Publication - Corporate report
Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan - Sustainability Appraisal
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
Appendix C: Assessment Tables for Reasonable Alternatives
| Legend: | + | Positive effects |
| +/- | Mixed effects | |
| - | Negative effects | |
| 0 | No significant effects | |
| ? | Uncertain |
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE: Do Not Develop a Pilot Plan
| Alternative: | ||
|---|---|---|
| Do not develop a Pilot Plan – this alternative involved not preparing a Pilot Plan, but rather proceeding with the development of Regional Marine Plans for the Orkney and North Coast regions as detailed in the 2010 Act. This alternative also included an option relating to the potential development of separate Pilot Plans for the Orkney and North Coast regions ahead of the development of the Regional Marine Plans. | ||
| Assumptions: | ||
The following assumptions have been made in considering this alternative:
|
||
| Topic Areas | Assessment Summary | |
| Biodiversity | ? | The development of Regional Marine Plans for the Orkney and North Coast regions in accordance with the 2010 Act likely has the potential for a range of socio-economic and environmental effects. However, the specific nature of any effects is currently uncertain and will only be able to be assessed upon the development of these specific plans. This uncertainty has been reflected in the grading presented to the left. As a consequence, the assessment of this alternative explores and compares the likely effects of not undertaking the development of the Pilot Plan ahead of the Regional Marine Plans. Given the context of the Regional Marine Plans, it was a key ambition that the Pilot Plan would lay the foundation and usefully inform the development of these regional plans by linking the ambitions at the national level with those at the regional level. The Pilot Plan aimed to take a strategic and integrated PFOW area-wide approach to management, particularly exploring the close interaction of activities in the shared waters of the Pentland Firth, and in the process, reflecting on the inherent links and differences between the two regions. Of particular note, the development of key relationships between stakeholders in the two regions was identified as one advantage of the Pilot Plan’s development. While the development of relevant and effective Regional Marine Plans is likely to require co-ordination and alignment between the two plan-making bodies (i.e. Orkney Islands Council and Highland Council), the joint development of the draft Pilot Plan was viewed as providing an opportunity to foster co-operation amongst stakeholders through the establishment of relationships on the working and advisory groups, and with other stakeholders through pre-consultation and consultation discussions. It is anticipated that the public consultation on the draft Pilot Plan has the potential to further build upon this and could help to inform a wide range of stakeholders of the general and sectoral issues raised in the draft Pilot Plan, whilst also seeking their views on how these could be addressed in the future. Achieving the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders was seen as a key challenge for the Pilot Plan, and this is likely to be a similar challenge for the development of the regional plans. As such, the development of the Pilot Plan was seen as a vehicle for working towards this, and while this process could likely be undertaken at the regional level, the Pilot Plan was considered to provide an early opportunity for engaging with these stakeholders that would have been missed if this alternative was adopted. A focus on ‘lessons learned’ during the Pilot Plan development process identified a wide range of challenges and opportunities (i.e. data gaps, early identification of key stakeholder views including those of marine users and sectoral interests in the PFOW area, etc.), and provided a further opportunity to consider the issues raised and work towards resolving concerns ahead of the development of the two regional plans (e.g. starting to fill data gaps, etc.). While many of these would likely have been identified in the regional plan-making process, by proceeding directly to the regional stages and bypassing the development of a joint integrated and co-ordinated Pilot Plan as advocated by this alternative, the opportunity to pass on the lessons learned in the development of the Pilot Plan would also have been missed. Similarly, the development of information sources such as the RLGs and Environmental and Socio-economic Baselines in advance of the regional plans are likely to better frame the development of this information for the regional plans. In consequence, this is likely to help frame decision-making at the regional level, with the potential for improving the effectiveness of the regional plan-making processes and allowing for future work to build upon the knowledge base provided through the development of these documents. Whilst many of the issues discussed in the draft Pilot Plan are common across the PFOW area, it was suggested in the early stages of the Plan’s development that it could also be developed as two separate Pilot Plans for the Orkney and North Coast regions. This view stemmed largely from concerns that each region presents its own unique qualities and concerns, particularly in relation to social and economic issues both between each region and within them (e.g. differences in marine industries and their contribution to local economics and employment, economic concerns, deprivation in parts of the North Coast and some Orkney islands in particular, etc.). In deciding upon the development of the Pilot Plan for the PFOW area and providing continuity in the process, it was considered that these issues could be addressed in the Pilot Plan through the inclusion of ambitions addressing many of the issues raised (e.g. social and economic benefits, aims and ambitions for a wide range of sectoral interests, etc.). It was also decided that this work would lay the groundwork and complement the process for the development of Regional Marine Plans, developed in the context of wider policy ambitions, rather than detract from the unique qualities and issues for the two regions. As noted above, the opportunity for encouraging co-operation in management of such issues across the PFOW area would likely be missed under this alternative. |
| Climate change | ? | |
| Cultural heritage | ? | |
| Landscape/seascape | ? | |
| Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes | ? | |
| Communities, population and human health | ? | |
| Water | ? | |
| Material Assets | ? | |
| Outcomes and recommendations | ||
| The SA found that undertaking the development of a co-ordinated draft Pilot Plan for the PFOW area offered several opportunities over that of not preparing one. Of particular note, the opportunity to encourage co-operation between the separate plan-making bodies in the region (e.g. Orkney Islands and Highland Councils, Marine Scotland) and establishment of relationships with stakeholders through the creation of the working group and advisory group, and engaging with key sectoral stakeholders during the Plan’s development and via the public consultation process, would be missed under this alternative. Further opportunities such as the early identification of potential issues or concerns held by stakeholders, using this period of engagement to encourage stakeholders to ‘buy’ into ambitions of the draft Pilot Plan and its policies, and the opportunity try different approaches, learn lessons and apply this knowledge directly into the upcoming regional planning process, were also considered to be important. Whilst it is likely that many of these issues and actions could be addressed at the regional level in the development of the upcoming Regional Marine Plans, it was considered that the development of the Pilot Plan presented an opportunity to add value to this process. It is believed that this could help in laying the foundation and had the potential to directly inform and streamline the development of the upcoming regional plans, particularly through the development of supporting information such as the RLG and the Environmental and Socio-economic Baselines. As a consequence, the SA found that many of these opportunities would likely be missed if the Pilot Plan were not produced. |
||
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE: Adopt a ‘Zoned Approach’ in the Development of the Pilot Plan
| Alternative option: | ||
|---|---|---|
| Consider adopting a ‘zoned approach’ in the development of a Pilot Plan – this alternative involved the zoning of marine areas within the PFOW area specifically for different types of marine uses and/or development. | ||
| Assumptions: | ||
The following assumptions have been made in considering this alternative:
|
||
| Topic Areas | Assessment Summary | |
| Biodiversity | + | In general terms, while the likelihood of environmental impacts from development and future marine use is dependent on a range of factors (i.e. locational issues, specific infrastructure designs, types of development, nature of activities and/or associated activities, etc.), the consideration of spatial options and ‘zoning’ for marine use has the potential to provide greater certainty in the identification of environmental issues. For example, there is the potential for greater certainty over interactions between developments and specific Natura 2000 and MPA site interests, in the proximity of marine users to sensitive species including seal haul outs and seabird breeding and foraging areas, and over the consideration of potential effects of developments on cultural heritage setting and landscape/seascape, amongst others. The potential for more useful and focused monitoring of these interactions, and the identification of any impacts, was also noted. Together, this could help to improve the knowledge base in relation to the PFOW marine environment, and could help to guide development and future marine use into areas of lesser constraint and lesser environmental impact. While over-exploitation of resources in some areas has the potential to result in significant adverse environmental effects, it is noted that development and marine use would remain under the consideration of current consenting processes (e.g. Marine Licensing, Town and Country Planning, historic environment legislation, etc.). As such, the consideration of potential adverse effects would continue to be managed via these processes, typically underpinned by assessments such as EIA and HRA where appropriate. The potential for ‘trading-off’ areas for marine use was also noted, including the potential for allocating some areas for development and the protection of others. While this has the potential for both positive and negative effects on many environmental topic areas, as noted above, the potential for any such adverse effects would continue to be managed via existing consenting processes. There is the potential to separate incompatible marine users, and with it, an opportunity for reducing the risk of adverse interactions (e.g. impacts on fish spawning/nursery areas, collision risk with infrastructure, shipping vessels/ferries and port and harbour access, etc.). As a consequence, the potential for associated reductions in the risk of adverse impacts to environmental aspects such as biodiversity (e.g. reduced risk of impacts on known nursery/spawning areas, seabird feeding areas, seal haul out sites, etc.), landscape/seascape and cultural heritage (e.g. avoidance of valued landscape/seascape areas or heritage features for developments with the potential to create visual/setting effects, etc.) have been identified, amongst others. The grading listed to the left reflects these findings. The potential for both positive and negative effects for some marine users were also identified. For example, the development of specific zones for types of development may help to promote development in some areas, and provide a degree of surety for prospective developers. The potential for positive impacts on social and economic factors associated with the establishment of zones and increased development/marine use in these zones was also identified. However, the SA found that there may be the potential for negative effects for some marine sectors, particularly in the potential for zoning to limit opportunities for growth in some sectors at certain locations. As a consequence, there is the possibility that limiting opportunities for these sectors may also limit their ability to help in supporting local communities and provide further employment opportunities. The SA found that work on introducing spatial considerations into development in the coastal/marine area has been undertaken previously (e.g. Sectoral Marine Plans for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy, etc.) and is currently being undertaken by Marine Scotland at the national level (e.g. work to identify areas of opportunity and constraint for both finfish and shellfish aquaculture). As a consequence, the SA noted the potential for the introduction of greater spatial data at the regional planning level. It was considered that the staged approach consisting of the development of the draft Pilot Plan involving the identification of data gaps in Stage 2 of the development process and the preparation of the RLGs, and Environmental and Socio-economic Baseline information, demonstrates that steps have been taken in this direction. It is anticipated that further work in the development of the Orkney and the North Coast Regional Marine Plans will build upon this work and the information already gathered, and could continue to explore the potential for this alternative. It is also anticipated that the public consultation on the draft Pilot Plan, and the inclusion of this as an alternative in this SA, will seek the views of stakeholders on this issue and explore the appetite for this in the future. |
| Climate change | + | |
| Cultural heritage | + | |
| Landscape/seascape | + | |
| Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes | + | |
| Communities, population and human health | +/- | |
| Water | + | |
| Material Assets | +/- | |
| Outcomes and recommendations | ||
| The SA identified the potential for overall positive effects in adopting a ‘zoned approach’ to the management of marine use in the PFOW, particularly in relation to the environmental impacts. The potential for greater certainty in identifying potential environmental effects for designated and protected features in particular (e.g. SACs, SPAs, dSPAs, pMPAs, Historic MPAs); focusing monitoring programmes, and improving the existing knowledge-base in relation to the PFOW marine environment and interactions with developments and marine use were identified under this alternative. However, the SA also noted that development and marine use would continue to be subject to existing consenting processes, where applicable, and the potential for adverse effects would continue to be managed via these processes and through supporting mechanisms such as EIA and HRA. The potential for both positive and negative effects for marine users were also identified under this alternative. For example, the establishment of zones for types of development or for ‘low level’ interactions may help to promote development within these zones, and the SA considered that this could provide a greater certainty for developers, marine users, consenting authorities and local communities. Opportunities for streamlining the consenting and development processes were also noted, and the potential for positive impacts for local economies and employment associated with establishment of zones and increased development/marine use in these zones was also identified. However, the SA also found that there may be the potential for negative effects for some marine sectors and marine users, particularly in the likelihood that zoning could limit opportunities for growth in some sectors and opportunities for local communities/employment at certain locations, including the potential limitation of recreational and community use (i.e. socio-economic effects). The SA noted the potential for the introduction of greater spatial data in regional marine planning, and the staged approach offered by the development of the draft Pilot Plan indicates steps are being taken in this direction (i.e. the identification of data gaps and ongoing work to fill these gaps, preparation of the RLGs, and Environmental and Socio-economic Baseline information). It is anticipated that further work in the development of the two Regional Marine Plans will build upon this work and the collated information, and will continue to explore the potential for adoption of a greater spatial focus on management of the PFOW area in the future. It is also anticipated that the public consultation on the draft Pilot Plan, and the inclusion of this as an alternative in this SA, will seek the views of stakeholders on this alternative, and could explore the appetite amongst marine users and local communities in the area for this in the future. |
||
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE: Limit the Scope of the Pilot Plan to an Overview of Existing Requirements
| Alternative option: | ||
|---|---|---|
| Using the Pilot Plan to provide an overview of existing requirements – this alternative involved limiting the scope of the Pilot Plan to discussing the current requirements for developers and marine users in the PFOW area; primarily to raise awareness of current obligations. | ||
| Assumptions: | ||
The following assumptions have been made in considering this alternative:
|
||
| Topic Areas | Assessment Summary | |
| Biodiversity | +/0 | Basing the focus of a draft Pilot Plan on identifying and outlining existing legislative and regulatory requirements would hold many similarities to that of the preferred option for the draft Pilot Plan. In particular, the primary aims of an alternative Plan under this option would likely be in informing stakeholders and setting out their obligations; a key ambition of the draft Pilot Plan outlined in the Consultation Paper. As noted in discussion on the preferred option, the potential for positive effects for many of the environmental topic areas was identified, largely via improving awareness amongst stakeholders of existing requirements and current processes. As a consequence, an opportunity for such a Plan to help in streamlining these processes for developers and consenting authorities alike was noted in the assessment. Such a Plan would sit beneath the NMP and work within the ambitions it sets out and those wider policy (i.e. Sectoral Plans for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy, etc.), and as such, would not preclude the consideration of these documents and their ambitions by developers, marine users and consenting authorities. However, the SA considered that an opportunity to promote the ambitions of the NMP in the regional context, and going beyond setting out current requirements, would be missed if the scope of the draft Pilot Plan were limited in such a way. In particular, a chance to promote sustainable development ambitions alongside those for socio-economic benefits and the preservation of the coastal and marine environment at the regional level would likely be missed, and that the Pilot Plan would likely benefit from outlining the clear links between these overarching ambitions for the region and that in the NMP. Similarly, the process for including information in the RLGs to further inform stakeholders of potential constraints and opportunities, to fill identified data gaps in the development of the draft Pilot Plan, and to usefully inform the development of the Regional Marine Plans for Orkney and North Coast areas would also be missed. As a consequence, the potential for mixed to positive grades for each of the socio-economic and environmental topic areas for this alternative reflects this view. |
| 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 | |
| Outcomes and recommendations | ||
| The SA identified the potential for positive effects in the development of an alternative Plan prepared under this option for many of the environmental topic areas. It considered that these were likely to be predominantly associated with improving the awareness of existing requirements and current processes amongst stakeholders (e.g. help in streamlining these processes for developers and consenting authorities alike). The SA found that while this alternative could help to inform stakeholders on their current obligations, it also introduced limitations in what could be delivered and how this could be done. Of particular note, the SA considered that the Pilot Plan would likely benefit from clear and demonstrable links between overarching ambitions for the region, including that of the NMP and wider overarching policy, and that an opportunity to promote these ambitions in the regional context would likely be missed by limiting the scope of the draft Pilot Plan. Further ambitions such as promoting sustainable development ambitions, socio-economic benefits, the preservation of the coastal and marine environment at the regional level, the promotion of consideration of other marine users and working towards improving early and effective engagement between stakeholders in the process, were seen as key opportunities that the alternative Plan would be unlikely to contribute to. Similarly, the process for including information in the RLG to further inform stakeholders of potential constraints and opportunities, to work towards filling identified data gaps during the development of the draft Pilot Plan, and to usefully inform the development of the Regional Marine Plans for Orkney and North Coast areas, would also be missed. As a consequence, the draft Pilot Plan acknowledged the potential outcomes of this alternative and built upon these in the development of the preferred alternative detailed in the Consultation Paper. |
||
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback