Facilitating marine nature restoration through legislation: analysis of consultation responses and Scottish Government response

Analysis of responses

Approach to the analysis

The analysis has applied equal weighting to all responses, as is the standard process. This includes the spectrum of views, from large organisations with a national or UK remit or membership, to individual viewpoints.

The analysis of responses identifies the most common issues and themes. It does not report on every single or specific point raised. A key summary is presented for all questions.

Quantitative analyses of responses are presented where the question allowed for this. These are presented as ‘percentage of respondents’ throughout, where ‘percentage of respondents’ refers to the percentage of respondents to the consultation as a whole.

Part 1 – Registration process for marine nature restoration projects

This section presents analysis of the consultation responses the questions asked within part one of the consultation, the ‘registration process for marine nature restoration projects’ section.

There are 22 questions in total for this section, relating to the following topics:

• Definitions of marine nature restoration and who would be able to make use of a registration process
• What is being registered?
• Threshold(s) of environmental impact
• Administration of the process
• Nature of the process
• Information provided in the registration and publication of the register
• Post-registration intervention and offences/penalties
• Offences
• Concluding questions

Definitions of marine nature restoration and who would be able to make use of a registration process

1: Do you think the example definitions provided are a suitable basis to frame a definition of marine nature restoration for the purpose of this legislation?

Summary

Twenty five respondents (49%) agreed that the example definitions provided were a suitable basis to frame a definition of marine nature restoration for the purpose of this legislation. Six respondents (12%) did not agree the definitions were suitable, with fourteen (26%) stating ‘unsure’ or ‘other’. Six respondents (12%) did not answer.

Where respondents disagreed that the examples were suitable the main concerns expressed related to perceived challenges with setting definitions due to current limited understanding of the marine environment, and the omission of ‘passive’ restoration within definitions.

The omission of passive restoration was also cited by a number of respondents who answered ‘other’, as well as concerns around the potential for regulatory loopholes for commercial operations.

Where respondents were in agreement with the examples there was general support for restricting definitions to ‘active’ restoration, though some highlighted a need to consider passive approaches.

2: Are there any other considerations or examples we should consider in formulating a definition for marine nature restoration?

Summary

Respondents highlighted that marine restoration efforts should focus on long term goals, accounting for climate change, and that these goals should extend beyond biodiversity restoration where applicable to consider factors such as ecosystem services e.g. storm protection.

A number of responses highlighted alignment with international framework definitions, including those identified in the Global Biodiversity framework, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The need to consider passive restoration measures in addition to active interventions was reiterated in responses to this question, with a focus on the ability to allow ecosystems to regenerate naturally.

What is being registered?

3: Do you think registration should be based on the restoration ‘project’, rather than each individual ‘activity’?

Summary

Thirty respondents (59%) answered ‘yes’ registration should be based on the restoration ‘project’ rather than each individual ‘activity’. Eight respondents (16%) disagreed, with six (12%) stating ‘other’ and two (4%) stating they were unsure. Five respondents (10%) did not answer.

Support for basing registration on the restoration ‘project’ was largely on the basis of enabling a wider ecosystem approach to restoration, within a project, that seeks to avoid fragmented actions. Respondents who were supportive of a project based approach also highlighted the potential benefits for streamlining the application process, enabling quicker implementation of restoration activities. The need for clarity on what constitutes a restoration ‘project’ was a further key point from supporters.

Where people disagreed or selected ‘other’ on taking a project based approach the issue of difficulty in defining the term ‘project’ was highlighted as a concern. A number of respondents supported the listing of individual activities, to ensure clarity of detail for actions and potential implications, and to ensure only the physical aspects of restoration projects are being registered and not supporting activities such as community outreach and provision of buildings and equipment.

4: Please share any considerations you have in relation to tying the registration process to a ‘restoration project’ rather than each individual activity.

Summary

Overall there was clear support for linking any registration process to the overall project rather than individual activities. The main advantages of this were identified as:

• The ability to take a holistic approach to restoration that accounts for multiple environmental goals, and;
• The potential for a reduction in the administrative burden from both an application and an assessment perspective.

However, it was also clearly set out that there is a requirement for clarity of definitions around what constitutes a ‘project’ and specifically what aspects are restoration. There was concern that without such definitions there is potential for misuse of the system, enabling commercial interests to exploit the system for non-restoration purposes.

Additional concerns were raised around the lack of ability to adequately identify cumulative impacts through not evaluating each individual activity. The potential for a monitoring framework that assesses individual activities post implementation was suggested as a mitigation strategy.

Threshold(s) of environmental impact

5: Please share any reflections you have on how we could set appropriate threshold(s) of environmental impact.

Summary

A number of respondents indicated a desire for thresholds to take into account existing activities within an area, environmental baselining, and evidence of prior existence of the habitat or species proposed for restoration. It was further suggested that thresholds must be meaningful and could be established in line with existing relevant frameworks (e.g. protected areas).

Adaptability in establishing thresholds was noted in several responses, recognising the likely variation at different sites and the inherent shifting nature of the marine environment. In line with this, a number of respondents suggested a need for appropriate balance between mitigating potential risk of environmental harm and facilitating new restoration projects.

A collaborative approach to setting environmental thresholds was suggested by several respondents, where experts such as scientists, practitioners, and community members contribute to their establishment, based on best available knowledge and evidence.

A small number of respondents suggested the approach should be the same as is required for all other marine activities. Additionally, concern was expressed around delegating the assessment and quantification of thresholds to the same group applying to register a project. In line with this, it was suggested by a small minority that projects should be legally bound to provide funding or mitigation against any negative impacts.

6: Do you agree with the principle that placement of moorings/anchors, lines or other objects that may present a navigational risk (for example through propeller entanglement) should not qualify for registration, and should remain subject to current marine licensing laws, even if they are part of a restoration project?

Summary

Twenty nine respondents (57%) answered ‘yes’, that placement of moorings/anchors, lines or other objects that may present a navigational risk should remain subject to current marine licensing requirements. Five (10%) and seven (14%) answered ‘unsure’ or ‘other’, respectively. Four respondents (8%) disagreed with this principle. Six respondents (12%) did not answer.

Where respondents were supportive of this principle navigational risk was highlighted as a reason, as well as impact on other marine activities including fishing and naval activities.

Several respondents were supportive of maintaining a licensing regime, but considered whether there would be scope for exemptions on a case-by-case basis for some restoration activities, potentially where they would only impact certain sectors or present a high risk. It was suggested that alternative ways of notifying marine users of mooring placements could be explored.

Where people disagreed the response was supported by the argument that when quantified, the risk to navigation interference from restoration projects was low and that there is a need to reduce the administrative burden where possible.

7: Please share any reflections you have on how we can minimise navigational risks under a registration process.

Summary

A number of respondents highlighted the need for robust navigational risk assessments as part of any project registration process, including evaluating vessel traffic and proximity to vessel channels. It was suggested that mitigation actions linked to any identified risks should then be incorporated into any further project planning. To support this, it was suggested that clear guidance should be set out to enable restoration projects to adequately assess and mitigate against navigational risks. Such guidance should have uniform rules to allow for consistency across projects and sectors.

A further point that was frequently raised was the proper use of navigational aids (i.e. markers) to identify any physical risks to navigation.

A number of people commented on the need to minimise navigational risk and that this should be considered as it currently is under the marine licensing framework, though this could be separate to the registration process itself. This may only need to apply to projects that include elements that would present a risk, such as those with anchors, moorings, or below surface mooring lines.

Administration of the process

8: Do you agree Scottish Ministers should have the option to devolve the administration of a registration process to another public body?

Summary

Twenty nine respondents (57%) answered ‘yes’, that Scottish Ministers should have the option to devolve the administration of a registration process to another public body. Seven respondents (14%) were in disagreement, stating ‘no’, while ten (20%) answered ‘other’. Five respondents (10%) did not answer.

A number of respondents who supported the option to devolve administration indicated that they agreed on the basis that this could reduce administrative burdens and streamline the application process, while making it applicable to the communities that will be best served by restoration activity. However, a number of ‘yes’ responses were caveated with concerns around the perceived risk-averse nature of some public bodies and the capacity to resource such work effectively.

Similar responses were provided by those who answered ‘other’, who particularly echoed the need to adequately resource any organisation that would take on this role.

A number of respondents who answered ‘other’ or ‘no’ suggested the process should remain within the power of Scottish Ministers and expressed concern that streamlining might mean due consideration was not given to stakeholders across multiple organisations. Similar concerns were raised around the risk-averse nature of some public bodies, though it was noted by multiple respondents that other bodies should remain involved in an advisory capacity.

Nature of the process

9: Should a registration process be based on a self-declaration/self-assessment model or would you prefer an ‘approval/application’ based process?

Summary

Respondents gave similar levels of support to both a self-declaration/self-assessment model (eighteen respondents, 36%) and an ‘approval/application’ based process (nineteen respondents, 37%). Ten respondents (16%) answered ‘other’. Six respondents (12%) did not answer.

Where respondents were supportive of an application/approval based process a repeated argument was the need to allow for robust assessment of plans to consider matters such as biosecurity risks and for subject matter experts with relevant experience to be able to input on plans. The importance of considering cumulative impacts of restoration projects within the wider marine environment was also highlighted.

Where respondents selected ‘other’ a number of answers indicated scale of the proposal and likelihood of unforeseen implications as potential indicators for whether a project should require an application/approval or whether self-assessment would suffice. The ability to fully assess potential socio-economic impacts was highlighted as a reason for maintaining some involvement from statutory bodies, however it was suggested this could be through a ‘gate-check’ during the self-declaration registration process.

Several respondents who were supportive of a self-assessment model also indicated the potential benefit of having some form of gate-check system for safeguarding, and suggested some form of prior notification model could be utilised. The value of clear frameworks and guidance for implementing restoration work, including standard setting, was also highlighted as a safeguarding mechanism.

10: If you answered ‘approval/applications process’ for question 9, should the administrator of a registration process be able to apply conditions to the registration?

Summary

Twenty five respondents (49%) answered ‘yes’, that administrators of the approval/application process should be able to apply conditions to the registration process. Four respondents (8%) answered ‘other’, while two (4%) disagreed or were unsure. Twenty respondents (40%) did not answer this question.

Responses indicate that there is support for attaching monitoring and reporting as a condition of registration on the basis this would contribute to wider knowledge on the outcomes of restoration activities.

11: Please share any considerations or concerns you have on the nature of the registration process and whether it should be based on self-assessment or approval/application.

Summary

Where respondents were supportive of implementing an application/approval process for restoration projects a common consideration was the ability for this approach to provide greater control, oversight, and accountability for projects, ensuring they meet required standards and that the system is not misused i.e. for commercial activities. A small number of respondents were concerned about registration being used simply to secure sites and block commercial activity, without a need to produce meaningful environmental benefits.

Where respondents were more supportive of a self-assessment based registration process key issues highlighted were the increases in regulatory burden which would potentially limit the capacity for small, community-led projects to commence. A number of respondents indicated the value of post-registration monitoring and reporting as a follow up to the registration process, which would enable projects to commence more easily and allow oversight around environmental limits and wider effects of the project.

Information provided in the registration and publication of the register

12: What are the key types of information you think projects should be required to provide as part of their registration?

Summary

‘Location’ and ‘activity being undertaken’ were identified most frequently as the key types of information projects should be required to provide as part of their registration, with these options both being selected by forty six respondents (90%). These options were closely followed by ‘methods’, which was selected by forty four respondents (86%), and ‘biosecurity’ and ‘monitoring’, which were both selected by forty three respondents (84%). ‘Navigational risk’ was selected by forty one respondents (80%). Twenty six respondents (51%) also selected ‘other’. Five respondents (10%) did not answer.

A majority of respondents selected all options (location, activity being undertaken, methods, biosecurity, monitoring, and navigational risk) as key information to be included as part of any registration process.

A small number of respondents indicated concerns around knowledge and expertise of applicants as a reason for including all key information types in an application, indicating that expert bodies could then assess this area. This was particularly relevant for biosecurity and due consideration to co-existence with other marine users.

Further suggestions for information required were made by a number of respondents, including the purpose of the project, the type of organisation undertaking the work, and assessment of the potential impacts on wildlife (including displacement).

13: Do you think the register should be made publicly available? By publicly available we mean published online.

Summary

Twenty two respondents (43%) answered yes, that all information on the register should be made publicly available, and a further twenty (39%) answered yes, but that only some information should be publicly available. Three respondents (6%) were unsure with a further one (2%) answering ‘other’. No respondents answered ‘no’ in disagreement. Five respondents (10%) did not answer.

The sea as a public asset was indicated as a reason for making information publicly available. However, it was also noted that sharing of exact locations of restoration projects could enable illegal resource extraction, therefore some information should be retained only by the relevant authorities.

14: Please share any concerns or considerations you may have with regards to providing information in the registration process and/or making information on the register publicly available.

Summary

A number of respondents indicated a concern around revealing sensitive information relating to restoration sites and activities, for fear that projects could be vandalised or that restored habitats and species could be illegally extracted. For this reason it was suggested that it would be useful to share some general information about projects, however detailed information should be safeguarded by relevant authorities.

A smaller number of respondents advocated for greatest possible transparency, describing the sea as a public asset. It was noted that restoration projects are supposed to be for the public good, and transparency about projects could help build trust through the wider marine community. The requirement for other information relating to other works, such as planning applications, to be made publicly available was also cited as a reason for sharing information.

Post-registration intervention and offences/penalties

15: Do you agree Scottish Ministers should have a broad post-registration power to intervene and amend/update/remove projects from the register?

Summary

Twenty nine respondents (57%) answered ‘yes’, that Scottish Ministers should have a broad post-registration power to intervene amend/update/remove projects from the register. Six respondents (12%) of respondents were unsure and eleven (22%) answered ‘other’. No respondents answered ‘no’, in disagreement. Five respondents (10%) did not answer.

There was broad agreement that Scottish Ministers should have an ability to intervene post-registration, however some respondents expressed concern around the extent to which Ministers would be able to intervene. They suggested that powers should not be too broad or discretionary, allowing intervention for any reason, and that interventions should be well justified with transparent reasoning.

Critical areas such as biosecurity risks, human health risks, environmental damage, criminal activity, or risks to other businesses were suggested as particular exceptional circumstances in which it would be appropriate for Scottish Ministers to intervene. In such circumstances it was indicated that there could be a power to compel remedial action.

The consideration of protecting any benefits of that might have arisen from projects when intervening was also highlighted, noting these benefits should be taken into account and safeguards in place to prevent any dismantling of activities that have delivered benefits.

Several respondents suggested there should be a right to appeal, following any intervention by Scottish Ministers, to allow for challenge to any decisions they feel are unfair, unjustified, or disproportionate.

16: Please share any comments you may have on instances where Scottish Ministers should be able to intervene post-registration.

Summary

Several respondents indicated they were in agreement with the example instances set out in the consultation document (where a project has registered but is undertaking restoration in a different location; where a project is at risk of damaging the marine environment; where the project poses a navigational or other risk to human health), with a suggestion being made that ‘overwhelming community objection to a project’ could also be included.

A number of respondents suggested that exceptional circumstances and where unforeseen negative circumstances occurred (that could not be anticipated at the registration stage) would be the appropriate time for any intervention. It was also suggested by several respondents that those scenarios where Scottish Ministers could intervene should be clearly set out in either guidance or in secondary legislation.

A small number of respondents indicated that an approach to intervention should be balanced with providing certainty for local investors in restoration projects. Therefore intervention should be justified, not occur too soon, and removal or cessation of project should only be used as a final resort should other mitigating actions not provide a resolution.

Several respondents also suggested intervention should be allowed where any non-compliance issue is identified, in relation to the information provided at the registration stage. This could include using methods not identified in the original plan or exceeding the spatial area/location proposed at the time of registration. Adequate reporting and monitoring would be required to ensure compliance.

A single respondent suggested intervention should be possible where a commercial development is proposed for the same area in which a restoration project is taking place, in order to prioritise economic development for coastal areas.

A small number of respondents suggested that similar powers to intervene in other sectors activities (perceived to be causing damage) are not currently exercised, and expressed concern that perceived biases should not influence the application of intervention measures.

Offences

17: Do you agree Scottish Ministers should be able to create offences and penalties in relation to the registration process?

Summary

Twenty seven respondents (53%) said they agreed with Scottish Ministers being able to create offences and penalties in relation to the registration process. Eighteen respondents (35%) answered that they were unsure or ‘other’, and one (2%) said they did not agree. Five respondents (10%) did not answer.

The majority of the respondents who answered unsure, ‘other’, and no, were in support of the idea of offences and penalties in relation to the registration process, but only if there were sufficient safeguards and procedures in place to ensure that projects were not unduly penalised for ‘honest mistakes’. Safeguards suggested were clear guidance around the registration process, as well as a soft-touch approach to dealing with initial detections of offences.

The above responses were echoed in the responses from those who said they agreed with the statement.

18: Do you agree with the limits we propose as a model for the framework and upper limits on offences and penalties?

Summary

Twenty six respondents (51%) said they agreed with the limits proposed as a model for the framework and upper limits on offences and penalties. Nine respondents (18%) responded that they were unsure, five (10%) answered ‘other’, and two (4%) responded that they did not agree. Nine respondents (18%) did not answer.

Across the different responses to this question it was highlighted that the upper-limit for fines was high considering the small-scale and community-led nature of many restoration projects. Some respondents also highlighted the need for alignment with penalties administered for other marine based offences.

A few respondents, across the different responses, suggested penalties should take into account the financial capital of the organisation and the breadth of the offence, as well as the potential need for compensatory measures.

Concluding questions for Part 1

19: Do you support bringing forward legislation to enable Scottish Ministers to develop a registration process for marine nature restoration projects?

Summary

Thirty five respondents (69%) supported bringing forward legislation to enable Scottish Ministers to develop a registration process for marine nature restoration projects. Five respondents (10%) did not support this action, and seven respondents (14%) answered that they were unsure or ‘other’. Four respondents (8%) did not answer.

Respondents who supported the statement said that they supported the efforts to increase restoration of Scotland’s seas as set out in the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.

Across the different responses to this question, including those who were supportive of the statement, respondents highlighted that they would support a streamlined registration process, but that the proposals set out in this consultation may not represent the most effective way to make the administrative requirements for restoration more accessible, whilst also maintaining robust standards.

20: Do you think a registration process would help to reduce the administrative burden on restoration projects?

Summary

Twenty four respondents (47%) agreed that a registration process would help to reduce the administrative burden on restoration projects. Ten respondents (20%) answered in that they were unsure, nine (18%) responded ‘other’, and three (6%) did not agree. Five respondents (10%) did not answer.

Respondents who responded that they were unsure highlighted that it would only reduce the administrative burden for larger projects, for smaller projects that do not currently need a marine licence this process would increase the administration they are required carry out. However it was noted that, despite this, they supported a registration process being introduced.

Several respondents acknowledged that the proposals would reduce the administrative burden, but that they felt this was not the correct view to be taking of a registration process. They stated the focus should instead be on ensuring restoration projects were properly documented and consented.

21: Do you think a registration process would help encourage more restoration projects to come forward and/or scale up?

Summary

Twenty one respondents (47%) responded either that they were unsure or ‘other’ in regards to the registration process encouraging more restoration projects to come forward and/or scale up. Twenty one (41%) responded that they agree, and one respondent (2%) said that they felt it would not. Five respondents (10%) did not answer.

Across the responses respondents stated that if the registration process did streamline the process for restoration projects then it would encourage the establishment of more projects. However these respondents noted that the registration process / marine licence requirements w just one small part of a restoration project.

Some respondents felt it would assist in an increase in restoration projects, but were concerned this may increase the demand on marine space.

22: Please share any further considerations you have about the proposals as a whole.

Summary

Some respondents indicated that if restoration activities were to take place without the need for a marine licence, then these projects should still take into account existing marine users, which should be accounted for within the registration process.

It was noted by some respondents that larger scale restoration needs to be facilitated in Scotland, and while smaller scale projects are still immensely valuable, there needs to be more connectivity between projects.

Respondents also highlighted that some restoration projects, for example salt marsh, will span mean high water springs (MHWS) and therefore currently would be subject to both marine and terrestrial planning processes, which has not been accounted for in the current proposals.

There was also a general feeling from respondents that the whole regulatory environment would benefit from streamlining. It was noted that it is especially a barrier for community groups.

Part 2 – Marine Conservation Orders

This section presents analysis of the consultation responses to the questions asked within part two of the consultation, the ‘marine conservation orders’ section.

There are eight questions in total for this section, centred around the following themes:

• Protecting marine restoration projects
• Standalone European marine sites
• Removing duplication in consultation requirements for MCOs

Protecting marine nature restoration projects

23: Do you support the extension of existing Marine Conservation Order provisions under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 to be applicable to habitats and species undergoing restoration or which have been restored?

Summary

Thirty two respondents (63%) supported the extension of existing Marine Conservation Order (MCO) provisions. Ten respondents (20%) responded unsure or ‘other’, and four (8%) responded that they did not support the extension. Five respondents (10%) did not answer.

Across the respondents, including those who responded yes, it was made clear that support for extension of MCO provisions was contingent on the application of these orders being appropriate and proportionate, with meaningful stakeholder engagement and consideration for existing marine users.

Some respondents expressed concern that the application of an MCO on a restored area would inhibit the potential for commercial development of a restored habitat / species.

Several respondents requested further certainty on how MCOs would be applied, and for consideration of how these would interact with the current Marine Protected Area (MPA) network.

24: Do you think there should be a requirement on Scottish Ministers to review any Marine Conservation Orders implemented for habitats or species undergoing restoration or which have been restored?

Summary

Thirty seven respondents (73%) agreed that there should be a requirement for Scottish Ministers to review MCOs. Four respondents (8%) said they were unsure, three (6%) responded ‘other’, and two (4%) did not believe it should be a requirement. Five respondents (10%) did not answer.

Respondents highlighted that environmental conditions and human activities change over time, and that this alone would necessitate the requirement for reviews.

Several respondents also noted that the ‘success’ of a project should be regularly evaluated, across appropriate time scales, and that this should also inform the MCO review process.

It was also noted by respondents that habitats / species have varying timescales for restoration and therefore this should be reflected in any MCO review process.

25: Do you think that any of the existing Marine Conservation Order provisions outlined in this section should not be extended to be applicable to habitats or species undergoing restoration or which have been restored?

Summary

Twenty six respondents (51%) responded no, indicating they do not think there are existing MCO provisions which should not be extended to habitats / species being restored. Six respondents (12%) answered unsure, seven (14%) answered yes, and three (6%) ‘other’. Nine respondents (18%) did not answer.

Some respondents felt that, while restored areas should be protected, if there is a potential that a restored area may be eligible for an MCO in the future to facilitate this protection, which requires consultation with local communities and stakeholders, then this consultation should be required at the outset of the project.

26: Do you have any other views you would like to share in relation to the proposal to extend the existing Marine Conservation Order provisions to habitats and species undergoing restoration or which have been restored?

Summary

Several respondents stated that they welcomed the extension of MCO provisions as a means to enhance the success and sustainability of restoration projects.

Several respondents highlighted that if MCOs are being considered for a restored area, there is a need for the economic and community value of the current marine activities occurring in the area to be considered.

Respondents noted that any introduction of MCOs should not occur in a vacuum, and should be considered alongside the existing MPA network.

Some respondents felt that the proposals should consider the extension of MCOs to the whole habitat / species in an area, not just to be applicable to the specific area that has been restored.

Standalone European marine sites

27: Do you agree that Marine Conservation Order powers should be extended as outlined to be applicable to standalone European marine sites?

Summary

Thirty three respondents (65%) agreed that MCO powers should be extended to be applicable to standalone European marine sites. Eight respondents (17%) responded that they were unsure or ‘other’, and four respondents (8%) responded no. Six respondents (12%) did not answer.

Several respondents highlighted that extending the MCO powers to standalone European marine sites would align Scotland with the rest of the UK, and welcomed the change.

Some respondents noted the difficulty in understanding the language surrounding this question and would welcome a stakeholder event to discuss this further.

28: Do you think that any of the existing Marine Conservation Order provisions within the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 should not be extended to be applicable to standalone European marine sites?

Summary

Twenty seven respondents (53%) responded no, indicating they did not think any of existing MCO provisions should not be extended to standalone European marine sites. Ten (20%) responded that they were unsure or ‘other’, and four (8%) responded yes. Ten respondents (20%) did not answer.

Some respondents expressed concern over the administrative burden increasing the scope of MCOs would bring to the regulating authority.

Removing duplication in consultation requirements for MCOs

29: Do you agree with our proposal to change the requirement to consult on the ‘draft order’ to a requirement to consult on the ‘draft proposal’?

Summary

Thirty three respondents (65%) agreed with the proposed change to the requirement to consult on the ‘draft order’ to a requirement to consult on the ‘draft proposal’. Seven (14%) responded no, and another four (8%) responded that they were unsure. Seven respondents (14%) did not answer.

Some respondents who responded no or unsure noted that this was due to the difficulty in understanding the language used to describe the proposal.

Part 3 – Impact Assessments and final comments

This section presents the analysis of questions relating to whether respondents held any initial views on potential impacts across a range of subjects, which might inform any further impact assessments carried out by Scottish Government.

The major themes from a question allowing for any general or further comments are also presented in this section.

30: Do you think that any of the proposals will have an impact directly or indirectly on the costs and burdens placed on businesses, the public sector voluntary and community organisations?

Summary

Twenty three respondents (45%) felt that the proposals would impact the costs and burdens placed on businesses, the public sector voluntary and community organisations. Fourteen respondents (27%) said they were unsure or ‘other’, five (10%) responded no. Nine respondents (18%) did not answer.

Across the responses there was a general agreement that the proposals would have an impact on the costs and burdens placed on the groups mentioned.

Several respondents noted that the financial burden would be reduced for small community groups if a registration process replaced the current need for a marine licence. They also stated that if the registration process reduced/streamlined the administration requirements of projects then this would have a positive impact on the financial burden.

Several respondents also highlighted that the potential increase in restoration projects could impact on businesses currently operating in an area due to the need for relocation/displacement of those activities.

Some respondents expressed that they believed there would be an increased administrative burden on regulators / competent authorities.

Some respondents also mentioned that the costs with a registration process are as yet unknown therefore it is difficult to assess if the introduction of this process would increase the financial burden.

31: Do you think that any of the proposals will have an impact that is significantly different for island communities than for mainland communities?

Summary

Fourteen respondents (28%) answered that they thought the proposals would have a significantly different impact for island communities, sixteen respondents (31%) answered no, and fourteen (27%) answered unsure or ‘other’. Seven respondents (14%) did not answer.

Several respondents highlighted that the effect on Island communities would be reflected in rural coastal communities on the mainland.

Several respondents also expressed that the marine economy makes a significant contribution to island communities, where there are fewer alternative industries, therefore magnifying any impacts.

Some respondents noted that if the impact is too great on island and rural communities then this may also impact the success of the restoration project.

32: Do you agree with our assessment that the proposals set out in this consultation will not impact on people with protected characteristics as set out under the Equality Act 2010?

Summary

Thirty two respondents (63%) agreed that the proposals would not impact on people with protected characteristics. Three (6%) responded no, and ten (20%) responded unsure or ‘other’. Six respondents (12%) did not answer.

A respondent highlighted that under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which has been adopted into Scottish law, children have the right to good quality health care and a clean environment. They noted that in the UNCRC’s most recent General Comment No. 26 (2023) they highlight that ‘the climate emergency, the collapse of biodiversity and pervasive pollution, is an urgent and systemic threat to children’s rights globally’. It was suggested that as restoration is a fundamental part of addressing these issues, the proposals must be considered in the context of children’s rights.

33: Do you agree that the Strategic Environmental Report is an accurate representation of the potential impacts, positive and negative, on the environment from the proposed MCO changes?

Summary

Twenty six respondents (51%) agreed with the Strategic Environmental Report being an accurate representation of the impacts on the environment from the proposed MCO changes. Six respondents (12%) said no they did not agree, and ten (20%) responded unsure or ‘other’. Nine respondents (18%) did not answer.

Some respondents expressed that they did not agree with the Strategic Environmental report’s findings of ‘limited effects on business and industry’. They noted that due to the makeup of islands and coastal communities and their reliance on the marine environment there was the potential for significant impacts on business and industry in these areas.

Some respondents noted that MCOs are an individual component of the bigger picture, and wished to see a more detailed picture of how MCOs applied to restoration projects would be considered alongside the existing MPA network.

Some respondents raised concerns over the finding that the proposals ‘may in some cases produce some negative impact due to displacement of other activities, however this impact is likely to be limited as the natural assets they will be applied to are generally small in scale’ as the Strategic Environmental report was based on the current distribution of restoration projects not on the possible future distribution.

34: Do you agree with the findings of the Strategic Environmental Report that overall, the likely beneficial effects of the proposals outweigh the potential negative impacts?

Summary

Thirty respondents (59%) agreed with the overall findings of the Strategic Environmental Report that the likely beneficial effects of the proposals outweigh the potential negative impacts. Four respondents (8%) answered no, and nine (18%) answered unsure or ‘other’. Eight respondents (16%) did not answer.

Some respondents expressed concern that the negative impacts may outweigh the benefits if a proposed MCO led to businesses operating in the area having to relocate.

Some respondents felt the proposals as set out would not create an overall positive beneficial effect, and that there needed to be a better structured framework for restoration.

Further comments

35: Do you have any further comments you wish to add?

Summary

Several respondents stated that restoration is a complex topic, and would benefit from increased stakeholder engagement and community involvement.

Some respondents shared concerns that restoration activities would by and large occur in inshore waters, which would lead to a larger impact on smaller businesses, and that this impact may not be captured if looking at the wider industry as a whole.

Several respondents noted that there was a general appetite for a more streamlined licensing environment for all marine projects, not just limited to restoration. Some respondents also expressed that there should not be exceptions for one sector.

Respondents from local authorities noted that it would be beneficial for there to be more engagement with local authorities as they can contribute vital local knowledge.

Respondents also highlighted that there is a need for opportunity maps to take into account the effects of climate change, considering the lengthy timescales restoration can occur across. It was also noted by some respondents that there is a need for scientific backing and monitoring of restoration projects.

Some respondents also noted that any restoration projects should be considered in tandem with the Scottish Government’s wider marine planning.