National Marine Plan 2 - planning position statement: consultation

Annex A

Stakeholder Feedback

Draft High-level Objectives (HLOs) Tested In Summer 2024

A set of 12 draft objectives were developed in line with the requirements in the Marine Acts and mapped against the 19 High Level Marine Objectives set out in the current UK Marine Policy Statement (2011), the 11 Good Environmental Status descriptors set out in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and the six Blue Economy Vision Outcomes, to ensure alignment.

The set of 12 draft high-level objectives (outlined below), alongside associated policy ideas have been subject to review and comment by representatives from across government, marine sectors and non-governmental organisations through an extensive engagement programme from April – August 2024

Table 1:Set of Draft NMP2 high-level objectives tested in Summer 2024. HLOs have been developed to outline Scotland’s ambition for marine planning, and in alignment with wider commitments and requirements.

*Note: Numbers shown are to ease review and do not indicate any hierarchy or prioritisation in the objectives.

**The food production objective was derived from specific feedback from food producing sectors as an addition to the set of objectives proposed and was tested with food producing sectors.

Theme / Draft High-Level Objective wording

Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

1.1 Respond to the Global Climate Emergency, achieving net zero by 2045 and realising adaptation opportunities.

Ecosystem health, protection and restoration

2.1 Respond to the Global Biodiversity Crisis, protecting Scotland’s marine and coastal biodiversity. 

2.2 Restore and enhance Scotland’s marine and coastal ecosystem services in line with Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy. 

Sustainable marine economy

3.1 Enable multi-use of Scotland’s seas to reduce conflict for marine space.

3.2 Safeguard opportunities for marine economic sectors to operate, based on available evidence and in line with Scotland’s ambitions.

3.3 Enable use of Scotland’s seas to support the development of Net Zero sectors in line with Scotland’s ambitions. 

Island and coastal community development

4.1 Enhance and safeguard opportunities for sustainable, resilient and diverse marine economies within Scotland’s island and coastal communities. 

Cultural Heritage

5.1 Protect, and where appropriate, enhance access to – and appreciation of –Scotland’s marine and coastal cultural heritage.

Social and Cultural Wellbeing

6.1 Facilitate equitable access to Scotland’s seas and shared stewardship to benefit wellbeing and to support thriving communities. 

Implementation

7.1 Use evidence-based decision-making to manage marine space in line with Scotland’s wider ambitions.

7.2 Contribute to monitoring and evaluation of NMP2 implementation. 

*Food production

Support the growth and development of sustainable marine food production which supports thriving and resilient communities across Scotland.

Climate Change Mitigation And Adaptation

Feedback On Draft Climate Change Mitigation And Adaptation HLOs

There was support for the inclusion of a climate change mitigation and adaptation high-level objective in general, with broad agreement that further explicit detail and clarification was needed on the role of marine planning and marine decisions in helping to achieve net zero in practice. There is a need for affording significant weight to tackling the global climate emergency in the plan, and suggestions to introduce prioritisation into the objectives to operationalise this need through decision-making (section 5.7.2).

This is a need for stronger, more active language to highlight the severity of the global climate emergency and drive urgent action through planning. Just Transition needs to be better reflected, including by incorporating Just Transition outcomes directly into the wording of the objective.

There was general agreement that the inclusion of the timeframe (by 2045) was helpful, however there were concerns around changing timeframes for climate targets and whether these would date the plan prematurely.

There was a mix of feedback around whether climate change mitigation and adaptation should be two separate objectives, with requests for clarification on the phrase “realising adaptation opportunities” and to integrate the mitigation hierarchy and outline scale and proportionality of the requirements for adaptation.

Feedback On Climate Change Mitigation And Adaptation Policy Ideas

Twin crises

Sector representatives were asked to consider NPF4 policy 1, which requires decisions on development proposals to give significant weight to the global climate and nature crises. Specifically, stakeholders were asked if this policy was suitable to include in NMP2, and if so, how it could be translated for marine planning and to better support implementation

You said:

There was strong support for including a policy on tackling the twin crises. However it was noted that action on climate change and biodiversity loss should take place in tandem and that this is difficult to implement via one policy. Some feedback indicated the need to go beyond significant weight in decision-making. The need for wider buy-in from all parties on the importance of addressing both crises simultaneously and that this would require tangible mechanisms and tools to support delivery was noted. There was also recognition that such a policy would cut across all other policies in NMP2 and that this should be acknowledged.

It was noted the general wording of the policy was open to interpretation by different users and that it potentially reads as more of an objective or vision statement that provides a steer on consideration of other specific policies in decision-making. Some feedback indicated that it was difficult to consider the twin crises at plan level and this was already covered in wider strategies. It was noted that this may lead to different, potentially competing, priorities and trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation for climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as with local priorities for communities. There was mixed feedback on use of the word “will” as some liked that this indicated more of a priority than language such as “should”, whereas others felt that policy wording should be aspirational. There is a need for clarity around the term “significant weight”, as this is subjective. For instance, some suggested that giving “significant weight” could imply that decisions should consider the likely impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss as a starting point, followed by consideration of other policies in the plan. Feedback noted the potential for NMP2 to outline potential opportunities for different sectors to support or capitalise on achieving climate and nature targets and adapting to climate change impacts.

There was broad agreement on the need for clearer guidance on how such a policy could be implemented, including the scale at which impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss are considered, e.g. at plan or project / site scales. Suggestions included specific implementation criteria and minimum requirements; guidance on how this policy would interface with other relevant plans and strategies, including Regional Marine Plans, Climate Change Action Plan(s), flood risk management plans and local development plans; the introduction of policy tests for favourable consideration (e.g. of activities that demonstrate mitigation and adaptation roles or low carbon emissions); zoning, spatial mapping and potential safeguarding of uses and habitats in support of this policy and the use of trajectories of improvement informed by sound evidence.

Climate change design, siting and decarbonisation

We asked representatives at the workshops to consider existing policies relating to emissions reduction, such as NPF4 policy 2, and policies around flood risk and resilience to climate change impacts, namely NMP 2015 Transport 5, NPF4 Policy 22 and England’s Northwest Plan Climate Change policy 2. We asked how these policies can be translated or updated to demonstrate deliverable marine planning contributions towards climate change mitigation and adaptation and in support of addressing the twin crises.

You said:

Feedback indicated general support for the inclusion of policy around reducing emissions and building resilience to climate change impacts. It was outlined that such a policy must recognise the different roles and challenges in adopting and implementing this type of policy across individual sectors.

Lowering Emissions: Feedback around this policy idea was mixed across the different sectors. Suggestions were made for preferential consideration of applications demonstrating use of cleaner technologies and lower emissions, or that priority be given for marine renewables deployment, potentially through further sectoral planning. It was suggested that a policy test offering favourable consideration of energy efficient design could be used and that any such policy should consider that a renewables project would maximise the use of available space, which may in turn have trade-offs for co-location.

Contrasting feedback noted that for some sectors, options for lowering emissions are limited and that there are potentially greater roles for some sectors to play than others. It was also noted by some that food production could constitute a low emissions activity and that this should be recognised in the policy making.

The need for guidance to support use of any policies, including clarity on definitions and thresholds of energy efficiency and information on how emissions have been assessed.

Resilience To Climate Change / Climate Smart Design: Feedback demonstrated broad agreement with the principle of improving resilience to climate change impacts. Again, feedback noted the importance of supporting guidance on specific adaptations required and scales of opportunity, impact assessment, consideration of future scenarios and any form of prioritisation for specific proposals. There were mixed opinions around including decommissioning, with some in favour and some noting the challenges associated with doing so.

There was recognition of the importance of localised understanding of climate change impacts and coastal changes to support implementation of this policy and some concerns as to whether we have the necessary data. However, the Dynamic Coast project / tool was noted extensively as a source of essential data and some requested specific requirement to use this tool in decision-making. The need to consider and demonstrate alignment with local authority coastal change adaptation plans and relevant NPF4 policies was noted.

It was raised that there is a need to consider biodiversity and climate change together, including space for nature, utilising biodiversity / nature-inclusive design and supporting nature-based solutions to build resilience (e.g. of communities, infrastructure, businesses and natural assets) and as climate mitigation and adaptation opportunities.

Nature

Feedback On Draft Nature HLOs

The potential to merge the two nature-based high-level objectives has been suggested, combining protection and restoration, and enhancement into one. However, there were questions around the baseline against which progress towards the objectives would be measured and that this would need to be communicated clearly in the plan.

Feedback indicated a need to improve consistency in terminology used across the two objectives, noting the need to incorporate wording on “biodiversity” and “ecosystem health” (and vice versa), to recognise the importance of underpinning environmental condition in delivering ecosystem services. There were also multiple suggestions to recognise and incorporate wording around geodiversity and environmental characteristics, noting that they underpin biodiversity and ecosystem health.

There was general agreement that explicitly mentioning the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy is not needed in the wording of the restoration objective, with some feedback noting that it may date the plan and narrow the focus too much.

Feedback On Nature Policy Ideas

Protecting of areas of importance and nature-based solutions

You said:

The importance of utilising nature-based solutions as a mechanism for building climate change resilience for coastal communities, developments and activities was raised. Nature-based solutions can deliver habitat enhancement and be delivered through habitat protection or in the design and siting of developments and activities. Nature-based solutions for flood risk management include accommodation of managed realignment and coastal processes and protecting space for coastal habitats which provide important ecosystem services. There is a need to align successfully with local development planning in coastal regions.

Feedback highlighted the protection of space for nature-based solutions and blue carbon habitats as a contribution to climate change mitigation. In addition, the importance of protecting areas where habitats have been restored through enhancement activity, and the ability to protect areas that are viable for enhancement, from future development and activity was highlighted. This would need to be supported by clear priorities for habitat restoration and identification of potential sites.

Priority Marine Features

You said:

Feedback was provided on the existing NMP 2015 General Planning Principle 09, which requires protection of priority marine features (“PMFs”). Notably, feedback highlighted that a policy on PMFs needs to be retained in NMP2, with recognition that the NMP 2015 PMFs policy could be strengthened to align more closely with ecosystem-based management. It was also noted that the policy needs to be clearer to support implementation and protection for PMFs. Improved understanding of the location and extent of PMFs, including their quality status is needed, and in the absence of this, the precautionary principles should be applied. There is support for spatial mapping of particularly sensitive PMFs to help guide decision-making.

Marine and Coastal Enhancement

You said:

The role of habitats in underpinning many marine sectors and food production should be recognised.

Clarity and agreed definitions are required for enhancement, restoration, degraded habitat, and baseline evidence. It was suggested enhancement can mean ensuring that the habitat is functioning naturally, and this is relatively easy to monitor. Enhancement efforts should be delivered to contribute to ecological coherence and need, not focussed on one or two habitats. Enhancement and restoration projects need to be supported through term long term monitoring and locations will require some level of future protection.

It was highlighted that any proposals for enhancement or restoration policies in NMP2 need to be based on baseline understanding, identification of sites and clear targets/aims which link to the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. It requires practical mechanisms to enable enhancement and restoration projects; suggestions include financial contributions through a centralised fund and streamlined licensing of such projects. Guidance and support need to be highly accessible for communities actively looking to undertake marine enhancement or restoration projects.

Nature Inclusive Design

You said:

Promotion of nature inclusive design as good practice to make structures (e.g. sea defence) inclusive of biodiversity is welcomed. It was suggested that nature inclusive design is making the best of placing man-made structures into the marine environment but should not be held up as having limitless biodiversity benefits based on an artificial reef effect.

There were clear preferences for nature inclusive design to be kept as a separate concept from nature enhancement to prevent overpromising biodiversity benefits and seeking good practices in design that may reduce the overall impact of a development.

There has been feedback on the impact of decommissioning structures and potential biodiversity benefits or reef effects. It was suggested that on-going monitoring and evaluation will improve the evidence and help inform decommissioning plans and decisions.

Nature inclusive design requires clear guiding principles, consideration of invasive species, clear definitions and licensing requirements. Proposals for nature inclusive design need to consider both environmental benefit and feasibility.

Nature positive developments and activities

The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy has a nature positive vision for Scotland, where biodiversity is regenerating and underpinning a healthy thriving economy and society and playing a key role in addressing climate change. It sets the goal for Scotland to be Nature Positive by 2030 and to have restored and regenerated biodiversity across the country by 2045. The term “Nature positive” is also captured within NPF4 ambitions to make Scotland net zero and nature positive, by managing natural assets to secure a sustainable future.

You said:

The concept of nature positive developments, activities or use was broadly welcomed. However feedback has focused on the challenge of implementation of any new planning policies requiring nature positive measures. Firstly, there is a need for clear definitions and mutual understanding of nature positive terminology. It has been suggested that the requirements for nature positive should be proportionate to size and scale of the proposed development, activity or use in the marine environment and should not add to consenting timeframes. Nature positive requirements should be separate from compensatory measures. There were requests for nature positive measures to be linked to impacts from a development or activity, and to deliver enhancement of similar habitats and ecosystem services to those impacted.

Marine sectors preferred deployment of nature positive requirements on a sector-wide basis and not through individual applications, as delivery of nature positive measures within the site footprint of a development could be challenging. Alternative feedback was also received suggesting nature positive measures should be delivered within the site footprint of a development.

Requests were made for the consideration of strategic approaches to deliver nature positive measures on a sector-basis. The benefits of a strategic approach may include stronger ecosystem benefits at an ecological scale, for example at water body or estuary scales. Uncertainties were raised on how strategic approaches could be delivered in practice and it was noted that supportive consenting would be required to enable delivery. The need for clear sector guidance, examples of good practice, and to build on experience of the implementation of NPF4 was highlighted. There was support for a transition period for the introduction of nature positive requirements and preference for place-based nature positive solutions rather than a nature positive target-driven approach.

Sustainable Marine Economies

Feedback On Draft Sustainable Marine Economy HLOs

Multi-use

There was general support for the inclusion of an objective encouraging multi-use, however there is a need for clarity on the term “multi-use” and whether use of “co-existence” would be more appropriate. There was mixed feedback on the inclusion of “conflict for marine space”, with some in favour and some pointing to the need to demonstrate that there is conflict for marine space to justify inclusion. It was also suggested that space for nature should be referenced in the objective.

Safeguarding opportunities

There was some uncertainty around the term “safeguarding”, with feedback suggesting the use of “prioritising” instead. It was also noted that safeguarding in this objective should refer to both “existing and future opportunities”. There were requests to better reflect the different priorities across sectors and the potential need for compromise or trade-offs to deliver against this objective. Sustainable marine food production (see additional feedback on this below) was raised as equally important as energy and that this needs to be reflected in this objective, for example “safeguarding and sourcing of blue food”. Feedback recognised that “best evidence” must be used to support decisions in line with this objective and that the absence of new evidence should not block development.

Support for net zero sectors

Feedback indicated that this objective could be combined with or covered under the climate change mitigation and adaptation objective. Clarity on “net zero sectors” was also requested, recognising that there are high and low carbon sectors. There were some concerns around noting one type of sector in the objectives.

Food production

Feedback noted the need to include specific mention and/or prioritisation of marine food production within the set of draft high-level objectives. There was mixed opinion around which theme such an objective would best sit under, with suggestions for under Sustainable Marine Economy or Island and Coastal Community Development, and wider recognition that this also relates to cultural heritage and social wellbeing. Feedback highlighted the need for clarity on the role of marine planning in delivering / supporting marine food production and/or food security. It was also suggested that the wording could reflect that climate, biodiversity and sustainability objectives are not necessarily competing with marine food production, however specific wording was not provided.

Feedback On Sustainable Marine Economy Policy Ideas

Safeguarding

You said:

The principle of safeguarding an opportunity or space for existing users from displacement or impact by a new marine or coastal development, activity or use was supported by some. However, it was highlighted that safeguarding of existing uses requires spatial mapping of existing sectoral use, and of agreed potential future opportunity. Concerns were raised that safeguarding of existing use assumes that the existing use is the most sustainable for a given site and requirements to mitigate impacts from displacement of existing users would be challenging for smaller community-led projects. Feedback on safeguarding shipping routes, ferry services and the need for consideration of socio-economic impacts in decision-making have been captured separately under these topics. Suggestions were made on combining safeguarding with co-existence.

Co-existence

You said:

There is recognition that in parts of our seas there is pressure on marine space, and policies to alleviate such pressure would be welcomed in NMP2.

The current NMP policy to ‘encourage’ co-existence requires strengthening, clear definitions, allocation of responsibilities and to provide mechanisms to support the achievement of sectoral co-existence. Proposals for co-existence must be cognisant of health and safety requirements for different uses, including safe navigation and search and rescue. They should be supported by criteria to enable consistent decision-making, for example, measures to support co-existence such as avoidance of key areas, reducing spatial footprints, considering layout to allow access, and compensation. Some felt that co-existence proposals must be economic, brought forward by the developer and considerate of the cumulative impacts on the marine environment. They would also need to address the requirements of different consenting regimes and supporting application EIA regimes. Furthermore, that co-existence policy should not include ‘nature’ and suggestions that a policy on co-existence could be combined with any policy on safeguarding existing uses.

Any potential co-existence policy in the NMP2 would need to be supported with guidance on co-existence measures and on assessment of cumulative impacts, supported by co-existence / co-location opportunity mapping, and work with both the safeguarding and nature positive policies.

Sectoral planning

You said:

Continued support for sectoral planning in NMP2 would be welcomed. Sector plans have the potential to create efficiency in the consenting system. The nature of support to future sectoral planning in NMP2 needs to make clear whether this is support for the production of sectoral marine plans, or to the implementation, and their use in decision-making, as targets, or as spatial planning guidance.

Strategic planning is needed to support infrastructure for marine renewable expansion, such as ports and harbours, grid, export cables, hydrogen storage and tidal energy. Future sectoral planning should consider opportunities for co-location of activities e.g. hydrogen production and offshore wind. Some stakeholders expressed that sectoral planning should not be expanded to sectors considered at a local level in Local Development Planning, e.g. aquaculture, where spatial planning might be best considered in regional marine plans and identification of the least sensitive farming locations for aquaculture is taking place by other processes. Sectoral marine planning for offshore renewables should adopt a strategic approach to compensatory measures, be updated as new evidence comes to light through project EIA and HRA and inform the scope of project-level EIA and HRA. Concerns have been raised on how the ‘areas of search’ identified early in the sectoral marine planning process have translated into the offshore wind lease areas and licence and consent applications for offshore wind developments outside of the adopted Sectoral Marine Plan for OWE 2020.

Compensatory Measures

During the NMP2 sector workshops, the following feedback on compensatory measures for derogation cases under the habitats regulation appraisal was received.

You said:

Compensatory measures proposals should be evidence-based, consider ecosystem functioning and services being compensated for, and consider the social and economic impacts on local communities (including access and amenity impacts) and on other marine users. Preferences for centralised delivery of a small number of larger-scale projects (strategic compensation) and for measures to be kept local to the site of impact, target species negatively impacted by the development and to be delivered by the developer were raised. Further compensatory measures need to be spatially and temporally distributed to enable timely progress of developments. A ‘marine exchange mechanism’ and the recommendations for options (a catalogue) for compensatory measures including enhancement opportunities are required. A clear policy on compensatory measures (not just offshore wind) is required and marine space should be prioritised for the delivery of compensatory measures.

Sector-specific Policies

Feedback from marine sectors on the support to climate and nature crisis, planning framework, co-existence, land-sea interactions, alignment with other plans e.g. NPF4, sectoral planning, evidence in decision-making including socio-economic impacts, prioritisation and safeguarding have all been collated and captured under this topic in sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.4 of this document. The below relates to targeted feedback on existing sector-specific policies in the NMP or requests for new sector-specific policies in NMP2.

Aggregates

You said:

Requests have been made for a new policy promoting re-use of uncontaminated dredged material on land perhaps for land reclamation or coastal defence projects; from marine dredging activities supported by licensing framework, identification of suitable sites, and re-use schemes deliver on the objectives.

Aquaculture

You said:

The importance of aquaculture to our marine economy, to coastal communities as an employer; and as low carbon food source compared to other protein sources has been highlighted. Requests have been made to support growth in food production sector and realise the opportunities this brings. Feedback on existing NMP Aquaculture Policy 02 has highlighted that presumption against finfish farming on the north and east coast may limit co-location opportunities with offshore wind and whether the policy should apply to open net pens only. Policy development could examine the evidence base for this policy, and if it is still a valid position to contribute to the protection of wild salmonid species. The improved understanding and modelling for nutrient enhancement was highlighted in feedback on Aquaculture Policy 03. The implementation of Aquaculture Policy 04 has raised concerns that it is restrictive and requires shellfish waters to have water quality suitable for shell fish farming. Any change to this policy would have implications for monitoring by other bodies such as Food Standards Scotland and SEPA. In considering Aquaculture objective 05 and policy 01 and 02 from the NMP and NPF4 Policy 32 queries were raised on the evidence availability. Any change must be cohesive with the category 1-3 locational guidelines, progress following the Independent Review of Aquaculture Consenting and implementation of SEPA’s finfish farming framework and must refer to comprehensive spatial data on sensitive species and sites.

Cables

You said:

The importance of subsea cables to our economy and offshore wind ambitions has been highlighted. The opportunity for engagement and consideration of existing marine users in cable routing and leasing proposals has been raised. Along with the need for cross-sector collaboration and requests to encourage smaller spatial footprint through use of cable corridors.

Fisheries

You said:

The importance of fisheries to our marine economy, to coastal communities as an employer and way of life and as a low carbon food source was highlighted. Requests have been made to support growth in food production sector and safeguard existing marine users, that displacement of fisheries should be taken into account and developments causing financial impacts on other users pay compensation. Recommendations for a code of practice and compensation guidance (similar to that for oil and gas) for fisheries and/ or conflict resolution process have been made. Requirements for and use of socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA) in decision-making was supported, and the need for meaningful pre-application engagement with communities and other users raised. Requests for marine spatial planning for fisheries and area-based fisheries management have been raised and also avoidance of concentration of activity within a specific area.

Energy

You said:

Requests include alignment with the Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan and support for hydrogen production and carbon capture and storage ambitions; streamlined consenting; clarity on the approach in decision-making on HRA derogation and support for small-scale renewable energy generation to enable communities, islands or businesses to become energy independent and net zero. Support for hydrogen would be welcomed including reference to reuse of infrastructure, sharing of infrastructure (transportation and storage) and potential for geological storage.

Ports, Harbours And Shipping

You said:

Ports and Harbour authorities are decision-makers and the NMP2 needs to be implementable in ports and harbours. Ports and harbour expansion should consider benefits to other marine users and opportunities e.g. hydrogen storage. Requests have been made for NMP2 to align with national infrastructure developments in NPF4 on ports and harbours, that safe navigation, IMO-adopted routing IMO measures and established shipping routes are safeguarded and recognition that lengthening routes for safe passage increases emissions.

Management of Pressures

You said:

Consider, how marine planning can support the outcomes in the Marine Litter Strategy, Circular Economy, Scottish Wild Salmon Strategy and implementation plan, the IMO Action plan on reducing underwater noise from ships, OSPAR regional action plan for underwater noise Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Delivery Plan and UK Marine Strategy for water quality.

Wellbeing and accessibility

Feedback On Draft Islands, Heritage, Wellbeing And Accessibility HLOs

Island and coastal community development

There was general support for the inclusion of an objective that recognises the differences in island and coastal community economies from mainland Scotland and that it should align with the strategic objectives in the National Islands Plan. Use of “enabling” wording was suggested due to the specific role of the plan in supporting sustainable development and to look to incorporating Just Transition wording. It was noted that this objective could potentially also fall under the Sustainable Marine Economy theme.

Cultural Heritage

Feedback indicated that this objective could be merged with the objective on social and cultural wellbeing, in particular noting the overlap around wording relating to ‘access’. On wording, it was suggested to remove “where appropriate” and that the wording should make reference to ecosystem heritage and historic environment.

Social and Cultural Wellbeing

It was noted that clarity is needed on what “equitable access” refers to, for example not preventing access to the sea, but encouraging smarter design to ensure the needs and uses of local communities are considered. Greater consideration of “blue health and wellbeing” and safeguarding of lifeline ferry services were also suggested for inclusion. Feedback on the inclusion of “shared stewardship” noted that this topic could be an objective in its own right. It noted that if included, careful consideration is needed to prevent the implication that this is solely the responsibility of communities rather than a collective / shared effort by government, communities and sectors. There were also suggestions to incorporate ocean literacy into this objective as it plays a direct role in supporting stewardship.

Feedback And Proposals For Accessibility And Wellbeing Policy Ideas

From previously collated 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.

Cultural heritage

There was general support for the existing cultural heritage policy in NMP 2015. Feedback noted that a cultural heritage policy should also include reference to ecosystem heritage and historic environment and assets. There should be explicit recognition that cultural heritage also covers intangible cultural benefits, such as local customs, languages and livelihoods, such as those generated from fishing It was however noted that care must be taken to avoid the risk of environmentally problematic “traditional” practices being continued in the name of cultural heritage. Feedback noted the opportunities to align any cultural heritage policy with climate adaptation policies to address sites that are vulnerable to climate impacts and coastal change.

Supporting island and coastal communities

Feedback outlined the important role that communities play in informing decision-making on marine activities and that this should be derived from available local data. There were also suggestions around integrating the concept of community wealth building and supporting a wellbeing economy into any policy aimed at supporting island and coastal communities. There was recognition that there may be lessons to learn from terrestrial experiences with community benefits from onshore wind and that NMP2 could look to translating NPF4 Policy 25 on community wealth building. Feedback also suggested the inclusion of ocean literacy under this policy, looking to support improved education on the marine environment and issues impacting it, including achieving net zero, and linking to responsible access and use.

Facilitating appropriate access, including recreation and tourism

The strategic appraisal of the existing NMP 2015 suggested an update to some of the existing policies and objectives relating to supporting the development of sustainable tourism and recreation, improving data on such activities and improving education on responsible access. It was noted that any policy relating to tourism and access should align with the National Islands Plan and the Scotland Outlook 2030. It was recognised that in some marine and coastal areas, there are already many uses competing for space, including tourism and recreation, and that some sectors or activities may be unable to relocate. However, feedback noted the potential for a multi-use or co-existence policy to recognise/support tourism and recreation if a priority for coastal and island communities. The specific role of local councils/authorities in supporting / delivering access was also noted. Feedback noted the importance of assessing and mitigating any impacts on infrastructure and services that are critical to community economies, for example lifeline ferry services, which also support sustainable tourism. Access and rights, and amenity value, were also noted in relation to wider policy ideas on compensatory measures, with recognition that community needs should be considered.

Landscape / Seascape

Ideas around improving alignment of plans across the land-sea interface and avoiding and mitigating impacts on landscape and seascape character, including visual amenity were presented for feedback, including suggestions to update existing General Policy 7 from NMP 2015. Further ideas included the requirement to consider potential seascape, landscape and visual impacts in decision-making. It was noted that seascape character plays a role in wellbeing, providing a sense of place, and that protection of landscape/seascape qualities cuts across multiple policy areas, with some suggestions to include this under a cultural heritage policy. There is a need for clear definitions and guidance on “seascapes” and how they are to be considered by plan users and decision-makers.

Implementation

Feedback on implementation draft objectives

To date, we have received limited feedback on the proposed wording of the draft high-level objectives focused on implementation. However, stakeholders have indicated general support for the inclusion of an implementation-specific high-level objective, recognising the importance of better tracking plan use and delivery.

Decision-making

You said:

Users of the current NMP have requested fewer policies, which are more easily understood and can be applied across marine sectors. There is a need for clarity in the decision-making process and the use of evidence, as well as the need for proportionate, non-burdensome and de minimis approaches.

The consideration of socio-economic impacts in marine decisions has been welcomed, and it was noted that this relies on cooperation across sectors to make evidence available and clarity on how it is used in the decision-making process.

The application of the mitigation hierarchy has been largely welcomed, although, some feedback indicated unfamiliarity with how the concept would operate and noted concerns on how distinct ‘avoid’, mitigate or ‘minimise’ are from each other. It was highlighted that supporting explanation, definition of terms, and / or guidance would be required. Furthermore, understanding of impacts relies on the quality and availability of evidence and the design of any mitigation measures should include those communities affected.

Feedback highlighted the importance of decision-making that is underpinned by transparent evidence, that gathering of data and evidence should be collaborative and use experts, and that data should be shared, considering the use of the five data principles. Decision-making needs to be based on data and science which is strong, structured, replicable and peer reviewed.

The use of spatial data on pressures and sensitivities has been recommended and welcomed by marine sectors, examples include the SEPA sea lice risk assessment.

We have received feedback on mapping potential areas of opportunity, highlighting that for offshore wind this is achieved through sectoral marine planning process. Opportunity mapping would need to be underpinned by constraint mapping (and that constraints are sector-specific and there are limitations to the available spatial data), for example shipping and navigation routes, requests for nature to be considered as a hard constraint, community involvement in identification of opportunity areas and flexibility for regional marine plans to undertake spatial mapping. There needs to be a way to ‘review and update’ constraint boundaries if and when they change in future.

Consideration of cumulative effects, land-sea interactions, and ecosystems services has been welcomed and requests made for tools and guidance in NMP2 and that socio-economic benefits derived from nature positive approaches should be included. The need for supportive monitoring has also been highlighted.

Requests have been made for pre-application engagement with communities in project decisions. Not all communities speak as one, so acknowledging the different groups within communities is vital. There will also be a need to set reasonable expectations with community engagement and clarity surrounding what is proportionate and reasonable. Engagement needs to be participatory and accessible. Requests have been received for support for companies and individuals to ensure discussions are civil and respect is shown for differing opinions.

Empowering local communities in decision-making requires engagement with communities in decisions, promoting inclusion in the plan-making process, supporting engagement around the implementation of marine plans, and encouraging participation across society by improving overall ocean literacy.

Support to tackle the twin crisis on climate and nature should be a priority.

Suggestions have been made for prioritisation of different sectors (including national infrastructure, renewable energy, existing users and low carbon food production) in cases of conflict or pressure for marine space.

The approach to prioritisation in decision-making should be clear, with clear outcomes and supported by a policy test and / or criteria.

Sectoral marine plans should establish a principle of development in areas identified within the sectoral plan. Where areas are identified in an adopted SMP, this should set a baseline presumption in favour of the type of development being acceptable in that area. Not all marine sectors are suitable for sectoral planning.

Adaptative management:

Feedback has noted the need for consideration of adaptive management principles in NMP2, to be able to better respond to changes through planning action in a timely fashion. However, it has been recognised that this can be particularly challenging to do in marine planning at a national scale.