Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan. Consultation Analysis and Modifications Report.

38. Sustainability Appraisal

38.1 Background

38.1.1 There were five questions in the consultation questionnaire relating to the Sustainability Appraisal ( SA):

• Question 1: To what extent does the Sustainability Appraisal set out an accurate description of the current baseline (Please give details of additional relevant sources)?
• Question 2: Do you agree with the predicted socio-economic and environmental effects as set out in the Sustainability Appraisal?
• Question 3: Do you agree with the recommendations and proposals for mitigation of the socio-economic and environmental effects set out in the Sustainability Appraisal?
• Question 4: Are you aware of any further information that will help to inform the findings of the assessment (Please give details of additional relevant sources)?
• Question 5: Are you aware of other 'reasonable alternatives' to the proposed policies that should be considered as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment process conducted for the draft Pilot Plan?

38.2 Summary of responses received from Consultation Authorities

38.2.1 All the Consultation Authorities, Scottish Natural Heritage ( SNH), Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA) and Historic Environment Scotland ( HES), provided responses on the Sustainability Appraisal in the consultation.

38.2.2 The consultation yielded broadly positive feedback from respondents on findings of the SA and general agreement over the consideration of the SEA issues included within the assessment. All three consultation authorities broadly agreed with the description of the current baseline. However, SNH also provided comments on specific aspects where they disagreed with the assessment or felt information had been missed.

38.2.3 Similarly, all three respondents were in general agreement with the predicted socio-economic and environmental effects. However, they each noted that the it was sometimes difficult to understand whether social, economic or environmental effects were being discussed. Two of the respondents felt that the approach of producing a Sustainability Appraisal Report, which outlined the findings of a Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA) and Socio-Economic Assessment and work undertaken to meet obligations under the European Commission ( EC) Habitats Regulations, rather than presenting these findings separately had made it difficult to clearly identify the likely environmental effects.

38.2.4 Both SNH and SEPA provided specific examples where they felt further clarity was needed.

38.2.5 In relation to recommendations and proposals for mitigation, HES was in agreement with the recommendations. The respondents also provided targeted comments on the policy assessments, particularly in relation to the gradings used in assessing the potential for positive or negative effects associated with several policies. Several other recommendations for improvement to the assessment process were also made. For example, some noted that the integration of the SEA within a SA had resulted in some errors in notation in parts of the SA report; another queried why key questions were used for the second tier of assessment, but not explicitly referred to in the assessment of the Plan's policies; and another felt that the pressures listed in the baseline could have been more specific. SEPA also felt that there may be benefit in including a table in the Post Adoption SEA Statement to confirm what existing monitoring would be examined in the context of the Plan and whether any plan-specific monitoring was proposed.

38.2.6 SNH stated that they strongly supported the need for a more spatial approach and highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement in the realisation of any of the positive effects identified in the SA. While HES stated their support for recommendations and mitigation measures, SNH stated that they would have anticipated recommendations for more specific mitigation measures to be included. They also noted that the monitoring section in the SA lacked the specific recommendations needed to address current gaps in environmental knowledge.

38.2.7 SNH provided several suggestions in relation to 'reasonable alternatives' to the overall approach to plan-making and to specific policies. SEPA also felt more consideration could have been given to alternative plan components such as alternative policies, vision wording or objectives. HES noted it would be helpful if the Post Adoption Statement could highlight the contrasting environmental performance of the overall alternatives for consideration in future iterations of the Plan and for other regional marine planning areas.

38.3 Summary of responses received

38.3.1 The same respondents replied to all the question except the last when one fisheries and aquaculture stakeholder did not provide an answer.

38.4 Main themes

38.4.1 These comments will be considered for the Post Adoption Statement ^[14] so only a brief and high level overview is given here.

38.4.2 The key points were:

• Several respondents suggested the inclusion of additional information sources to inform the baseline; these were generally in relation to their sector. Some also commented on the information included in the SA Report. For example, one respondent felt that the inclusion of baseline data collected over one or two seasons may be insufficient, whilst others made suggestions on fisheries and tidal flow information, amongst others. Another, Marine Scotland's Licensing Operations Team ( MS LOT), noted that Sule Skerry and Sule Stack would not be included within territorial waters out to 12 nautical miles, and suggested that this be amended.
• Several queried the specific scores applied to the environmental topic areas in the Assessment Tables in the SA Report. In particular, one respondent felt that the SA overestimated the significant positive effects the Plan will have on the environment in some instances, and that they felt that it would be more neutral in some policy areas. Some queried several of the findings; for example, one respondent felt that the level of uncertainty in relation to the assessment of landscape/seascape impacts was not as high as set out in the Environmental Report.
• However, one respondent felt that greater emphasis should be applied to the direct and indirect benefits of the amenity aspects, not just commercial tourism.
• There was general support for the proposed iterative review process for the plan, the recognition of a need for a more spatial approach, and of the importance of stakeholder engagement.
• Another respondent noted that while the Plan had been screened out of the need for an Appropriate Assessment ( AA), they felt that the information in the Report showed that it has not been able to be ruled out. They felt that it was not appropriate to simply defer HRA to project level without undertaking AA at this plan stage.
• It was noted there were still data gaps and that the sections on mitigation and monitoring could provide more specific information in terms of recommendations and commitments.