Planning Scotland's Seas: Priority Marine Features - Analysis of Consultation Responses

2 INTRODUCTION

Background

2.1 There are myriad lists of species and habits which have been developed at a Scottish, UK and international level with a view to informing nature conservation action. These include EC Directives, domestic legislation, Biodiversity Action Plans and the OSPAR list of threatened or declining habitats and species. In light of its three pillar approach to conservation - species conservation, site protection and wider seas policies and measures - Marine Scotland has developed a list of Priority Marine Features. The concept of Priority Marine Features ( PMFs) is not intended to replace existing lists, but rather to provide a new focus for marine conservation activities in light of this three pillar approach.

2.2 The list was developed by assessing species and habitats existing on current conservation registers against criteria that considered whether a significant proportion of their population exist within Scotland's seas, the extent to which they are considered under threat or in decline and what functional role they play. Marine and taxonomic specialists were consulted and an external assessment of the process was also undertaken before a targeted peer review of the draft list and evidence.

2.3 The intended purpose of the list is to support advice on marine biodiversity, guide future research priorities and help deliver marine planning and licensing systems set out in the Marine (Scotland) Act. The Act delivered new powers to protect additional habitats and species through MPAs which are considered to be of national importance but PMFs are a broader concept under the 3 pillar approach.

2.4 The recommended list of Priority Marine Features represents 80 habitats and species of marine conservation importance for which it would be appropriate to use area based measures, such as Marine Protected Areas or non-area based mechanisms to achieve better protection; in some cases a mixture of both would be appropriate. PMFs are intended to be protected by a range of mechanisms, as appropriate to the individual features under the three pillar approach and some may benefit from protection under more than one pillar.

2.5 Marine Scotland ran a consultation exercise between 25 July and 13 November 2013 seeking comments on the draft Priority Marine Features list. The consultation involved two core questions - Do you agree with the recommended list of Priority Marine Features as the basis for targeting future marine conservation action in Scotland's seas? and Are there any other issues that have not been highlighted in this consultation that you would like to mention?

2.6 A total of 31 consultation responses were received; four from individuals and 27 from organisations.

Overview of responses

2.7 The consultation Respondent Information Form ( RIF) requested respondents to identify whether they were responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Individuals were asked what information, if any, they permitted to be made available in the reporting. Organisations were informed that the name and address of the represented organisation would be made publically available and were asked to confirm whether or not they agreed to this.

2.8 As can be seen in the following table, a wide range of organisation types were represented through the responses received. The most common organisation type was Local Authorities with six responses received from this group. Four responses each were registered from Fisheries organisations and environment/conservation groups. Of the 27 organisation responses, ten different organisation types were represented.

Table 1.1 Consultation responses

2.9 A list of all those organisations who submitted a response to the consultation is included in Appendix 1.

Analysis and reporting

2.10 Comments given at each question were examined and main themes, similar issues raised or comments made in a number of responses, were identified. In addition, we looked for sub-themes such as reasons for opinions, specific examples or explanations, alternative suggestions or other related comments.

2.11 The main themes were looked at in relation to respondent groups to ascertain whether any particular theme was specific to one particular group, or whether it appeared in responses across groups. When looking at sub-group differences, it must be also borne in mind that where a specific opinion has been identified in relation to a particular group or groups, this does not indicate that other groups agree or disagree with this opinion, but rather that they have simply not commented on that particular point.

2.12 The following chapters document the substance of the analysis and present the main views expressed in responses. Appropriate verbatim comments, from those who gave permission for their responses to be made public, are used throughout the report to illustrate themes or to provide extra detail for some specific points. The consultation questions are included in Appendix 2.

2.13 While the consultation gave all those who wished to comment an opportunity to do so, given the self-selecting nature of this type of exercise, any figures quoted here cannot be extrapolated to the wider population.