Low and High development scenarios (section 2.9) will be used as the alternative scenarios required for the SEA. We would expect to see the same rigour applied to the assessment of potential environmental effects for the preferred policy option as to each of the three other alternatives.

It is unclear what the diagram in section 4.10 depicts - particularly the box containing the words environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas scenarios avoided. We would suggest that a straightforward approach would be to simply assess the environmental impacts of the preferred policy option. This would be on an equitable basis with the consideration given to the other three alternatives. The overarching narrative could then draw out and discuss the environmental benefits / dis-benefits of the preferred policy option in comparison to the environmental effects which would result from pursuing any of the other three alternatives.

We would expect to see the potential environmental effects of each of the three alternatives (i.e. central, low, and high development scenarios) and the preferred policy option to be identified and discussed in turn in relation to impacts on the current environmental baseline. We are content with the proposal to report these assessments in narrative form and would expect to see a separate narrative for each of the three alternatives and the preferred policy option presented.

The approach to the assessment is described in Section 2, Methodology. This describes the approach to the assessment and explains the approach to the assessment of the alternatives, including the emphasis on environmental effects of unconventional oil and gas avoided.

SNH

Methodology

We agree with Section 4. Methodology for all the SEA topics to be scoped in, but would ask that you also consider environmental effects on access and recreation. This is due to the potential implications from any of the likely scale of development scenarios adding to existing pressures on access and recreation opportunities in the highly developed ‘central belt’ area of Scotland. This is often included within the Population and/or Human Health topics.

Recreation and access added to baseline and included in assessment for population and human health.

SNH

Cumulative effects

Section 4.14 proposes consideration of the cumulative effects of the alternative scenarios across each SEA topic, and between topics. However, with consideration of the comments above and the focus of the Environmental Report being on the preferred position, in the interests of proportionality, we suggest this element of the assessment could be reasonably focussed.

Noted

HES

We welcome that you intend to consider the potential for cumulative effects, but note that you have not referred to secondary or synergistic effects. We would expect the assessment to consider such effects within Scotland, and this should be clearly presented in the ER.

Reference to secondary or synergistic effects is included.

SNH

Potential effects of sourcing oil and gas products from other countries

We note that detailed consideration of potential effects of sourcing oil and gas products from other countries is beyond the scope of the proposed policy position (4.12). However, it would be helpful if the assessment could include a general narrative and give direction to areas of further consideration as part of possible mitigation from the environmental effects from the existing preferred position scenario. Existing plans, programmes and strategies should be referred to as offering potential mitigation options in their ambitions and desired outcomes, for instance, as outlined in the Energy Strategy (2017), the renewed emphasis on energy efficiency and the overall approach to energy being driven by the need to decarbonise the whole energy system, in line with emissions levels set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act.

Narrative on this issue is included.

SEPA

We agree with the statement at section 4.12 that detailed consideration of potential effects of sourcing oil and gas products from other countries is beyond the scope of the current policy. However, we note that the introduction to the policy statement published in December 2017 states that the future of unconventional oil and gas in Scotland is relevant to wider energy issues and our climate change ambitions. As such we would recommend that the assessment, ER and / or Post Adoption Statement (PAS) acknowledge the issue of out-sourcing as an area for further consideration and also establishes appropriate monitoring mechanisms to ensure that meaningful data on activity in this area can be gathered. Such monitoring will contribute to building an essential evidence base which can be used to inform related policy (e.g. energy, planning, or climate change) in the future.

Section 6.3 states that it is anticipated that the preferred policy position will become part of the revised National Planning Framework (NPF4); this together with the revised Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) will have a great deal of influence on future social and economic activity. Some of this activity will require oil and gas related products either as a source of materials or a source of energy; a portion of this need may be met from non-domestic oil and gas supplies. In terms of Scotland’s contribution to global sustainable development goals it is important that the potential effects of the preferred policy option and its alternatives are seen within this wider context (e.g. will there be an increase in imports, or will related domestic policy ensure that alternatives are established). It is therefore important that cognisance is given in this current environmental assessment to the effects which our domestic policy can have in the global context.

Narrative on this issue is included.

SNH

Relationship of Plans, Programmes and Strategies and Environmental Protection Objectives

Section 3.11 notes SNH as a statutory consultee for decommissioning plans. This is not a statutory requirement for SNH. Further, as of April 2017, we also deal with development proposals at sea beyond 12 nautical miles.

Reference to statutory consultee for decommissioning plans deleted.

SNH involvement in development proposals at sea beyond 12 nautical miles noted.

SEPA

Mitigation and enhancement

We would encourage you to be very clear in the Environmental Report about mitigation and enhancement measures which are proposed as a result of the assessment. Section 4.16 states that mitigation will be proposed for the pre-moratorium scenarios. We understand this to mean the three alternative scenarios identified by KPMG. We would recommend that proposed mitigation and enhancement measures are set out in a way that clearly identifies: (1) the measures required, (2) when they would be required and (3) who will be required to implement them. The inclusion of a summary table in the Environmental Report such as that presented below would be useful to help track progress on mitigation through the monitoring process.

Noted.

Insert effect recorded in ER

Insert mitigation measure to address effect

Insert as appropriate

Insert as appropriate

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

We note from section 4.17 that mitigation of environmental effects from the preferred policy position will be related to the wider policy implications, and will draw on the mitigation provided by existing policies and strategies. We would again recommend the use of a table such as that above to record these mitigation measures. In this case this could include details of “assumed” mitigation e.g. that provided by existing planning or environmental regulation as well as required mitigation e.g. that which may be achieved through a review of existing regulation or the creation of new policy.

We would highlight the importance of considering any issues that may fall outwith the scope of existing regulation due to their nature or scale. For example many regulations only cover certain scales of development however, a number of small-scale activities which are not regulated can result in significant cumulative effects. In such cases we would expect to see detailed mitigation proposals established.

SEPA

Monitoring

We would recommend that monitoring proposals also include reference to the need to consider transboundary effects, and would refer you back to our comments in section 2 above. Although detailed consideration of the effects from activities such as the importation of oil and gas products is beyond the scope of this current policy it is important to record the potential interactions this has with other policy areas, not least because the approach proposed for mitigation is closely tied to the existing wider policy context, much of which includes ambitions which are set in the global context e.g. climate change targets and their close link with energy policy.

Noted and included.

SNH

Indicative timetable of SEA stages

The eight week consultation period is acceptable, but it would help better resource planning if this could allow for the usual time taken over summer/school holidays.

Noted.

HES

We are content with the eight week period proposed for consultation on the Environmental Report and Preferred Policy Position

Noted.

SEPA

We are satisfied with the proposal for an eight week consultation period for the ER.

Noted.