NMP2 - Planning Position Statement

5. Policy Ideas

Policy ideas to accompany the draft HLOs have been derived from feedback received from the 2018 and 2021 statutory reviews of the existing NMP, stakeholder meetings, and workshops, including those from the National Planning Forum (held June 2023) and the ScotMER Symposiums (held in 2023 and 2024). Feedback has also included specific suggestions to utilise policies from the existing NMP, NPF4 and other adopted marine plans from across the UK in NMP2.

These policy ideas were tested alongside the draft HLOs via an engagement programme with representatives from different marine sectors. Feedback received so far has been used to further the initial policy ideas into the proposals outlined in the sections below. Please see Annex A for further details on the feedback collected to date.

We are committed to developing NMP2 with stakeholders and are seeking views on the proposals below to help inform the planning policy development. All draft planning policies will be subject to assessments to understand the potential impacts on communities, the marine environment, and marine sectors to help identify any mitigation measures.

5.1 Climate Change Mitigation And Adaptation

Sector representatives were asked to consider how the following existing climate policies could be translated or updated to demonstrate marine planning contributions towards climate change mitigation and adaptation, and in support of addressing the twin crises:

NPF4 Policy 1 which requires decisions on development proposals to give significant weight to the global climate and nature crises.

NPF4 Policy 2 on reduction of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to current and future risks of climate change.

English Northwest Marine Plan Climate Change Policy 2 on climate smart / resilient development.

NMP 2015 Transport Policy 5 on climate resilient design of ports and harbours.

NPF4 Policy 22 on flood risk management and resilience to climate change impacts.

5.1.1 Key Feedback

• Support for policy aimed at tackling the twin crises in tandem, going beyond giving “significant weight”. Need agreement on strength of wording to ensure it is feasible to deliver and consideration of how to demonstrate contributions towards both climate and nature.
• Options for lowering emissions limited for some sectors and so play a limited role in decarbonisation, with some food production being low emissions.
• Difficult to consider twin crises at plan level and may lead to trade-offs between climate and biodiversity action, as well as those for some communities.
• Support for favourable consideration of applications demonstrating lowering emissions and inclusion of policy test for energy-efficient design.
• Clarity on the term and implementation guidance for “significant weight” are needed.
• Recognition of role of nature-based solutions and nature-inclusive design in building climate resilience.
• Support for principle of building resilience and requests for specific guidance on potential options for adaptation and use of local data.
• Mixed opinions around including decommissioning of activities within a climate policy.

5.1.2 Proposal

NMP2 will include dedicated policy(ies) on climate change mitigation and adaptation, setting out specific implementation criteria to guide decision makers.

Significant Weight To Climate And Nature Crisis:

NMP2 could include a translation of NPF4 Policy 1, giving significant weight to the climate and nature crises, with wording to reflect marine decision-making and setting out criteria for implementation. This policy recognises the need to tackle the climate and nature crises in tandem and the important role of nature in supporting climate resilience and adaptation. This policy sets out a high-level ambition, and we recognise that it will be delivered through a series of other specific policies. As such, implementation criteria will relate directly to such policies, covering topics such as emissions reduction, shoreline adaptation, planning for nature and nature enhancement etc. This policy could introduce a level of prioritisation into decision-making under NMP2, which is detailed section 5.7.

Climate Change Design, Siting And Decarbonisation:

NMP2 could set out a policy that requires proposals for activities or developments to demonstrate climate change mitigation and adaptation in their design and/or siting.

For example, similarly to NPF4 Policy 2, applications could be required to demonstrate steps to reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions or adaptations in their design to be resilient to the impacts of climate change, e.g. sea level rise, increased frequency and intensity of storms and flooding, including through greenhouse gas assessments. For the siting of projects, proposals could demonstrate how they seek to avoid or protect habitats with important functions in supporting resilience and mitigation to climate change, such as blue carbon stores and habitats that provide shoreline protection, similarly to NPF4 Policy 10 on coastal erosion.

Recognition of the differences in application across different types and sizes of decisions, and sectors, will be set out in the policy description to ensure proportionate application. Opportunities for supplementary guidance for individual sectors can be explored, as has been done for NPF4.

5.2 Nature

Policy ideas for ecosystem health, protection and restoration, and enhancement include suggestions to consider NPF4 Policy 3 on nature positive developments and nature-inclusive design, policy on enabling space for nature (including restoration, recovery and enhancement) and priority habitats and Priority Marine Features (PMFs).

General feedback on each policy idea / topic and proposed responses are outlined below.

5.2.1 Key Feedback

• Nature-based solutions are supported, including protection and restoration of space for nature, to build climate resilience and deliver nature enhancement.
• Could nature positive measures be delivered collectively on a sector-wide basis?
• NMP2 should contain a policy on PMFs, that is clear and supported by implementation guidance and supports improved understanding of location and extent of PMFs.
• The concept of “nature positive” needs clear definitions and terminology and should be supported by sector guidance and examples of good practice. It requires clarity on potential “nature positive” measures and the valuation, monitoring and acceptability of such measures in decision-making.
• The underpinning role of marine habitats in supporting marine sectors and food production should be recognised.
• It is unclear how nature positive measures could be practically delivered by marine sectors and delivery at the site of development would be challenging.
• Proposals for restoration or enhancement need to be based on an agreed baseline and definitions of “enhancement”, “restoration”, “degraded” are needed.
• Requirements for nature positive should be at the development site, proportionate to the size and scale of proposals and should be separate from mitigation of impacts and compensatory measures.
• Nature-inclusive design that is separate from nature enhancement and has clear, guiding principles to enable delivery is supported.

5.2.2 Proposal

Supporting Marine Protection And Enhancement

Scottish Government is working on the development of management measures of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) under a wider programme of work.

Proposals for fisheries management measures in Scottish inshore waters (<12 nm), for those existing MPAs where management is required but not already in place, will be available for public consultation on completion of the required impact assessments. An eight-week public consultation on proposed fisheries management measures for existing MPAs in the Scottish offshore region (12-200 nm) launched on 19 August 2024.

NMP2 will reflect the outcomes from wider ongoing work to develop a restoration plan for Scotland’s seas and to map areas of blue carbon potential. NMP2 will also signpost to any available enhancement guidance.

We will explore how NMP2 can support outcomes from the recent consultation on streamlined licensing of restoration project.

NMP2 could support opportunity mapping for restoration, enhancement, or nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation and set out a requirement to consider this evidence in decision-making.

NMP2 could introduce a policy that preserves restoration and enhancement sites from wider activity that may have an adverse impact on the site.

Such a policy is contingent on the development of clear and comprehensive guidance to support implementation, which could include clear terminology around opportunity mapping and examples of nature-based solutions.

Please see section 5.5 on related policy ideas on management of pressures.

Priority Marine Features

NMP2 could include an updated policy for PMFs that sets out how to consider the relative sensitivity and locations of PMFs in decision-making, based on available data.

NMP2 could also set out requirements for use and the design and siting of developments to demonstrate that they will, in order of preference: a) avoid, b) minimise, or c) mitigate adverse impacts on PMFs and the protected site network so that they are no longer significant.

Nature Inclusive Design

NMP2 could set out expectations for developments and use to be nature-inclusive, following design practices that deliver the best outcomes for nature.

For example, consideration of nature throughout infrastructure design, supply chain, and development lifespan; including selection of material types that prevent long-lasting effects on biodiversity (e.g. chemical leaching, entanglement or plastic pollution) or support for innovation in design.

Such a policy is contingent on a clear definition of nature-inclusive design, implementation guidance and monitoring and evaluation to inform future design practices.

NMP2 will signpost to relevant biosecurity measures to prevent the spread of invasive species and diseases in Scotland’s seas.

Nature Positive Use And Development

NMP2 could include a requirement for nature positive use and development to support action on tackling the biodiversity crisis. Beyond application of the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimise and mitigate impacts) for use and developments, (section 5.7.4), this policy could encourage the delivery of positive measures for nature, such as, but not limited to, supporting a species or habitat enhancement project, supporting monitoring and research to progress towards marine nature enhancement outcomes, innovation projects or ocean literacy projects.

Such a policy would require clear definitions and understanding of the ‘nature positive’ terminology. Clarity is needed on the application of a nature positive policy across different scales and sectors, including on the mechanism through which this may be delivered, identification of nature positive actions, monitoring and supporting implementation guidance.

Our understanding of how nature positive policies can be applied in the marine area is evolving and approaches to implementation across the different scales and sectors needs to be carefully considered. This includes considering existing measures and approaches to determine when a development, activity, or use can be regarded as ‘nature positive’, the acceptability of actions needed, and the subsequent monitoring requirements.

5.3 Sustainable Marine Economy – Cross-sectoral Policies

5.3.1 Key Feedback

Several policy ideas for NMP2 were identified from available feedback and tested with sector representatives. Policy ideas covered topics including, updates to general planning policies 1, 2 and 3 from the existing NMP, support for sectoral planning for marine renewables, consideration of existing users and reducing displacement (e.g. safeguarding policies such as SAF01 and SAF02 in the Welsh National Marine Plan) and alignment across the land-sea interface. Collated feedback from the Summer 2024 engagement programme for NMP2, including sector workshops can be found in Annex A.

Please note the compensatory measures policy ideas and associated feedback in section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 specifically relates to the requirements for projects seeking derogation from the Habitats Regulation Appraisal (HRA).

• Sector policies need to be supported by assessment of cumulative impacts; opportunity mapping; consideration of socio-economic impacts and spatial data; implementation guidance. They should also work with nature positive policies.
• Compensatory measures should be delivered centrally through a small number of larger scale projects (strategic compensation) and measures to be kept local to the site of impact and target species negatively impacted by the development.
• Principle of safeguarding opportunities or space for existing users to prevent displacement or impact by a new development is supported by some. This assumes that the existing use is the most sustainable for a given site.
• Compensatory measures should be evidence based, consider ecosystem functioning and services and the social and economic impacts on others.
• Current NMP policy on ‘encourage’ co-existence requires strengthening, clear definitions, allocation of responsibilities and should set out mechanisms to support the achievement of sectoral co-existence. Co-existence and safeguarding policies should be combined.
• A clear policy on compensatory measures for HRA derogation (not just offshore wind) is required and marine space should be prioritised for the delivery of compensatory measures.
• Continued support for sectoral planning in NMP2 is welcomed by some. Sector plans have the potential to create efficiency in the consenting system. Strategic planning is needed to support infrastructure for marine renewable expansion, such as ports and harbours or grid. Future sectoral planning should consider opportunities for co-location of activities and should not be applied to sectors where applications are considered at the local level.

5.3.2 Proposal

Requirements for evidence-based decision-making, including information on socio-economic impacts and displacement, the use of spatial data (e.g. opportunity mapping) and consideration of ecosystem services are proposed for NMP2 (section 5.7.4), along with options for potential prioritisation section 5.7.4.1). This would support the implementation of the following cross-sector proposals.

Promoting Co-Existence

To provide clarity within any future co-existence policy in NMP2 the following definitions are proposed:

Co-existence: “co-existence is where multiple developments, activities or uses can exist alongside or close to each other in the same place and/or at the same time.”

Co-location: “Co-location is a subset of co-existence and is where multiple developments, activities or uses coexist in the same place by sharing the same footprint or area or infrastructure.”

Planning policy for NMP2 could include requirements to demonstrate consideration of co-existence in applications and / or preference for proposals which facilitate co-existence as part of the design (for example smaller spatial footprint or avoidance of areas). We will consider if policy for co-existence can be combined with support to existing users. We will also consider how co-existence policy could be supported by additional policies on engagement and collaboration between sectors and between licensing authorities (recognising that some licensing activities remains reserved to UK Government), to encourage cooperation on spatial planning for future leasing and licensing rounds.

Support For Sectoral Planning

The NMP2 will maintain support for sectoral planning for marine renewables and a plan-led approach to leasing. Sectoral planning for other sectors could be brought forward as appropriate.

The plan will provide clarity on the planning framework and how national, regional and sectoral plans fit together and are used in decision-making. This includes being clear that future sectoral plans will continue to provide the spatial framework for activities and must be in conformity with the NMP2, supporting the delivery of its objectives. Future sectoral plans must have regard to the policies within NMP2 and would require consultation and assessment, including SEIA, as part of the marine planning process. The NMP2 will reference any updated offshore wind policy statement.

Any future sectoral plans should make use of best available spatial evidence, for example opportunity mapping, and consider opportunities for co-location of activities.

NMP2 will focus on better use of spatial data in decision-making (section 5.7.4) and encourage / stimulate improvements in the spatial evidence base. For example, collation of spatial data on pressures, sensitivities, and management measures in place, including those which result in appropriate spatial restrictions on human activity.

Supporting Strategic Compensation

There is extensive work ongoing within Scottish Government on this topic that will influence the development of NMP2. The Scottish Government is engaging with the UK Government on implementation of the Energy Act 2023. Through the Joint Environment Accelerator programme (JEAP) we are working to develop policy, guidance and secondary legislation to implement reforms to the Scottish Government’s approach to compensatory measures and this will be subject to separate public consultation. We are also actively considering ways to implement a Marine Recovery Fund (MRF) to deliver compensatory measures in a streamlined way. These changes have the potential to maximise the benefits of offshore wind development to Scotland and provide a more effective compensatory measures regime for addressing the environmental impacts.

NMP2 will consider how the agreed approach to strategic compensation will interact with other planning policies. For example, by enabling the use of marine space for compensatory measures should this be necessary.

As a planning document, NMP2 will not cover financial compensation. This is considered a commercial negotiation between developers and other activities, e.g. fishers.

Consideration Of Defence

In line with marine plans across the UK, it is proposed that a concise updated policy is introduced in NMP2 requiring agreement with Ministry of Defence for proposals for development or use, in or affecting Ministry of Defence areas.

5.4 Sustainable Marine Economy – Sector Policies

In line with the recommendations from the FMEC, NMP2 will not contain sector-specific objectives. The sector-specific objectives in NMP were reviewed as part of the strategic appraisal process and have been considered as part of the policy ideas for NMP2. Following stakeholder calls to reduce the repetition and number of policies within the plan, NMP2 will contain a smaller number of policies which deliver against the HLOs and aim to apply across sectors. Additional sector-specificity or context can be added where this is relevant to do so.

The sector policies within the current NMP have been reviewed as part of the strategic appraisal and in the recent sector workshops. We would value your feedback on proposals for sector-specific consideration in NMP2.

5.4.1 Key Feedback

• Aquaculture and Fisheries are important to our marine economy, to communities as an employer and way of life, and as a lower carbon food source. There should be support for growth in food production sector and realisation of the opportunities this brings.
• Sectoral marine planning for offshore renewables should adopt a strategic approach to compensatory measures, be updated as new evidence comes to light through project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and HRA and inform the scope of project-level EIA and HRA.
• Safeguarding of existing users is required; displacement of fisheries should be taken into account and developments causing financial impacts on other users pay financial compensation. Industry guidance would be welcomed.
• Support for small-scale renewable energy generation to enable communities, islands or businesses to become energy independent and net zero.
• Alignment with any Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan and support for hydrogen production and carbon capture and storage ambitions would be welcome.
• Streamlined consenting should be supported and clarity on the approach in decision-making on HRA derogation would be welcome.
• Re-use of uncontaminated dredged material from marine dredging activities for land reclamation or coastal defence projects should be promoted. This would need to be supported by the licensing framework, identification of suitable sites, and re-use schemes.
• Subsea cables are important to the Scottish economy and offshore wind ambitions. Engagement and consideration of existing marine users in cable routeing and leasing proposals and encouragement for smaller spatial footprint through use of cable corridors is required.
• Spatial planning for fisheries and area-based fisheries management is requested.

5.4.2 Proposal

The potential policies in NMP2 on nature protection and nature positive (section 5.3.2), co-existence (section 5.3.2), and engagement, application of the mitigation hierarchy, opportunity mapping and cumulative effects (section 5.7.4) would apply across marine sectors and it is hoped help to address challenges raised. Policies to support island and coastal communities are covered in section 5.6.

Aggregates

Aggregate Policy 01 in the existing NMP could be covered by proposed safeguarding and co-existence policies in NMP2 and Aggregate Policy 02 by the updated Nature Protection policy and consistent use of the mitigation hierarchy in NMP2 (section 5.7.4). NMP2 could introduce a new policy to encourage or require re-use of uncontaminated dredged material from marine dredging activities. This could be captured under the potential nature restoration or nature positive policy (section 5.2.2) or as a standalone policy in NMP2. Re-use of dredged materials would require clarity and support through the licensing regime and could be supported by additional guidance, including on-site identification.

Aquaculture

The NMP2 will support the Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture and use of marine space for sustainable aquaculture development. Aquaculture Policy 02 could be amended to align with similar policy in NPF4 and included in NMP2 to protect wild fish migration. This may be reviewed in light of new evidence in the future. We are working with SEPA to consider NMP Aquaculture Policy 03 and Aquaculture Policy 04, to reflect our improved understanding of the marine environment and nutrient enhancement and modelling tools.

We will further consider how policies in NMP2 could help to support delivery of the outcomes of the Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture. The NMP2 will build upon requirements for consideration of spatial data, including sensitivity and pressures, into decision-making and potential areas of constraints mapping (see section 5.8.4).

Cables

We propose to maintain NMP cables policies 2, 3 and 4, and update cables policy 1 in NMP2. Aspects of early engagement in cables policy 1 would be reflected in the updated proposal for community-informed decision-making and engagement in section 5.8.4.

Energy

The NMP2 will seek to align with the Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan and consider how planning can support ambitions for hydrogen production and carbon capture and storage.

There is wider ongoing work to update the Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy (“SMP-OWE”) within the Offshore Wind Directorate. As part of this, Scottish Government will consider opportunities to enable strategic compensation through anticipated plan level derogation for the SMP-OWE. Consultation on a draft SMP-OWE and supporting assessments will provide early and effective opportunities for stakeholder input.

In NMP2, we will look at evolving approaches to sectoral planning and associated evidence requirements (see Section 5.3.2 in sectoral marine planning). This includes consideration of principles for co-location and future co-location opportunities for different types of compatible development, such as between Carbon Capture and Storage, hydrogen and offshore wind. This would require identification of co-location opportunities.

Potential project derogation cases will follow the legislative requirements for Habitats Regulation Appraisal, including the reasonable alternatives and Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (“IROPI”) tests. As part of the development of NMP2, we will consider further support for derogations cases for offshore wind as set out by UK Government in the National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure January 2024.

The implementation of NMP2 is being considered alongside the policy development this includes how it can support streamlined consenting (section 5.7).

Fisheries

The management of fisheries in UK waters is carried out in line with UK fisheries legislation, such as the Fisheries Act 2020, Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS), UK and Devolved Administration secondary legislation and licence conditions where appropriate. The overarching aim of fisheries management in the UK is to preserve the long-term sustainable use of fisheries resources whilst minimising potential negative environmental, social or economic impacts. Zonal planning for fisheries in NMP2 is not currently appropriate as there are a range of policies in development, or in the process of being delivered, across the UK. These are multi-year improvement projects that will take time to deliver and take effect. Evaluation of the outcomes and evidence from these projects is required to inform future marine planning policies.

The NMP2 will support the outcomes in the fisheries management strategy and use of marine space for sustainable fisheries. The NMP2 will support improvements in spatial data, for example, species location, activity data and where protections and restrictions are in-place, and requirements for consideration of this data in planning decisions.

Ports And Harbours

NMP2 will align with NPF4 and the national developments set out in NPF4 including ports and harbours and support access for the safe operation of ports and harbours, by including an updated Transport Policy 02 from the current NMP “Marine development and use should not be permitted where it will restrict access to, or future expansion of, major commercial ports or existing or proposed ports and harbours which are identified as National Developments in the current National Planning Framework.”

NMP2 will explore further requests for ports and harbours to consider opportunities for sectors which depend on them.

Reuse Of Infrastructure And / Or Sharing Of Infrastructure

OSPAR decision 98/3 sets out requirements on disposal of disused offshore installations.

In line with OSPAR decision 98/3, we will consider how NMP2 could support consideration of opportunities for reuse of existing infrastructure or shared infrastructure in decision-making to support sustainable development of marine sectors, including emerging sectors such as hydrogen production.

Shipping And Transport

The rights of innocent passage and freedom of navigation are contained in UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and set out International Maritime Organization (IMO) routeing and strategically important shipping routes. The NMP2 will continue to support safe navigation and sustainable shipping, and consideration of these routes in decision-making by including an updated Transport Policy 6 from the current NMP: “Marine planners and decision makers and developers should ensure displacement of shipping is avoided where possible to mitigate against potential increased journey lengths (and associated fuel costs, emissions and impact on journey frequency) and potential impacts on other users and ecologically sensitive areas.” For example, this could entail setting out a requirement to demonstrate the effects on shipping from a development or use.

“Furthermore, the current Transport 3 policy in the NMP will be transferred into NMP2. This states ‘Ferry routes and maritime transport to island and remote mainland areas provide essential connections and should be safeguarded from inappropriate marine development and use that would significantly interfere with their operation. Developments will not be consented where they will unacceptably interfere with lifeline ferry services.”

5.5 Sustainable Marine Economy – Management of Pressures

The current NMP contains a series of policies which focus on the management of marine pressures.

Air quality: NMP GEN 14 – “Development and use of the marine environment should not result in the deterioration of air quality and should not breach any statutory air quality limits.”

Invasive non-native species (INNS): NMP GEN 10 – “Opportunities to reduce the introduction of invasive non-native species to a minimum or proactively improve the practice of existing activity should be taken when decisions are being made.”

Marine litter: NMP GEN 11 – “Developers, users and those accessing the marine environment must take measures to address marine litter where appropriate. Reduction of litter must be taken into account by decision-makers.”

Noise: NMP GEN 13 – “Development and use in the marine environment should avoid significant adverse effects of man-made noise and vibration, especially on species sensitive to such effects.”

Water quality and resource: NMP GEN 12 – “Developments and activities should not result in a deterioration of the quality of waters to which the Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive or other related Directives apply.”

Wild salmon and diadromous fish: NMP Policy Wild Fish 1 states – “The impact of development and use of the marine environment on diadromous fish species should be considered in marine planning and decision-making processes. Where evidence of impacts on salmon and other diadromous species is inconclusive, mitigation should be adopted where possible and information on impacts on diadromous species from monitoring of development should be used to inform subsequent marine decision-making.”

5.5.1 Key Feedback

• There is a lack of available data and measurement for underwater noise and so difficult to undertake cumulative effects assessment.
• Source-to-sea considerations are required to improve management of pressures, including water quality, marine litter, and pressure on diadromous fish etc.
• Improved monitoring is required at development sites to inform spatial mapping of noise and there are limitations in modelling impacts on sensitive species.
• Guidance needed around consideration of effects of / pressures from developments and activities on ecosystem services, such as water quality, coastal protection.
• Suggestions that restoration should include reduction of – or limits to – underwater noise, but this needs measurement of noise levels.
• Value in linking to circular economy and marine litter strategies to guide design and reduce waste outputs as part of development and use.
• Existing INNS policy is broadly appropriate. Need to link INNS and biosecurity considerations, including linking to updated guidance and biosecurity plans where available.
• Nature-inclusive design can include following biosecurity regulations and good practices to help to mitigate the risk of INNS.

5.5.2 Proposal

Marine plan authorities will also need to take into account, once developed, any relevant targets, indicators or measures aimed at achieving good environmental status under the MSFD (Marine Strategy Regulations, 2010, UK MPS, 2011). Marine planning is one way in which we can support the achievement of good environmental status.

There are many measures underway to manage pressures through environmental impact assessment or other processes aimed at managing human activities.

To support the legislative requirements, such as those in the Marine Strategy Regulations, NMP2 could set out planning policies to support the management of pressures in development and use of seas.

NMP2 could maintain the specific policies on providing planning support to the management of individual pressures from NMP 2015, looking to clarify and strengthen language where required. The interlinkages between such policies on pressures and any wider policies on climate mitigation and adaptation, nature protection and enhancement and sustainable marine economies would be made clear. This would apply across sectors.

5.6 Accessibility And Wellbeing

From the available feedback, we identified potential policy ideas for exploring with sector representatives, including preserving cultural heritage, supporting coastal communities, facilitating appropriate access to the sea (e.g. responsible access codes), minimising impacts on seascape character and visual amenity.

5.6.1 Key Feedback

• The existing cultural heritage policy in NMP 2015 is supported but needs to recognise that cultural heritage also covers intangible cultural benefits, such as local customs, languages or livelihoods.
• Appropriate access is challenging in light of existing competition for space, and some activities may be unable to relocate. There is a specific role for local authorities to deliver and support access.
• Communities play an important role in informing decision-making and provide a valuable source of local data.
• Potential for a co-existence policy to support tourism and recreation if this is a priority for island and coastal communities.
• Island and community policies could incorporate community wealth building or wellbeing economy principles, as NPF4 has done in Policy 25.
• It is important to assess and mitigate impacts on key infrastructure or services that serve communities.
• Ocean literacy could be included in this policy area to support improve education and decision-making.
• Seascape character plays a role in wellbeing, providing a sense of place and protection of landscape/seascape qualities cuts across multiple policy areas. Clear definitions and guidance on how to consider “seascapes” in decision-making are needed.

5.6.2 Proposal

We have updated the policy ideas to reflect recent feedback from sector representatives, as set out in the below proposals.

Cultural Heritage

NMP2 could include an updated version of the existing cultural heritage policy from the existing NMP. Updates would seek to incorporate suggested wider intangible heritage and would be supported by guidance on what is considered under this policy.

Supporting Island And Coastal Communities

Scottish Government is working to update the existing National Islands Plan. NMP2 will consider how best to support the outcomes of the updated National Islands Plan, recognising the need to consider local priorities in decision-making and integrating Just Transition approaches.

Our marine economy provides vital social benefits to Scotland’s communities supporting our social wellbeing and this is supported by appropriate access to the shore and sea. We would look to integrate wellbeing elements across any policy that supports island and coastal communities and ‘access’ policies. To do this, this policy could require consideration of community needs and priorities; and assessment of potential socio-economic impacts on communities and community wellbeing as a common element within the decision-making framework, outlined in section 5.7.2. Supporting guidance could set out key impacts and priorities for consideration in decision-making to support community benefits . We also recognise the need to align such a policy with any potential policies on early engagement and community-informed decision-making.

Facilitating Appropriate Access, Including Recreation And Tourism

NMP2 could include a policy dedicated to facilitating appropriate access to the shore and sea. This would apply to new development or use and proposals for retrofit to existing infrastructure. Such a policy would be inherently linked to any policy on co-existence, and this linkage would be made clear. For instance, such a policy could cover elements of safeguarding, including lifeline ferry services to support local economies and sectors, such as tourism. The policy could also make specific reference to supporting local recreation, tourism and access, through identification of opportunities for co-existence and/or shared infrastructure or in design of developments.

Landscape / Seascape

NMP2 could include a policy requiring consideration of potential impacts on landscape/ seascape qualities or character and visual amenity in decision-making. This policy could be adapted from existing General Policy 7 in NMP 2015, with explicit recognition of the role of seascapes to community wellbeing. To support the policy, contextual information, including definitions, and specific guidance, including linkages to existing Landscape or Coastal character assessment methodologies, could be provided. This policy could be included as part of a set of common elements within the decision-making framework set out in section 5.7.2.

5.7 Implementation

5.7.1 Requirement To Use A Marine Plan

The Marine Acts require that public authorities must take authorisation or enforcement decisions in accordance with the appropriate marine plans unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise (MSA, section 15(1); MCAA, section 58(1)). Public authorities must also have regard to the appropriate marine plans in taking any decisions which relates to the exercise by them of any function of affecting the marine area and which are not authorisation or enforcement decisions (section 15(3) of MSA and section 58(3) of MCAA). This applies to decision makers such as the Marine Directorate and wider Scottish Government, Local Authorities or other public authorities including statutory advisors, regulators, and agencies.

5.7.2 Decision-making framework

NMP2 will support decision-makers to take decisions in accordance with the plan. In line with feedback, and the outcomes of the statutory reviews, the implementation of NMP2 is being considered alongside the policy development. This includes considering and identifying the relationships and interdependencies across each of the policies in the plan. We will consider the practical and proportionate use of the requirements in the plan to different types and scales of decisions (e.g. vessel name changes, moorings, ports developments or sectoral plans) covered by the NMP2.

As we build the plan, we will also develop the monitoring and evaluation framework, an implementation and resourcing plan for NMP2, and identify any supporting guidance required.

We have evaluated different approaches to the decision-making framework for NMP2 and how this could be used to manage increasing conflict for space. Options include the following.

The planning policies provide the framework for decision-making on sustainable management of our seas.

A full spatial plan is developed for all sectors, uses and nature for the Scottish Marine Area.

A natural capital approach to decision-making is adopted, underpinned by natural capital asset and risk identification and valuation for the Scottish Marine Area.

The evaluation concluded that spatial mapping could help alleviate pressure for space at the application stage. However, it has been found that at this time, there is not sufficient data available to meet the requirements for comprehensive spatial mapping or practical use of a natural capital approach to decision-making in the plan. It was also concluded that the NMP2 development process should be used to strengthen this evidence base. We are supporting this through the development of a natural capital asset and risk register for the marine area in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), which will highlight data gaps, assess policy proposals for evidence-based decision-making and draw out opportunities for improvement. We are also exploring options for opportunity mapping and related policies in NMP2 that make better use of available spatial data.

In response to feedback on NMP 2015, around engagement throughout the development of the plan, and in line with our commitment to a just transition approach, we have sought additional feedback on how best to engagement stakeholders throughout the development of NMP2. In addition, we have begun exploring policy ideas around community involvement in decision-making once NMP2 is adopted.

5.7.3 Key Feedback

Fewer policies, which are more easily understood and can be applied across marine sectors. Clarity in the decision-making process, as well as the need for proportionate, non-burdensome and de minimis approaches is required.

Consideration of cumulative effects, land-sea interactions, and ecosystems services is welcome and socio-economic benefits derived from nature-positive approaches should be included.

Application of the mitigation hierarchy is welcome but requires supporting explanation, definition of terms, and / or guidance. Understanding of impacts relies on the quality and availability of evidence and the design of any mitigation measures should include those affected.

Not all communities speak as one, so acknowledging the different groups within communities is vital and there are different interpretations of the term “community” Proposals for community engagement should set reasonable expectations with and provide clarity on what is proportionate and reasonable. Engagement needs to be participatory and accessible and should cover the implementation of the plan as well.

Consideration of socio-economic impacts on existing users and island communities in marine decisions is welcome. This relies on cooperation across sectors and sharing to make evidence available and clarity on how it is used in the decision-making process.

There is a need for meaningful pre-application engagement with communities and marine users, and commitment for collaboration to resolve conflict for space

Decision-making should be underpinned by transparent evidence, and use of spatial data on pressures and sensitivities is recommended.

Prioritisation in decision-making should be clear, with clear outcomes and supported by a policy test and / or criteria

Opportunity mapping would need to be underpinned by constraint mapping (and constraints are sector-specific, there are limitations to the available spatial data and constraints would need to be updated in future). Communities should be involved in identification of opportunity areas and there needs to be flexibility for regional marine plans to undertake spatial mapping.

Support to tackle the twin crises on climate and nature should be a priority. Prioritisation of different sectors (including national infrastructure, renewable energy, existing users and low-carbon food production) could help in cases of conflict or pressure for marine space. Sectoral marine plans should establish a principle of development in areas identified within the sectoral plan.

5.7.4 Proposal

The NMP2 will introduce a new decision-making framework to support streamlined consenting and implementation by improving evidence on the impacts and benefits of individual decisions. It will include a series of planning policies designed to increase transparency of impacts on other marine users and local communities; and explore trade-offs, e.g. displacement, bringing these considerations directly into the decision-making process. It will promote the inclusion of marine users and the communities in strategic decisions on the use of marine space, the design of mitigation proposals and consideration of a just transition. To do this we have identified key characteristics of the decision-making framework which could be set as specific policies within NMP2 that could apply to decisions. These characteristics are in addition to the potential polices set out in previous sections in this chapter.

Existing policies that we have considered updating or building upon include:

NMP 2015 Gen 19 Sound evidence – Decision-making in the marine environment will be based on sounds scientific and socio-economic evidence.

NMP 2015 Gen 20 Adaptive Management – Adaptive management practices should take account of new data and information in decision-making, informing future decisions and future iterations of policy.

NMP 2015 Gen 21 Cumulative impacts – Cumulative impacts affecting the ecosystem of the marine plan area should be addressed in decision-making and plan implementation. A summary of the potential characteristics of the NMP2 decision-making framework is provided below. These characteristics aim to support the decision-maker and further consideration is required on their proportionate application to different decisions.

Application Of Mitigation Hierarchy In Decision-Making

Consistent application of mitigation hierarchy – the requirement to avoid, minimise and mitigate impacts on the marine environment or other uses or communities in decision-making. This would include reference to best practice.

Evidence-Based Decision-Making

Similar, to the current General Planning Principle 19, sound evidence, in the current NMP the NMP2 could set out the requirement to demonstrate consideration of best available evidence (data, knowledge, and evidence) in decision-making, and further encourage collaborative approaches and sharing of data and engaging with experts. This could include (where appropriate and proportionate to the decision):

Spatial data in evidence-based decision-making – requirements to consider available spatial data on sensitivities, pressures and / or future opportunities in the decision-making process to inform the siting of developments or activities. This would need to be supported by improvements to spatial data for example, identification of potential restoration or blue carbon sites or wider potential opportunity areas for existing or future marine sectors such as tidal energy or the evidence from The Crown Estate Whole of the Seabed project.

Socio-Economic impacts in evidence-based decision-making – requirements to consider the socio-economic impacts from a decision in the decision-making process. This would encourage use of SEIA and require supporting guidance. It could include consideration of impacts from use or development on community priorities in the prospective area.

Ecosystems services in evidence-based decision-making – requirements to consider contribution to ecosystem services from the development or impact on the provision of ecosystem services by the application for example, flood risk mitigation or fish spawning areas. Ecosystem to include ‘humans’ and socio-economic benefits.

Cumulative effects in evidence-based decision-making – improved understanding of cumulative effects across different activities or applications to inform decision-making including future strategic planning.

Land-sea interactions in evidence-based decision-making – consideration of land-sea interactions, terrestrial decisions which may impact on our seas, and marine decisions on management of our seas that may also impact communities across Scotland, e.g. water quality.

Engagement at pre-application stage – applicants to engage across sectors and with communities specifically to identify uses and community priorities. This engagement should shape the development and design of their project, including the design of any mitigation measures and must evidence this for consideration by decision maker.

Engagement at application stage – including engagement across government, sectors and with communities by the decision maker and/ or by the applicant. The views expressed in pre-application and consenting phases is a consideration in decision-making and all marine interests, including those of the public, are treated fairly and transparently. This would require an update to the General Planning Principle 18 in the current NMP.

Community informed decision-making at plan level – decision-makers are to consult with communities at an early stage on plans which support application decisions, community knowledge and experience to be used to support plan development. Approaches to engagement to be participatory and inclusive.

Community supported implementation – marine planning is used to improve ocean literacy and understanding of marine planning processes to empower communities to take part in engagement and have a say in the decisions relating to their local area.

This requires clarity in definitions of “community”. We recognise the need for engagement to be appropriate, proportionate and meaningful and this would be reflected in the policy development.

5.7.4.1 Introducing An Element Of Prioritisation

The decision-making framework in NMP2 could introduce an element of prioritisation to guide decision-making. The need for prioritisation has been highlighted in feedback as a means to alleviate increasing competition for space.

In the context of marine planning, “prioritisation” represents a deliberate policy and / or decision-making process through which a particular outcome / activity / use is given priority.

Prioritisation In Decision-Making: NMP2 could introduce prioritisation through a new policy, via the following options:

Option (Priority Outcome): Alignment with National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) - introduce a policy for ‘significant weight’ to be given to the global climate and nature crises when considering marine decisions.

The relative weighting could be as a matter of judgment for individual decision-makers; or

The relative weighting could be as a matter of judgment for individual decision-makers and the NMP2 could set out the need to consider applications against the climate and nature policies first and then progress to consideration against the sustainable marine economies and wellbeing policies in NMP2.

Option (Prioritisation of Space): introduce a policy for ‘significant weight’ to be given to the global climate and nature crises when considering marine decisions and additional policies that support the prioritisation of marine space.

Where there are known areas of resource for a given activity, this should be considered in decision-making and proposals from others should consider impacts on future potential resource opportunities and look for opportunities for colocation. Development or use does not have to occur within an area of potential resource.

Where there are areas of resource captured in maps of sites within an adopted sectoral marine plan, then there would be a presumption that the areas identified will be used for this purpose in the first instance, with expectation that compatible co-existence opportunities with other marine uses are explored where possible.

Such a policy would require clarity on the definition and identification of areas of resource outside the sectoral marine planning process. This would be supported by policies on community informed decision-making and evidence-based decision-making. All options require projects to go through consenting and licensing processes. There will always be discretion for decision-makers as they consider the plan alongside other relevant considerations. Both are potential policies that could be introduced into the NMP2 decision-making framework and do not result in spatially defined maps or zoning in NMP2.

5.7.5 Linkages To Regional Marine Planning

We have received feedback on the need for NMP2 to better support the development of regional marine plans. We are working with Marine Planning Partnerships (MPPs) and Local Coastal Partnerships (LCPs) to develop proposals for what this support could look like, including where area-specific context could be set out in NMP2 to support places where there are no regional marine planning processes underway at present.

5.8 Monitoring And Evaluation Plan

The Marine Acts require regular review of adopted marine plans and publication of reports (section 61(1)(b) of MCAA stipulates every three years and section 16(5) MSA every five years after the publication of the first report). This review should cover the effects of the policies in the marine plan; the effectiveness of those policies in securing that the objectives for which the marine plan was prepared and adopted are met and the progress being made towards securing those objectives. After publishing a report, the Scottish Ministers must decide whether or not to amend or replace the marine plan.

Scottish Ministers must also keep relevant matters under review which may be expected to affect the exercise of its functions (MCAA Section 54 and MSA Section 11). This relates to the designation of any area of as a Scottish marine region and the preparation, adoption, amendment or withdrawal of marine plans.

Furthermore, Scottish ministers must publish a report every six years (MCAA Section 61(1)(c)) identifying any marine plans which have been prepared and adopted and any intentions to amend these plans or intentions to prepare and adopt new plans.

5.8.1 Development of Monitoring And Evaluation Framework For NMP2

The UK Government Green Book and Magenta Book show us that good monitoring and evaluation are built into the design of a policy and thought about throughout its development and implementation. This allows both the programme and the evaluation to be tailored to maximise the potential for robust, useable findings that can help future decision-making. The design of a policy will affect how rigorously it can be evaluated.

The monitoring and evaluation framework of the ‘plan’ will seek to do both:

Monitoring that intends to check progress against NMP2 objectives and can be defined as the tracking of – and reporting on – indicators of change related to specific plan policies and objectives. This gives an indication as to whether the policies and objectives are being delivered against through decision-making. This enables evaluation of progress towards securing our objectives and vision for Scotland’s Seas.

Evaluation is the assessment of the policy effectiveness and efficiency in supporting achievement of the plan objectives during and after implementation. Typically, this will look at the effect of planning policies in decision-making. The outcomes of evaluation will inform further action.

Monitoring and evaluation are closely related, and a typical evaluation will rely heavily on monitoring data. To be done well, both monitoring and evaluation should be developed during the policy development stage. Frequent monitoring and evaluation outputs allow an assessment and explanation of progress towards realising the intended objectives and outcomes.

The development of the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the NMP2 is being carried out alongside the planning policy and objective development. It will meet the legal obligations set out in the Marine Acts. In line with the Scottish Government Evaluation Action Plan, the methodology to develop the NMP2 Monitoring and Evaluation framework will involve theory of change/logic modelling and the selection of a set of indicators to monitor progress and evaluate impact of the policies in the NMP2, and it will be developed with the engagement of stakeholders. A governance framework for the monitoring and evaluation of NMP2 will also be established.

5.8.2 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management refers to the ability for plans to adapt in response to change. The World Development Bank defines adaptive management in this way “Adaptive marine spatial plans that prepare for and dynamically respond to changes in resource distribution and abundance, and ecosystem services resulting from climate change impacts.” We will work with experts and sector representatives to explore opportunities for integrating adaptive management principles into NMP2, including clarification on definitions and different approaches to plan adaptation, taking into account lessons from elsewhere.