Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan: Consultation and Modifications Report

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary — 1
• 1. Introduction — 2
     • 1.1. Background — 2
     • 1.2. The Purpose of the Consultation and Modifications Report — 3
• 2. Overview of the Consultation — 4
     • 2.1. Consultation and engagement — 4
     • 2.2. Early engagement workshops and school workshops — 7
     • 2.3. OIRMP community consultation and engagement events — 7
     • 2.4. School and SmartSTEM Workshops — 7
     • 2.5. Business Regulatory Impact Assessment – Interviews with businesses — 9
• 3. Consultation respondent profile — 10
     • 3.1. Overview — 10
     • 3.2. Respondents profile — 10
• 4. Consultation Response Summary — 12
     • 4.1. Overview — 12
     • 4.2. Section 1: Introduction — 12
     • 4.3. Section 2: General Policies — 14
     • 4.4. Section 3: Sector Policies — 25
     • 4.5. Section 4: Monitoring, Evaluation and Review of the Plan — 30
     • 4.6. Appendices — 31
     • 4.7. Supporting assessments — 33
     • 4.8. Any other comments or feedback (Q41) — 36
• 5. Modifications — 37
     • 5.1. Overview — 37
     • 5.2. Summary of modifications — 37
     • 5.3. Modifications to the consultation draft plan — 40
• Appendix 1: Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan Consultation Response Form — 65
• Appendix 2: Orkney regional approach to Priority Marine Feature policy — 78

Tables

• Table 1 - Summary of consultation and engagement activities
• Table 2 - Modifications to the consultation draft plan

Figures

• Figure 1 - Consultation Responses received for the Plan
• Figure 2 - Consultation response by Sector/Interest
• Figure 3 - Responses to Question 13a

Acronyms

IMAGE: The report cover displays the title “Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan Consultation and Modifications Report”, the Scottish Government logo, a blue map-like representation of Orkney and surrounding areas, and the Orkney Islands Council crest.

Executive Summary

The Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan: Consultation Draft (the Plan) was prepared by Orkney Islands Council (OIC) on behalf of the Scottish Ministers to guide decision making that will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, activities and use in the Orkney Islands marine region. The Plan has been prepared through a process of stakeholder engagement and consultation as outlined in the Regional Marine Plan for the Orkney Islands: Statement of Public Participation. The Plan was deposited for consultation from 1 August 2024 and the consultation closed on 25 October 2024.

The consultation and stakeholder process included early engagement workshops, consultation events, school and SmartSTEM workshops as well as Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment interviews with relevant businesses. The consultation and engagement process provided valuable information and local knowledge that has informed the preparation of the final Plan and supporting assessments.

Since the consultation, the Plan and supporting assessments have been updated in response to comments received in response to the consultation. This report summarises this stakeholder feedback and comments received on the Plan and supporting assessments, and identifies the modifications made to the Plan.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

The Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan (OIRMP): Consultation Draft (the Plan) was prepared by Orkney Islands Council (OIC) on behalf of the Scottish Ministers to guide decision making that will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, activities and use in the Orkney Islands marine region. The Plan provides a framework for decision making to help deliver the Plan’s environmental, social, economic, marine ecosystem and community well-being objectives, including the provision of social and economic benefits for local communities and businesses. The Plan was developed through an inclusive process of partnership working and stakeholder participation.

The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 makes provision for the preparation and adoption of a national marine plan and regional marine plans. The United Kingdom (UK) Marine Policy Statement was adopted in 2011 and sets the framework for preparing marine plans and taking decisions affecting the marine environment. Scotland’s National Marine Plan (NMP 2015) was adopted in 2015 and provides a comprehensive overarching framework for all marine activity in both Scottish inshore waters (out to 12 nautical miles) and offshore waters (12 to 200 nautical miles).

The Plan was drafted in accordance with NMP 2015, the UK Marine Policy Statement and has been prepared in accordance with the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. The Plan does not replace or remove existing regulatory regimes or legislative requirements. It provides an overarching framework to be used when reaching decisions about proposed development and activities in, or that affect, the Orkney Islands marine region.

The Plan policies aim to support the implementation of the NMP, address local priorities and relevant matters identified in the Orkney Islands Marine Region: State of the Environment Assessment (2020). The policies express intent and guide the delivery of sustainable development in Orkney.

The Plan is accompanied by the following supporting assessments:

• Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): Environmental Report.
• Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) Record.
• Partial Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA).
• Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA).
• Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA).
• Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA).

1.2. The Purpose of the Consultation and Modifications Report

The Plan has been prepared through a process of stakeholder engagement and consultation as outlined in the Regional Marine Plan for the Orkney Islands: Statement of Public Participation¹.

This Consultation and Modifications Report sets out the process of consultation that took place in 2024 (Section 2), a consultation respondent profile (Section 3), a summary of the issues raised in response to the consultation (Section 4) and details of the modifications made to the Plan post consultation (Section 5).

The Consultation Response Form, which was used to invite comment on the consultation draft plan and supporting documents is presented in Appendix 1: Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan Consultation Response Form.

Orkney regional approach to Priority Marine Feature (PMF) policy, taken forward in response to Question 13a in the Consultation Response Form, is presented in Appendix 2: Orkney regional approach to Priority Marine Feature policy.

The feedback provided through the consultation, and summarised in this report, has informed the preparation of final Plan and supporting assessments.

¹ Orkney Islands Council (2024). Regional Marine Plan for the Orkney Islands: Statement of Public Participation.

2. Overview of the Consultation

2.1. Consultation and engagement

The consultation draft Plan and supporting assessments were deposited for public consultation from 1 August to 25 October 2024.

In accordance with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, the consultation period for the Plan and SEA Environmental Report were advertised in relevant newspapers and submitted to the SEA Gateway for comment from the Consultation Authorities.

The aim of the consultation, and wider engagement process, was to engage a diverse audience as effectively as possible. This included targeting and designing engagement activities to each island community’s circumstances to capture a diverse range of views and interests. This consultation and engagement process provided valuable information and local knowledge that has informed the preparation of the final Plan and supporting assessments.

OIC is committed to ensuring that local communities have the opportunity to engage directly with the plan-making process and have their voices heard.

Table 1 - Summary of consultation and engagement activities

2.2. Early engagement workshops and school workshops

OIC Marine Planning delivered community engagement workshops in Stronsay, Sanday, Westray and Hoy in Spring/Summer 2022. This helped to engage local communities in the plan making process and outline the scope and purpose of the forthcoming marine plan.

In additional to the engagement outlined in the Statement of Public Participation, workshops were delivered with the Stronsay, Sanday, Westray and Hoy Community Schools.

These workshops were extremely useful to inform community understanding of the plan making process. They also highlighted the need to go above and beyond the statutory engagement requirements to ensure island communities do not feel left out of the process and ensure Local Ecological Knowledge was (and will continue to be) gathered.

Community engagement events took place in Kirkwall, Stromness and St Margaret’s Hope in Spring/Summer 2022 to engage local communities in the plan making process and outline the scope and purpose of the forthcoming marine plan. Again, these were additional events to those outlined in the Statement of Public Participation.

2.3. OIRMP community consultation and engagement events

As part of the public consultation from 1 August to 25 October 2024, ten in-person community consultation events were delivered which ran through the day and into the evening in multiple locations throughout the Orkney Islands, see Table 1.

A high turnout was experienced for the consultation events, six of which on the ferry-linked isles as well as Kirkwall, Stromness, Finstown and St Margaret’s Hope. Each event was set up in a location where local people visit as part of their day-to-day activities including local cafés or development trust centres, or youth clubs in order to capture passing local people of all ages. Short presentations and films were used to showcase the Orkney marine environment and highlight the Plan’s relevance within each the local area.

Two further online community consultation and engagement sessions were delivered to maximise participation opportunities.

These events were advertised online, via email and in the printed press. Consultation information was available from the OIC website and was sent out in email alerts to the 360+ Orkney marine planning stakeholders.

From these engagement sessions there was a total of 250 visitors attending, and many in-depth discussions held about the Plan and more general marine topics.

2.4. School and SmartSTEM Workshops

Several workshops were held with schools to ensure young people’s views and voices were captured. During these workshops the OIC Marine Planning team delivered presentations on how marine planning works in Orkney and how it contributes to the sustainable use of the marine environment. The workshops demonstrated how busy the Orkney Islands marine region is in simple terms and set up interactive marine planning scenarios using the Marine Spatial Planning Challenge Game. Young people’s views were captured on what they believe are important aspects of the sea, and how they should be managed.

Ten local school class sessions were delivered by the OIC Marine Planning team to engage pupils on marine planning issues and to find out what they valued about the marine environment. This included four lessons delivered in 2022 as part of the early engagement process, three workshops delivered in conjunction with a Kirkwall Grammer School SmartSTEM event, and the remaining three sessions during the formal regional marine plan consultation in 2024. The ages of the children ranged from 7 to 15 years old.

These lessons/workshops included a 30-minute interactive presentation exploring the marine developments and activities around Orkney and the many ways in which local communities rely on the ocean, and a summary of what marine planning involves. This was followed by playing an adapted version of the Marine Spatial Planning Challenge boardgame, with a scenario set up resembling the marine planning challenges faced in Orkney, before finishing up by asking the young people to write down and discuss their answers to two questions.

• Question 1: What is the most important thing about the sea for you?
• Question 2: If you were asked to manage the sea, what would you do?

These questions were specifically chosen to identify what young people value the most about the marine environment, and what they would like to see being done in the future. This information has been used to assess and inform the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan aims and objectives, to ensure they reflect young voices and aspirations.

Over 150 answers to the two questions were captured, with many more noted following the discussions that took place. The most mentioned theme in relation to Question 1 was nature conservation, with a heavy focus in all workshops being on the need to protect wildlife. This was focused on general species and habitat preservation, but led to discussions on many related impacts, in particular issues around marine litter and other more general pollution concerns. The other reoccurring topics were the importance of fishing as a food source and income, the scenic views, and the need to keep the sea clean for us to enjoy it. Many children talked about their enjoyment of swimming and playing in the sea.

The children’s knowledge and comments about marine related jobs, fishing and marine habitats and species was remarkably well informed. A high percentage of the children stated that their parents and families worked in fishing, aquaculture, marine energy, oil and gas and marine transport.

When asked “If you were asked to manage the sea, what would you do?”, the responses received were very diverse. Again, conservation themes ran throughout with the two most raised topics being reducing litter and protecting fish and wildlife. Several more locally relevant topics came up in discussion, including the need to improve local piers, reduce power cuts on the smaller islands, the need for more modern ferries and more general comments on keeping the sea clean. The topic of salmon farms was raised on several occasions, with mixed opinions between children. There was a good understanding on the need to balance human wellbeing (e.g. ‘fish to eat’) and nature conservation.

2.5. Business Regulatory Impact Assessment – Interviews with businesses

Six interviews with businesses of varying sizes were carried out as part of the BRIA process. This included two businesses from the aquaculture sector, two from the energy sector, one from fisheries and one from a local tourism operator. This helped to capture varied views on the Plans’ impacts on businesses from a variety of sectors and businesses of a range of sizes. This part of the consultation has helped to assess the likely costs, benefits and risks of implementing the Plan for businesses and employers. Consideration has been given to the potential for any disproportionate impacts or benefits for micro/small businesses in comparison to businesses of greater size.

Questions presented to businesses during these interviews included:

• Which of the policies in the Plan does the business feel might provide either benefits/opportunities or costs/risks?
• Will the Plan have an impact on the competitiveness of your business?
• Within your industry, will the Plan affect suppliers’ ability and/or incentive to introduce new technologies, products or business models?
• For small and micro businesses only, will the Plan create a disproportionate distribution of benefits/impacts towards businesses due to their size?

The BRIA interviews followed guidance and information provided within the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment: Toolkit². The findings from the consultation on the Plan and the BRIA interviews have informed the preparation of the BRIA and the final Plan.

² Scottish Government (2018). Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment: Toolkit.

3. Consultation Respondent Profile

3.1. Overview

In total across the consultation, 35 written consultation responses were received from 23 organisations and 12 individuals. Within these responses, over 450 individual comments were submitted, logged and analysed in detail.

3.2. Respondents profile

As part of the consultation analysis process, respondents were assigned to stakeholder groups. This enabled analysis of whether differences, or commonalities, appeared across the different types of organisation and/or individuals that responded. A break-down of the stakeholder groups is shown here and in Figure 1:

• Businesses (8)
• Individual/ Interested Persons (12)
• Industry bodies (2)
• Interest Groups (8)
• Public Bodies (4)
• Public Company (1)

The consultation respondents are categorised as local community members, conservation interests, academia and research interests, fisheries interests, aquaculture interests, energy interests, recreation, historic environment, utilities and engineering, see Figure 2.

IMAGE: Figure 1 is a pie chart showing consultation responses by respondent group: Business (23%), Individual/Interested Person (34%), Industry body (6%), Interest Group (26%), Public Body (8%), and Public Company (3%).

IMAGE: Figure 2 is a pie chart showing consultation responses by sector or interest: Academia/Research (14%), Aquaculture (8%), Conservation (17%), Energy (8%), Engineering (3%), Fish Processing (3%), Fisheries (14%), Historic Environment (3%), Local Community (19%), Recreation (3%), and Utilities (8%).

4. Consultation Response Summary

4.1. Overview

This section of the report provides a summary of the issues raised in response to the consultation of the Plan and supporting questions, as detailed in Appendix 1: Consultation Response Form. The consultation questions relate to the Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Plan, and Plan appendices, in order of how they appear in the Plan. For clarity, references to Plan policies and paragraphs in this consultation response summary refer to those in the consultation draft Plan.

4.2. Section 1: Introduction

4.2.1. Purpose of the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan (Q1)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The plan vision would benefit from a clearly stated time period to help monitor the implementation of the plan e.g. 2045 or 2050.
• The plan should meet the needs and aspirations of Islanders and islands within the Orkney archipelago. In this regard, it is important that where local considerations need to be factored into decision making, the local context of Orkney is considered.
• It is unclear the extent to which OIC has the powers to implement the plan in decision making.
• Clarification is required in the plan on the role of OIC (the delegate) as a consultee on marine licensing decisions.
• Clarification is required in the plan on the role of OIC and other public authority decision makers to ensure that the plan’s aim and objectives are addressed.
• The plan should provide guidance on spatial and temporal allocation for different users, activities and developments.
• The plan needs to be supported by clear guidance on enforcement and planning mechanisms to ensure policies lead to clear outcomes and decisions.
• The plan should include spatial management to restrict development impacts on commercial fishing interests including fish breeding and nursery grounds.

4.2.2. Use of the Plan policy framework (Q2)

Summary of consultation response issues

• It is welcomed that the plan policies include provisions to guide public authority decision makers to contribute towards the delivery of the plan objectives and that the policies should be applied proportionately.
• The identification of key terms up-front in the plan is welcomed to ensure standardised and correct interpretation of policies.
• It is unclear the extent to which OIC has the powers to implement the plan in decision making.
• This section of the plan may need to make it clear where the ‘power lies’ in decision making, and the role of OIC, alongside the Marine Directorate, in implementing the policies.
• It is important to ensure that the ecosystem approach is being used in plan implementation.
• Clarification is needed on how the concept of ‘proportionality’ will be applied in practice to policy implementation.
• It is unclear how upcoming plans will impact the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan, particularly National Marine Plan 2 (NMP2).
• Consideration should be given to the inclusion of wording which more clearly states that the plan should be read and applied as whole, and that there may be conflicts between policies, that may need to be resolved.
• There is some ambiguity over what/who falls within the definition of ‘Marine and/or Coastal Users’.

4.2.3. Vision, Guiding Principles, Aim and Objectives (Q3)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The interests of Orkney communities extend beyond the Orkney Islands marine region and this should be acknowledged via the implementation of the plan objectives and policies.
• The plan objectives and policies need to support better engagement with local communities in decision making.
• The plan currently reflects a strong emphasis on managing environmental impacts from development, with less focus on supporting sustainable economic development.
• The vision, guiding principles, aim and objectives should refer to the twin climate and nature crisis and the plan’s role in addressing this.
• Greater clarity is needed on how a ‘rapid transition’ to net zero is defined within the plan objectives.
• Food production and food security should be supported within the plan objectives.
• Co-existence is vital for all sectors however, the fishing sector is often excluded from sites despite co-siting efforts; the plan needs to support a framework where co-existence is achieved.
• The plan does not provide the level of guidance which would be expected in a regional marine plan as the objectives do not specify the particular steps that will be taken to meet the plan’s aim.
• Greater detail is required on the meaning of and compliance with environmental limits.
• The identification of cumulative impacts within the plan objectives is welcomed.
• Greater clarity on Objective 3 (just transition) would be useful, particularly given the multiple definitions and tensions within just transition policies and narratives.
• It is important that this marine plan embeds an approach of genuine accountability via effective, meaningful public engagement across Orkney communities.
• The ambition for a low carbon economy, and achieving net-zero commitments through just transition, should not come at the cost of food security.
• An ecosystem-based approach should supersede the implementation of individual sector policies, as if viewed in isolation, these policies will not take cumulative impacts into consideration.
• All policies should be reviewed with the intention of replacing the word ‘should’ with a stronger word such as ‘shall’ to support effective implementation.
• Visitors to Orkney could be specifically referenced in the plan’s aim, vision and objectives.

4.3. Section 2: General Policies

4.3.1. Introductory Information to the General Policies (GPs) (Q4)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The plan currently reflects a strong emphasis on managing environmental impacts from development, with less focus on supporting sustainable development.
• The plan should emphasise the need to optimise positive impacts and outcomes alongside the management of negative impacts.
• The role of the plan in guiding the behaviour of applicants and developers, as well as public authorities, needs to be clearly stated.
• Further clarity is required on the meaning of ‘proportionately’ in the implementation of the plan policies.
• The inclusion of the mitigation hierarchy as an overarching principle that underpins the general and sector policies is welcomed.

4.3.2. General Policy 1: Sustainable development, activities and use (Q5)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The plan needs to make stronger links to the delivery of Scotland’s Blue Economy Vision.
• General Policy 1 should place a more significant emphasis on support for sustainable development to reflect the current National Marine Plan (NMP 2015) and emerging draft proposals for NMP2.
• General Policy 1 should highlight the importance of using local knowledge in decision making.
• Reference to the precautionary principle in General Policy 1 is welcomed.
• Greater clarity is required on the application of the precautionary principle in decision making.
• The plan needs to be careful not to take the precautionary principle too far, making it difficult for developments or activities to go ahead.
• General Policy 1 should make further reference to the importance of adhering to the mitigation hierarchy.
• “Appropriate mitigation” must only be used when all other options have been explored fully and the adverse impacts have been agreed to be “unavoidable”.
• The plan needs to include spatial management to prioritise sustainable development in appropriate locations.
• The plan should implement ecosystem-based management in recognition of the integrated nature of human and non-human activities.

4.3.3. General Policy 2: Safety (Q6)

Summary of consultation response issues

• General Policy 2 should apply other areas of safety in addition to harbour areas and shipping.
• Developments, such as aquaculture and offshore renewable energy, must ensure their design, layout and maintenance will not pose risks to the safety of fishers.

4.3.4. General Policy 3: Climate change (Q7)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The prominence given to tackling the global climate crisis and supporting the displacement of fossil-fuel use is welcomed.
• From a place-based perspective, General Policy 3c is exciting and ambitious.
• The Orkney Partnership’s 2030 net zero target should be referenced in the contextual information to this policy.
• There is no reference to the role of marine food production in the transition to more climate friendly sources of human protein.
• The plan should recognise the potential contribution of e-fuels to decarbonisation.
• The supporting text to this policy should refer to greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to carbon emissions.
• The vision, guiding principles, aim and objectives should refer to the twin climate and nature crisis and the plan’s role in addressing this.
• The supporting text to this policy should refer to Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029.
• Additional guidance is required to help decision-makers and applicants understand what is meant by ‘significant weight’ to climate and nature crises and how this will be applied in practice.
• There should be a requirement that proposals for developments or activities must demonstrate how they will help to meet net zero targets.
• Emphasising the climate crisis is welcomed, however, to ensure that developments deliver on the ambitions of this plan, certain criteria should be incorporated to avoid potential greenwashing or bypassing of effects.
• The identification of habitat restoration as a way to help adapt to a changing climate is welcomed.
• This section should also reference underlying processes influencing climate change e.g. Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

4.3.5. General Policy 4: Supporting sustainable social and economic benefits (Q8)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The plan needs to emphasise the importance of securing socio-economic benefits as well as addressing environmental impacts.
• Supporting community wealth building principles is welcomed by many stakeholders.
• The plan needs to be more specific about how community wealth building will be delivered.
• The plan needs to address appropriate early engagement between fishers and developers to ensure sustainable use of the marine area.
• The plan narrative and terminology should move away from the term ‘sustainable economic growth’ as there are increasing concerns regarding whether growth and sustainability are compatible in all cases. It would better align with the aim and objectives of the plan to focus on sustainable development including prosperous and sustainable economies.
• There should be standardised community benefit packages across developments.
• Further guidance is required on how ‘net’ economic benefit will be assessed and determined in decision making.
• This policy should aim to facilitate marine developments which support the local economy, where appropriate, and the creation of skilled and well-paid jobs.
• The supporting text to this policy should reference jobs created indirectly/downstream jobs, e.g. seafood processors.
• The safeguarding of nature will provide social and economic benefits for Orkney through creating jobs in the tourism industry e.g. wildlife watching.

4.3.6. General Policy 5: Safeguarding natural capital and ecosystem services (Q9)

Summary of consultation response issues

• Safeguarding natural capital for future generations should not deprive the current generation benefiting from it in a sustainable way.
• The plan should enforce stricter protections in areas providing critical ecosystem services (e.g. breeding and nursery grounds).
• Potential pressures from fish farming can be exaggerated, often unintentionally, with regulation disproportionate to impacts.
• There are data gaps that will affect the delivery of natural capital and ecosystem service assessments.
• The word ‘should’ in this policy should be replaced with the word ‘must’ or ‘shall’ to strengthen policy implementation by decision makers.
• Bottom trawling damages ecosystem services in many instances, and we don't know what may recover from historic damage unless bottom trawling is banned and the ecosystem is given a chance to recover.

4.3.7. General Policy 6: Water environment (Q10)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) should advise on current River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) monitoring as it may affect the approach of this chapter.
• This policy is an opportunity to highlight responsibilities of public authorities with terrestrial jurisdictions to have regard to downstream consequences on the coastal and marine environment.
• This section focusses too heavily on the RBMP and should cover wider management priorities relating to water quality and benthic impacts.
• This policy could include further spatial planning to protect water quality.
• This policy stating that proposals should be accompanied by ‘sufficient information’ for an assessment on impacts on water quality and the benthic environment is welcome.
• The intended outcome and wording of General Policy 6ii needs to be clearer.

4.3.8. General Policy 7: Coastal development and coastal change (Q11)

Summary of consultation response issues

• It is welcomed that this policy recognises the importance of coastal and marine habitats and species in coastal protection, applying nature-based solutions and permitting managed future coastal change, wherever practicable.
• It would be beneficial to highlight potential cross linkages with this policy area and the role of the Coastal Change Adaptation Plan for Orkney.
• The management of coastal impacts (e.g. coastal flooding in settlements) should be more specifically addressed within the plan.
• This policy will need to be applied proportionately so that implementation does not result in disproportionately expensive requirements on developers.
• The plan should not prohibit the development of hard defence measures required for the safety of coastal communities.
• It is necessary to protect assets from the impacts of climate change, particularly in coastal environments, to ensure that the integrity of wastewater and water assets can remain fully operational.
• The linkages between this section and GP3 Climate Change should be acknowledged.

4.3.9. General Policy 8: Historic environment (Q12)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The inclusion of a specific and detailed policy on the historic environment and the inclusion of a reference to the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland is welcomed.
• A specific policy section on undesignated assets should be considered to ensure that these types of assets are given the same level of focus as designated assets and ensure that they are not undervalued by potential developers and wider stakeholders.
• Suggested that the wording for General Policy 8c on World Heritage Sites (WHS) could be adapted to directly incorporate the wording from the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) WHS policy to better reflect and align with national policy.
• This policy should mention living heritage such as building and maintaining historic boats and the importance of historic piers.
• This plan could consider embedding marine-based socio-cultural heritage within policy e.g. the embodied knowledge, skill and tradition of fishing.
• The context for General Policy 8 focusses almost entirely on physical archaeology and does not address maritime history, culture, people, etc.
• Recommended that the wording for General Policy 8d on Historic Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) should directly incorporate the wording from NPF4.

4.3.10. General Policy 9: Nature (Q13)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The alignment of this policy with NPF4 and the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy is welcomed.
• This policy should highlight the importance of local knowledge in decision making.
• The context for the policy focuses on global issues when it should address local issues.
• In the absence of a biodiversity metric, General Policy 9 should refer to the need to utilise best practice methods.
• The plan should directly address the gaps in the NPF4 Policy 3 concerning the exemptions for aquaculture regarding biodiversity enhancement actions.
• Further guidance required on how significant weight will be applied to nature in decision making.
• Need to update reference to and support to the delivery of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.
• The plan should address how development and activities impact on existing restoration and enhancement projects and how these impacts should be addressed in decision-making.
• The plan should include spatial management for fisheries, especially for fisheries such as dredging that have significant adverse impacts on the environment.
• Care is needed for any restoration and enhancement approaches to ensure it isn’t a waste of effort and resources, and these efforts needs to be mindful of national policy process already ongoing.
• There is a lack of guidance available for the provision of biodiversity enhancement in the marine environment and it is important that the application of this policy is consistent and proportionate given this current limitation.
• Any future guidance on marine restoration and enhancement should be consulted on with members of OMPAG and other relevant stakeholders before being adopted.
• Further monitoring is necessary for initial baseline data in Orkney’s marine environment to inform the policies in the plan; how can developments be deemed sustainable if the local environment baseline data is lacking?
• General Policy 9: Nature should sit alongside General Policy 3: Climate change in the plan to acknowledge the connected nature of these policy issues.
• Support stated for a departure from the National Marine Plan 2015 by giving significant weight to the global nature crisis, bringing the plan into line with NPF4 and the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.
• Policy 9da) is helpful as it specifically applies the mitigation hierarchy to decision making on PMF impacts and may add additional weight to these considerations.

4.3.11. General Policy 9d: Specific policy provisions on how lower magnitude impacts on PMFs should be considered in decision making (Q13a)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The protection of PMFs is a priority, not only for the conservation of biodiversity but for the ecosystem services they provide to local communities.
• A new policy on lower magnitude impacts on PMFs would require significant additional assessment effort in Orkney when compared to other regions, and that this could be a deterrent to development and investment in Orkney.
• The inclusion of specific policy provisions for lower magnitude impacts on PMFs would foster a more comprehensive and forward-thinking approach to marine conservation in Orkney.
• Some policy provisions should be developed to protect PMFs in keeping with the consideration of cumulative impacts.
• The loss of a small amount of a particular PMF should not stop high value projects from proceeding where they are in the general economic or social development interest of Orkney as a whole. However, PMFs should be protected from developments which are for the convenience of an individual or small group of people, for example, installing a waste water to sea outfall rather than building a suitable on shore treatment works for waste water.
• While the intention to include specific policy provisions for lower magnitude impacts on PMFs is commendable, it is crucial to consider the practical implications for marine development.
• Clear evidence-based thresholds would be required to assess the potential impacts of individual developments, without such thresholds a policy could pose significant challenges to developers and decision-makers.
• Statutory agencies welcomed further discussion on a potential policy that will consider how lower magnitude impacts on PMFs should be considered in decision making. These discussions could also be tied in with discussion on possible changes to the NMP policy and/or associated guidance.
• The risk could be that if no policy addresses lower magnitude impacts on PMFs, there will be a clear gap that could result in long-term, unpredicted consequences. Tools, metrics and science are needed to assess lower magnitude impacts on PMFs.
• Lower magnitude impacts on PMFs should be addressed in regional policy as disregarding them would have an extremely detrimental impact on Orkney’s local biodiversity, with significant knock on effects.
• Detailed coverage of regional protection of PMFs would provide much better policy guidance for both the environment and meaningful sustainable development.
• Focusing solely on the national status of PMFs may overlook significant lower magnitude impacts that, while not immediately affecting national populations, could still have considerable consequences at the regional level.
• There should be a presumption against all developments and activities which adversely impact any PMFs.
• Existing measures are in place to ensure that anchorages do not adversely impact vulnerable PMFs; maerl beds are the most important feature in this context in Orkney.

Orkney regional approach to Priority Marine Feature policy

The Orkney regional approach to PMF policy, taken forward in response to Question 13a, is presented in Appendix 2: Orkney regional approach to Priority Marine Feature policy.

4.3.12. General Policy 10: Seascape and landscape (Q14)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The impact of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to seascape and landscape should be identified in the contextual information to General Policy 10.
• Any strategies to minimise or mitigate significant adverse effects on landscape, townscape and seascape should be practical and proportionate to the type of development.
• This policy should not be used to prevent the construction of appropriate sea defences.
• It is important to recognise that there may be conflicts between minimising the visibility of developments, such as seaweed farms and wave farms, and ensuring that they are adequately marked for the safety of mariners, particularly in adverse conditions.

4.3.13. General Policy 11: Surface and underwater noise, and vibration (Q15)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The application of the mitigation hierarchy in relation to noise sensitive species is welcomed.
• Further research should be undertaken to address data gaps on baseline noise levels in Orkney waters and noise related impacts.
• The information on noise needs to be about Orkney and reflect the varying severity of noise impacts.
• It is recommended that the plan includes a requirement for activities that create noise pollution to use proven mitigation measures.
• The plan should refer to acoustic devices as opposed to acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) as there are novel acoustic devices being trialled in aquaculture for medicinal bath treatments.
• ADDs should not be identified as a noise related pressure specifically in relation to aquaculture.
• As there is policy provision for PMFs in General Policy 9, there isn’t a need for a specific policy strand on PMFs in General Policy 11.
• A requirement for the assessment and consideration of electromagnetic field effect should be included in this policy.
• The supporting text to this policy refers to the joint UK Protocol for In-Situ Underwater Measurement of Explosive Ordnance Disposal for unexploded ordnance (UXO), however it does not state that this protocol must be used.
• There should be a requirement for activities that create noise pollution to use proven mitigation measures.

4.3.14. General Policy 12: Marine litter and waste (Q16)

Summary of consultation response issues

• ‘Bag the Bruck’ data should be considered in the context to this policy.
• This policy should address lost, discarded or abandoned fishing gear.
• ‘Bag the Bruck' is a very positive initiative though there is a need to consider how collected litter can be disposed of during the rest of the year.

4.3.15. General Policy 13: Non-native and invasive non-native species (Q17)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The updated Great Britain Invasive Non-native Species Strategy should be referenced in the supporting information to this policy.
• Relevant aspects of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Delivery Plan should be considered for inclusion in the plan.
• Developments or activities that pose a risk of introducing non-native species must be required to produce a comprehensive Bio-Security Plan.
• This plan should ensure that the biosecurity impacts from any marine and terrestrial invasive non-native species are effectively managed.
• There is an underappreciated risk of invasive non-native species being introduced from work vessels which are difficult to clean, such as dredgers and jack-up platforms.

4.3.16. General Policy 14: Amenity, wellbeing and quality of life of local communities (Q18)

Summary of consultation response issues

• This policy is hugely welcomed and necessary, though as recognised in the plan, the associated values are often intangible or difficult to measure, and even unquantifiable.
• Developers across all marine activities will need guidance to help implement this policy.
• This policy should identify provision for an Orkney Islands Marine Region: Amenity, wellbeing and quality of life guidance.
• Sustainable marine developments, not just activities such as recreation, positively contribute to wellbeing and quality of life.
• Sustainable economic development in island communities delivers many socio-economic benefits including improvements to wellbeing and quality of life.
• Protecting communities from consultation fatigue and tickbox engagement is essential.
• This policy has no mention of the direct effects that marine developments have in contributing towards improving quality of life of rural and coastal communities through improvement of infrastructure and amenities within the places they operate.
• Strong and inclusive community and stakeholder engagement is essential for the successful implementation of any management plan.
• Fishing activities in island communities deliver significant socio-economic benefits both directly and indirectly.
• Policy 14 aii regarding the co-creation of mitigation to address impacts on amenity, wellbeing and quality of life of local communities should be reworded to make the meaning clearer.
• This policy forms an important part of the plan, therefore it should not be listed as the last general policy.
• Sailing and rowing make a particular contribution to wellbeing and social cohesion, and developments which improve the facilities and activities of clubs and other local groups should be encouraged.

4.4. Section 3: Sector Policies

4.4.1. Introductory information to the Sector Policies (3.1–3.16) (Q19)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The sector policies should be as Orkney specific as possible and address local priorities.
• It is important to consider cumulative impacts on other developments, activities and infrastructure not just cumulative impacts on nature.
• All sector policies should be considered together to assist decision makers in making difficult decisions about the use of the marine environment.
• “Appropriate mitigation” must only be used when all other options have been explored fully and the adverse impacts agreed to be “unavoidable”.

4.4.2. Sector Policy 1: Commercial fishing (Q20)

Summary of consultation response issues

• This policy should be designed to support and enable the fishing industry to flourish.
• Fishing is significantly at risk from marine economy developments that are planned into the future.
• The plan should include spatial management measures for commercial fishing to address environmental impacts from scallop dredging and bottom trawling on seabed habitats and the ecosystem services they provide.
• There is no justification for continuing to dredge for clams within the Orkney Marine area, which are already fished by divers without damage to the sea.
• The policy is inconsistent with other sector policies and does not include avoidance of negative impacts caused by fishing activities on all other receptors and does not reference where fishing should be avoided or restricted.
• Policy provisions that address significant adverse impacts from commercial fishing activities on other developments, and other economic sectors, should be included in this policy.
• Additional guidance could be provided on nursery, spawning and feeding areas for commercially fished species.
• The current text underplays upstream and downstream jobs created by fishing such as shoreside processors.
• The policy wording could be stronger to protect fishing interests, such as using ‘must’ rather than ‘should’ or ‘have regard to’.
• If fishing is a part of Orkney which we wish to preserve, greater connection of future generations in relation to sustainable fishing may be an opportunity stemming from this plan.
• The recognition of the importance of nursery, spawning and feeding areas for commercially fished species, and associated habitats and species, as well as the recognition of the potential impacts of developments and activities on the wider marine environment is welcomed.
• It would be helpful if this policy set out how the plan can contribute to sustainable management of commercial fisheries in Orkney and address the impact of fishing on habitats and species.
• Areas previously damaged by dredging should be allowed to recover, with dredging and bottom trawling stopped, allowing other more sustainable fishing methods.
• Reference to the Orkney Inshore Fisheries Management Plan is out of date.
• Commercial fishing plays an important role in the Orkney economy and recreational boaters benefit from it through, for example, harbour maintenance and boatyards.
• Best practice use of creel buoys should be promoted as these can pose a hazard to navigation.

4.4.3. Sector Policy 2: Aquaculture (Q21)

Summary of consultation response issues

• Concerns raised about the sustainability of aquaculture including effects on biodiversity, the water environment (chemical pressures) and wild salmonids.
• There is an opportunity for this policy section to mention how salmon farming is a global leader on producing high quality, low carbon protein, and link this to objectives and goals outlined in the Blue Economy Vision, Aquaculture Vision, and National Food Strategy.
• It is welcomed that this policy recognises the importance of nature conservation considerations, the application of the mitigation hierarchy and considering cumulative impacts from development and activities.
• This marine plan should address the effects of specific fish farms in Orkney.
• There is a disproportionate and unjustified focus on potential negative impacts from fish farming.
• The wording in this policy section exaggerates potential cumulative impacts from finfish expansion and does not consider the work done by the sector and regulators in ensuring scale, siting, operations, and design of fish farm developments are appropriately managed to limit cumulative impacts on the marine environment and other users.
• The plan should include policy for decommissioning schemes to be put in place for aquaculture developments.
• The contextual text to this policy should acknowledge that the degree of environmental impact from fish farming depends on the type, scale, location and mitigation associated with a specific fish farming development or activity.
• There are provisions in this policy to safeguard and protect other marine users and infrastructure from aquaculture activities; this policy also needs to include adequate provision to protect aquaculture assets.
• This policy should specifically detail the mitigation hierarchy.
• It is important that new aquaculture technologies are only implemented at scale where they have demonstrated they adhere to all relevant policies.
• There is a presumption that the “baseline” for “sustainable” is the status quo. But what if there are current unsustainable aquaculture farms?
• Similar caveats should be provided for all sectors, particularly recognising the highly regulated nature of fish farming.
• Concerns were raised about proposed increases in the size and biomass of fish farms not resulting in economic benefits within local communities.
• There is a need for independent modelling of fish farm impacts.

4.4.4. Sector Policy 3: Shipping, ports, harbours and ferries (Q22)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The plan policies should address the onshore impacts of port and harbour development e.g. on harbours, housing provision and the local economy.
• Sector Policy 3 i. g should include reference to fallow but consented aquaculture sites.
• This policy does not contain any requirement to consider the Local Development Plan or National Planning Framework unlike aquaculture and pipeline, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure; this needs to be consistent across the sectoral policies.
• It is important that the potential environmental impacts and risks from port and harbour developments are carefully managed to safeguard the marine environment in Orkney.
• The Scapa Flow North and East Coast Safeguarded Area should be more limited in extent and should not include the coastline within the National Scenic Area.
• The recreational anchorages shown on Map 21 should also be included in Sector Policy 3a.
• Map 16 should include the recreational anchorages on Map 21.

4.4.5. Sector Policy 4: Pipeline, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure (Q23)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The marine plan spatial data should include future cable route planning.
• Cables running from Eday to the European Marine Energy Centre test site should be identified in Map 18.
• Sector Policy 4a iii. g should include reference to fallow but consented aquaculture sites.
• A requirement for the assessment and consideration of electromagnetic field effect should be included in this policy.
• Provisions for decommissioning cables and pipelines should be a key consideration in decision making.

4.4.6. Sector Policy 5: Offshore wind, wave and tidal renewable energy generation (Q24)

Summary of consultation response issues

• This policy needs to have localism at its heart to maximise the local social, economic and environmental benefits from hosting renewable energy developments in Orkney waters.
• Local socio-economic benefit policies in the plan should span beyond employment and supply chain opportunities.
• Framing ‘just transition’ in terms of jobs and economic activity falls short, and risks forgoing opportunities for actual just outcomes which could come from renewable energy deployments.
• The plan should include future scenario planning for offshore wind development.
• Concerns were raised that fishers will not be adequately protected through Sectoral Policy 5 a ii and b ii.
• The plan should acknowledge that European Marine Energy Centre are investigating and examining options for a national floating wind test centre in Orkney.
• This policy should reference the need to have regard to impacts on nature, including cumulative impacts, and the need for compensation, where adverse impacts cannot be avoided, minimised, or mitigated.
• Biodiversity enhancement projects should be considered as part of offshore renewable energy developments to maximise biodiversity benefits.
• There is no specific approved methodology or guidance for offshore renewable energy installation impact assessment on commercial fisheries.
• There should be an inclusion for Marine Net Gain in the plan following the UK Strategy for Marine Net Gain.
• This policy focuses on the potential socio-economic benefits and contributions to emissions reduction from renewable energy developments; there are significant benefits to local communities from fish farming development, and in the context of the climate emergency, this should be taken into account in decision making.
• Sectoral Policy 5a ii. g should include reference to fallow but consented aquaculture sites.
• This policy does not contain any requirement to consider the Local Development Plan or National Planning Framework unlike aquaculture and pipeline, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure; this needs to be consistent across the sectoral policies.

4.4.7. Sector Policy 6: Zero carbon fuels, and oil and gas transition (Q25)

Summary of consultation response issues

• Concerns were raised about the phrasing within Sector Policy 6 where it states “Zero carbon fuel”; it should instead state “zero fossil carbon fuels” as the use of e-fuels could be prevented without this correction.
• The ‘just transition’ focus throughout the plan is primarily on jobs and skills; this is an important but restrictive approach to the ‘just transition’.

4.4.8. Sector Policy 7: Tourism, recreation, leisure and sport (Q26)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The plan should set out a strategy for the future development of marine tourism.
• Does this marine plan have a say on cruise liners coming to Orkney, either the ones that already come or about more coming in the future?
• Sector Policy 7a ig of this policy should include reference to fallow but consented aquaculture sites.
• There is a role for place plans to identify recreational and sporting facilities to enable marine recreational activities and tourism.
• Map 21 should include Orkney’s three marinas.
• Sector Policy 7a iii could make it challenging to develop a new private marina if it is not applied in a sensible and proportionate manner.

4.5. Section 4: Monitoring, Evaluation and Review of the Plan

4.5.1. Overall Section 4: Monitoring, Evaluation and Review of the Plan (Q27)

Summary of consultation response issues

• Effective monitoring is crucial to the success of the plan.
• A review of the plan every five years is an acceptable timeframe.
• Integration guidance should be prepared during the plan’s lifetime.
• There should be opportunities for the review and amendment of plan policies in response to changes to wider policy, improvements in the evidence base for Orkney’s marine environment and understanding of the impacts of development.
• The effects of the plan on businesses should be monitored and evaluated.
• There should be an earlier first review of this plan to take account of the adoption and publication of National Marine Plan 2.
• To keep the plan up to date, the maps in the plan should be available online and updates provided as new data becomes available.

4.6. Appendices

4.6.1. Appendix 1: Licensing and Consenting Decisions (Q28)

• Section 36 applications should include reference to the Energy Consents Unit where relevant.

4.6.2. Appendix 2: Relevant Legislation, Plans, Strategies and Policies (Q29)

• The Bute House Agreement is no longer in operation and should not be referred to in the plan.
• Include reference to the Planning Acts, Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture, Scotland's National Food Strategy and associated legislation, Scotland's Economic Strategy and the National Islands Plan.
• Marine Tourism: Giant Strides 2020-25 should be included in Appendix 2.

4.6.3. Appendix 3: National Marine Plan interactive (Q30)

• New data in National Marine Plan interactive (NMPi) needs to be updated more promptly.
• There should be a requirement for industries to upload relevant data into the NMPi.
• Data on NMPi should inform the identification of indicators as part of a monitoring and evaluation process for the plan.

4.6.4. Appendix 4: Natural Capital and Marine Ecosystem Services (Q31)

• Appendix 4 needs to be more specific in terms of ecosystem services that are provided by Orkney’s habitats in order to make it more accessible for developers/users of the plan to know precisely which services are likely to be impacted by certain developments/activities and it would also be useful to signpost to examples of appropriate mitigation.
• There would be merit in detailing and quantifying the ecosystem services in the Orkney marine region.

4.6.5. Appendix 5: Priority Marine Features (Q32)

• It would be very useful to include mapping of these habitats and species, where it is available, and if there are gaps in knowledge these should be addressed.

4.6.6. Appendix 6: Seaweed Harvesting (Q33)

• Hand harvested seaweed is a completely different operation from seaweed aquaculture which is mentioned in Sector Policy 2; this Appendix 6 should be consistent with the wording of Sector Policy 2.
• Seaweed harvesting should not be undertaken to the detriment of bird species that forage and use these ecosystems.
• The assessment for future hand-harvesting and related activities need to be undertaken on a site-specific basis.

4.6.7. Appendix 7: Definition of Key Concepts, Acronyms and Glossary (Q34)

• Improved and more targeted definitions of just transitions and sustainable development would support the plan's action and implementation.
• In the definition of the mitigation hierarchy, the term “offset unavoidable adverse impacts” needs to have further explanation with an emphasis that offsetting is a very last resort.

4.7. Supporting assessments

4.7.1. Strategic Environment Assessment (Q35)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The SEA: Draft Environmental Report is well laid out however would benefit from going into more detail in some areas, as in its current form, it is quite high level and lacks some detail.
• Some of the SEA objectives could be expanded on, reworded, or additional objectives added to better cover certain topics.
• Additional/updated information for various annexes was provided, for example reference to new legislation and strategy documents for Appendix A and an updated Scheduled Monument data for Appendix B.5.
• More detail could be given on mitigation measures in Appendix C3.
• Lack of clarity over how the plan policies will be monitored against the objectives, however it is noted that a separate Monitoring and Evaluation Framework is currently under development.

4.7.2. Children's Rights and Wellbeing Screening Sheet and Impact Assessment (CRWIA) (Q36)

There were no consultation responses requesting updates or changes on the CRWIA within the consultation responses.

4.7.3. Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) (Q37)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The assessment notes that there are five areas in Orkney which are classified as being “fragile”; the areas identified have fish farming activity taking place which is critical in combating these issues and thus sustainable growth of the sector should be supported.
• It was welcomed that the assessment highlights the importance of aquaculture for the island communities.
• The assessment summaries the demographic/economic composition of Orkney generally well. However, to aid in the implementation of General Policy 5, there should be some reviewal of potential inaccuracies within the stated assessment summaries.
• In Table 3b all but employment in wave and tidal is increasing, and not highlighting this paints wave and tidal subsets of marine energy in an inaccurate negative light.
• It would be useful to understand the methodology for producing Table 3b, from the State of the Environment Assessment, as it’s unclear how the conclusions have been drawn.
• The inclusion of the ICIA is welcomed, but is lacking in detail in terms of specific feedback from communities and identification of specific issues relevant to Orkney.
• The recognition of the importance of the energy sector to island communities is welcome but perhaps the importance of the subsea cable network to provide energy requirements for the many island communities on Orkney and supporting potential for renewable energy generation (onshore and marine) could be made clearer.

4.7.4. Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Q38)

There were no consultation responses requesting updates or changes on the EqIA within the consultation responses.

4.7.5. Habitat Regulations Appraisal (HRA) (Q39)

Summary of consultation response issues

• The conclusion in 5.1 of the HRA “that it has been ascertained through this Habitats Regulations Appraisal that the adoption of the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan, alone or in combination, would have no adverse effect on the integrity of any European sites site” is welcomed.
• Coordination with parts of Scottish Government responsible for the offshore wind sectoral plan, National Marine Plan 2, NPF4, and any other process relating to planning for ports and harbours is recommended.
• For this specific Marine Plan, due to the potential changes ahead led by energy transition, we may see adverse impacts occurring from some marine sectors that cannot be mitigated.
• For new large-scale port developments and expansion of existing ports/harbours, changes and/or new proposals/vessel routes have potential to alter the existing distribution of Special Protection Area (SPA) waterbirds, which may be outwith any mitigation solution and/or alternative option, and thus result in Adverse Impact on Site Integrity (AISE).
• Each development/proposal/port and harbour development will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, supported either by existing data and/or new ecological survey work to help gauge level of impacts to European Sites.
• Anchor berths and Ship-to-ship anchor berths, as depicted on map 15, are changes to baseline operational processes that have yet to be assessed through HRA on Protected Areas of European importance.
• Floating turbine technology is developing rapidly. It is too early yet to gauge the likely impacts of this development, until more information is forthcoming.
• The Conservation Objectives (COs) listed for Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) are likely to be out of date and may need to be reviewed.
• The HRA should reflect the issues of AISE and acknowledge derogation (Imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)).
• There are some missing qualifying features for Scapa Flow SPA and North Orkney SPA in Appendix 1.

4.7.6. Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (Q40)

Summary of consultation response issues

• It was welcomed that interviews will be held with business to inform the preparation of final BRIA.
• It was stated in relation to General Policy 1a that development could still be sustainable for various reasons even if it does not conform to the plan and that the policy wording could be overly restrictive.
• There is currently a lack of guidance to support the implementation of General Policy 3 and General Policy 9 which could create uncertainty and additional costs.
• The requirement to take into account the Aquaculture Spatial Guidance may create additional costs for applicants in justifying developments.
• Views were expressed that the plan is skewed towards the protection of some types of existing marine developments and their future expansion such as ports and harbours.
• The summary of potential impacts identified in the BRIA in Table 1 does not include any statement on General Policy 9b which could have significant additional costs in relation to biodiversity enhancement requirements. It should therefore be recognised in this document that there will be costs here but that there is uncertainty as to the extent of measures and therefore costs.

4.7.7. Any other comments or feedback (Q41)

Summary of consultation response issues

• Overall, it is an ambitious and great plan, with substantial work and targeted, comprehensive policies.
• The plan raises issues that a lot of policy and legislation lacks, which is hugely important, and creates great scope to be ambitious, leading and to have genuine positive impact.
• The plan refers to achieving a balance between environmental, social and economic issues, however, in the content presented there is a strong volume of material and sentiment focused upon ecology and archaeology compared to social and economic issues.
• Support expressed for the OIC's role as a delegated authority for delivering a Regional Marine Plan for Orkney.
• Further work is required on spatial planning and the OIRMP should be a first step to create an action plan for further work in the marine environment to protect and enhance habitats and address the biodiversity and climate crises.
• Across all policies, understanding to what extent these are recommendations, or to what extent these can be mandated and ensured will be crucial for local transparency and to understand the impacts of future projects more broadly.
• The draft plan overall is balanced and proportionate and aligns well with the requirements of NPF4.
• The plan is comprehensive and well written, however, the many associated supporting assessments should be screened out as unnecessary, as the associated issues have been assessed under the National Marine Plan.
• There is a lack of recognition of the benefits of fish farming when compared to other sectors such as fishing and renewable energy throughout the draft plan.
• Filling in the consultation response form was quite difficult, and it would be better if oral evidence at a consultation event could have been treated as an adequate and valid response to the consultation.

5. Modifications

5.1. Overview

This section of the report sets out statements of modifications that have been made to the proposals as published in the consultation draft of the Plan. A summary of the key modifications is provided at 5.1.2 and the modifications made to the Plan are identified 5.1.3.

5.2. Summary of modifications

Summary of key modifications to the consultation draft Plan following the public consultation:

• A greater emphasis has been placed on promoting and supporting sustainable development.
• The Plan has been updated to clarify that the Plan does not include policies that directly aim to address the management of fisheries.
• A vision period has been included to 2045.
• The aim of the Plan has been updated to include reference to the twin climate and nature crises.
• Further detail has been provided to help deliver sustainable development including using sound science responsibly, effective community engagement and valuing local knowledge.
• The Plan has been updated to clarify how the policies should be used by public authority decision makers.
• A new objective has been added; Objective 10: Local communities are effectively engaged in decisions affecting the Orkney Islands marine region.

The Plan has been updated to better align with relevant policies and strategies including:

• Scotland’s Blue Economy Vision
• The National Plan for Scotland's Islands.
• Scotland's National Strategy for Economic Transformation.
• Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029.
• Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 and supporting Delivery Plan 2024 to 2030.
• Just transition policy actions.
• Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo).
• Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture.
• Marine Tourism: Giant Strides 2020-25.
• Marine environment: unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance Joint Position Statement.

Further guidance has been identified to support the implementation of specific policies:

• Orkney Islands Marine Region: Supporting sustainable social and economic benefits guidance (to support General Policy 4).
• Orkney Islands Marine Region: Amenity, wellbeing and quality of life guidance (to support General Policy 14).

General Policy 1: Sustainable development, activities and use has been modified to promote effective engagement with local communities and to make provision for local knowledge to inform the design and assessment of development proposals.

The Plan has been modified to align with Orkney Partnership’s target outcomes for sustainable development including support for community wealth building.

The Plan has been modified to align with the Orkney Partnership’s net zero vision.

The Plan has been modified to include reference to the Marine Spatial Planning Addressing Climate Effects (MSPACE) programme.

Reference to the OIC Coastal Change Adaptation Plan has been added to the Plan to support integration between the marine planning and coastal adaptation processes.

A policy provision to support the assessment of potential impacts on non-designated historic environment assets has been included in General Policy 8: Historic Environment.

The Plan has been modified to acknowledge the transformative social and economic benefits offshore renewable energy and harbour developments can deliver for island communities, as well as the need to manage potential adverse onshore impacts on infrastructure and services.

General Policy 1b: Sustainable development principles has been modified to state that impacts on existing infrastructure and services should be addressed as opposed to resolved as part of the consenting process.

General Policy 4: Supporting sustainable social and economic benefits amended to state that opportunities have been considered to maximise the identified socio-economic benefits in the policy.

General Policy 5: Safeguarding natural capital and ecosystem services has been modified to remove reference to ‘disturbance and degradation’ and these terms have been replaced with ‘avoid, minimise and/or mitigate’ in relation to the consideration of impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services.

General Policy 5: Safeguarding natural capital and ecosystem services has been modified to state that it will be implemented by decision makers, ‘where appropriate’.

General Policy 9b modified to replace ‘biodiversity enhancement’ with ‘marine enhancement’ to create scope for broader environmental enhancement to be delivered.

General Policy 9 has been modified to specify the use of best practice methods for proposals to enhance and/or restore the coastal and/or marine environment.

General Policy 9d has been modified to align with the National Marine Plan and to state that proposals for development and/or activities should have regard to the relevant policy provisions in the National Marine Plan regarding Priority Marine Features.

General Policy 11 modified to replace policy provision for Priority Marine Features with policy provisions for European Protected Species.

Policy context to Sector Policy 1: Commercial Fishing modified to acknowledge the contribution of commercial fishing to food security and quality of life for fishers, and that fishing is culturally and historically significant to Orkney communities.

Sector Policy 1: Commercial Fishing modified to provide a standalone policy strand on the consideration of impacts on the cultural importance of fishing in local communities.

Policy context to Sector Policy 2: Aquaculture modified to acknowledge that finfish and shellfish farming make an important contribution towards food production and food security.

Sector Policy 2 modified to state that proposals for development and/or activities should avoid, minimise and/or appropriately mitigate significant adverse impacts on active aquaculture sites.

Additional supporting text has been added to Sector Policy 5: Offshore wind, wave and tidal energy generation stating that the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) is investigating and examining options for a national floating wind test centre located to the west of Orkney.

The Plan has been modified to clarify that the OIC Islands Archaeologist can advise on matters affecting Orkney’s historic environment assets and places.

The plan has been modified to state that General Policy 14: Amenity, wellbeing and quality of life of local communities supports a place-based approach to planning, development and community engagement.

Text added to context section to Sector Policy 1: Commercial fishing on the National Fisheries Management Strategy 2020, alongside reference to Inshore Fisheries Management Improvement (IFMI) Programme.

Text added to context section to Sector Policy 3: Shipping, ports, harbours and ferries to improve alignment with National Transport Strategy 2.

Policy context to Sector Policy 3 modified to acknowledge that the Orkney Harbour Masterplan Phase 1 identifies development proposals for a new pier infrastructure at Hatston and a new deep water quay facility at Deepdale, Scapa Flow, which are national developments identified in NPF4.

Sector Policy 4 and Sector Policy 6 have been modified to clarify that these policies only apply to public authority decision making that falls under devolved competencies.

Marine cables and pipelines added as a consideration under ‘other marine users’ in Sector Policy 3 and Sector Policy 7.

Sector Policy 7b modified to state that proposals for development and/or activities should consider options to avoid, minimise or appropriately mitigate significant adverse impacts on tourism, recreation, leisure and sport uses.

5.3. Modifications to the consultation draft plan

Modifications made to the consultation draft Plan are identified in Table 2. The Plan paragraph references have been updated through the Plan modification process. The paragraph numbers identified in Table 2 are those in the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan (finalised Plan). Where these paragraph references are different to those in the consultation draft Plan, reference to the relevant section or paragraph in the consultation draft Plan is provided.

Table 2 - Modifications to the consultation draft plan

Appendix 1: Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan Consultation Response Form

Section 1: Introduction

• Q1 Do you have any comments on the purpose of the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan (1.1 - 1.4)?
• Q2 Do you have any comments on how to use the Plan policy framework (1.5 to 1.14)?
• Q3 Do you have any comments on vision, guiding principles, aim and objectives (1.15, 1.16 and Table 2)?

Section 2: General Policies

• Q4 Do you have any comments on the introductory information to the General Policies (2.1 – 2.16)?
• Q5 Do you have any comments on General Policy 1: Sustainable development, activities, and use?
• Q6 Do you have any comments on General Policy 2: Safety?
• Q7 Do you have any comments on General Policy 3: Climate change?
• Q8 Do you have any comments on General Policy 4: Supporting sustainable social and economic benefits?
• Q9 Do you have any comments on General Policy 5: Safeguarding natural capital and ecosystem services?
• Q10 Do you have any comments on General Policy 6: Water environment?
• Q11 Do you have any comments on General Policy 7: Coastal development and coastal change?
• Q12 Do you have any comments on General Policy 8: Historic environment?
• Q13 Do you have any comments on General Policy 9: Nature?

Priority Marine Features

Priority Marine Features (PMFs) are species and habitats which have been identified as being of conservation importance to Scotland. PMFs range from flame shell beds in coastal waters to the cold-water coral reefs in deeper seas and mobile species such as minke whale and basking shark. Appendix 5 of the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan identifies the PMFs recorded within the Orkney Islands marine region.

General Policy 9d aims to provide greater clarity on how impacts on PMFs should be assessed and considered in decision making. This includes policy provisions on how impacts on the national status of Priority Marine Features should be considered. The policy does not include specific policy provisions on how lower magnitude impacts on Priority Marine Features, that do not constitute an impact on the national status, should be considered in decision making.

• Q13a Do you think General Policy 9d should include specific policy provisions on how lower magnitude impacts on Priority Marine Features should be considered in decision making?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not sure

Please provide any further information to support your response to Q13a:

• Q14 Do you have any comments on General Policy 10: Seascape and landscape?
• Q15 Do you have any comments on General Policy 11: Surface and underwater noise, and vibration?
• Q16 Do you have any comments on General Policy 12: Marine litter and waste?
• Q17 Do you have any comments on General Policy 13: Non-native and invasive non-native species?
• Q18 Do you have any comments on General Policy 14: Amenity, wellbeing and quality of life of local communities?

Section 3: Sector Policies

• Q19 Do you have any comments on the introductory information to the Sector Policies (3.1 – 3.16)?
• Q20 Do you have any comments on Sector Policy 1: Commercial fishing?
• Q21 Do you have any comments on Sector Policy 2: Aquaculture?
• Q22 Do you have any comments on Sector Policy 3: Shipping, ports, harbours and ferries?
• Q23 Do you have any comments on Sector Policy 4: Pipeline, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure?
• Q24 Do you have any comments on Sector Policy 5: Offshore wind, wave and tidal renewable energy generation?
• Q25 Do you have any comments on Sector Policy 6: Zero carbon fuels, and oil and gas transition?
• Q26 Do you have any comments on Sector Policy 7: Tourism, recreation, leisure and sport?

Section 4: Monitoring, Evaluation and Review of the Plan

• Q27 Do you have any comments on Section 4: Monitoring, Evaluation and Review of the Plan?

Appendices

• Q28 Do you have any comments on Appendix 1: Licensing and Consenting Decisions?
• Q29 Do you have any comments on Appendix 2: Relevant Legislation, Plans, Strategies and Policies?
• Q30: Do you have any comments on Appendix 3: National Marine Plan interactive?
• Q31: Do you have any comments on Appendix 4: Natural Capital and Marine Ecosystem Services?
• Q32 Do you have any comments on Appendix 5: Priority Marine Features?
• Q33 Do you have any comments on Appendix 6: Seaweed Harvesting?
• Q34 Do you have any comments on Appendix 7: Definition of Key Concepts, Acronyms and Glossary?

Supporting Documents

• Q35 Do you have any comments on the Strategic Environment Assessment?
• Q36 Do you have any comments on the Children's Rights and Wellbeing Screening Sheet and Impact Assessment (CRWIA)?
• Q37 Do you have any comments on the Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA)?
• Q38 Do you have any comments on the Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)?
• Q39 Do you have any comments on the Habitat Regulations Appraisal (HRA)?
• Q40 Do you have any comments on the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA)?

Other Comments

• Q41 Do you have any other comments or feedback you would like to provide?

Respondent Information

• Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?
  • Individual
  • Organisation
• Your name
• Organisation, if applicable
• Email address

Please indicate how you wish your response to be handled. If you ask for your response not to be published, we will still take account of your views in our analysis but we will not publish your response, quote anything that you have said or list your name. We will regard your response as confidential, and we will treat it accordingly.

To find out how we handle your personal data, please see our privacy policy. By submitting your consultation response, you agree to our privacy policy.

Orkney Islands Council would like your permission to publish your consultation response. Please indicate your publishing preference. Your email address will never be published.

• Publish response with name
• Publish response only (without name)
• Do not publish response

Information for organisations only

The option ‘Publish response only (without name)’ refers only to your name, not your organisation’s name. If this option is selected, the organisation name will still be published.

If you choose the option ‘Do not publish response’, your organisation name may still be listed as having responded to the consultation.

Do you consent to Orkney Islands Council contacting you again in relation to this consultation exercise? (Required)

• Yes
• No

Appendix 2: Orkney regional approach to Priority Marine Feature policy

Introduction

A2.1 A specific question (Q13a) in the Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan consultation was include on the potential to take forward a regional approach to Priority Marine Feature (PMF) policy in Orkney.

A2.2 Question 13a:

Do you think General Policy 9d should include specific policy provisions on how lower magnitude impacts on Priority Marine Features (i.e. those impacts that do not constitute an impact on the national status) should be considered in decision making?

A2.3 A total of 24 consultees responded to Question 13a. The responses to are provided in Figure 3.

IMAGE: Figure 3 is a bar chart titled “Responses to Q13a”. It records 2 “No” responses, 5 “Not sure” responses and 15 “Yes” responses, for a total of 22 displayed responses.

Figure 3 - Responses to Question 13a

Overview and analysis of stakeholder views captured in response to Q13a

A2.4 Summary of views captured:

• Significant support was expressed for taking forward a policy to address lower magnitude impacts on PMFs i.e. impacts that are significant at a regional scale.
• Whilst there were a significant number of stakeholders that supported a policy on lower magnitude impacts on PMFs, there were also significant concerns that such a policy could slow decision making and significantly increase costs for developers in Orkney.
• Concerns were raised that additional assessment effort would be required in Orkney when compared to other regions, and that this could become a deterrent to development and investment.
• Views were expressed that it would not be appropriate to include a specific policy on lower magnitude impacts on PMFs in a regional marine plan, prior to the current national policy framework for PMFs being reviewed and consulted on as part of National Marine Plan 2.
• Many stakeholders expressed views that if this policy went ahead, it would need to be supported by guidance and tools to enable effective decision making.
• Views were expressed that any new policy on PMFs would need to be supported by an extensive and robust evidence base on habitat/species-specific sensitivity and potential effects from development and activities.

Orkney regional approach to Priority Marine Feature policy

A2.5 Significant consideration has been given to the broad spectrum of views capture in response to Question 13a and the wider policy context. In light of this, it is considered appropriate that General Policy 9d within the consultation draft plan is retained, with a minor modification, and that a policy on lower magnitude/regionally significant impacts on PMFs should not be taken forward at this stage due to the following considerations:

• There is a need for clarity on PMF protections in NMP2 and the potential role of regional marine plans for establishing policy on these matters.
• An Orkney regional PMF policy could create regional disparities in environmental protection which could become a deterrent for investment and development in Orkney and incur significant associated costs for innovation projects and wider development.

A2.6 It is recognised that the consultation demonstrated significant support from stakeholders to take forward a policy to address lower magnitude impacts on PMFs. However, as significant adverse economic and development related impacts have been identified through the consultation, it is not considered appropriate to take forward a regional PMF policy in Orkney at this stage.

A2.7 OIC Marine Planning will continue to engage with the preparation of NMP2 and will consider the implications for PMF policy in Orkney following the adoption of NMP2.

© Crown copyright 2026

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at www.gov.scot

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at:

The Scottish Government
St Andrew’s House
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG

ISBN: 978-1-80643-755-9 (web only)

Published by The Scottish Government, February 2026

Produced for The Scottish Government by APS Group Scotland, 21 Tennant Street, Edinburgh EH6 5NA

PPDAS1699426 (02/26)

www.gov.scot