Official Report 338KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on marine issues. In consideration of its work programme last week, the committee agreed to take evidence on marine issues from Marine Scotland, stakeholders and the minister or cabinet secretary before writing to the Scottish Government with our views ahead of the Government’s planned consultations in summer 2013. Today, we will hear from Marine Scotland witnesses—good morning. I invite each of you to introduce yourself and say what area you cover, then the committee will ask questions.
Anna is going to start.
I am the head of the marine planning and strategy branch in Marine Scotland. If it is okay, I will give the committee a run-through of the background to the national marine plan aspect of the consultation, then hand over to my colleagues. This is just a quick overview to give the committee a bit of context for the consultation on the national marine plan.
I am head of the marine environment branch in Marine Scotland. I will expand a little on marine protected areas, if that is all right, to provide some context.
I work for Marine Scotland, heading up the branch that deals with marine renewables and offshore wind energy development.
I thank you very much for those guidelines for discussion.
Yes, we have looked at the experience on land. There is a system in which site condition monitoring happens for existing protected areas. Once every six years, there is an assessment of the extent to which the sites meet their conservation objectives, and it is envisaged that we will follow a similar system, in which, every six years, a report will be required to go to Parliament on the MPA network and the condition of the sites. We would plan to undertake surveys where they are required to obtain information on the condition of sites and to work with the science base where scientists are undertaking surveys in those locations. We would look at information in the marine plan on economic uses of the sea to see whether that also provided information on the extent to which the sites are fulfilling their requirements and aims.
Marine Scotland has undertaken a review of the existing strategic monitoring around the seas. We are following that up with an additional set of strategic monitoring proposals such as aerial surveys and passive acoustic monitoring that might allow us to understand better, and almost in real time, what could be going on in our seas.
We are also working towards developing a monitoring programme as required by the marine strategy framework directive. That programme, which is required to be in place by 2014, will use descriptors of good environmental status as defined by the directive. The programme will help to provide a wide base for our marine monitoring, which might serve the specific purposes that we are discussing today and a range of other purposes.
Graeme Dey wants to follow up on that.
Taking a little step back, I think that it would be useful if the witnesses could tell the committee how robust the scientific evidence is that forms the assertions on biodiversity and geodiversity features that have been made in relation to the nature conservation MPA proposals and the MPA search locations. How in practice was that evidence obtained and who was involved in the process?
So far, we have followed a science-based approach. Initially, that involved a review of the existing evidence on the biodiversity and geodiversity features and their distribution within our seas. We participated in two contracts with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the other UK Administrations. The first involved bringing together all the existing information that was held by public bodies and partners on the biodiversity and geodiversity features of our seas. That was the key input to SNH and the JNCC in building the proposals for Scottish inshore and offshore waters. The second piece of work also involved bringing together existing data, but this time on the socioeconomic use of our seas.
Are you satisfied that the information is pretty up to date?
Well, there is a mixture of data. The contracts involved bringing together all the information that was held. The surveys that I mentioned focused on verifying historical records of biodiversity features. So I would not like to say that everything is bang up to date and one or two years old. There is a mixture of data sets. However, we are confident that the proposals are founded on sound science and evidence. One set of documents that we plan to include in the consultation will be a summary of the evidence and SNH’s and the JNCC’s assessment of it. That will, we hope, allow consultees to form their own opinion on it.
Do you see an opportunity for further scientific research, considering the announcement last Friday on days at sea, which provides the opportunity for scientific research on the west coast, or at least the north-west coast? Can that opportunity be used in the run-up to and during the consultation period?
Where there are planned survey works for this year, we are considering the means by which those can be used. Colleagues who are involved in fisheries are leading on that, but we are looking for opportunities to arrive at a win-win situation. However, we do not have any firm proposals as yet.
In general, we have a collect once, use many times approach to all our marine research and data. As David Mallon says, we would look for opportunities to use data that is being collected for one purpose to inform the work that we are carrying out.
A set of agreements is also in place with other public bodies that own vessels, especially research vessels, whereby we require information and data from them. It makes sense for those bodies to collect the information on our behalf, and the agreement means that that happens.
I have two or three wee points to make. I am glad to hear that there will be 31 community workshops, but there seems to be a bit of concern about the science basis. Will there be plans to make available the scientific basis of the management options before those community workshops?
With regard to the wave, wind and tidal plans, we will publish a strategic environmental assessment; we will publish a set of other assessment documents; and we will publish a draft plan. The draft plan will be in a form that we imagine the public would welcome, and we will provide what we call a sustainability appraisal, which will pull together the main aspects. In other words, we will seek to have a non-technical summary that helps the public to engage.
So that would be before the consultation.
We will publish documents before the consultation starts.
To continue on the point about the scientific basis, the Mull and Skye area was designated on previous maps. The Firth of Forth banks complex was a whole area, but it has now been divided up into much smaller plots. Those are important areas. Sand eels are prevalent there, for example, and they are important not just for the environment but for the fishing industry. It would be interesting to find out why those changes were made.
Starting with your previous question, the management options will hopefully be a feature of the public consultation. Since the national stakeholder workshops that I mentioned, we have been maintaining an informal engagement with sectoral groups. Where we can, we hope to let them see the management options, at least in draft, before the main consultation begins.
I can give a little bit of reassurance. We are not just thinking, “Here is the area for development” or, “Here is the area for designation.” We are engaged in a process called Scotmap, which is focused on the fishing sector. We will consider other approaches for other sectors, but the Scotmap approach involves a vessel monitoring system, which tracks fishing vessels that are larger than 15m in length.
I have one small point—or perhaps it is not a small point. When will the management plans for the 33 proposed areas be published?
For the summer consultation, we hope to publish the draft management options for each of the proposals. After that consultation has run and final decisions are made on designation, we hope to be in a good position to introduce management plans quite quickly after the designation of the areas to which ministers finally agree.
A couple of environmental groups have voiced concerns to me that some of the 33 proposed sites in the consultation may be dropped. Will you guarantee that all 33 proposed sites will be included in the consultation this summer?
The report to Parliament included all 33 proposals. SNH’s advice is that 29 to 33 require designation. We are trying to create a network, so we envisage that the consultation will include all 33 proposals. That is the basis on which we are working at present, but ministers need to make final decisions about that.
As far as you are aware, there will be 33.
Yes. We are designing the impact assessment that I described and the strategic environmental assessment. They are founded upon the 33 proposals. The information on sites that we are developing, including the evidence summaries, is also being developed for all 33 sites. However, ministers need to take a final decision on which set of proposals to take forward for consultation in the summer.
Mr MacDonald’s point was part of my question—
Sorry about that.
Not at all. It proves that I had a good point.
I confirm that the plan is to outline information on individual marine protected areas. However, it is a little bit of both, because we also want to describe the way in which those areas fit into an overall network. There are four search locations on which SNH continues to undertake work. They will not be in a position to be included in the consultation as propositions for designation but, because of the network approach, we want to describe and provide information on those proposals as they stand.
I fully understand and agree with the need to incorporate the whole into a network. That is totally sensible. However, I ask for final clarification that there will be opportunities to comment and make submissions on individual proposals as well as on the whole network.
Yes, there will.
I will continue the line of questioning on the MPAs. Can you shed any light on the possibility of an alternative site for the Firth of Forth banks complex? I think Marine Scotland had floated that as an idea. Will that specific site, which is important for a range of species and habitats, be in the proposals that will be in the consultation?
As I outlined earlier, the current plan is that all 33 proposals will be available for comment during the consultation. SNH has advised that 29 to 33 proposals are needed because it has provided some alternatives and choices. That stems back to the network attempting to represent the biodiversity in our seas. Features such as shelf banks and mounds are found in the Firth of Forth but there are two alternative locations—Turbot bank and the Norwegian boundary sediment plain—that also contain mixtures of those features. There is a choice of how best to represent those features in the network and we envisage that that will be a feature of the consultation.
In relation to the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, can you comment on the obligation to enhance our marine habitat where possible? Can you shed any light on how the science and the work that your department and others have done has helped to contribute to the coherence of the network?
On the first point, I am not a lawyer so I cannot provide legal advice on the terms of the 2010 act, but my understanding—
I will clarify what I am asking. I do not see the words “enhance” or “to enhance the habitat” coming up very often. I am a layperson, so perhaps I have missed that.
From a layperson and policy perspective, the act requires management and enhancement duties to be fulfilled. We have been working with SNH and the JNCC to identify what the conservation objectives should be for each site in the marine protected area proposals. I hope that we will have a description of the features and location and the draft conservation objectives and management options, as well as an appraisal of the social and economic benefits. The conservation objectives consider whether there are opportunities to maintain or enhance the features and that will again, I hope, be a feature of the consultation.
Can you comment on how work is developing on the coherence of the network?
Yes. As I am sure you will be aware, the concept of coherence stems from the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic—the OSPAR convention. Discussions under that treaty resulted in some guidance for countries in the north-east Atlantic on how to contribute towards the ecological coherence of that network at the wider scale. We have taken up that guidance and have been applying it to the identification of the proposals, and the principles are outlined in the MPA guidelines. Broadly speaking, it is about representation and replication of features and those are concepts that we have built into the design of the proposals that were reported to Parliament.
Finally, RSPB Scotland and others have expressed concern about the lack of commitment to seabird hotspot feeding grounds in the marine environment. More broadly, I know that black guillemot are being considered. Can you comment on those concerns and shed any light on that?
We are aware of those concerns. We have a fairly significant programme of work that SNH and the JNCC are leading to identify locations that merit designation as special protected areas under the birds directive in the marine environment. When we talk about the protected area requirements, the birds directive covers all bird species except black guillemot. We consider that the special protected area proposals will deliver added protection for seabirds when it comes to feeding areas and such like. Black guillemot was a gap that we identified and in the interests of coherence and representation of features we specifically sought to identify proposals for that bird species, which is included in the MPA proposals reported to Parliament.
On the question of enhancement, the legislative requirement reads across into the national marine plan, so beyond the specific work on marine protected areas and other activities specifically designed to protect the marine environment, the national marine plan will roll the general duty through into the planning and regulatory framework. We will make statements about the need for marine planning and other decision making by public bodies to consider opportunities to fulfil the duty to enhance the health of the Scottish marine area.
In response to the earlier question, I forgot to mention that the work on the birds directive in the marine environment will come through later this year, and I hope that it will result in consultations on proposals. However, the MPA network concept is about regular review, so for the next review and report to Parliament in 2018, we recognise that we need to take stock of the extent to which the proposals as reported to Parliament will do the job. Our current position is that we think that they will.
Does Nigel Don have a question on this point?
I think that my point is an extension of the discussion, convener.
Fine. I think that Dick Lyle wants to lead on marine renewables and similar matters.
Right. Perhaps I will gently take him there.
We hope that the management options will deliver protection of the area’s features: the options are designed on a feature-by-feature basis. However, under the principle of sustainable use, we have a policy of trying to protect the marine environment. That is the aim, rather than to prevent activities from taking place. The policy is sustainable use where the conservation objectives can be met. It involves consideration of all the pressures that can be brought to bear on a habitat or species, and of the activities that can cause such pressures. It then involves thinking about whether the activities are already present or whether there are any plans for them to be there. It is about trying to think on a sectoral basis with fine-enough grain, especially when it comes to fishing. It has lots of different gear types, and we must try to distinguish between the activities involved. We want to be aware up front of the sensitivities and of whether existing or planned future activities will result in sensitivities in particular locations.
Forgive me—I do not mean this critically, but you are still using all kinds of process words. I understand why, but what kind of activities are we talking about? Clearly, fishing is one, and there are times when the sea bed is disturbed. Renewable energy is another, and I know that Dick Lyle will ask about that. What else do we do at sea? Do we dredge any of these areas?
Not for aggregate. This is part of a process, but we can think through each activity. The answer is any activity at sea, but we need to take things on a case-by-case basis. Other examples would be the placing of a sewage outlet pipe, which is to do with water quality, and ensuring that scientific research is done in a responsible way. The list is endless. It is also important to ensure that aquaculture practices are compatible with the broader interest features.
It might be helpful if I comment on the more general picture across all the seas rather than just marine protected areas. The national marine plan will look at fisheries, aquaculture, impacts on freshwater salmon fishing from a marine base, oil and gas, carbon capture and storage, renewables, recreation and tourism, transport, telecommunications and cabling, defence activities and the limited aggregates work—I do not think that any such work is taking place at present, but a site is designated for it.
Thank you. That list was helpful.
I thank Nigel Don for leading us into the questions that I am going to ask, which are mainly for Phil Gilmour. Sorry if I am going to put you under pressure, Phil. Basically, the situation is that what you are going to do within this important plan is going to impact on what both Anna Donald and David Mallon are going to do. When local authorities make a plan, they stick to it, but there are always people who want to test it by asking to put in more sites.
We have been working away for four years on trying to introduce a proper, thorough spatial marine planning approach. When we started the process, we looked to see what the best tools available to us were to look at the issues with respect to conflict avoidance. We chose three main tools: strategic environmental assessment, which is often used by countries that are doing plans as a test; we started to use strategic habitat regulation appraisal, which takes account of a lot of the issues that David Mallon talked about; and we also undertook socioeconomic assessments, which were very much focused on impacts on other sectors.
I totally agree with you and understand the point that you make. The three of you are going to ensure that the seas around Scotland improve. However, developers need to know where they can develop. Once we have laid down the plan, are we going to stick to it? There will be people who take you to the edge and say, “That area is good, but there’s a better area further up the coast,” although developing that area could lead to environmental problems. Are we going to stick to the plan that we lay out? As a politician l have found that, all too often, people have put the plans that have been laid in a cupboard or have changed them a year later. Are we going to ensure that what we set out improves the environment around Scotland’s seashore?
These are Scottish ministers’ plans. They are non-statutory, but they can be made statutory through the national marine plan process. However, a non-statutory plan is owned by Scottish ministers. There is nothing to prevent someone from coming forward with a licence application outwith a plan area, but Scottish ministers are the licensing authority. Therefore, the policing of the plan and the responsibility for ensuring that it is stuck to are very much in the bailiwick of the Scottish ministers.
The national marine plan is a statutory plan. As I said in my introduction, it goes through a consultation process and a series of agreements must be reached with UK ministers before it can be adopted by Scottish ministers. However, once it has been adopted it has formal weight within the system and, by statute, public authorities’ enforcement and authorisation decisions, including licensing decisions, need to be taken in accordance with the plan. We are bringing the three processes together so that what is in the national marine plan and has statutory weight reflects the planning process that Phil Gilmour has described as well as the work that is being done on marine protected areas.
I have a question arising from the last two discussions prompted by Nigel Don and Richard Lyle. It is about the conflict avoidance that Mr Gilmour has spoken about. Particularly when it comes to marine protected areas and proposals for offshore wind, I find it difficult to believe that there have not been occasions when, during internal discussions, there has been conflict or potential conflict in drawing up the plans that are to be put out for consultation. In those circumstances, what takes priority—the marine protected area or the offshore wind proposals? It is quite important that we know that.
You are saying that people take different approaches to these things. I focus on wave, wind and tidal energy; David Mallon focuses on environmental protection; and Anna Donald focuses on how we pull those things together so that they make sense. In my work, I use strategic habitat regulation appraisal, which seeks to take account of the issues that are important to David Mallon’s policy area. Where habitat regulation appraisal is not suitable, the other issues are caught within the strategic environmental assessment. We use those tests as planning tools and seek to take account of what is going on. However, right at the start, we seek to use the scoping exercise with respect to the marine resource system—MARS—model and other consultations along with the bringing in of other data to inform regional locational guidance and the identification of the plan option. It is an information-based approach that can then allow assessment to ensure that we understand the issues and that a coherent set of advice can be given to ministers.
I am grateful for the explanation, which I think I understand. However, let me put it simply: has there been an instance of somebody saying that they want an area for wind energy development and another division saying that it is a really important marine protected area? If that has happened, who has won the day? It seems to me that the two approaches are rarely going to be compatible.
When it comes down to an issue like that, we would both make our cases and there would, I hope, be some overlap so that we could rationalise. However, if we could not do that, the information would have to go to the ministers because they are the decision makers.
Okay. I just wanted to understand the process. Thank you.
My question is for Phil Gilmour. You suggest that only 10 to 25 per cent of an area that is designated for renewable energy development will be utilised. Have I picked that up correctly?
In our current plan options, which will be in the draft plans that go out for consultation, we make it clear that we believe that only between 15 and 25 or 26 per cent of the areas will be developed. At a strategic level, we can identify a zone that we will assess, but we make it clear that only a certain area within that zone will be subject to development.
What is the rationale behind that thinking? If that is the direction in which we go, will that in any way inhibit Scotland’s ability to get where it needs to go in generating energy from offshore sources?
There is only so much that can be done at the strategic level. When the developer goes into the area and decides where their development footprint is, they will have to make decisions on the basis of their own site survey. We are leaving room for fine tuning according to a more detailed site survey and more detailed assessment. At this stage, we are planning to ensure that we have sustainable development and that the developers can have access to other sites. Those sites will have to go through a licensing process and they need some flexibility within that process.
There is a lot of science involved in undertaking the various strategic environmental and habitat-based assessments, and firms that apply for a licence will have to do the same. Is there not an awful lot of overlap in that work? In an area close to the constituency that I represent, in the Moray Firth, a lot of work has been done by Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd and so on in order to make their applications. What science are they calling on—public science or their own work? Is there no overlap in what we do?
The overlap is minimised. When we undertake a strategic environmental assessment, a habitats regulations appraisal or research, we park all our information and data in Marine Scotland interactive. If we have undertaken sea bed mapping, the developer can access the regional environmental database that we have used, which allows them a head start. The environmental information, the science, the research and the modelling that Marine Scotland has done are all there and the developer can focus on any issues. In that way, the screening and scoping at the licensing stage refer back to the plan-making process so that planning and licensing merge together and we minimise doubled activity.
What about the reverse of that? If a developer came to you and said that they had carried out two years of seabird assessment, which was fairly extensive and looked credible to you, would you utilise that or would you repeat the exercise?
Fergus Ewing set up a licensing group to consider how we could maximise efficiency and ensure that the licensing that is carried out by Marine Scotland is fit for purpose. Within that, there was an agreement with developers that we would seek to share environmental information and, in our review of our offshore wind, wave and tidal plan, we are looking at what information is already available from the developers themselves.
I have another point, but I will let Jim Hume in first.
We have identified areas, which have been highlighted. However, the designation is not there. Are there any safeguards in place for those areas in the interim period between identification and designation?
We will take account of any work that is going on. We can get access to the science within the SEA and habitats regulations appraisal process that we are adopting.
Given that nobody else has mentioned the protection of wrecks, I think that I am the appropriate person to do that. I am not looking at anyone in particular.
I would be the appropriate person to answer.
I have seen on the Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission map the assessment of the route for the electricity cable from Shetland down to Moray. That is one of the points that I can remember—it is probably in the marine atlas as well. I want to range forward from wrecks and existing structures in the sea with regard to species. We have not talked a lot about species in this evidence session. Do you have evidence about how oil rigs and wrecks encourage the development of various species that live in those habitats?
We know that there is the potential for colonisation to take place. Certain things could be done with respect to colonisation, but not a lot has been done on my side. We are involved in discussions with the Concrete Society Scotland and we will have a conference with it in the autumn. We have proposed that if it is going to promote its product, it could look at enhancing colonisation so that, although there will be impacts, there could also be environmental benefits. However, we have not done enough on that to be able to report to you accurately.
In our marine protected areas work we have been co-ordinating with Historic Scotland, which has been considering how best to use the powers for historic MPAs in the Marine Scotland Act 2010. In the build-up to finalising the report to Parliament in December 2012 on MPAs we were in dialogue with Historic Scotland and SNH about the extent to which the proposals that they were considering were important in biodiversity terms to species or habitats. That discussion is on-going. The proposals that they had at that time were not thought to have sufficient biodiversity value to merit areas being identified as a nature conservation MPA as well as a historic MPA. I understand that Historic Scotland is looking at the management of wrecks or other historic features and we are in dialogue with it on the extent to which such management can also deliver benefit for the natural environment.
On the wider planning scale, the UK “Marine Policy Statement”, which applies to all Administrations recognises that
I said in the preamble to my previous question that wrecks enhance the environmental situation. I am interested in what you said about the concrete companies finding ways to improve the consistency and the environmental situation in our seas.
Yes, the wrecks are covered. There is a fundamental base data layer with respect to assessments, and we seek to ensure that we identify wrecks at that level. There is a good database in that regard.
You said to Graeme Dey that possibly only 25 per cent of the areas might be taken up. Have we any idea how many sites around the coastline of Scotland will be suitable for wind farms?
At present, we have six identified sites, and a number of other options are being discussed—perhaps another six.
Is that around the whole coastline of Scotland?
Yes. Those are the sites that we have identified as being other potential sites for offshore wind, wave and tidal projects.
I was pleased to observe for a few quiet moments seven or eight black guillemots in Portpatrick harbour a couple of weekends ago. I have seen them in a number of places. I notice that there is particular mention of them in the Monach Isles and other places in the Hebrides. Is there a particular problem about why they have been missed? I heard you mention the issue earlier, but I see them in various places when I go around the coast.
It is really just a feature of the provisions of the birds directive. There is a requirement to protect migratory species, and black guillemots are not a migratory species. There is a list of non-migratory species that need to be protected, under the directive, and they are not featured on that list, with regard to protected area provisions.
Since I mentioned Portpatrick, we will now hear from the member who represents Portpatrick.
I am glad that you were able to enjoy that part of the world during the recess, convener.
The approach that we followed in identifying the MPA proposals has been led by SNH and the JNCC, who are the experts on our biodiversity. We have outlined a science-led approach. They have identified proposals that have been assessed on science-based criteria. We have not deliberately excluded the site that you mention. We have proposals that have been identified to represent the features, and that is where the choices lie. However, science has been the basis for selection. We have not used socioeconomics. Under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, ministers have a power to take account of socioeconomics when it comes to designation, but we have not reached that point.
Can you talk more broadly about the quite fast-moving effects of climate change on marine habitats and species and say what assessments have been done and will be done on that matter?
I will talk about that in the context of the broad base of the national marine plan. In producing the pre-consultation draft, we were required to develop objectives that related to climate change mitigation and adaptation. A number of separate processes are running in the context of the Scottish Government’s broader adaptation framework, which required us to look at adaptation.
We hope that the marine protected area network can contribute to the resilience of marine biodiversity and therefore help to meet the challenge of climate change. By controlling anthropogenic activities—man-made impacts—that are damaging to a feature in a protected area, I hope that we will give the natural environment a better chance of making the transition.
Wave, wind and tidal energy, if they are developed sustainably, should mitigate climate change. We must ensure that development happens with regard to the various strategic assessments that we use. At the licensing stage in particular, we must put effort into ensuring that the population trends of key species are sustainable.
If there are no more questions from members, I will ask about cetaceans. There is concern about how they will be dealt with in the context of MPAs and so on. The Skye to Mull area is particularly important for a couple of whale species. Will the designation process be developed with regard to cetaceans?
Yes. The four search locations, which are additional to the 33 proposed MPAs, are for such features—whales, dolphins and, in the case of the Skye to Mull search location, basking sharks. SNH wants to do more research and to model key habitats for those features. There is also exciting tagging work on basking sharks, which tries to reach out to schools and elsewhere, to increase people’s interest in protecting the species.
I think that we have reached an appropriate point at which to conclude our discussions. You have given us a lot of information, which I hope will enable us to come up with good questions for our next witnesses. Thank you.