Marinemarch2017

Marine Planning on the East Grampian Coast Workshop results 14th March 2017, Woodhill House, Aberdeen

Event supported by Marine Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council

Marine Planning on the East Grampian Coast Workshop results 1 Introduction 1.1 On the 14 th of March 2017 EGCP LTD held a workshop at Woodhill House, Aberdeen, to examine progress in delivering Marine Spatial Planning in Scotland.

1.2 In the morning session presentations were given covering the following topics.

Marine Planning in Scotland Wendy Geary – Marine Scotland Statutory Marine Planning on the Clyde Fiona Mills – Clyde Marine Planning Partnership Using Marine Scotland NMPi for National and Regional Planning Martyn Cox – Marine Scotland

1.3 In the afternoon delegates split into four groups to discuss the four questions detailed in section 2 below. A note taker recorded the discussions.

These notes have been analysed and the results are also presented in Section 2.

2 Workshop Outcomes 2.1 Question 1: What does a planner need to make an informed decision?

2.1.1 The aim of this question was to promote discussion about the data requirements of a Marine Planner who is aiding the development of a Marine Spatial Plan.

2.1.2 This led to a discussion about the role of a Marine Planner and their skills set.

An understanding of the Marine Environment combined with a wide ranging skill set was noted. It was also thought that this was a role that someone was likely to move into rather than someone’s defined career path.

2.1.3 In terms of data requirements, the following points where highlighted • • • • • • •

Land based sources of pollution Where conflicts exist Existing activities in a given area Landscape/ seascape Character Habitats Restrictions and opportunities Physical infrastructure on the coast

• • • • • • •

Economic data Ecosystem services vs livelihoods Value of tourism Sense of place Aesthetics Fisheries data Existing and planned structures

2.1.4 In addition, it was felt that there is need for an understanding of relevant policy data, including: • • •

A State of the Coast Report / Strategic Assessment Shoreline Management Plan (coastal cell units) Local Development Plans

2.1.5 It was also noted that the Marine and coastal environment is very complex, and operates in four dimensions as things change rapidly over time as well as at a range of heights and depths.

2.1.6 Another issue raised was the sources of the information. It was felt that developers could be a source of data as they gather evidence to support planning applications etc

2.2 Question 2: How should the information be presented?

2.2.1 The need for a centralised tool that kept ensured consistently across Scotland/UK was noted as being necessary. It was also felt that there was a strong need to keep this tool updated as the marine environment is very dynamic. It was recognised that this would take a great deal of resources.

2.2.2 Overall a GIS based system was favoured.

2.3 Question 3: Who should represent sectors?

2.3.1 The aim of this question was to promote the groups to explore the likely makeup of a partnership that aims to deliver Marine Planning in the North East of Scotland.

2.3.2 The following sectors were identified as requiring representation: • • • • •

Different members of the terrestrial planning team in the local authority Inshore Fisheries Groups to represent the fishing industry A representative of ports harbours and shipping (lifeline ferry route, commercial, recreational and RYA) Oil and Gas – Oil and Gas UK? Renewables – Scottish Renewables?

• • • • •

Tourism – Visit Scotland ?

Recreation (different to tourism) Local community councils and planning partnerships Protection and enhancement (SNH, SEPA, LA, Historic Environment Scotland, NGOs) North Sea Decommissioning

2.3.3 It was felt that the board of the partnership should be as inclusive as possible but a number of questions were raised about this. For example, should the representative of a local authority be the councillor or an officer? Should representatives of sectors be local to the area or a national representatives?

2.3.4 It was suggested that sectors should select their own representative but that a good consultation mechanism is key – as long as information is disseminated properly and effectively, the representation is not as important.

2.3.5 Is length of service on the board an issue? For example should representatives be changed every 4 years?

2.3.6 A further discussion of corporate governance was held however it was clear that a great deal of additional work would be needed on this issue.

2.4 Question 4: What task should be done now to aid in the future delivery of Regional Marine Planning and by who?

2.4.1 The aim of this question was to identify tasks that can be done between now and the start of Regional Marine Planning in the North East of Scotland.

2.4.2 The first suggestion that was made (by two of the groups) was to create a definitive list of stakeholders and to build relationships with them sooner rather than later. This is a key job for EGCP and builds on work done in developing the Sectoral Interactions Matrix.

2.4.3 All groups identified the need for EGCP to take a proactive role in developing a Strategic Assessment. In order to do this EGCP would start by reviewing the Clyde and Shetland Assessments and the State of the East Grampian Coast Report 2009.

It would use lessons learned from these pieces of work and begin to seek views on how the North East Of Scotland Strategic Assessment could be developed. Once this review is complete work should then start on the Draft Assessment ready for the beginning of Marine Planning.

2.4.4 Another issue that was raised was that of the future funding of EGCP and the need for it to expand its links to the local community and key stakeholders. It was also suggested that EGCP needs to expand from one part time employee.

2.4.5 The lack of clarity over timing of Regional Marine Planning in the North East was seen as an issue with calls for a clear timetable from Marine Scotland.

2.4.6 Partnership involvement in the next stage of the Water Framework Directive implementation was also raised. It is expected that the next stage will give a greater prominence to coastal issues.

2.4.7 Filling data gaps is another issue with data on marine litter and debris being an example. Opportunities for citizen science projects to gather data were suggested.

However, ensuring the compatibility and consistency of data was seen as key.

2.4.8 It was also suggested that NESBReC , the North East Scotland Biological Records Centre, would be able to help with data handling. Additionally, the use of students and interns was raised as an opportunity.

2.4.9 It was also suggested that EGCP should review its 2006 Marine Spatial Planning Report.

3 Conclusion 3.1 It is clear that a great deal of work is needed to prepare for Regional Marine Planning in the East Grampian Region. EGCP will now propose a work programme and set out a clear vision of what is needed and how it should be delivered.

3.2 EGCP would like to thank all those how helped and took part in the day. We would especially like to thank Aberdeenshire Council for the use of Woodhill House and Wendy, Fiona and Martyn for their excellent presentations.

Appendix 1 - Delegate List First Name Debra AnneMarie Donna Bruce Tom Danielle John Stuart Gillian Belinda Glenn Derek Stewart Kelly Ann Fiona Ian Graham Wendy Martyn Rose Mike Iain Amanda Rhona Kenny Chris Susan Laura Paris Joel Charity Nathalie Laura Cora Matt Mofi Loise Crawford Tavis David

Last Name

Organisation

Munro Gauld

Aberdeen City Council Aberdeen City Council

Laing Mann Walsh McKinlay Cox Murison Owen Miller Roberts McDonald Roberts Dempsey Mills Hay Humphries Geary Cox Toney Skitmore Laidlaw Biggins Fairgrieve Coull Leakey Lawrence Booth Crawford Evans Alesi Chun Dziadek Jebel Murray Olawumi Robertson Paris Potts Green

Aberdeen City Council Aberdeenshire Council Aberdeenshire Council Aberdeenshire Council Aberdeenshire Council Aberdeenshire Council Aberdeenshire Council Aberdeenshire Council Aberdeenshire Council Aberdeenshire Council Angus Council Angus Council Clyde Marine Planning Partnership EGCP KIMO Marine Scotland Marine Scotland NESLBAP Peterhead Port Authority Peterhead Port Authority RSPB Scottish Coastal Forum SFF SNH SNH Tay Estuary Forum University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen

Appendix 2 Workshop notes 1 What Information Yellow Integration between marine and land based resources Relevant policy data Integrated system that shows what is happening in relation to the plan Existing plans What are the unknowns This data is constantly evolving, re integrate this to keep it updated Pink Where conflicts exist Existing economic/non economic activities in a given area Temporal planning as well as spatial Existing construction/planning in the works Political resolutions MSP is VERY spatially specific – Different activities in different areas + different conflicts Interpretations of plans, who is using when – where can differ from what a plan or a map suggests Should onus be on developer for specific data sets/ information in specific areas of development interests Need to clarify the advice available – who are the experts on certain fields and who has the final say?

Marine planners for marine space, coastal space + terrestrial – specific posts for each?

Process is not just about consenting activities, but also managing a variety of view points

Green Who is a marine planner?

Skill set?

Understanding marine environment Mix of skills – governance etc

What someone adapts into, not starts with Who will they represent?

• • • • • • • • • • • •

State of the coast report land based sources of pollution Shoreline management plan (coastal cell units) Physical infrastructure on the coast From all user perspectives Economic data Ecosystem services vs lively hoods Value of tourism Sense of place Aesthetics Fisheries data Need to gather new recreational activities data to fill in the data gaps

Complexity of Marine Environment – multidimensional, changeable Major issues of time and manpower allocated to analyse such data.

Refer to local development plans – reduce conflicts Roll of future developments – floating turbines.

Red Difficult to answer Need to know what questions are being addressed What info will/should developers provide? What gaps will there be.

In house expertise required to know what info to ask for. In house expertise not always available Baseline info

- special qualities of am area and sensitivities# -

Landscape/ seascape Habitats Character Restrictions and opportunities

Data needs to be consistent across regions and across Scotland/uk Central tool is good Refer back to original data sets Seeing marine and terrestrial data sets side by side eg windfarms, bird sites, characteristics maps

Yellow

2 Presentation and sources of information Digital information Information from environmental agencies such as EIA More GiS data and better interpretation Session 2 Who should represent sectors Yellow Different members of the terrestrial planners in the local authority IFG to represent the fishing industry A representative of ports harbours and shipping (lifeline ferry route, commercial, recreational and environmental, community interest RYA Remember Oil and Gas – oil and gas UK Renewables – Scottish renewables Tourism – Visit Scotland Local community councils and planning partnerships Pink 3 Main categories Be aware of ES categories – Protection and enhancement (SNH, SEPA, LA, Historic Environment Scotland, NGOs Oil and Gas representation – Huge player Links to ports/ arbour, decommissioning People are concerned about not having a meaningful say Terrestrial planning committee model may not be the best Consultation mechanism is key – so long as information is disseminated properly and effectively, the representation matters less Have a core group of decision makers – but also optional representation Number on board should be as inclusive as possible Need a review mechanism for members of board -in the event of major change/events Finding the right person to to represent a sector can be challenging Should an industry be represented by a LA rep? Maybe not as they may not have a direct experience.

A sub group representation system that informs overall decision making process Open meetings for everyone involved in a sector to have a voice Sectors – Fishing. O and G, natural environment, historic environment, recreation (different to tourism), port/harbour, renewables, shipping Need to keep sectors simple and generic but show consideration for all subgroups Each sector should choose its own representative

Green All those with a legitimate interest (eg ports, LA, SNH, SEPA etc) Issue with the use of Local vs national reps Do funding partners have more say?

Interests vs contributors Should it be Officers or politicians Corporate structure needs to be established – need to look at other partnership types: functions: how do they work?

Need to consider length of service, should representatives be changed every 4 years?

Structure > operational forum > board of directors > advisory group Recreational and Tourism are different and need different reps Timing of meeting is an issue > evening better for community but not officers *issue of bridging administration between the sectors Red Even within sectors there is still a be a wide range of sectors to engage What will work best for the region?

No limits to engagement for plan making but who controls/ drivers process is more difficult to determine.

Elected members are an option – need to understand how constituents make representation (Scottish Ministers adopt the plan) Partnership is not an elected representative Need to have visibility for future plan intentions

Representatives need to represent their organisations within their organisation, so type person who who is known and can act as a conduit is crucial

How many Yellow Depends on the interest represented and how they should to work together as well as the model A core group of decision makers + sub groups Board > technical experts: advisory Needs an independent/neutral chair Depends on the internal arrangements of the organisation and partnership

Task to be done now and how?

Yellow Identify stakeholders Begin regional assessment work, how to go about it Flag up potential gaps and start addressing them Identify environmental concerns and conflicts – local knowledge Strategic information on how to operationalize the integration between land and marine resource management and planning Look at common areas between local development plans and marine plans: talk to community groups Try to demonstrate proof of concepts that can be adopted in marine planning Next step of water framework directive aims to address coastal issues. Potential partnership interest?

Pink Create a definitive list of stakeholders – contact, find out what data they have, what they can bring + want to contribute – BUILD RELATIONSHIPS NOW Review existing Clyde/Shetland assessments and there applicability to the EG region.

Ask advice from the stakeholder list on what assessments need to take place.

Who will conduct the first steps? coastal partnership?

EGCP needs to strengthen its bas of stakeholders/involvement

What will happen to this feedback?

IS 2021 the ideal goal or do we wait for the clyde to finish first?

Ask for a definitive time table – for securing funding in the event of major cuts What exact projects need to be taken forward? This will help gain MS funding NESBREC – collating and lesioning of all available data from all stakeholders NMPi not necessarily best practice for regional specific data sets

Green Refresh/review State of the Coast report > circulate amongst partners for review asking what is missing? What needs updating? Is it correct?

Decommissioning of manmade structure assessment Look at other partnership assessments Strategic assessment should be a review ie where do we currently stand?

Fulfilling the requirements of Marine Scotland: Addressing lack of Data eg marine litter and debris Draw upon student resources – internships and dissertations Needs potential funding from marine Scotland Partnership needs to grow so not relaying on one person Q How should partners interact/update/contribute to EGCP documents?

Facilitation and networking is a key function of EGCP Develop marine planner and stakeholder relationships Red Focus on understanding assessment done by CMPP and Shetland Ensure consistency between existing data sets (AC and ACC) Review 2006 doc EGCP to obtain clarity on its future necessity, role etc and find out what current stakeholders currently need What can be done to improve the present situation?

Yellow Key stakeholders record and analyse data in a useful format Data gathering

Support local coastal partnerships Pink Find local data- use local members of national organisation to get particularly hard to reach data Reporting data matrix/mechanism/protocol for marine space data (divers etc) Citizen science from divers, coastal walkers reporting Universal reporting mechanism for different data sets Feedback system to develop the guide/protocol and expand from local divers up to fishermen How should we get around confidential data from commercial users.