Official Report 396KB pdf
Agenda item 4 is evidence taking on Scotland’s national marine plan. Our witnesses are all from the Scottish Government: David Palmer is deputy director of marine planning and policy; Anna Donald is head of the marine planning and strategy team; and Amanda Chisholm is a strategic environmental assessment specialist. Welcome to you all.
We intend to move straight to questions.
I think that the witnesses would like to make a short opening statement.
Right. We are trying to get to the nub of the matter, as this is an introductory session. If the witnesses have a short statement for us, that may inform our questions.
I have a statement, but I will cut it back to the final couple of lines.
This has been a long process in some respects, and my statement was about filling in the gaps in the history. However, in my final point, I wanted to pay tribute to everyone who has taken the time and made the effort to engage in the marine planning process in all the various consultations. In particular, I pay tribute to Anna Donald and her team, who have worked exceptionally hard to deliver what I think is an impressive first for Scotland.
Thank you. Mike Russell has a question.
There is no doubt that the plan is an impressive document. I have a fairly simple question, which I will put in two ways. The simplest way to put it is this: you drafted the plan, but who are you writing it for? We know why you are writing it, but I am not entirely sure who you are writing it for. To put it slightly more flippantly, in what circumstances would somebody say to themselves, “Ah, I must reach for the national marine plan”?
There is a range of audiences, but the plan’s most direct application is in informing decision making. It is a framework for decision making. Public authorities that make authorisation or enforcement decisions, or any other decision that affects the marine environment, will have to do that in accordance with the plan. When authorities look at an application for a marine licence or a lease under the Crown Estate as it currently stands, they will need to be assured that they are carrying out that function in accordance with the national marine plan.
As you will be aware, we are moving from the national planning framework to the establishment of regional marine plans. The intention is for there to be 11 marine regions around the coast and the islands. The regional marine plans, which will be developed locally, will pick up local issues, but they have to do that within the framework of the national marine plan. That is another direct application.
The plan also has a broader audience, in that it emphasises the importance of many of the issues and highlights the need for environmental protection alongside support for economic growth in existing and emerging industries. The plan also has a promotional aspect, if you like.
We often hear concerns about clarity—indeed, we heard them in evidence just two weeks ago in other circumstances. Nobody could deny the clarity in the marine plan but, by the time that it has gone through interpretation in local authorities, let alone the iteration of 11 regional plans, a sort of cloudiness will have entered into it as a result of that interpretation by one official or another, so clarity in relation to what the minister and the Government are seeking to achieve will be diminished substantially. Is there a case for less being more in such circumstances? Could we have something that is much shorter and simpler to ensure that it is replicated on a local basis and that there is no lack of clarity about what should happen? The more words there are, the more interpretations there can be, which could create problems. I will come on to an example of that later when I ask about cables.
There are several aspects to that. One is that we can always do more to clarify how the plan should be applied in practice. However, we are starting from a point at which we do not have a planning system. To me, the fact that we are bringing in a new marine planning system is a step forward in giving some clarity.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the regional plans will be adopted by the Scottish ministers, although they will be developed by local partnerships. There is a kind of checking process whereby ministers will want to reassure themselves that things have not moved too far away from the framework that has been set out.
The other aspect worth bearing in mind is that marine licensing will primarily continue to be done at the national level through Marine Scotland’s licensing and operations team, which will work closely to the plan and the licensing guidance that accompanies it.
10:30
To return to the first part of Mike Russell’s question, one purpose of the plan—this is our hope—is for developers who are doing anything in the marine area to reach out to the document, read it and start to understand the considerations that they ought to take into account.
On the wider question, such documents must always be written in a way that allows us to catch the unexpected. To put it another way, the good developer who picks up the document and has a conversation with us is not the problem; the people who are the problem are those at the other end of that spectrum. The document has to be drafted to pick up those people. To an extent, that presages the cables conversation that we might come on to.
I agree that clarity is always a worthy goal. However, in this instance, we are covering a wide range of bases and we want to encourage the conversation between the licensing team in Aberdeen and the developer. A developer might have a good idea that might not seem possible, but in conversation, the licensing team might be able to develop that idea or make suggestions to the developer that enables them to progress it in various ways that might make it possible.
I suppose that you are saying that if land use planning had been approached in the same way—with a starter document—we might have a better system than the one that we have. However, the marine plan is obviously work in progress; it is based on the need to have a plan. With that in mind, we had better move on to some of the specifics—cabling has been mentioned, for example—and we will deal with those matters as a follow-on.
This absolutely follows on from the previous discussion. We took evidence from the oil and gas sector some months ago about its concerns around the fixing of pipelines on the seabed. We were told that, for safety reasons, pipelines are secured using large rocks, which may not occur naturally in those areas. Originally, it was suggested rocks could not be placed in such areas, and the sector expressed concern about that. Therefore, the question arises as to how the pipelines could be fixed safely to protect their integrity and ensure that they are not a danger to fishing. If a pipeline has already been fixed in that way, is there an expectation that that would need to be altered and the requirement applied retrospectively?
No, I do not think that there is any suggestion of anything being applied retrospectively.
I refer you to the planning policies in the cable part of the national marine plan. The policies have been written to encourage the very conversation that we have been talking about. They have been specifically written with drop-down menus in mind. First and foremost, safety is a key consideration. The plan says—this is about cables, rather than pipelines—that
“Cables should be buried to maximise protection where there are safety or seabed stability risks”.
If that is not feasible, you drop down a level and consider whether the cables may be protected through suitable measures
“where practicable and cost-effective and as risk assessment directs.”
We have tried to set out in the plan the parameters for that sensible conversation. It does not say that cables and pipelines should be protected always and everywhere; it says that safety is a key consideration. Although those are not necessarily competing forces, we have tried to balance out the two different directions.
To summarise, you are saying that common sense would be applied.
I would hope so. That is how we have tried to draft the plan, which makes it quite difficult.
Will the plan provide sufficient reassurance to the oil and gas sector? Our witnesses felt strongly enough about the cabling issue to raise it with us.
To be honest, I was not aware that the oil and gas sector had a particular problem with the protection of the pipelines, although I was aware that cable layers had a difficulty with the cable section of the plan. However, I am more than happy to talk to the oil and gas sector to ensure that it is content with what we have in the plan.
Thank you. At the risk of going off at a slight tangent, I will continue that theme. Marine Scotland has done some work on how migratory fish might be affected by the electromagnetic fields that cables from offshore wind turbines generate. As I understand it, that work is inconclusive, but perhaps I am wrong. How will you proceed on that?
The science is a bit beyond me, to be honest. Only certain kinds of cables generate electromagnetic fields—I cannot remember whether they are transmission or distribution cables. The explanation given to me is that an electromagnetic field is a distance function, so it deteriorates rapidly over a couple of metres. Therefore, if we bury the cable, that will reduce the electromagnetic field in the first instance.
As I understand it, the research suggests that the electromagnetic fields have no great impact on the species that we examined. We cannot say with certainty that that extends to all fish that might be sensitive to electromagnetic fields, but the evidence that we have suggests that electromagnetic fields will not be a problem.
We have done bits and pieces of research in the laboratory in Aberdeen and I would be happy to send you a list of that research, if that would be helpful.
Thank you. That would be useful.
Mr Palmer, you will expect me to raise the Jura cable issue with you. I do so because it is a concern that is an exemplar of the issue, and I am not reassured by what I read in the cable section of the plan.
I will explain the situation for those who are not familiar with it. The sub-marine electricity cable that feeds Jura, Islay and Colonsay and takes electricity from renewables generation failed six months ago. It has taken six months for it to be replaced because Marine Scotland’s licensing regime has been, it seems to me, confused and because SSE was not keen on burying the cable—it had never buried its previous cables—whereas the fishermen wanted parts of the cable to be buried.
That could simply be to do with the start of a new regime, but if it takes six months to replace an emergency cable, what will happen in future? This is not about high-level planning for lots of cables; it is a practical thing that needs to be done to serve communities. Paragraphs 14.4 and 14.6 onwards of the plan have tremendous high-level objectives, but they do not deal with how we go about putting a cable down below when that needs to happen quickly because people need electricity.
I would like to know your response to that, and I would like you to tell me the optimal time for getting a replacement in place through the licensing regime.
I am not sure that the licensing process is the subject of the discussion—this is about the national marine plan, not that particular licence.
Nonetheless, the Jura cable broke and, as I understand it, the power supply was then dependent on the Bowmore back-up power station on Islay, which was a reasonable, if not wholly complete, source.
We explained to SSE the policy position and our presumption that cables would be buried. SSE did not want to bury the cable and made an application after, I think, two months—it was not six months; it took about four months from the application—to lay the cable without burial. We put that application out to consultation. Our statutory navigation consultee, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, initially came back and said that the cable should be buried. After discussion, it said that the cable should be buried to a depth of 50m at either shore end.
The fishermen did not want partial burial; they wanted the cable to be completely buried throughout its length. If the statutory consultee says that it has to be buried up to a depth of 50m and a significant stakeholder says that it requires complete burial, it is clear that there are some difficulties with the application.
The total process took about four and a half months to get to a licence being issued. We then took steps to ensure that the licence was actioned as quickly as possible to get the cable buried within the weather window. In addition, the cabinet secretary agreed that we could dispense with the pre-application consultation, which would have taken 12 weeks.
You may have inadvertently made my point for me by describing that lengthy process. How will the national marine plan improve that process?
The national marine plan sets out a clearer background. At the start of the process, it came as a surprise to SSE to learn that cables should be buried. It took a certain level of communication with SSE to sort that issue out. The national marine plan sets out a completely clear context within which SSE can work. We have other work on-going with SSE in relation to cables, although that is not necessarily relevant to the national marine plan.
I want to press you on the point. My constituents, and all constituents who live in rural or island areas, will judge anything that the Government does on the basis of improvement in their lives and to where they live. There is a high level of improvement here, in the sense that it is better in marine safety and environmental terms to bury cables than to leave them unburied—although there are some issues with things such as plumes. However, that being the case, I do not see that replacing a cable that fails is going to happen any quicker.
You may not think that the generator in Bowmore is inconvenient, but I assure you that it is. I am happy to lead you to the man who lives next door to it, who found it extremely inconvenient for the six months that the process took. There was also a fear in the community that, should the generator fail, there would be no alternative supply. That would be quite a problem for an island community in the middle of a winter storm.
Can you tell me how our constituents’ lives will be improved, in relation to this or any other issue, as a result of the marine plan?
There will be improvement because of the clarity around issues to do with cables. It is quite clear what the drop-down set of considerations has to be, so anyone coming to the Scottish Government for a licence will be perfectly clear what the policy context is and will understand what conversations they need to be prepared for. If their plan is not to bury the cable, they will need a fairly strong justification for that.
It is not simply about safety and the environmental impact; it is also about network security. If cables are buried, the network that the cable supports is much more secure, so the likelihood of your constituents on Jura having a broken cable in future is greatly reduced.
There is a balance to be considered, and that is what is set out in the cable chapter of the plan. That will enable decisions to be made more quickly. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
The national marine plan gives that rounded clarity on protection, so all stakeholders will be clear from the outset what the process is and how their interests can be fed into it.
In the particular example that we are discussing, it might be of the utmost importance that the process is as quick as possible, but it is equally important that the process is safe, protects network security and considers the environmental impact. The plan sets out that rounded framework from the start, so that everyone is clear about the process and understands how they can represent their interests within that framework. Speed is one potential benefit—we hope that the process proves to be speedy—but the fact that there is a clear route in for all the other interests is equally important.
Will you consider listing the exemptions? If I were a developer, I would try an exemption and see what happened, so will you issue guidelines on what exemptions there might be?
We can consider that.
I have a brief question that ties into Mike Russell’s last question. In my part of the world, if you bury cables, you are likely to disturb unexploded second world war ordinance, much of which then washes up on the shore to be picked up by curious holidaymakers and beach combers. How does the national plan take care of localised issues such as that?
10:45
That is already an issue. If I remember rightly—the timescale is a bit beyond me—it became an issue because a cable was laid through that area in the late 1970s. We would have to look very carefully at any proposition to lay anything through that area, purely given the starting point of getting it on to the sea bed. The Beaufort’s dyke issue is not mentioned in the plan, but it would have to feature if any activity in that area were to be considered.
Should the issue feature in a national marine plan?
It features in the generality, but it is not specifically mentioned. We have not said that Beaufort’s dyke is a no-go area. I cannot find it immediately, but the plan contains the general proposition that if a cable is going to be laid, we need to have some idea of where it is to be laid and to avoid areas of difficulty, such as Beaufort’s dyke.
In drafting the policy, we sought specifically to highlight the case-by-case nature of the consideration that is required. Local issues such as the one that Alex Fergusson mentioned would be picked up as part of that consideration. That is part of the common-sense approach that we appreciate needs to be taken.
We move on to carbon capture and storage because it is linked to what we are discussing.
Going back to pipelines, particularly those that are being laid in the North Sea, in addition to the Peterhead project, chapter 10 of the marine plan also refers to the other key potential CCS project, which is in my constituency of Falkirk East—the captain clean energy plant that is proposed for Grangemouth. One of the two marine planning policies talks about
“the development of marine utility corridors which will allow CCS to capitalise, where possible, on current infrastructure in the North Sea, including shared use of spatial corridors and pipelines.”
Could you give the committee an outline of that policy on carbon capture and storage, explain what a marine utility corridor is, what other use might be made of such a corridor, and what the environmental impact might be?
The basis of chapter 10 is support through the planning process for the emerging CCS sector and ensuring that on the marine planning side we are tied up clearly with what is set out in “National Planning Framework 3”. Carbon capture and storage is very much an activity in which marine interest and planning need to align to enable the sector to grow.
Some information has been fed in from the sector in response to the consultation, which has led to some changing of the wording about commercialisation and so on. We are trying to get a better picture of where the sector is now and where it might go over the lifetime of the plan.
The marine utility corridor concept is about looking at the existing infrastructure that serves oil and gas in the main, and making the most effective use of it. Operations and maintenance along that infrastructure could also serve the emerging carbon capture and storage sector.
We highlight some of the specific environmental impacts in the plan. There is the potential for habitat damage, pollution and acidification. There is a bit more detail on that in “Scotland’s Marine Atlas”, which is our main evidence base for the plan.
You mentioned habitat damage, but the pipeline exists already.
Yes. The point of using existing infrastructure where possible is so that we do not cause habitat damage, but using it might not always be possible so we acknowledge that if we need new infrastructure, it might have an impact on habitats.
The map on page 86 of the report in the offshore wind and marine renewable energy chapter shows options for offshore wind and marine renewable energy. Surprisingly, given the early stages of its development, the current consented areas are not marked. Why?
The map reflects the outcomes of the process that we went through. Alongside the consultation on the plan, we were also consulting on the sectoral marine plans for offshore wind, wave and tidal energy. The map reflects the outcome of that one specific process. We say on the map that updated data sets will be available on the national marine plan interactive—NMPi—which is a geographical information systems portal that we host on our website. It contains all those data as well as all the data about existing leased sites and so on. It has the data in different layers so that people can click on and off what they are particularly interested in.
The point about NMPi was in my prepared opening statement, which I did not read out.
I am asking about the map because I think that it is important for people to realise that you have drawn up a plan at this stage with suggested areas. The consents near the Moray Firth, for example, came before that process. Theoretically, would there be any difficulties now in relation to the areas that have been consented?
I would not have thought so that there would be. Obviously, they have licences. It depends on the detailed work that the developers are doing, but I do not anticipate any difficulties. We could update the map and put the existing consented areas on it, if that would be helpful.
I just raise the point for clarity’s sake, so that when people see plan options, they understand that they are plans for the future rather than things that are already consented. Since the process is at such an early stage and nothing has been built yet offshore, barring a couple of small tidal machines, it would be quite useful for that information to be reflected.
We have all that information available, so it would be a simple matter to update the map if that was thought to be helpful.
That would be useful. That leads on to my next point. Information is changing all the time, so you are capturing the situation at particular moments. It was very useful yesterday to see the study from the British Trust for Ornithology and the environmental research institute that showed that about 99 per cent of seabirds manage to change their flight patterns to avoid offshore wind towers and so on. Would you be able to build such information into the plan? You talk about the spatial aspects of the information. Would you be thinking about how far apart particular structures should be in the overall plans?
Such information is exceptionally important, not so much in terms of the overall plans but certainly in terms of consenting individual developments. We are conscious that the marine planning process ought to some extent to be a web-based process, which would allow it to pick up the incremental work that goes on all the time.
The paper document, in a sense, reflects a point in time and will always remain at that point in time. As Anna Donald was saying, we hope to be able to update NMPi with new and better information as it comes forward, which will give people a better understanding of what we are trying to do.
The study that you mentioned was a very interesting study that the scientists at Marine Scotland in Aberdeen ran, with some interesting results. It has informed some licensing decisions, but I am not sure that it will inform any decision on how far apart individual developments will be. It can inform how far apart the internal bits and pieces of a development will be but not the developments per se, if I have understood it correctly.
I am interested in two other aspects—the feeding patterns of seabirds and the migratory patterns of some seabirds, given that we can identify major development areas on the west coast. I have issues related to feeding patterns, based on our increasing understanding of the long distances that some seabirds travel, such as to the area off Rattray Head in the north-east, which is one of the OWNE2 areas for potential development. Have you taken into account that kind of information?
That would depend on whether the information was available at that time. We took in as much information as we could in drawing the maps. I would need to go back and look at the opportunities and constraints that underpinned the creation of the maps. I am happy to share with you how that was done. An ornithologist in the marine lab was involved in the study that you mentioned and has a much better understanding of the feeding patterns and migratory patterns of birds than I will ever have. I would be happy for him to come and talk through that study with you, if that would be helpful.
It is useful to know such things.
As David Palmer said, the key point is that if the information was available when we were undertaking the planning process, it will have been taken into account. All the relevant environmental information that we had would have been fed into the models that sit behind the planning process. If relevant information becomes available at the point between planning and licensing, it will be taken into account at the licensing stage. We will not just say, “That’s fine. You can have a licence because you’re within that area”. It is clear in the first renewables policy that proposals are still subject to licensing and consenting processes. The process picks up additional information that becomes available in the interim.
We will go back to some of the sectoral chapters. Graeme Dey and others might want to ask about wild salmon. We are in the sea, so we will stay in the sea.
We have covered wild salmon.
If we are completely clear about wild salmon, we will turn to the sea fisheries.
Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to everybody.
I have a couple of issues to raise on chapter 6, which is on sea fisheries. It states:
“fishing activity has the potential to interact significantly with a number of other sectors”
and that
“it is ... difficult to accurately predict precisely where activity will take place”.
It also says that
“There are some key emerging issues concerning the interactions between the fishing industry and other interests.”
It would be interesting to find out what those “key emerging issues” are. I would like to hear briefly your general view on where we are going with the sea fisheries chapter and some of its key aspects.
As Jim Hume has highlighted, fishing is a widespread industry and activity, so it has the potential to interact with virtually everything else that is being planned at sea, especially if it involves the creation of physical infrastructure that could present a hazard. The kind of considerations that are emerging are in respect of new activity that will result in physical infrastructure that might impact on the safety of fishermen or disrupt or displace fish stocks.
On the sea fishing chapter more generally and where we are going with it, we have had quite a lot of input through the consultation process and it was also picked up in the independent investigation on the plan. That has led to quite a lot of redrafting of the first three marine planning policies. Similar to the chapter on cables, we are trying to set out a staged approach to what must be considered. The first consideration is whether fishing is taking place and whether it is possible to safeguard it. That is step 1. Step 2 is to consider—where safeguarding might not be possible, or where there will be some impact—how best that can be mitigated. We must ensure that the fishing industry is involved in the process of mitigation and we have to develop an agreed strategy around it.
That is the kind of overall framework that the sea fishing chapter tries to support. It looks at potential impacts on fishing stocks and tries to identify which parts of the sea are particularly important nursery or spawning areas and how they can be protected. It also looks at the cultural and economic importance of the industry in particular areas and what impacts there could be on that. The chapter takes quite a rounded view of how fishing might be affected by other activities and how best to mitigate those impacts.
11:00
That was helpful.
You mentioned that the plan has already been redrafted as issues have emerged. We have reached the stage at which the plan is in print. How will it be adjusted in the future in response to issues that emerge or conflicts that might have unintended consequences?
I clarify that when I mentioned redrafting I was talking about the redrafting that we did of the consultation draft in order to produce the present draft. We are not planning to do much more redrafting at this point.
As far as how we might adapt and change anything in relation to new activity, new science—which we have discussed—or different interactions that may occur because activity changes, there are two key points to make. First, the general framework that we have set out in the general policies chapter encapsulates our view of what sustainable development means and the key parameters for that, so if, for example, a whole new sector were to emerge that we have not covered in the plan, it would still be subject to those general policies on sustainable development. We think that there is a reasonable holistic framework in the plan that will enable us to pick up on issues that are not specified at the moment.
Secondly, the plan probably has a lifespan of about five years. We are required to monitor and review the plan under both United Kingdom legislation and Scottish legislation, the timescales for which are slightly different. The longest timescale is the five-year review period, so there is an opportunity to build into the review things that emerge through the process. We will pick that up through monitoring of implementation.
Thank you. That was useful.
Could you summarise how the marine plan will get us to where we need to go on aquaculture, given the contentious nature of the subject and the impact that aquaculture has on the areas in which it is located?
Aquaculture is an interesting area in that it is very much embedded in the terrestrial planning system, so aquaculture consents are led by local authorities rather than by the marine licensing system. In the aquaculture chapter, we say that decisions on regional marine plans, other marine decisions and planning decisions by local authorities need to be taken together or, certainly, to be made based on common evidence so that all the relevant issues in location of future developments are looked at. The carrying capacity at a water-body or lock-system scale should be a key consideration in that.
In the aquaculture chapter, we have also tried to highlight some of the issues that we know people are concerned about on sustainability, and to point to research and development that is being done on those issues, which should be fed into future decisions.
Marine Scotland science is developing existing locational guidance to take account of a broader range of potential impacts and considering whether there is potential for the industry to move further offshore, where impacts might be easier to mitigate.
Could Anna Donald or others on the panel please say a little more about on-going research in aquaculture? You will know that the committee took evidence on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. Have you taken into account the impact of the robust increases in targets for the fin-fish industry in your assessments? Will there be continuing research about that?
I will echo my previous answer. We have maintained the targets that were set out in the consultation draft, which is important for providing the industry with an overall context and direction. We have been clearer in the chapter about what the key issues are likely to be and focused more in the policy’s wording on the carrying capacity. We also considered issues around disease and the sustainability of feed. In the references, we highlight the on-going work on that.
I referred to work to develop locational guidance, and we will pick up on those issues, too. The outcome of that work will—similarly to renewables planning—address where the potential is for developments. Where is the water depth appropriate, for example? What are the constraints that would prevent development? There might be environmental issues and robust evidence about the interaction between farmed and wild fish, for example. Such factors will be fed into the model.
I see. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but will you reassure me that, as the research develops, information will be fed in about the impacts and the increased activity in the industry? Is that the joy of having a web-based arrangement? Could the information be fed in so that, if necessary, the criteria could be changed to some degree either way before the five years have passed?
Yes. Part of the advantage of having a web-based system is that it is more easily updated. Current information and research can be fed into it if data is available in a way that fits the system. The current system is very spatial. If information or data provides some spatial constraint or parameter, it is easily fed in.
Some research is more general. We are developing our website around the national marine plan, in an online national marine plan area, which highlights all the research that is referenced in the plan. Emerging research will be added to that website, so it will be available.
Marine Scotland is doing a project on spatial planning. We hope that it will become a common evidence base for local authorities and regional plans in the future and that it will be updated as information comes through.
Thank you—that is helpful.
We move on to chapter 12, “Recreation and Tourism”. To an extent, the chapter focuses on a perceived tension between tourism and recreation on the one hand and other aspects of the plan, such as the need to protect habitats, species and the environment, on the other. Is that tension significant? Will you discuss a little how the draft plan balances the two sides of that equation?
I do not think that I have set this out, so I will quickly explain what we considered in relation to all the sectoral chapters, which members will probably have realised from reading the draft plan. For each sector that is covered in a sectoral chapter, we considered what that sector is likely to require to grow economically; how it interacts with other marine users, particularly other commercial users; what the impacts on the environment are; and what the climate change impacts or potential future risks that must be taken into account are. We followed that process for the recreation and tourism sector.
The key issues that came out are about recognising the environment’s importance to the sector. A lot of the value of recreation and tourism around the coast and in the sea is based on having a stunning natural environment that people want to visit and spend time in. We have highlighted in the policies the win-win situation of protecting and enhancing the environment for its own sake and because it can become economically viable through recreation or tourism. We have emphasised that, although we have acknowledged that the activities might have an impact on the environment, which needs to be mitigated.
A lot of the potential interactions with other sectors are similar to those in the transport sections. We are talking about what might interfere with people’s access to the marine environment or the coast or what might pose a hazard while they are using the area. However, I do not think that we have pulled out any strong policies where that is a particular issue.
Another thing to highlight is the strong interaction between the sector and terrestrial planning, because a lot of the access issues and so on will need to be picked up in the land use system. We need to join that up with what is suggested in the marine plan. For example, we reference the long-distance walking and cycling routes in the national planning framework, and the coastal aspects of that feed through into the marine plan.
I emphasise the point about interactions. There is some aggregate-level interaction between large developments and recreation, but one of the difficulties that we have had is that a key part of the interaction is in the sector. The sector has many aspects—for example, for safety reasons, diving and surfing should not necessarily happen in the same place. However, the levels of activity in all those things are perhaps not at a point where the interaction is critical.
We have set out a framework that says that, as more people dive, windsurf or do whatever in the future, certain factors will need to be taken into account. Recreation and tourism is one of the few sectors—it is possibly the only one—to have such a level of interaction within it, rather than between it and other marine sectors.
That raises a bit of a concern about the national marine plan. You talk about specific tourism sectors such as coastal walking and you list a number of activities and key areas. If I was a completely independent person—which I am absolutely not, as I represent Galloway—I would look at the list of activities and see that Dumfries and Galloway is a key area for recreational sea angling. That is the case, but many of the other activities that are listed also take place there. In the national plan, are you in danger of becoming a little too specific about local activities?
One of the difficulties that we had with representing the sector is that, because there are quite a lot of data gaps and a lot of information is collected in different ways, it is not easy to aggregate that up to a national picture. We are working on how we can get better data and more robust data collection methods. That will feed into the next iteration of the national plan and into regional plans, so that they are clear about local priorities.
We could not map the whole sector in the same way as we did in the other chapters because of the diversity of activity and because there is not a lot of robust data to underpin things. What is listed attempts to demonstrate the range of activity that takes place and some of the key areas, to give an overall national perspective. There might be a different way of doing that—
11:15
I absolutely understand that but, at the start of the session, you described the document as a framework for decision makers.
Yes.
How can you have such a general approach in something that is a framework for decision makers? I do not mean to be critical, but it raises questions.
I take the point that the approach is general. However, we do not have a lot of information on recreation, unlike most other sectors. There is no central source that we can go to for national information on, say, diving. We know that diving happens in certain places and that kayaking happens in some places and not others, but that is the extent of the information that we have.
We have tried to list the activity in areas. What we are saying to a developer who picks up the document is that, if they are developing in the coastal areas off Dumfries and Galloway, they need to think about recreational sea angling. If they are developing in the Hebrides, they need to think about surfing or whatever else goes on there. We point out that those are key considerations that developers need to think about; we signpost the issues that they need to look at.
Is the chapter on recreation and tourism not about supporting economically productive activities? I think that there is a danger of conflict between the purposes, but other members might wish to comment.
Do the witnesses want to respond?
I think that what has been said is right. The chapters do a couple of things. As Anna Donald said, the key point about most of the leisure and recreation stuff is access. That tends to be a terrestrial issue, which is why we have flagged it for the local authority planning system. In that sense, the chapters do more than simply promote economic growth; they also put a sector’s issues on the map for other developers. Someone who was building a marina would be expected to look through the other chapters for important aspects of other development areas and to talk to those developers. That is the general framework that we have provided, to provide a boost and ensure that everyone else takes account of the individual sectors.
There are key messages for regional marine planners, who will have a good knowledge of the recreation and tourism interests in their area, such as Dumfries and Galloway, which has been mentioned. An important thing that has come up a lot in consultation with the yachting sector is that applications for development are required to consider the implications for recreation and tourism, such as implications for moorings. We have had a lot of feedback that those issues are not always considered at the right time, where moorings are in place. The message is that local authorities know where those moorings are, particularly in the Western Isles, and those issues can be taken into account so, in a way, the framework will work at the regional level.
Could you clarify something for me? We are talking about local authorities’ role. Are you satisfied that all local authorities have the necessary expertise to grasp the interaction that they need to have with the national marine plan? If they do not, how do they acquire it?
We recognise that that is an on-going challenge. Most local authorities do not have a specialist marine planner, but many local authorities know a lot about their local marine and coastal environment, perhaps with more emphasis on the coast in some areas. We have looked particularly at integration between the two systems as a way into that discussion. We developed a draft planning circular as part of the consultation package to draw out the integration, to give local authority planners more information about the marine planning system and to look at areas of potential good practice where there would be liaison and co-ordination between the two systems.
We updated that circular and published it alongside the redraft of the plan. We recognise that that is the first step and that we will want to do a lot more work with local authorities on becoming familiar with marine planning—some local authorities will become directly involved in the regional marine plans—and on integrating the two systems.
What initial feedback are you getting from local authorities? Are they saying, “Yeah, that’s fine—that seems sensible”, “Help!” or a mix of the two?
It is probably a mix. Some local authorities, particularly islands authorities, are keen to get involved in regional marine planning and see themselves as the lead partner in future marine planning partnerships. With other local authorities, the situation might be more complicated, because several will feed into one marine region. As a result, they might be a little less sure of things.
With Orkney Islands Council and Highland Council, we have been putting together a pilot plan for the Orkney and Pentland Firth waters. A member of staff from each local authority has been working with a Marine Scotland official in a working group to develop the plan. They have found the experience positive; for example, they have found that a lot of the skills and background that they have as terrestrial planners can be applied to marine planning, while they are seeing that a lot of other things need to be taken into account. When we have worked closely with people, the experience has been positive, but we acknowledge that that approach needs to be rolled out as we roll out regional marine planning.
We will have two more questions—one from Mike Russell and the other from Claudia Beamish.
The discussion raises considerable concerns with regard to a point that I raised earlier and which I will press a little further. Having a national marine plan is entirely commendable, useful and desirable but, when we get into the detail of what activity is being undertaken where—I am looking in particular at page 95, which Alex Fergusson referred to—and we are endeavouring to give indications nationally and create regional marine plans locally, when I hear the words “regional marine planners” mentioned I think that we are in danger of creating a cat’s cradle of regulation and guidance. The further that gets from Government, the more restrictive it will inevitably become.
What thinking is being undertaken in the Government to ensure that the plan will be a simple framework for decision making and will not produce some unconscious move towards the accrual of all sorts of prescriptive powers that will make development, living and activity much more difficult? I say with the greatest respect that I have heard nothing today that makes me less worried about that; indeed, I have heard a great deal that makes me much more worried. As the plan moves forward, it will be important that those who are responsible for it put that point at the heart of their thinking. If they do not, their good intentions will become complex and restrictive at the local level.
That is a fair comment, and we are aware of the possibility. However, general planning principle GEN 1 says:
“There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and use of the marine environment when consistent with the policies ... of this Plan.”
That is the basic driver for moving activity forward in the marine area. That said, I fully accept your point that the superstructure around that might become a hindrance to it.
How do you ensure that the general principles are understood as the things that people should think about, while the rest is what helps them to think about something? That does not come across in the plan; instead, what comes across is, “The general principles are great—now let’s get on to the detail on page 95.” There might be an issue with the drafting, approach or promotion that will require strong guidance if we are not to get bogged down by the infrastructure.
As Anna Donald said, the general principles provide the framework in which we expect everything to happen, and that approach also provides the flexibility for new activities. We might not have a section for a new activity, but it will still be subject to the general principles or framework, which as I have said gives flexibility.
I fully take your point about promotion. Perhaps we need to put more emphasis on the general rather than the sectoral policies. Almost by definition, the sectoral policies will always form the larger part of the document—after all, we have many more sectors than we have general policies—but, as I said, I am happy to rebalance the general and the specific, if you think that that will be worth while.
I certainly think that it would be worth while.
I answered the first question, which was about who the plan is for, by saying that there is a range of audiences. The detail is intended to speak to those audiences and reassure them that their activity is seen as important and is supported by the planning process. Some of the detail is necessary to convey that message.
As David Palmer said, to make the distinction between the general and the sectoral policies, we have done small things such as using the same colour for all the sectoral policies and having the general policies as a distinct part of the plan. The plan shows the overall framework and the detail sits behind it.
We could do a lot to promote that message more clearly and to ensure that it feeds down into regional planning. We also need to think about the other audiences for the plan and what they need from a national marine plan.
The general policies will probably stand the test of time, whereas the sectoral policies will change significantly as the process rolls forward. The general policies are the bedrock of the approach and, as I said, I am happy to look again at how that message is promoted.
That is on the table.
I would like a bit more clarity on the status of the regional marine plans and how they relate to local planning. You say that local authorities will sometimes be the lead authority but that they will sometimes not be. Last week, I attended an evening event at which there were representatives of very positive and robust coastal partnerships such as exist right round the coast of Scotland, many of which have been functioning for many years. They had concerns about how the partnerships would fit in as voluntary organisations. There are all those issues, and I wonder how people will become engaged. I know that it is early days, but what are the plans for engagement? Also, what is the status of the regional marine plans?
There is a variety of coastal partnerships. They each have differences in organisation, approach, focus and so on that suit the individual areas. Throughout the process, we have tried to pick up on the good work that the coastal partnerships do, including the engagement that they have with their local communities, and we have tried to build that into the marine regions where we have been able to do that. For example, we have used the Clyde partnership as the basis for pushing forward that region. That works for the Clyde, but it does not necessarily work elsewhere, and we do not necessarily have local coastal partnerships elsewhere. However, we see the LCPs providing a lot of the community engagement infrastructure that a marine planning partnership and marine region will require. Our approach has always been to try to shift the LCPs into the regions where they have existed when that brings benefit to both parties.
Can you clarify the status of the regional marine plans in terms of planning applications? To what degree do they have to be taken into account?
I was just coming to that. We do not have any such plans yet, but when a regional marine plan exists it will have to be adopted by ministers and will then, in effect, have the same status as the national marine plan but will apply only to the region. It will need to be taken into account in the same way as the national marine plan.
I do not want to make things difficult, but could there be a conflict between what is decided at the regional level and what is decided at the national level? The general principles would have to be taken into account by everyone, but could there be a conflict in the detail?
There should not be a conflict, as the legislation requires the regional marine plan to accord with the national marine plan. That would be one of the checks and balances in the process of its adoption by ministers.
We will take evidence from stakeholders after this meeting, and we will explore some of those issues with them. There are, however, a couple of general points to raise on subject chapters. Alex Fergusson wants to ask a question about shipping, ports, harbours and ferries.
An issue that came out of the analysis of consultation responses focused on the concern that, if certain ports and harbours are designated in a certain way, that will have a detrimental impact on others. I would appreciate your brief comments on that issue.
11:30
We have taken that into account to an extent in rewording one of the policies. The transport 2 policy now refers to the national level and the regional level. It still seeks to identify particular ports and harbours of national significance that are designated as national developments or tie in with the national renewables infrastructure plans, but the second tier of the policy makes it clear that regional marine plans should identify ports and harbours that are significant in the area that they cover. That is how we have attempted to address that concern.
I am interested in that point. You have produced a national framework and left it up to the regional plans to pick up on those aspects, which brings us back to the point that Mike Russell and I made on what the plan should be doing. I am grateful for that explanation.
I want to ask you about a couple of issues. One concerns the interaction with the Ministry of Defence—for example, the impact on species and on sea and land users from exercises in which the global positioning system network is jammed, and the impact on the development of onshore and offshore wind power from training zone flight paths. Those are all issues in the Western Isles. The interaction has had an impact, for example, on applications for small community wind farms close to the test range in North Uist.
How do you find the interaction with defence? Those who submit planning applications that might have defence implications often do not hear about any objections until the last minute. Has the interaction with the Ministry of Defence in developing the plan been good?
In developing the plan, we have interacted mainly with central Whitehall departments, and we have not had any particular difficulties in that respect. I do not know whether there are any issues with the licensing process.
To be fair, my impression is that we have a decent interaction with the Ministry of Defence through one of its subcontractors rather than with the MOD per se. I would need to check that to ensure that I do not mislead you in any sense, but that is my understanding.
I will make the general catch-all request in a moment, but if you wish to follow up any points in writing, we would be happy to accept further information on that point. Other points have emerged from some of your previous comments.
There is a general concern that sustainability and many other issues in which we are interested are being affected. There is increasing evidence of the effects on dolphins and porpoises of exercise joint warrior, particularly off Cape Wrath in my constituency. We need to know that such concerns are emphasised in the marine plan, because we are interested fundamentally in the sustainability of the natural environment as the basis for anything that we plan to use it for.
On the issue of noise, paragraph 15.17 on page 123 of the plan makes the point that
“The MOD complies with relevant legislation”,
as far as we are aware.
I know that you make that point in the plan, but science is developing, and I am afraid that there are questions around the adequacy of that response. The situation is not immobile, and I would hope that such concerns will be taken into account.
That is all on the sectoral part of the plan. To wrap up, Claudia Beamish has a question on the plan’s vision and outlook, which is a subject that has already cropped up in our discussions on many of the sections.
You have covered quite a lot on the vision, objectives and principles of the plan in your evidence today. I note for the record that the plan’s vision for the marine environment is to have
“Clean, healthy, safe, productive and diverse seas; managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and people.”
That is obviously a big challenge, and we all hope that the plan will contribute robustly to underpinning that vision.
How do the principles of sustainable development, which are obviously very important, relate to enhancement under one of the general plans—GEN 9? It would seem that sustainable development is not the same as enhancement. How will that be taken into account? There was quite a lot about protection and enhancement in the consultations and those issues also came up in the sustainability appraisal, which I have had a brief look at.
All the general policies are attempting to be clear about how we are interpreting sustainable development for the purposes of the plan. As you point out, GEN 9 explicitly states:
“Protect and, where appropriate, enhance the health of the marine area.”
We would see that as being an intrinsic part of sustainable development. In this entire chapter, each of the policies represents a different strand of how we envisage sustainable development applying across the plan. I do not think that it is contrary to or different from sustainable development. We have tried to emphasise that in GEN 9 in particular, so it is stated in the policy text box itself and we mention quite a few times throughout the text that sits under it that it is not just about protecting what is already there and that the potential for enhancement should be considered and taken forward where possible. We mention that specifically in relation to marine protected areas at paragraph 4.42 and we do so at paragraph 4.58 in relation to biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. We also mention it in relation to geodiversity in the paragraphs that follow.
I do not see the two things as being separate. We see the consideration of opportunities for enhancement and activities to take that forward as being part of sustainable development. We have tried to highlight where in particular we think that that is a key issue.
There are a couple of other bits in the sectoral chapters, particularly—as I alluded to previously—in the tourism and recreation chapter, where the obvious link between enhancing the natural environment and the potential for that sector to capitalise on that has been highlighted.
Can I push you on that? What would happen if in the oil and gas sector, say, a developer said, “No, it is not possible.” You have said that there should be enhancement “where possible,” so everyone could just say, “It really is not possible in this instance because ... ”. I am looking from the perspective of the future. How will our seas be protected in terms of not only what you say about the needs of nature and people but the long-term needs?
Sometimes it will not be possible to enhance, so the argument that you describe will be a fair argument in some cases. In other cases, we would look at the matter with our advisory bodies and so on in the same way as we look at other aspects of environmental protection and ask whether there is a realistic opportunity that should be pushed through that process. In some cases, there will not be a realistic opportunity, but the plan gives us the hook on which to have that discussion with the developer or whoever has brought the proposal forward.
Thank you. I have two other brief points, one on sustainable development and one on cumulative effect.
I understand that there is an aim for the maximum recovery of reserves of oil and gas. In terms of sustainable development, how does that fit with the movement to a low-carbon economy?
I also ask you to comment on the important issue of the cumulative effect. I know that we have touched on the issue in some of the sectoral decisions, but GEN 21 is about cumulative impact. That is about situations where there are competing developments—or, indeed, where there are complementary developments, but maybe too many of the same kind. It may even relate to something as positive as local people being involved with tourism or whatever for their own future. How will that operate?
Cumulative impact is an emerging area that we are beginning to get a handle on to some extent in scientific terms. We are beginning to get a handle on what the cumulative impacts of a development are. That can be a very prolonged, detailed and difficult process.
Part of the problem is that, as our understanding improves of how the marine ecosystem works and how the structure and function of that system are impacted by development, we will be in a much stronger position to begin to understand the cumulative impact of the variety of developments. That is an issue for the future. We will have to work hard. We can do project-level environmental cumulative impacts, but we are not much beyond that. There will have to be a process to push the agenda forward, because ultimately the cumulative impact of all the development is key to all of what we are discussing. That is the agenda that we are trying to promote.
The sustainability appraisal has had to look at cumulative effects. At the project level, an environmental impact assessment is required to do so through legislation. However, it is one thing to legislate and another to do that.
As David Palmer said, cumulative effects assessments are very much an emerging area, but there are a lot of training courses and there is a lot more experience. We are getting better at doing them in all aspects of the different environmental assessments, including habitat regulations appraisal. There is a definite requirement there.
It is important to bring the matter to the attention of developers, decision makers and the regional marine planners to remind everybody that those are key areas and particularly because much of the activity in the marine environment requires the quality of that environment to be continued.
The first part of Claudia Beamish’s question was about oil and gas. Our position on that is quite clearly set out in the background and context part of the oil and gas chapter. Basically, it highlights existing Scottish Government policy, which supports a move towards a low-carbon economy and, inherent within that, a move from fossil fuel-based energy towards renewable sources. However, the reality is that oil and gas are set to remain a vital source of energy while that transition is taking place, and the Government thinks that it is sensible to secure reserves from within Scottish waters as far as possible.
We tried to set that out more clearly as a result of the issue coming out quite a lot in the consultation responses. However, that really reflects existing policy on both the transition and how we will use the reserves in the interim period.
I highlight that an objective is to
“Maximise the recovery of reserves”.
Perhaps that is a question for me to ask the cabinet secretary.
I thank the witnesses for all their evidence. They have offered us more detail on certain points that have been raised. We would welcome that as we take forward the discussion with stakeholders and ministers. I thank them very much for that.
We will move into private session, as we agreed to do earlier. The next meeting, which will be our first in 2015, will be on Wednesday 7 January. In that meeting, the committee will take evidence on the draft national marine plan from stakeholders and consider a Public Bodies Act 2011 consent memorandum on the abolition of the home-grown timber advisory committee.
I note on record the committee’s thanks to all those—stakeholders, Scottish Government ministers and officials, clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre, the official report, broadcasting and security staff—who participated in meetings throughout 2014 and wish everybody season’s greetings.
I ask that the public gallery be cleared, as the public part of the meeting is closed.
11:44 Meeting continued in private until 12:03.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation