Publication - Corporate report

Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan - Sustainability Appraisal

Published: 15 June 2015
Topic: Marine and fisheries
ISBN: 9781785443992

This report summarises the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal undertaken on the draft pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan incorporating a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) required under Directive 2001/42/EC and the Env

Supporting documents

Appendix B: Assessment Tables for Sectoral Policies

Legend:	+	Positive effects
	+/-	Mixed effects
	-	Negative effects
	0	No significant effects
	?	Uncertain

Sectoral Policy 1: Commercial Fisheries

Sectoral Policy
1: Commercial Fisheries		The Plan will support proposals for developments where it can be demonstrated that: Existing fishing opportunities and activities will be safeguarded wherever possible. An ecosystem based approach to the management of fishing which ensures the sustainability of fish stocks and avoids damage to fragile habitats has been implemented. Protection for vulnerable commercial stocks (in particular for juvenile and spawning stocks through continuation of sea area closures, where appropriate). Other sectors take into account the need to protect fish stocks and sustain healthy fisheries for both economic and conservation reasons. Consultation regarding the proposal has been undertaken with local fishers and representatives of local and national fisheries organisations and Inshore Fisheries Groups (or equivalent). The following key factors should be taken into account when deciding on uses of the marine environment and the potential impact on fishing: The cultural and economic importance of fishing, in particular to vulnerable coastal and island communities. The potential impact (positive and negative) of marine developments on the sustainability of fish and shellfish stocks and resultant fishing opportunities in the PFOW area. The environmental impact on fishing grounds (such as nursery, spawning areas), commercially-fished species, habitats and species more generally. The potential effect of displacement on: fish stocks, the wider environment; use of fuel; socio-economic costs to fishers and their communities and other marine users. Port and harbour operators should seek to engage with fishing and other relevant stakeholders at an early stage to discuss any changes in infrastructure, including commercial policy, that may affect them. Any port or harbour developments should take account of the needs of the dependent fishing fleet with a view to avoiding commercial and environmental harm where possible. Inshore Fisheries Groups, or the local equivalent, should work to agree joint fisheries management measures within inshore waters. Where existing fishing opportunities or activity cannot be safeguarded, a Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy should be prepared as outlined in the National Marine Plan. All efforts should be made to agree the Strategy with local fisheries interests who should also undertake to provide transparent and accurate information and data to help complete the Strategy. The Strategy should be drawn up as part of the discharge of conditions of permissions granted.
Preferred Option		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	In general terms, commercial fishing activities have the potential to generate environmental effects on coastal and marine environments. For example, the potential for adverse impacts to marine and coastal biodiversity (e.g. benthic impacts from dragging of gear, effects on sustainability of fishing stocks through overexploitation or by catch, entanglement in netting and ropes, displacement of species such as seabirds, reduced availability of food for prey species, etc.), climate change (e.g. use of fuel contributing to GHG emissions, etc.), direct impacts to submerged cultural heritage features and to soil and sediment/marine geodiversity (e.g. bottom-contact mobile gear, impacts on benthic habitats have implications for the character and integrity of the seabed, etc.), impacts on coastal and marine water quality (e.g. pollution incidents from vessels, impacts on ecological status of water, turbidity from bottom-contact mobile gear, etc.), amongst others. The potential for socio-economic impacts was also identified, including the displacement of other coastal or marine activities, the potential for benefits through the creation of jobs, and the potential for associated impacts for communities, particularly for those with a reliance on commercial fishing. The policy seeks to improve the awareness of existing fishing activities amongst other marine users and future developers, and sets out expectations for the consideration of fishing interests (including cultural, economic and environmental factors) in decision-making for the future use of the PFOW area. It promotes sustainability and the safeguarding of existing fishing activities and opportunities for the future, whilst highlighting the importance of the preservation of fishing stocks, nursery and spawning areas, and these habitats for the sector. Whilst the inclusion of such policies promote the preservation of resources considered important to the sector, it is considered unlikely to promote growth in the sector. Therefore, the potential for any such impacts is considered out with the remit of the Pilot Plan. Given the likelihood of increased competition for space in the PFOW marine environment, there is the potential for mixed effects for many marine users; the commercial fishing sector included and the communities that they help to support. In general terms, some fishing activities are less likely to be compatible for shared or multiple use than others and the potential for conflicts between the fishing sector and others has been identified as a potential concern (e.g. between different types of fishing, between some fishing activities and renewables, etc.). As a consequence, there is the potential for ‘trade-offs’ within the fishing sector and between it and other sectors (e.g. in terms of siting of future developments, timing/design, displacement of fishing activities, additional costs associated with routing around such developments, etc.). However, assuming that any such ‘trade-offs’ are appropriately assessed and decisions and agreements made accordingly (e.g. via a Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy), the sustainable focus of the Draft Pilot Plan and the provisions of this policy are likely to have a net positive effect in ensuring that the potential for adverse effects are better managed, and that marine resources are put to their best use. Further, giving due consideration to fishing activity in these decision-making processes will likely help to safeguard fishing jobs and incomes, reduce the risk of adverse effects such as collision risk on the sector, and contribute to providing associated benefits for the sector itself and local communities. However, it is unlikely that this will result in net job creation at the current time. In general terms, many of the marine activities and developments that are likely to significantly affect commercial fishing operations in the PFOW are currently subject to existing consenting processes where the requirement for consultation with stakeholders is well established (e.g. renewables, aquaculture, oil and gas, etc.). In such cases, the policy has the potential to provide additional guidance for developers and setting out expectations for the consideration and management of potential impacts on the commercial fisheries sector. With the ‘buy in’ of marine users, developers and the fishing sector itself, the Policy has the potential to aid in promoting early and effective engagement and could help to introduce the views of the fishing sector, and potentially aid in identifying constraints or issues of concern for developers at an early stage in the development process. In some instances, there is the potential for early engagement to help to steer development away from areas of such concern (e.g. spawning or nursery areas) and into areas of lesser constraint. The potential for positive effects for biodiversity through safeguarding spawning and nursery areas, and for associated benefits for associated marine ecosystems have also been identified. The promotion of sustainable development in the Plan also seeks to provide opportunities for developers and marine users alike to manage and grow their activities in a sustainable way. As a consequence, there is the potential to reduce the likelihood of adverse environmental effects in this growth. The potential for positive effects in contributing to maintain the ecological status of coastal waters and in contributing to coastal/marine geodiversity has also been identified. It is considered unlikely that the Policy itself would have significant effects on climate change, cultural heritage, landscape/seascape and coastal processes.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+/-
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1B: Supporting Sustainable Social and Economic Benefits 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities	4A: Nature Conservation Designations 4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity 4E: Geodiversity	5A: Water Environment 6: Historic Environment 8B: Waste and Marine Litter 9: Invasive Non-native Species
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for largely positive effects associated with the policy through the promotion of the consideration of interactions with the fisheries sector by potential developers and other marine users in the PFOW area. In setting out expectations for developers and marine users, and outlining support for the safeguarding of existing fishing practices where possible, preserving the potential for opportunities for future sustainable activities, and supporting the safeguarding of environmental factors upon which the sector relies (e.g. fish stocks, spawning and nursery areas), the policy has the potential for contributing overall positive effects for the sector. However, the potential for conflicts and trade-offs between the fishing sector and other sectors was noted in the SA (e.g. particularly in terms of displacement due factors such as the location and timing/design of development, amongst others), and hence the potential for both positive and negative effects for Material Assets and Communities, Population and Human Health. The SA considered that the policy may help in streamlining the development process; principally through promoting the co-existence of marine users and in early and effective management of any potential conflicts. For example, in setting out expectations for developers for working with fisheries stakeholders (i.e. Inshore Fisheries Groups, local communities) there is the potential for benefits in having early and effective discussions on the management of the available marine space. This could also aid in resolving potential conflicts between developers and fisheries, and where possible, help to seek opportunities for synergistic benefits for a wide range of marine users. With the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders, the potential for associated positive effects for biodiversity and the ecological status of water quality and soil and marine geodiversity were also identified (e.g. protection of benthic habitats important to juveniles). Positive effects for safeguarding fishing stocks and nursery/spawning areas, managing potential conflicts between the fishing sector and other marine users, and reducing displacement and collision risk were also identified. However, it was considered unlikely that the Policy itself would have significant effects on climate change, cultural heritage, landscape and coastal processes. The SA also noted that delivery of any such benefits is likely to be contingent on the achieving the ‘buy in’ of key stakeholders (e.g. future developers, the fishing sector, other marine users, consenting authorities, environmental bodies and government bodies such as SNH).

Sectoral Policy 2: Aquaculture

Sectoral Policy
1: Aquaculture		Aquaculture developments may be supported in principle by the Plan where they are in compliance with: Local Development Plans for Orkney Islands Council or Highland Council. Aquaculture Supplementary Guidance for Orkney Islands Council or any Aquaculture Supplementary Guidance for Highland Council.
Preferred Option		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	0	In general terms, finfish and shellfish aquaculture and seaweed cultivation have the potential for impacts on coastal and marine environments. For example, the potential for adverse impacts to marine and coastal biodiversity (e.g. benthic smothering and/or enrichment, reduction in biological carrying capacity, entanglement in netting and ropes, etc.), direct and setting impacts to submerged and coastal cultural heritage, impacts to soil and sediment/marine geodiversity, impacts to landscape/ seascape, impacts on coastal and marine water quality, and increased human health risks (e.g. navigational safety, etc.), amongst others, have been identified. The potential for socio-economic impacts was also noted, particularly in relation to the displacement of other coastal or marine activities and the potential for benefits such as the creation of jobs and the potential for associated benefits for communities. However, in the context of current legislation and guidance as outlined in the Pilot Plan, the policy itself is unlikely to significantly increase aquaculture activities within the plan area. Rather, the policy aims to provide information on the wide variety of factors that should be considerations in future development in the sector, including the development of shore-based facilities such as processing plants. It refers to the existing requirements of the respective LDPs and Supplementary Guidance of the Orkney Islands and Highland Councils, which identify current consenting processes relevant to growth in the sector (e.g. Marine Licensing and the requirements of the EIA Directive). Its inclusion in the Pilot Plan is likely to increase awareness of these requirements and has the potential for benefits for future aquaculture developers and other stakeholders. As for other sectors considered in the Pilot Plan, it has the potential to improve efficiency in the development and application process. The potential for improved stakeholder consultation through discussing the current consenting process in the Pilot Plan has also been identified, alongside the potential for some stakeholders to become more involved in these processes (e.g. identifying potential community benefits, etc.). As a consequence, there is the potential for positive effects for Material Assets and Communities, Population and Human Health. However, the assessment considered that no further significant environmental effects are likely from the inclusion of the policy in the Pilot Plan.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	0
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	0
Material Assets	+
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1B: Supporting Sustainable Social and Economic Benefits 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing and Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities	4A: Nature Conservation Designations 4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity 4D: Landscape and Seascape	5A: Water Environment 5B: Coastal Processes and Flooding 8B: Waste and Marine Litter 9: Invasive Non-native Species
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA found that while aquaculture and seaweed cultivation activities have the potential to result in significant environmental effects, development within these sectors in the future will continue to be managed through existing consenting processes (e.g. potentially including planning permission under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, obtaining seabed leases from TCE and landowners, Controlled Activity Regulations ( CAR) Licenses from SEPA, Marine Licensing from Marine Scotland). The policy will provide support to these processes by providing awareness for future developers and stakeholders on these requirements, and could result in benefits for Material Assets and Communities, Population and Human Health topic areas (i.e. potential for improved efficiency in the consenting process, enhanced consultation between developers and stakeholders, early identification of interactions and potential constraints to development/marine use). As a consequence, there is likely the potential for positive effects for the aquaculture sector and associated benefits for the communities that these activities can help to support. It was also noted that Marine Scotland is undertaking work to identify areas of opportunity and constraint for both finfish and shellfish aquaculture, referred to in the NMP, and the SA noted that that future regional marine planning work should be linked to this work. The SA considered that the ‘buy in’ of a range of stakeholders is likely to be an important factor in the delivery of any positive effects identified in this assessment (e.g. prospective developers, aquaculture sector, other marine users, consenting authorities and Government bodies (e.g. TCE, SEPA, Marine Scotland) in particular).

Sectoral Policy 3: Oil and Gas

Sectoral Policy
3: Oil and Gas		Exploration and production of oil and gas will be supported by this Plan, working with DECC and, when established, the new Oil and Gas Authority and Competent Authority when: Oil and gas exploration and production are conducted in accordance with regulations. There is an approved Oil Pollution Emergency Plan in place that has the agreement with the appropriate authorities to respond to any accidental release of oil or gas and related hazardous substances. All oil and gas platforms will have in place 9 nautical mile consultation zones in line with Civil Aviation guidance. Connections to shore base and associated infrastructure take into account environmental and socio-economic constraints. Appropriate monitoring programmes and detailed restoration and maintenance proposals based on standard best practice are in place. Re-use of oil and gas infrastructure is considered and, where not practicable, decommissioning must take place in line with standard practice, and as allowed by international obligations.
Preferred Option		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	0	In general terms, the exploration and production of oil and gas within the Pilot Plan area (out to 12 nautical miles) and outside of it (outside 12 nautical miles) has the potential to result in significant effects on coastal and marine environments. For example, the potential for adverse impacts to marine and coastal biodiversity, submerged and coastal cultural heritage, soil and sediment/marine geodiversity, landscape/ seascape, coastal and marine water quality, and increased human health risks (e.g. navigational safety, etc.) from exploration and production activities offshore and from associated operations offshore, coastal and onshore areas (e.g. construction, operation and decommissioning of pipelines, landfall infrastructure and supporting port facilities, etc.), amongst others, have been identified. The potential for socio-economic impacts have also been identified, particularly in relation to displacement of other coastal or marine activities and the potential for associated impacts at the community level. However, in the context of current legislation and guidance as outlined in the Pilot Plan, the policy itself is unlikely to significantly affect oil and gas exploration and production either within the plan area or further offshore. The Department of Energy and Climate Change ( DECC) environmental regulations relating to emissions and discharges do not apply for waters within 3 nautical miles, and competence in relation to pollution matters in these areas rests with the Scottish Government. As such, the SA considered that the policy has the potential for benefits in relation to oil and gas activities in coastal, landfall and onshore activities within the 3 nautical mile limit (e.g. supporting infrastructure such as ports and harbour facilities, onshore and landfall infrastructure, etc.). The SA noted the likelihood of positive environmental effects through the statement of support in the policy for approved Oil Pollution Emergency Plans and appropriate monitoring programmes based on standard best practice, but also noted this would likely be limited given these current responsibilities for oil and gas exploration and production activities. While in general terms, the inclusion of connections to shore base and associated infrastructure take into account environmental and socio-economic constraints in the policy may have the potential for positive effects, the SA found that this too is likely to be limited by current responsibilities. Guiding developers on Scottish Ministers expectations and referring developers to the accompanying RLGs at an early stage in the application process, could help to streamline the existing consenting process and aid in identifying, avoiding and/or minimising any adverse impacts that may result from proposed activities. The publication of the RLGs should also aid in informing prospective developers on regional issues and potential constraints for development, including exploration and production within and near to the plan area and locations of other coastal and marine use. While the SA considered that this could help to guide developers into areas of lesser constraint (e.g. avoidance of environmental designations for landfall sites, etc.), in the context of this policy, the SA also considered that it is unlikely that the policy would result in significant environmental effects. However, the SA also noted the potential for exploration and production activities in and near to the Pilot Plan area in the future. As a consequence, it is recommended that any policies relating to oil and gas activities in future regional marine plans in the PFOW area be periodically reviewed to address this.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	0
Communities, Population and Human Health	0
Water	0
Material Assets	0
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1B: Supporting Sustainable Social and Economic Benefits 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 4A: Nature Conservation Designations	4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity 4D: Landscape and Seascape 4E: Geodiversity	5A: Water Environment 6: Historic Environment 7: Integrating Coastal and Marine Development 9: Invasive Non-native Species
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA found that the ambition and potential effect of this policy is likely to be limited by current responsibilities for oil and gas exploration and production activities. It noted that the responsibility for offshore oil and gas exploration and production lies largely within existing UK legislation and regulations within the remit of the Department of Energy and Climate Change ( DECC). As such, while the potential for positive effects associated with several provisions of the policy were noted in the assessment in general terms (e.g. use of approved Oil Pollution Emergency Plans, that connections to shore base and associated infrastructure taking into account environmental and socio-economic constraints, appropriate monitoring programmes and detailed restoration and maintenance proposals based on standard best practice are in place), it was considered that these ambitions were already requirements at the UK level and are largely outside the influence of the Pilot Plan. As such, in the context of this policy and the current oil and gas sector, the SA considered that it is unlikely that the policy would result in significant environmental effects. However, the SA did note the potential for the publication of the accompanying RLG to aid in informing prospective developers on relevant issues and constraints within the PFOW area. For example, it noted that the RLG could help prospective developers in the sector to identify potential constraints to development, including those looking to progress exploration and production activities within and near to the plan area and associated landfall or shore-based activities, and may aid in guiding developers into areas of lesser constraint (e.g. avoidance of environmental designations for landfall sites). The SA also recommended that any policies relating to oil and gas activities in future Regional Marine Plans in the PFOW area be periodically reviewed to consider the potential for future activities in and near to the PFOW area.

Sectoral Policy 4: Renewable Energy Generation

Sectoral Policy
4: Renewable Energy Generation		All proposals for offshore wind and marine renewable energy development are subject to licensing and consenting processes. The Plan will support proposals when: Proposals for commercial scale developments are sited in the Plan Option areas identified through the Sectoral Marine Plan process. These are considered the preferred location for the sustainable development of offshore wind and marine renewables. The potential for co-existence in, and multiple use of, Plan Option areas and Agreement for Lease areas by other marine users has been discussed with stakeholders and given due consideration. Due regard has been paid to relevant factors in Regional Locational Guidance. Connections to shore and National Grid connections have been considered against the appropriate policies in the relevant Local Development Plan(s). Early and effective communication and consultation with all affected stakeholders has been established to avoid or minimise adverse impacts. Any adverse impacts are satisfactorily mitigated.
Preferred Option		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	In general terms, support for sustainable growth of the renewables sector has the potential for both positive and negative effects on marine, coastal and terrestrial environments due to offshore and associated land-based and landfall renewables infrastructure. These broadly include the potential for positive and negative impacts to marine and coastal biodiversity (e.g. disturbance and displacement of marine fauna and seabirds, injuries to seals through collision with vessels/infrastructure, electromagnetic field ( EMF) effects, damage to and loss of benthic habitats, smothering of benthic habitats, reef effects, etc.); the potential for adverse impacts for cultural heritage (e.g. damage to and loss of underwater features, effects on setting of historic features from surface-piercing infrastructure), soil and sediment/marine geodiversity (e.g. damage to or loss of seabed, changes to wave patterns and sediment dynamics), landscape/seascape (e.g. visual effects from presence of devices, associated and infrastructure and onshore components, etc.), and coastal and marine water quality (increased turbidity during installation works, potential release of contaminants from dredged material or oil/chemical spills, changes to wave energy and sediment dynamics, etc.); and the potential for positive effects in relation to climatic factors (e.g. reduce generation of GHG emissions and contribute to climate change adaptation), amongst others, through the siting and operation of offshore renewables. Further, growth in the renewables sector also has the potential to adversely affect development and activities in other marine sectors; notably the potential for displacement of other marine users from renewable development areas due to incompatibility and/or navigation and safety issues. The potential for positive and negative socio-economic impacts has also been identified in previous SEA work. The Policy largely reflects the sustainable development ambitions advocated in wider offshore renewables policy; most notably in the preference for future development of commercial renewables development within the Plan Option Areas as outlined in the Sectoral Marine Plans rather than out with these areas, and the inclusion of reference to the appropriate policies in LDPs. However, by itself, the inclusion of this policy in the Pilot Plan is unlikely to significantly increase renewable development in the PFOW. Rather it will seek to support ambitions within the sector by guiding prospective developers in relation to the ambitions of the Sectoral Plans and LDPs, and raising awareness of the expectations of current consenting processes. It is considered that the identification, avoidance and/or mitigation of potential environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with specific developments are likely to continue to be addressed under these current processes. Together, support for the consideration of the relevant factors in the RLGs in the Policy, and promoting the co-existence of marine users has the potential for overall positive effects in most of the topic areas scoped into the assessment (e.g. biodiversity, cultural heritage, landscape/seascape, soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes, and water). Creation of the RLGs to accompany the Pilot Plan will likely aid in informing prospective developers on key issues and constraints to development at the regional level, and potentially help to guide developers into areas of lesser environmental and socio-economic constraint. As a consequence, positive effects for a range of topic areas have been identified. Further, guiding developers in the consideration of the RLGs and promoting the use of early, effective and continuous communication between developers and affected stakeholders in particular, could help to streamline current consenting process and could help to avoid or minimise early delays and adverse impacts that could result from a given development. The promotion of early and effective communication and consultation with all affected stakeholders in the policy reflects the common theme amongst many of the policies in the Pilot Plan. The potential for benefits such as the early identification of potential conflicts between renewables and other marine users, mutual benefit opportunities for developers and other stakeholders (e.g. multiple use of infrastructure, shared monitoring programmes, community benefits, etc.) and opportunities to promote co-existence amongst different marine users were identified. However, the SA also found that while some sectors are likely to co-exist effectively with offshore renewables (e.g. different types of renewables and some recreational sectors, etc.), there is the likelihood that some activities may be displaced by further renewables development if not appropriately designed and sited (e.g. some fishing sectors, shipping routes, etc.). The potential for cost implications were also noted, either through the displacement of activities or via additional costs associated with routing around developments (e.g. shipping routes, fishing vessel steaming, etc.). As a consequence, the likelihood of mixed effects for the Communities, Population and Human Health and Material Assets topic areas was identified. The SA identified that the ‘buy in’ of prospective developers and stakeholders to the ambitions of the policy and the accompanying RLGs is likely to be an important part of the delivery of any positive effects. This is also likely to be a key factor in the management of potential adverse effects, particularly relating to displacement or disturbance of other marine users.
Climate change	+
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	+
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+/-
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1B: Supporting Sustainable Social and Economic Benefits 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities 4A: Nature Conservation Designations	4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity 4D: Landscape and Seascape 4E: Geodiversity 5A: Water Environment	5B: Coastal Processes and Flooding 6: Historic Environment 7: Integrating Coastal and Marine Development 8A: Noise 9: Invasive Non-native Species
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for largely positive environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the inclusion of this policy in the draft Pilot Plan. As for other sectoral policies, the potential for improved efficiencies in existing consenting processes, awareness of the ambitions of the Sectoral Plans, informing prospective developers of key socio-economic and environmental issues and constraints via the RLG, and the promotion of early, effective and continuous communication with stakeholders are likely to provide benefits for a range of topic areas (e.g. biodiversity, water, soil, marine geodiversity, landscape/seascape, cultural heritage, communities, population and human health and material assets). However, the SA also noted that current consenting processes underpinned by project-specific socio-economic and environmental assessments will remain the primary mechanism for the consideration of future development within this sector. It is anticipated that together the draft Pilot Plan, the RLG and the Sectoral Plans for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal energy are likely to provide support for these processes. While the net effect of the policy is likely to be positive, the potential for mixed effects for the Communities, Population and Human Health and Material Assets topic areas was noted in the assessment. This finding reflects the potential for some marine sectors to conflict with renewables development and its related activities if inappropriately designed and sited; notably displacement of fishing activities and steaming routes, displacement of shipping and some recreational users, amongst others. The potential for associated effects at the community level were also identified, particularly for those with a close reliance on these sectors. However, the reference to the RLG, Sectoral Plans and inclusion of provisions for early and effective communication with affected stakeholders in the Policy was identified as having the potential to aid in the early identification and resolution of any such interactions. The SA noted that the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders (e.g. developers, other marine users, communities, environmental bodies and Government bodies (e.g. SNH, SEPA), TCE, Marine Scotland and Local Authorities), and promoting early, effective and continuous communication between them, is likely to be an important factor in the delivery of any potential positive effects of the Plan. With the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders, the SA noted the potential for the policy to aid in the management of any potential adverse effects associated with further development of offshore renewables in the PFOW area, whether within the Plan Option areas or out with them.

Sectoral Policy 5: Recreation, Sport, Leisure and Tourism

Sectoral Policy
5: Recreation, Sport, Leisure and Tourism		The Plan will support the sustainable development of marine recreation, sport, leisure and tourism. The Plan will support proposals for development of this sector where: They do not adversely affect the natural environment which is the resource that recreation, sport, leisure and tourism rely on. Codes of best practice and guidance such as those for biosecurity planning, non-native species and Marine Wildlife Watching are complied with. The Plan will support proposals for the development of other sectors where: During planning and construction they minimise or mitigate any disruption and/or disturbance to recreation, sport, leisure and tourism activities, including the natural environment as a resource that these activities rely upon. The impact the development has on access, navigational routes and navigational safety in relation to recreation, sport, leisure and tourism activities has been minimised or mitigated. Consultation and engagement with relevant users of the marine environment has been undertaken to ensure the measures used to minimise or mitigate disruption or disturbance are appropriate. Consideration has been given to the facility requirements of marine recreation, sport, leisure and tourism users and the potential for co-operation and sharing infrastructure and/or facilities taken into account.
Preferred Option		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	In general terms, support for the sustainable growth of the recreation, sport, leisure and tourism sectors has the potential for both positive and negative environmental and socio-economic effects. These broadly include the potential for impacts to marine and coastal biodiversity (e.g. damage to or loss of benthic habitat from anchoring, disturbance of marine wildlife from recreational activities, introduction of invasive non-native species on vessels), cultural heritage (e.g. damage to and loss of underwater features), soil and sediment/marine geodiversity (e.g. damage to or loss of seabed from anchoring) and water quality (e.g. reduction in water quality from waste discharges, reduction in ecological status from anchoring damage to benthic habitat), amongst others. At the local level, there is also the potential for positive effects for communities in both Orkney and along the north Caithness and Sutherland coast, particularly those economically reliant on these sectors (e.g. creation of jobs, economic benefits, etc.), and similar positive effects are likely for recreation, sport and leisure users across the PFOW area. By itself, the inclusion of this policy in the Pilot Plan is unlikely to significantly increase growth of this sector in the PFOW. Rather it is aimed at promoting the consideration of recreational, sport, leisure and tourism interests in future development and marine use by promoting sustainable development and co-existence amongst developers and marine users, and helping to preserve the resources upon which the sector is based. For example, setting out expectations for developers and other marine users for the consideration of the recreation, sport, leisure and tourism sector has the potential to reduce the risk of adverse effects on these activities (i.e. potential for displacement of marine users and some activities, impacts on navigational safety and human health, impacts on the natural environment, etc.). As a consequence, the potential for positive effects for Material Assets and Communities, Population and Human Health were identified. In the environmental context, many of the activities and operations undertaken in the recreation, sport, leisure and tourism sector utilise the resources of the natural environment, whether it be based around marine wildlife, coastal walking areas or using the area’s many open waters for diving, cruising or yachting. As a consequence, the SA identified the potential for overall positive effects from the Policy through the preservation of these resources. In particular, there is potential for positive effects for biodiversity associated with increased awareness of existing codes of practice and guidance, particularly those relating to biosecurity and managing non-native species. An opportunity to contribute to the preservation of habitats and species in the PFOW, particularly those potentially vulnerable to displacement by invasive and non-native species, was noted as a particular benefit. Whilst many codes and guidance documents have been produced both at the sectoral and national levels many of which are currently well-known in some sectors (see assessment table for General Policy 9), inclusion of this issue in the Policy strengthens these ambitions and could present an opportunity to develop a more consistent approach across multiple sectors. The SA also identified the potential for significant benefits in reducing the risk of introduction or spread of such species in this sector, particularly in relation to recreation and leisure vessels, amongst others. Similarly, given the close links between water, marine geodiversity and biodiversity, the potential for associated positive effects in these topic areas was also identified in the assessment (e.g. reduced risk of adverse effects of geodiversity, particularly benthic habitats and the ecological status of water quality). The likelihood of associated benefits for the preservation of cultural heritage and landscape/seascape was also identified including valued landscapes/seascapes and sites with high tourism value (e.g. Heart of Neolithic Orkney WHS, Castle and Gardens of Mey, NSAs in Hoy and the Caithness coast, etc.) and other coastal assets that can frame outdoor recreational activities. While the potential for an increase in GHG emissions with growth of the sector was also noted in the assessment, the SA noted that the Plan and this policy themselves are unlikely to significantly increase growth in this sector. As a consequence, no significant increase in emissions or associated effects in relation to climatic factors was considered likely. The inclusion of support for proposals that “minimise or mitigate any disruption and/or disturbance” from activities in the sector and the natural resources that these rely upon, may have the potential to constrain development in other sectors within the Pilot Plan area. However, the SA also found that undertaking early consultation and engagement between users of the marine environment would likely play an important role in ensuring the co-operation and co-existence of users. The potential for opportunities to promote the shared use of space and infrastructure, and help to balance the needs of all users in the sustainable development of the PFOW area were also identified. As such, the grading provided to the left for Material Assets reflects the potential for both positive and negative effects. While the net potential socio-economic and environmental effects of the Policy were found to positive, the SA also considered that the ‘buy in’ of marine users from all sectors would likely be required to deliver these potential benefits.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	+
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1B: Supporting Sustainable Social and Economic Benefits 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and amenity of Coastal Communities	4A: Nature Conservation Designations 4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity 4D: Landscape and Seascape	5A: Water Environment 6: Historic Environment 9: Invasive Non-native Species
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for overall positive socio-economic and environmental effects associated with the inclusion of the policy in the draft Pilot Plan. Increased awareness of potential interactions with recreational users, and setting out expectations for developers and other marine users, has the potential for a range of positive effects (e.g. potential for displacement of activities, impacts on navigational safety and human health, impacts on the natural environment). Similarly, informing prospective developers of known areas of recreational/tourism via the RLG this SA and the Socio-economic Baseline Report, and the promotion of early, effective and continuous communication with stakeholders are likely to provide particular socio-economic benefits. This could include opportunities to identify synergistic benefits for multiple sectors, marine users and local communities. The potential for further socio-economic benefits through the promotion of sustainable development and support for the existing recreation, sport, leisure and tourism sectors at the community level were also noted. The SA identified that the inclusion of provisions to “minimise or mitigate any disruption and/or disturbance to coastal and marine recreation, sport, leisure and tourism activities, including the natural environment as a resource that these activities rely upon” may have the potential to constrain development in other sectors within the Pilot Plan area. However, it was also considered that undertaking early consultation and engagement between users of the coastal and marine environments could help to ensure the co-operation and co-existence of these users, to seek opportunities for the shared use of space and infrastructure, and help to balance the needs of all users in the sustainable development of the PFOW area. The potential for a number of environmental benefits was also identified, notably through the likely contribution of the policy to the preservation of biodiversity, water and geodiversity from increased awareness of codes of practice and guidance relating to biosecurity and non-native species (e.g. protection of existing biodiversity, particularly for vulnerable habitats and species, reduced risk of impacts on ecological status of water). The potential for positive effects for cultural heritage and landscape/seascape were also identified through more consistent consideration of sectors based around the appreciation and enjoyment of these assets. As a consequence, the potential benefits for communities, population and human health associated with support for the existing recreation, sport, leisure and tourism sectors were also identified. For example, reduced risks associated with navigational safety and human health, and the preservation of outdoor recreation sites and activities, amongst others. While the net environmental effect of the policy is likely to be positive, the SA considered that the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders would likely be required for the delivery of any such positive effects (e.g. recreation, leisure and tourism sector, other marine users and developers, environmental bodies and Government bodies, consenting authorities and local communities). In particular, the SA found that this is likely to be a key challenge in ensuring co-operation between different sectors, the shared use of space and in sharing infrastructure and facilities, and in the management of potential concerns such as invasive non-native species.

Sectoral Policy 6: Marine Transport

Sectoral Policy
6: Marine Transport		Development proposals should consider potential impacts on existing or planned shipping routes, navigational safety and access to ports and harbours. Development proposals which would have an adverse impact on efficient and safe movement of shipping between ports, harbours and other recognised anchorages should be refused. Development should not proceed where key shipping routes would be unduly compromised. Existing ferry routes should be safeguarded taking account of ferry movements in all weather conditions.
Preferred Option		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	In general terms, an increase in marine transport and commercial shipping has the potential to generate a range of environmental effects on coastal and marine environments. For example, the potential for adverse impacts to marine and coastal biodiversity (e.g. injury and/or death from collision of vessels with marine fauna, introduction of non-native invasive species on vessel hulls, etc.), climate change (e.g. use of fuel by vessels contributing to GHG emissions, etc.), impacts to soil and sediment/marine geodiversity (e.g. vessel movements may contribute to coastal erosion in areas susceptible to this issue, anchoring of vessels outside ports/harbours, etc.), and impacts on coastal and marine water quality (e.g. pollution incidents from vessels, discharges to sea will adversely affect water quality, etc.), amongst others, have been identified. The potential for socio-economic impacts was also noted, particularly in relation to providing connectivity for remote island communities, providing supporting services for marine industries (e.g. shipping of produce and equipment, etc.) and the potential for local benefits such as the creation of employment opportunities. The SA identified the potential for mixed effects associated with the inclusion of this policy in the draft Pilot Plan. In particular, the inclusion of policy for the safeguarding ferry routes and supporting the co-existence of different marine activities alongside one other has the potential for benefits for communities, population and human health. These include the potential for safeguarding of local jobs including those that rely on maintaining access across the PFOW area (e.g. ferry services, etc.), safeguarding safe navigational access to island and coastal communities and the preservation of recreational and leisure safety and accessibility; particularly where these activities share the use of shipping lanes, ferry routes and port/harbour/anchorage facilities. Indirect positive effects for biodiversity, water quality, soil and marine geodiversity were also identified in the SA relating to the potential for a reduction in the risk of collisions and any pollution/spill incidents; particularly relating to the large tanker vessels accessing Scapa Flow Oil Terminal and commercial shipping routes through the Pentland Firth. However, the assessment also noted that marine safety is currently underpinned by international safety conventions, regulations and codes issued by the IMO. It is expected that any future marine development would be in accordance these requirements, and the SA noted that this is also currently a consideration in consenting processes for many marine developments and marine activities. This is not expected to change with the adoption of the Pilot Plan. While the inclusion of ambitions to protect existing and planned shipping routes and ensuring safeguarding ferry routes in this Policy is likely to have clear benefits for the marine transport sector (e.g. commercial shipping, recreational users using these areas, etc.), support for the co-existence of different marine activities alongside one-other could also have the potential to lead to conflicts between different industries. For example, this could result in the growth of some activities at the expense of others (i.e. those that are not compatible, which may lead to effects such as displacement, etc.). However, the SA also considered that undertaking early consultation and engagement between developers and users of the marine environment would likely play an important role in ensuring the co-operation and co-existence of users. It found that this could aid in seeking opportunities for the shared use of space and infrastructure, and help in balancing the needs of all users in a sustainable development context. As such, the effects of the policy in relation to material assets/economic and communities, population and human health topic areas have the potential to be mixed. It is considered unlikely that the policy itself would have significant effects on biodiversity, climate change, cultural heritage or landscape/seascape.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+/-
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1B: Supporting Sustainable Social and Economic Benefits 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and amenity of Coastal Communities 3: Climate Change	4E: Geodiversity 5A: Water Environment 9: Invasive Non-native Species
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA found that there is the potential for socio-economic and environmental benefits associated with the safeguarding of shipping routes, ferry routes and access to ports, harbours and other anchorages. The potential for positive effects from setting out expectations for developers and marine users in maintaining navigational safety, including greater awareness and consideration of existing shipping and ferry routes, was also noted. For example, in addition to the likelihood of benefits for the marine transport sector (e.g. safeguarding access and travel routes for the sector), the potential for positive effects for communities, population and human health through reducing the risk of vessel-development collisions (i.e. tanker and shipping vessels in Scapa Flow, through the Pentland Firth and off the north Caithness and Sutherland coast) and maintaining accessibility, particularly between remote islands were considered likely (e.g. serviced by commercial vessels, recreational craft and ferries). Similarly, with the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders, the potential for associated benefits for biodiversity, water quality, soil and marine geodiversity through reduced collision and pollution incident risk were also noted. However, in some instances, the potential for mixed effects was identified. For example, maintaining safe access to ports and harbours and safeguarding important shipping and ferry routes may also negatively impact on the potential growth of other sectors, particularly those that are not compatible (i.e. offshore renewables, aquaculture). Further, the SA noted that marine safety is currently underpinned by international safety conventions, regulations and codes issued by the IMO. Navigational safety is also currently a consideration of existing consenting processes. As a consequence, the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders and the promotion of early communication and engagement between them was identified as being a likely key factor in the realisation of positive effects associated with this policy.

Sectoral Policy 7: Ports and Harbours

Sectoral Policy
7: Ports and Harbours		The sustainable growth of the ports and harbours within the PFOW area, particularly within existing facilities, will be supported by the Plan were: Access to ports and harbours is not restricted. Safety considerations are primary. Navigational routes are not compromised.
Preferred Option		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	In general terms, there is the potential for a range of environmental impacts associated with increased port and harbour activity. These broadly include the potential for impacts on biodiversity (e.g. damage to or loss of habitats through expansion of ports and harbours, disturbance of marine fauna (i.e. seals, cetaceans and seabirds), injury and/or death from collision of vessels with marine mammals, risk of introduction of non-native invasive species on vessel hulls, etc.), landscape/seascape and cultural heritage (e.g. visual impacts and impacts on setting from placement of new infrastructure and increased vessel numbers, etc.), soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes (e.g. damage to or loss of habitats through expansion of ports and harbours, vessel movements may contribute to coastal erosion in areas susceptible to this concern, anchoring of vessels outside ports/harbours, etc.), climate change (e.g. increased use of fuel by vessels contributing to GHG emissions, etc.), coastal and marine water quality (e.g. pollution incidents from vessels, discharges to sea will adversely affect water quality, turbidity from dredging activities, etc.) and population and human health (disturbance from infrastructure works and increased activity in and around port and harbour facilities), amongst others. The potential for socio-economic impacts was also identified, particularly in relation to improved connectivity of remote island communities, providing supporting services for marine industries (e.g. shipping of produce and equipment, etc.) and the potential for local benefits such as economic benefits including the creation of jobs, amongst others. The policy aims to provide guidance for potential developers, marine users and consenting bodies on the consideration of navigational safety and safeguarding of access in the development process, and the promotion of sustainable growth of ports and harbours in the PFOW area. However, the assessment also noted that the growth of ports and harbours will largely depend on market forces and demand for growth, rather than be driven by the development of the Pilot Plan. As a consequence, the SA considered that the policy itself is unlikely to create growth in the sector. As for Sectoral Policy 5 (Marine Transport) to which the policy is closely linked, there is the potential for largely positive environmental effects and both positive and negative socio-economic effects. The promotion of sustainable growth of port and harbour infrastructure may help to promote sustainable economic growth in the region and is also likely to help safeguard jobs and services in the region, particularly in communities that are economically reliant on ports/harbours and the activities they support. The policy also has the potential to contribute positively by safeguarding the accessibility and connectivity of remote island communities, and providing continued support for the lifeline services that many depend on (e.g. ferries, jobs, etc.). The potential for further positive effects such as maintaining and/or improving access for coastal and marine recreation, and economic benefits for these communities, have also been identified. In general, promoting the preservation of navigational routes and safe access to ports and harbours in the PFOW area is likely to have clear benefits for many marine users (e.g. marine transport sectors, recreational users, fishing sector, renewables development service vessels, etc.); particularly if these facilities are shared. However, in some instances, the potential for conflicts between different industries has been identified and this could have the potential to aid the growth of some sectors and/or activities at the expense of others (i.e. those that are not compatible, which could lead to effects such as displacement, etc.). As such, the effects of policy in relation to material assets and communities, population and human health have the potential to be mixed. Indirect positive effects for biodiversity, water quality and soil and marine geodiversity were also identified in the assessment, largely associated with a potential reduction in the risk of collisions and subsequent pollution incidents. However, the assessment also noted that marine safety is underpinned by international safety conventions, regulations and codes issued by the IMO. Further, the SA noted that the development of port and/or harbour facilities would also continue be subject to existing consenting processes (e.g. Marine Licensing, Town and Country Planning, etc.) supported by environmental assessments where applicable (e.g. EIA, HRA, etc.) to identify the potential for adverse effects and where appropriate, to mitigate them. It is expected that any future marine development would be in accordance these requirements. While the SA identified the potential for increases in GHG emissions associated with increased activity at port and harbour sites, it is considered that any growth in vessel numbers is likely to be due to market forces and demand rather than the Pilot Plan and this policy itself. This is discussed further in the assessment of General Policy 3 (Climate Change).
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+/-
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1B: Supporting Sustainable Social and Economic Benefits 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities	4A: Nature Conservation Designations 4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity 4D: Landscape and Seascape	4E: Geodiversity 5A: Water Environment 5B: Coastal Processes and Flooding 8A: Noise
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for overall positive environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the Policy. However, as for Sectoral Policy 6 (Marine Transport), there is the potential for these effects to be mixed in some instances. Potential socio-economic benefits through promoting the safeguarding and sustainable growth of existing port and harbour facilities, the potential safeguarding of jobs and recreational/leisure activities that rely on these facilities, and setting out support for the communities that rely economically on them, were all noted. In general, protecting access to ports and harbours in the PFOW area was considered likely to be beneficial for many marine users, particularly if the use of these facilities is shared (e.g. marine transport sector, recreational users, fishing sector, renewables sector, vessels servicing oil and gas). Further benefits for sectors such as the aquaculture sector were also identified through the maintenance of important links in the supply chain and connectivity. The potential for associated positive effects for biodiversity, water quality, soil and marine geodiversity was also identified in the SA, due largely to the potential for a reduction in collision and pollution risk associated with promoting navigational safety and the safeguarding of port and harbour access. However, the SA noted that in some instances, there may be the potential for conflicts between different industries in the use of port and harbour facilities. Further, any future growth is likely to be subject to demand and market forces. Thus, the ambitions set out in the policy could aid the growth of some sectors and/or activities more than others; for example, while this may benefit sectors reliant on safe navigation, it may create potential siting constraints for growth of aquaculture and offshore renewables. However, the SA noted that there is also the potential for the sustainable growth and adaptability of port and harbour facilities to service a wide range of sectors; potentially including those for aquaculture and renewables. This should help in improving the efficient use of marine space and could potentially help to offset any potential adverse effects (e.g. siting limitations). While the potential for an increase in GHG emissions from the growth of ports and harbours was also noted, the SA found that such growth in vessel numbers would likely be out with the influence of the policy. In particular, while the Pilot Plan and this policy may promote sustainability in sectoral growth, any such growth would likely be influenced by market forces and demand. The SA considered that the delivery of any benefits, and the identification and mitigation of any potential adverse effects, is likely to rely heavily on having the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders; in particular, the support of port and harbour owners and operators, marine users and local communities.

Sectoral Policy 8: Pipelines, Electricity and Telecommunications Infrastructure

Sectoral Policy
8: Pipelines, Electricity and Telecommunications Infrastructure		Safeguarding existing pipelines, electricity and telecommunications cables – Activities that could potentially damage cables or pipelines should comply with relevant industry requirements with regard to any proposed works and safety considerations. Information sources such as KIS-ORCA can be used to ensure the location of cables are known and taken account of when carrying out such activities. Electricity and telecommunications infrastructure – When laying or replacing electricity and telecommunications infrastructure the following considerations should be taken into account on a case-by-case basis: Developers should ensure that they have engaged with other developers and decision makers at an early planning stage and taken a joined-up approach to minimise impacts on the marine historic and natural environment, the assets, infrastructures and other marine users. Appropriate and proportionate environmental consideration and risk assessments should be provided which may include cable protection measures and mitigation plans. Any deposit, removal or dredging carried out for the purpose of executing emergency inspection or repair works to any cable is exempt from the marine licensing regime with approval by Scottish Ministers. However, cable replacement requires a marine licence and is subject to the marine licensing process. Marine Licensing Guidance should be followed with considering any cable development and activity. Cables should be suitably routed to provide sufficient requirements for installation and cable protection. New cables should implement methods to minimise impacts on the marine historic and natural environment, the assets, infrastructures and other marine users where operationally possible and in accordance with relevant industry practice. Cables should be buried to maximise protection where there are safety or seabed stability risks and to reduce conflict with other marine users and to protect the assets and infrastructure. However, it should be noted that not all cables will, or can, be buried depending on project requirements and circumstances. Where burial is demonstrated not to be feasible, cables may be suitably protected through recognised and approved measures (such as rock or mattress placement or cable armouring) where practicable and cost-effective and as risk assessment direct. The need to reinstate the seabed, undertake post-lay surveys and monitoring and carry out remedial action where required. The proposed land fall of power and telecommunications equipment and cabling will be considered against the appropriate policies in the relevant Local Development Plan(s). A risk-based approach should be applied by network owners and decision-makers to the removal of redundant cables, with consideration given to cables being left in situ where this would minimise impacts on the marine historic and natural environment and other marine users.
Preferred Option		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	In general terms, laying and maintaining subsea cables and pipelines has the potential to generate environmental effects on coastal and marine environments. For example, the potential for adverse impacts to marine and coastal biodiversity (e.g. loss or damage to coastal or benthic habitats and species through laying or removal activities, EMF effects on electro and magneto-sensitive species, benthic smothering from sediment generated during installation, etc.), submerged cultural heritage features (e.g. loss or damage to heritage features through installation or removal of cables or pipelines, impacts on setting of coastal assets due to landfall activities and ancillary infrastructure, etc.), direct impacts to soil and sediment/marine geodiversity (e.g. loss and or damage to the seabed, increased erosion from potential breach of natural coastal defences through landfall activities, etc.), landscape and seascape (e.g. visual impacts from installation of landfall or ancillary infrastructure, etc.), and coastal and marine water quality (e.g. pollution incidents from vessels, reduction in water quality and impacts on ecological status of water from turbidity during installation/removal, etc.), amongst others, have been identified. The potential for socio-economic impacts was also identified, particularly in relation to displacement of other coastal or marine activities (e.g. fishing activities with bottom-contact mobile gear, displacement of anchoring sites for vessels, etc.) and the potential for associated impacts for communities. Improved awareness of information sources for cable and pipeline locations has the potential to reduce the risk of damage to the cables themselves, and to the communities that they service. Further, with the ‘buy in’ of the sector, there is also the potential for the policy to help in reducing the risk of environmental disturbance from repair or replacement works (e.g. potential for reduced impacts to marine biodiversity, soil and marine geodiversity, cultural heritage, water quality, etc.). The inclusion of guidance in the Policy promoting the use of suitable routing of cables and pipelines, the burial of cables where feasible, and reference to the use of information sources such as KIS-ORCA in identifying infrastructure, are likely to have similar benefits. However, it is noted that in many locations, such as within much of the Pentland Firth itself, burial of cables is not achievable due to the rocky composition of the substrate or shallow depth of seabed sediments. In such locations, the risks to the cables/pipelines and to other marine users are unlikely to be significantly affected by implementation of this policy in the Pilot Plan. In some instances these effects could be mixed. Promoting suitable routing of cable and pipeline infrastructure could lead to the avoidance of sensitive or designated areas, and could for example, aid in the protection of sensitive or important seabed habitats and benthic species from disturbance of effects of operation such as EMF. The potential for similar benefits for avoiding impacts to historic assets (e.g. submerged wreck sites, etc.) throughout the PFOW area was also identified. There is the potential for benefits for other marine users through avoiding conflicts and potential displacement of other marine users (e.g. fishing activities such as scallop dredging, vessel anchoring areas, etc.). However, the assessment also identified the potential for adverse effects for those undertaking cabling or pipeline work, notably the potential for increased costs in laying longer cable or pipelines runs as a consequence of avoiding such areas. A primary effect of the Policy is likely to be in the provision of guidance for potential developers on cable routing. Promoting a ‘joined up’ approach to cabling and early communication between developers has the potential to increase co-ordinated cabling works and the placement of cables in the same corridor. The potential for reducing environmental impacts by reducing the duration of cabling operations and the area of seabed disturbed (e.g. potential for reduced impacts to marine biodiversity, soil and marine geodiversity, cultural heritage, water quality, etc.) and the potential for economic benefits have been noted. While the net environmental effect of the Policy is likely to be positive, it is noted that the ‘buy in’ of developers, marine users and consenting bodies is likely to be essential to the delivery of any such positive effects.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:	1A: Sustainable Development 1B: Supporting Sustainable Social and Economic Benefits 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities	4A: Nature Conservation Designations 4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity 4E: Geodiversity	5A: Water Environment 6: Historic Environment 7: Integrating Coastal and Marine Development 9: Invasive Non-native Species
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for overall positive effects associated with this policy. The promotion of a ‘joined up’ approach to cabling from developers, appropriate burial of cables where possible, and suitable routing of cables and pipelines are likely to have predominantly positive environmental effects (e.g. reduced risk of disturbance to benthic habitats and biodiversity, cultural heritage and seabed/marine geology). The potential for reduced impacts and conflicts with other marine users were also identified (e.g. limiting the potential for interactions on bottom-contact fishing activities and known anchoring sites). While the SA considered that cabling activities are likely to result in damage to the seabed and the many features that it may contain (e.g. benthic habitats, submerged historic assets), the Policy has the potential to be beneficial in promoting suitable routing of cables and pipelines to avoid sensitive or designated features, and in reducing the potential for adverse impacts by taking a ‘joined up’ and co-ordinated approach to their installation. The potential for positive socio-economic effects was also identified including the potential for a reduced risk of damage to infrastructure and impacts from outages to communities (i.e. particularly those in remote islands due to damage to telecommunications, electricity and pipeline infrastructure). Likely benefits such as the avoidance of costs to repair and/or lay replacements for damaged cables were also identified, and the potential for reduced costs for the sector in co-ordinating operations involving laying cables and pipelines. However, the SA also noted the potential for negative impacts in relation to the Material Assets topic area, particularly associated with increased costs for longer cable runs associated with suitable routing. While the net environmental effect of the Policy is likely to be positive, it is noted that the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders is likely to be essential in the delivery of any such positive effects; in particular, pipeline and cable owners, marine users and those sectors involved in the placement and repair of cables and pipelines.

Sectoral Policy 9: Marine Aggregates

Sectoral Policy
9: Marine Aggregates		Proposals for new marine aggregate extraction sites should ensure they do not compromise existing activities. Decision makers should ensure marine environmental issues are considered and appropriately safeguarded. Any marine development should consider any impacts on existing or potential marine aggregate resources.
Preferred Option		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	In general terms, marine aggregate extraction and dredging operations have the potential for a wide range of environmental impacts. These can include biodiversity effects (e.g. loss, damage to or smothering of benthic habitats, disturbance of species, injury to species from collisions or increased turbidity, loss of spawning/nursery grounds, etc.), water quality (e.g. increased turbidity, contaminants, loss of ecological value, etc.), cultural heritage (e.g. loss, damage to or smothering of submerged archaeology, etc.) and to soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes (e.g. loss and/or damage to the seabed, changes to hydrodynamics/sediment dynamics and coastal processes, damage to geodiversity features, etc.), amongst others. The policy supports the Plan’s ambitions for sustainable growth and shared use of the PFOW marine environment, and seeks to support the safeguarding of existing marine aggregate activities, potential aggregate resources and the consideration and appropriate safeguarding of the marine environment. It should provide general guidance for the consideration of future aggregate extraction, with a key focus on shared use of the PFOW marine environment. While the potential for increased dredging activities in the future has been noted in this assessment, including port/harbour maintenance dredging requirements, the Policy itself is unlikely to have significant effects on existing marine aggregates operations or directly lead to future extraction operations. Rather, growth in this sector has historically been, and is likely to continue to be, market-driven. Highlighting the importance of ensuring that marine environmental issues are considered by decision-makers and are appropriately safeguarded has the potential for overall positive environmental effects in reducing the potential for adverse impacts from future operations and in the consideration of future extraction opportunities. The policy is expected to have a positive effect on the sustainable development of the marine economy and the marine aggregates sector, through encouraging the consideration of environmental and socio-economic issues in decision-making (i.e. environmental issues such as coastal and marine biodiversity, cultural heritage, geodiversity and water; potential impacts on existing aggregate activities and future resources, etc.). It should aid in guiding potential developers and decision-makers on the need to consider potential environmental impacts of their operations, on other marine sectors, and that the potential for impacts on both existing and potential aggregate resources should also be considered. The potential for conflicts with other marine sectors associated with the safeguarding protection of existing and potential marine aggregate resources has also been identified. For some sectors, such as those likely to involve geological operations (e.g. offshore wind renewables, some fishing operations, etc.), these effects have the potential to be significant and could result in displacement of these activities or constrain future operations. In some instances, this could also have adverse impacts on at the community level, particularly on those closely linked to these sectors. As such, the effects of the policy in relation to Material Assets and Community, Population and Human Health topic areas have the potential to be mixed. The SA also identified that capital dredging operations and applicable maintenance dredging operations fall under the EIA Directive and will remain subject to existing consenting processes including that of Marine Licensing under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. The Pilot Plan, this policy and the RLGs have been developed to become a material consideration of current consenting processes, and in this way, have the potential to inform this decision-making process. While the net environmental effect of the Policy is likely to be positive, it is noted that the ‘buy in’ of the sector, developers, marine users and consenting bodies is likely to be essential to the delivery of any such positive effects.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	0
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1B: Supporting Sustainable Economic Benefits 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 4A: Nature Conservation Designations	4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity 4E: Geodiversity	5A: Water Environment 6: Historic Environment 9: Invasive Non-native Species
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for largely positive environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the policy. Promoting the consideration of existing marine aggregate resources in the PFOW area, current activities and the potential for future opportunities for the sector amongst developers and decision-makers may have positive effects in the preserving the potential for growth of this sector in the future. The potential for positive environmental effects in setting out expectations that wider environmental issues be considered and appropriately safeguarded by decision-makers was also noted as being likely to result in positive effects at the project level (e.g. promotion of preservation of marine biodiversity, cultural heritage features, geodiversity and water quality). The potential for conflicts with other marine sectors through the safeguarding of existing and potential marine aggregate resources was identified in the assessment. For sectors and activities likely to involve geological operations (e.g. offshore wind renewables, some fishing operations), there may be the potential significant conflict and could result in displacement of operations or addition of constraints in the siting of developments. As such, the effects of the policy in relation to the Material Assets topic area has the potential to be mixed. The SA noted that environmental issues are also likely to continue to be a consideration of the current consenting process for marine aggregate extraction (e.g. Marine Licensing, TCE seabed lease) and that such activities currently fall under the EIA Directive. However, it found that reinforcement of these issues in the policy and the Pilot Plan could be beneficial for the sector and its resources overall, particularly if the Pilot Plan is adopted as a material consideration of current consenting processes. However, while the overall effects of the policy are expected to be largely positive, the SA found that the ‘buy in’ of prospective developers and other stakeholders is likely to be an important factor in the delivery of any such benefits (e.g. the sector, other developers and marine users, consenting authorities, TCE, environmental bodies, and local communities).

Sectoral Policy 10: Defence

Sectoral Policy
10: Defence		Development proposals in the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters area that are in, or affect, Ministry of Defence exercise areas, firing ranges or firing danger areas must ensure that agreement for such use of the area has been agreed with the Ministry of Defence.
Preferred Option		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	0	In general terms, defence activities have the potential to generate socio-economic and environmental effects in coastal and marine areas. For example, the potential for adverse impacts to marine and coastal biodiversity (e.g. disturbance or injury/death from sonar, vessel collision with marine fauna, and live ammunition operations; introduction of invasive non-native species; loss or damage to habitats and disturbance/displacement from installation of new infrastructure; benthic smothering; etc.), climate change (e.g. use of fuel contributing to GHG emissions, etc.), submerged cultural heritage features (e.g. damage or loss from marine operations and development of new infrastructure, impacts on setting of heritage features, etc.), landscape/seascape (e.g. visual impacts from presence of new infrastructure above the water or on the coast, etc.), soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes (e.g. changes to coastal processes and increased erosion or deposition of sediment resulting from the introduction of new hard features into the coastline, scouring of the seabed from placement and presence of new infrastructure, potential for increased coastal erosion from vessel movements, etc.), coastal and marine water quality (e.g. pollution incidents from vessels, turbidity from construction or dredging activities for new infrastructure, etc.) amongst others, have been identified. The potential for socio-economic impacts was also identified, particularly in relation to the potential for displacement of other coastal or marine activities from MoD exercise areas. The Policy and its supporting information in RLG developed for the Pilot Plan provide general guidance for potential developers and coastal/marine users on the location of MoD activity areas in the PFOW area. At present, the marine areas near to the PFOW used by the MoD include large exercise and firing danger areas to the east of Orkney, the Pentland Firth and the east Sutherland Coast (off Oldwick), and to the west of the Kyle of Tongue in North-west Sutherland ^[1]. The Policy has the potential to promote early communication between potential developers, coastal/marine users and the MoD to identify the potential for interactions with marine development and activities; and this is represented in the grading for material assets to the left. However, it is also noted that offshore development proposals subject to the existing processes (e.g. Marine Licensing for offshore renewables, etc.) in or near to these areas are likely to have considered the potential for conflicts either directly with the MoD or via the consenting process. Similarly, many marine users should be aware of the locations of these established areas on navigational charts. While the potential for reduced risk of human health impacts (e.g. potential for reduced risk of collision with vessels and MoD infrastructure, etc.) has been noted, given the locations of MoD operations and their identification in current navigational charts used by marine vessels (i.e. commercial shipping, recreational cruising vessels, fishing vessels, etc.), it is considered unlikely that the inclusion of this information in the policy, the RLGs and the Pilot Plan would result in any other significant environmental or social effects. As with other policies, the realisation of any benefits is likely to depend primarily on achieving the ‘buy in’ of developers, marine users across various sectors and the MoD.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	0
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	0
Material Assets	+
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		None.
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for positive effects in promoting awareness amongst potential developers and marine users of existing requirements that the potential for interactions with defence interests be a key consideration. With the buy in of stakeholders including the MoD, the opportunity for reducing the potential for conflicts through early engagement and communication was identified as being a specific benefit. While in general, these activities are not located in areas currently subject to development or sectoral growth, the SA noted the potential for increased interactions between marine users and defence activities in the future (e.g. with further exploration of offshore oil and gas, exploration of aquaculture development further offshore). As with other Policies, the realisation of any such benefits are likely to be largely dependent on achieving the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders, particularly of prospective developers, marine users, consenting authorities and the MoD itself.

Contact

Tracy McCollin

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Was this helpful?

Yes

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Yes, but

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Information

Appendix B: Assessment Tables for Sectoral Policies

Contact

There is a problem