 Felly, wrth gwrs, a chyfnodd, i'n gweithio i'r 33rth ac yn y gweithio ym 2014 yng nghymru clywethaf Cymru yn y bydd y bydd yn ddod i'r ymddangos i'r 1st adym yma, a'r cyfnodd gweithio'r cyfnodd mewn ddysgu o'r ffóon yn ymddangos i'r cyfnodd ymddangos, ond mae'n ddod i'r cyfnodd I welcome Nigel Don to the committee for this item, and we'd appreciate hearing from him first as one of the constituency members involved. Thank you, convener, and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to do this. The only unfamiliar part about this is that I'm the wrong side of the table, but it's good to see you all again. This relates to salmon fishing by all methods, and as members will be very well aware, there are many anglers in my constituency, but there's also a significant salmon netting operation. Members will also have seen that there's a great deal of correspondence about this. I really just want to pick out what I think is the most important issue from that, and I think it can be reduced to a very small number of words. Insofar as closed time affects those who fish, it seems to me that there's a slight difference between the netsmen and those who have an angling interest. There is an opportunity for anglers to carry on fishing and to put the fish back into the water. There is therefore some economic activity and benefit within the angling community. On the other hand, if you're not allowed to take a fish out of the water, that's when you can do precisely nothing. There is an economic opportunity for those with an angling interest. There is zero economic interest for those with a netting interest. All they have is their costs. There's also a proportionality issue in there, simply because if anglers can take fish and put them back, then there is a recognition that some of those fish will die whether they've been injured or simply exhausted in the process. I don't know what the mortality is, I think I've seen a figure of 18 per cent, but I have no idea how robust that number is, but nonetheless there will be some. Again, there's a certain inequity that the netsmen who, admittedly, are going to kill every fish they take can take precisely none, whereas the angling community can necessarily kill some. So there's an equity issue in here somewhere. Now, all I would want to put to the committee is that, in your response to the Government at some point, could you please make those points and, as a consequence of them, make the point that to the netsmen, wherever they might be and they're not all in my constituency of course, there is no income whatsoever derived from a point where they cannot catch. But there are, of course, fixed costs, as there are to absolutely every business, indeed most businesses. All costs are fixed for a short period of time, which is what we're talking about. Therefore, that takes us straight to the issue of compensation. I think there is a recognition that no compensation need necessarily legally be paid. I'm not sure that's the position but that seems to be the implication, I think, to the businessmen in my community. I would simply want to ask you, could you bring to the Government's attention that some compensation might well be entirely appropriate? Quantum of that's not easy to come by but it looks like the figure of about £10,000 a month is consistent with what's happened before in terms of compensation from the S-board to the netsmen. That would appear to be the right kind of number. I'm sure that the accountants can talk about that. That's really what I wanted to bring to the committee. Could you please take to the Government the point about equity and the appropriateness, I think, of some compensation? Thank you for that. Graham Dey? Yeah, thanks, convener. I have sympathy in principle with any business that's ability to generate incomes being impacted upon by legislation. The fact is that this SSI has been introduced for sound reasons and there's an argument that says that not only have the netting interests brought this on themselves, it may well provide a future for their businesses which might not be there otherwise. Some boards have been paying netsmen not to work during the spring run. In the case of the South-Esc, for example, I think it was £18,000 last year and the year before. Yet it's the SNFA netsmen who walked away from that voluntary arrangement, presumably because it was more lucrative for them to be active during the period than not. However, that might impact upon a diminishing asset. In submissions made to the committee, we read claims about mortality rates from catch and release, and Nigel Donnell referred to those, but if we take 2013 as an example and again the South-Esc, the registers figures show that 7,159 fish were killed by netsmen. While 522 were caught by rod, 77 per cent of those were released. Even if every released fish died, we're still talking about fractions compared to the netting take. I think that the need for this measure before us is supported by the netting returns. On the South-Esc, after 7,159 fish were taken in the nets in 2013, it was just 5,210 this year, which, if you accept those figures to be accurate, to me suggests that the fish are growing scarcer and scarcer. On responding to what some might see as a growing crisis, I understand the S-District Board, for example, which covers a number of rivers in Nigel Donsey and one in mine. They've written out to Anglos asking them not to kill fish right up until June 15 this year, so they are responding to the issue, I would suggest. On the one hand, we have the rod guys who catch and release and, hopefully adherence to this sort of request, they are taking steps to conserve and the netsmen seem to intend on stepping up their efforts to catch compared to previous years. I would suggest that there is an argument for some degree of compensation, I accept that, but there is a far stronger argument for passing the SSI in the long-term interests of Anglos and the netsmen. Are there other members who wish to say anything at the moment? Certainly. Two words to Graham Day's last sentence, which is, and salmon. I say that because I think that the root of this entire issue is the conservation of a species and while I can understand to a degree where Nigel Donne is coming from and if I was a netsman I would probably feel quite hard done by, although I also accept Graham Day's point that they have initiated in a way this action. I think that we need to focus on the fact that conservation of salmon is at the basis of this measure, not particularly favouring one sector or another or one stakeholder or another. Dave Thompson? Thank you, convener. Yes, I've listened with interest to what both Nigel and Graham have said and, indeed, Alex. I think that when you're looking at a subject like this, equity, as Nigel says, has got to come into this and netting for salmon around the Scottish coast has been going on for centuries. And if you're going to deprive people basically of their livelihood or even part of their livelihood, I think it is sensible and decent to consider some kind of compensation or buy out or however it's done, you know, because otherwise it's unfair and it's wrong. I'm pretty sure that the Government will listen to that. I certainly hope so. The second point that I would like to make is that, if the figures that Graham Day, if the 7,000 fish are not caught, all of those fish then swim up the river, who benefits from that? People further up the river, obviously, riparian owners and others. So there's a massive benefit to folk and I think that needs to be taken into consideration as well in the longer term. I know that there's the fisheries review and so on. And having access to those 7,000 fish, only 500 I think you said were being caught with the rod and line at the moment, there's lots more going up there. We need to look at issues around wider access to fishing. If we're going to be taking away somebody's livelihood, allowing the fish to go up, someone else benefits, well let's get some public benefit out of it as well. Those are just very general comments from me. I'm not putting forward any specific details as to how I think that these things should be dealt with in detail, but I think as broad principles we should be looking at that. Claudia Beamish. Thank you convener. I just wanted to highlight a figure that was given to me by the Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards, which is that in terms of provisional data for 2013, that would indicate that the overall voluntary catch and release rate for salmon was 92 per cent for spring salmon Scotland-wide and I just wanted to put that figure into the public domain. But I do think that it is an equity issue and I do think that there may well be arguments for compensation and I think that these are things that we should be considering along with all the other very complex issues that are going to come before us in the review, but in the meantime I would be supportive of this measure going through. I have as a constituent James Mackay of Armadale Fisheries. He's also the chair of the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland. He has given us useful evidence in the past of the co-operation, which the Netsman and the North Coast have given to scientific understanding of the movement of salmon. It was germane to our discussions during the aquaculture bill. He suggested that the rights of Netsmen, which are heritable, are something that has to be treated fairly and to echo what Dave Thompson has said, the questions about compensation must be taken on board by the Government if any interference in this comes along. I point out that, in the Wild Fisheries review, a licensing system for fishing on rivers for angling is one of the main proposals. There will be a stricter view taken of the way in which angling is conducted and organised and maintained. From the point of view of reciprocity and the need for fair treatment of people, we have to make sure that the Government takes on board those things. However, given that there is talk of a meeting between the Government and the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland early in the new year, I would hope that that would allow a clearer view of the situation for the salmon netters to be achieved. However, we know also that the Government is talking of consulting on measures that would licence the killing of wild salmon and an associated carcass tagging regime. That being said, this order would deal with the immediate threat to the spring run of salmon, but in the follow-on from that would allow for a fairer understanding of how Netsmen should be treated and how rivers should be organised. In that sense, from my point of view, I want to make sure that the Netsmen do not lose out on that at the expense of any other fishery. I entirely agree with you and I particularly agree with Dave Thompson. I think that there have to be principles applied here. Some of those principles include the right to livelihood as opposed to undertake leisure activities, which I think is fairly fundamental and is an environmental issue. It is considered worldwide, if you look at the rights called in other places, rights of native communities. I think that there is an issue of depriving of livelihood, which should, if it is an action by the state, for conservation means, lead to compensation. I do not think that there is any doubt about that, but it just depends on the level of loss incurred. The total loss of livelihood would obviously require compensation—a smaller loss of livelihood, at least there could be questions about it. I think that there must also be a clarity about what objectives are. If the objective is to sustain a species that is in grave danger and if that objective is not being adequately met, further actions will be required. It is sometimes better to go further than you might go than to do it bit by bit. If I were a salmon netsman, I would be very concerned that, year in, year out, there are new threats to my livelihood and some salmon fishing stations closing down year on year. Therefore, I think that there needs to be a clarity about what the long-term future of earning a livelihood as a salmon netsman is. I think that we owe it to them to look at that squarely in the face and for a decision to be reached. Members have spoken. We are obviously the rural affairs climate change and environment committee, and climate change and environment are very much at the heart of the threat to this particular species, which we must take very seriously. Since there is no motion to annul, I guess the answer is that the ministers will have a very clear sight of the committee's views from the official report as this debate has taken place and that we should therefore move to the point of saying that we agree to make no recommendations in relation to the instrument. Do you agree? I mean, are we able to ensure that ministers do take a look at the official report of this discussion? We can write them and remind them that the official report is a very airy and airy discussion on this matter. Indeed, I would assume that ministers are quite keen to do so, given their wish to have an early meeting with the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland early in the new year. We move to agenda items related to a number of SSIs. The third item today is to consider nine negative instruments that are set out in the paper. Members should note that no motion to annul has been received in relation to these instruments. I refer members to the papers. If there are any comments about any one of these items, perhaps you could indicate that just now, because I tend to move towards dealing with them on block. Let's take whatever comes up, Mike Russell. I don't want to say the committee doing it on block. I simply want to make a point about the plant health import inspection fees Scotland regulations 2014. Little, if any, attention in this SSI seems to have been paid to the rights and needs of those who are actually producing the plants and going through the list, then clearly there are those who are doing so who are undertaking activities such as fair trade activities. I hope that, at least, there is some consideration given to the impact of the fees upon those who perhaps need some help and might not get it as a result of a blanket list of fees applied like this. It's not a matter of annulment, but I hope that, if ministers are considering and reading this report, they will also consider the impact on others of regulations of this nature. Are you suggesting that we write to them? It would be useful just to draw attention to the fact that it might be helpful in any covering documentation, if such a SSI comes forward, that some consideration is given to wider issues such as the needs of those who are growing. Graham Day? I just absolutely endorse that. I think that we should write particularly in relation to the fair trade aspect, because we have taken a strong position on that as a Government, as in a country, and we want to be reassured that these sort of things are considered when we're drafting SSIs of this nature. OK, we're agreed that we're going to write on the plant health SSI. We have a list of those SSIs, which I think I should put in the record, and they're all SSI 2014. So, number 316, number 317, number 319, number 320, number 321, 323, 324, 325 and 338. Are we agreed that we wish to make no comments on these other than the one that we've just done, and therefore we wish to pass them? Thank you very much. So, we move on to the national marine plan agenda item 4, and we have some witnesses to speak to here. Our panel today includes David Palmer, the deputy director of marine planning and policy, Anna Donalds, the head of marine planning and strategy team and Amanda Chisholm, strategic environmental assessment specialist for the Scottish Government. Welcome to you all panel just now. We intend to move straight to some questions, but the first one is, do you think so? Right, well we're trying to get to the nub of this matter given that this is an introductory section, so if you have a short statement for us it may inform our questions. I did have a statement, but I will cut it back to effectively the final couple of lines. It makes me a long process in some respects, and that's what the statement was about filling in the gaps in the previous history. I think that my final point was that I would like to pay tribute to everyone who has taken the time and made the effort to engage in the marine planning process through all the various consultations that we've had, and in particular to pay tribute to Anna Donald and our team who have worked exceptionally hard to deliver what I think is an impressive first for Scotland. Thank you very much. On the basis of that, Mike Russell has a question. Yes, I don't need any doubt that it is an impressive document. I just want to ask a very simple question. Let me put it in two different ways. The simplest way to put it is, you've drafted this. Who are you writing it for? We know why you're writing it, but I don't entirely show who you're writing it for. Or, if I may put it slightly more flippantly, what circumstances would somebody say to themselves, ah, I must reach for the national marine plan? I think that there's a range of audiences, but its most direct application is in informing decision making. It's a framework for decision making. Public authorities who make decisions, authorisation on enforcement decisions or any other decision which affects the marine environment must do it in accordance with the plan. So, at a point where they are looking at an application for a marine licence or for a lease under the crown estate as it currently stands, they need to be assured that they are carrying forward that function in accordance with the national marine plan. That's its most direct application. As you'll be aware, we're also moving from the national planning framework into the establishment of regional marine plans, so there's an intention for there to be 11 marine regions around the coasts and islands, and those plans which they develop on a local basis obviously pick up local issues, but they must also be done in the framework of the national marine plan. That's its most direct application. I think that it also has a broader audience in terms of emphasising the importance of a lot of the issues and highlighting the need for environmental protection alongside supporting economic growth of existing and emerging industries. So, there's a kind of promotional aspect to it as well, if you like. One of the concerns that I think all of us hear quite often, and indeed we received it in evidence just two weeks ago in another set of second sentences, is that whilst there is a clarity, you know, nobody could deny the clarity, for example, in this document, by the time that has gone through interpretation in local authorities, let alone the iteration of 11 regional plans, there is a sort of cloudiness, that will have entered into it, which will all be to do with interpretation by one official or another, and the clarity of what you're seeking to achieve, ministers are seeking to achieve, the government seeking to achieve, will be diluted very substantially. Would there be a case for there being less being more in these circumstances, to have something that is much, much shorter and simpler, and to make sure that that is replicated on a local basis so that there could be no lack of clarity about what should happen? Because I do think, and I will come on later when I ask you about cables, but I do think that there's a situation that could develop where problems will be created by the more words there are, the more interpretations there can be. I think that there's again several aspects to that. One is, I think that there's always more we can do to clarify and have information around the plan, which makes it clear about how it should be applied in practice. However, we're starting from a point at the moment where we don't have a planning system, so to me the fact that we're bringing in this new marine planning system is a step forward to give some of that clarity. Another thing to bear in mind is that the regional plans will be adopted by Scottish ministers, although they're developed by a local partnership, so there's a kind of checking process there whereby ministers will want to reassure themselves that things haven't moved too far away from the framework that was set up. The other aspect that's worth bearing in mind is that marine licensing primarily will continue to be done at the national level through the Marine Scotland licensing and operations team, who will work very closely to the plan and licensing guidance that accompanies it as well. I think that we need to come back to the first part of your question. One of the purposes of the document is for any developer doing the earth in the marine area. We would hope that their initial reach would be towards this document to pick up and read it and start to understand the sorts of considerations that they ought to take into account. I think that in terms of the wider question, the document is to some extent always has to be written to catch the unexpected, to allow you to catch the unexpected in some sense. If you want to put it this way, the kind of good developer who picks up the document comes and has a conversation with you, in many respects isn't the problem. It's the people who maybe are at the ends of that spectrum that are a problem, and that's how it has to be drafted in order to pick that up. To some extent that also precedes the cables conversation that we might come to. I suspect that clarity is always a worthy goal, but in this instance what we are trying to do is cover a very wide range of bases and allow or encourage that conversation between the licensing team and Aberdeen and the developer, because quite often, while the developer might have a good idea, that first good idea might not be possible. In conversation with the licensing team, you might be able to develop it in various ways or give them suggestions that enable the developer to do it in various ways. That might make it possible. I suppose that you might be saying that if land use planning had been approached in this way as a starter document that we might have had a better system than we do at the present time, but it's obviously a work in progress on the basis of the need to have a marine plan. With that in mind, I think that we better move to some of the specifics that cabling has been mentioned. We could deal with some of those matters just as a follow-on from that. Graham Day and Mike Russell want to talk about that. We took evidence of the committee from oil and gas sectors some months ago about concerns that they had in relation to the fixing of pipelines on the seabed, specifically what they told us was that, for safety reasons, they secure the pipelines using large rocks, which may not occur naturally in those areas of the seabed. I think that the original suggestion was that you couldn't have those rocks there. That was the concern that they expressed when the question arises. How would you fix the pipelines safely both to protect the pipelines' integrity and ensure that they're not a danger to fishing? If a pipeline is currently fixed in this way, would there be an expectation that that would be altered in some way? I don't think that there's any suggestion of anything being retrospective in that sense. To refer you to the planning policies in the cables part of the document, those have been written in some sense to encourage that very conversation that we've been talking about. They've been specifically written with those kind of drop-down menus that you have in mind. First and foremost, safety is a key consideration. As it says there—this is talking about cables rather than pipelines—they should be buried to maximise protection where there's safety or stability risks. If that's not feasible, you drop down into protected through suitable measures where practical, cost-effective and risk assessment directs. Again, what we've tried to do in here is to set out the parameters in some sense for that sensible conversation. I don't think that it doesn't say always and everywhere that cables pipelines should be protected, but at the same time it says that safety is a very key consideration. We have tried to hit that balance between those two. I don't think that they're not necessarily competing forces, but we've tried to balance out the two different directions, if you like. To sum up what you're saying is common sense would be applied. I would hope so. That's what we've tried to draft in, which makes it quite difficult in some respects. Do you think that that will provide sufficient reassurance to the oil and gas sector? Who clearly felt strongly enough about it to raise it with us? I wasn't aware of the oil and gas sector having a particular problem with the protection of the pipelines, to be honest. I was aware of other cable layers having some difficulty with the cable section, but I'm more than happy to go and talk to oil and gas to make sure that they're content with what we've actually got in the document. If I may, then, on this continuing theme, at the risk of going off a slight tangent. In terms of cables, I know that there's been some work done by Marine Scotland looking at the potential impact of the electromagnetic fields that will be generated by cables from offshore wind, and how that might affect migratory fish. As I understand it, that's been quite inconclusive. Perhaps I'm wrong. How would you proceed on this? Electromagnetic, the science is a bit beyond me, to be honest, but only certain kinds of cables will generate electromagnetic fields. To be fair, I can't remember if that's basically transmission or distribution. I'm not entirely sure. An electromagnetic field is, as I explained to me, a distance function, so it deteriorates very rapidly over a couple of metres. In any sense, if you bury that cable, that will reduce the electromagnetic field in the first instance. As I understand the research, it suggests that, certainly of the species that we've looked at, there's no great impact from electromagnetic fields on those species. Now we can say with certainty that that extends to all fish that might be sensitive to electromagnetic fields, but I think that the evidence that we have suggests that it's not going to be a problem. I know that we've done bits and pieces of research in the lab in Aberdeen. I'd be happy to get a list of that research and send it, if that would be helpful. Thank you. That would be useful. Mike Russell? I expect you to raise the Dura cable issue with you, and I'm going to, because it's an exemplar of the issue. I think that it's a concern, and I don't get reassured by what I've read in the cable section here. For those who aren't familiar with it, the submarine electricity cable to Dura Island, which failed six months ago, also takes electricity out from renewable generation. It has taken six months to get replaced because Marine Scotland's licensing appears to me to have been confused, and the SSC were not keen on burying a cable, as they never buried their previous cables, whereas fishermen wanted parts of that cable to be buried. That could be simply the start of a new regime, but it does seem to me that if a body that needs to replace an emergency cable, it's not about high-level planning lots of cable places, it's a practical thing that needs to be done to serve communities, takes six months. What's going to happen in future? It seems to me that paragraphs 14.4 and 14.6 and onwards have tremendous high-level objectives, but they don't actually deal with, I've got a cable, I want to put it down below, it needs to happen quickly because people need electricity, how do we go about doing it? I'd like you to know your response to that, and I'd like you to tell me the optimum time of the optimal time for getting a replacement cable in through a licensing regime. I'm not sure that the licensing process is necessarily the subject, this is about the national marine plan, not about that particular licence. Nonetheless, I think that the cable broke, as I understand it, the power supply was then dependent on the Beaumaud power station, the backup power station on the island, which was a reasonable source, if not a wholly complete source. We explained to SSE the policy position, effectively that our presumption was that cables would be buried. They took the view that they didn't want to bury the cable, they made an application after, I think it was two months, so it's not six months, it was about four months from the application forward to lay the cable without burial. We put the cable, that application, out to consultation. Our statutory navigation consultee, the Marine Coast Guard Agency, came back initially and said that the cable should be buried. After discussion, they came back and said that the cable should be buried to a depth of 50 metres at either end, at either shore end. The fishermen didn't want partial burial, they wanted complete burial throughout the length of the cable. Clearly, if your statutory consultee says that it has to be buried at a depth of 50 metres, and you have a significant stakeholder saying that it requires complete burial, there are some difficulties with that application. If I remember rightly, the total process took about four and a half months to get to a licence being issued. We then took steps to ensure that that licence was actioned as quickly as possible to get the cable in within the weather window. Quite apart from that, Cabinet Secretary agreed that we could dispense with the pre-application consultation, which would have taken 12 weeks prior to the licence. I think that you might have inadvertently made my point for me given that you have gone through a very lengthy process there. Tell me how the national marine plan would improve that. I think that the national marine plan sets out a clearer background. At the start of that process, it came as a surprise to SSC that cables should be buried. That took a level of communication between ourselves and SSC in order to sort that issue out. I think that the national marine plan sets out a reasonably clear context within which SSC believes that it can work. We have also got other work on going with SSC on cables, but that is not necessarily relevant to the national marine plan. I just want to press you a little on that point. My constituents and the constituents around here in rural or island areas will judge anything that the Government does on the basis of their lives improving. There is a high-level improvement in the sense that burying cables is better than leaving them unburied in terms of marine safety, probably in terms of environment where there are some issues with plumes and other things of that nature. That being the case, I do not actually see that replacing a cable that fails is going to be any quicker. You may not think that the generator in Bowmore is inconvenient, but I assure you that I am happy to lead you to the man who lives next door to it, who found it extremely inconvenient for the six-month period. Also, the fear in the community that, should it fail, there was no alternative source of supply. In an island community in the middle of a winter storm, that is quite a problem. Tell me how my constituents, the constituents of all us, how their lives are going to be improved, either through this issue or through other issues with the marine plan? In terms of this issue, partly because of the clarity with which this now puts the cable issues, it is quite clear what the drop-down set of considerations has to be. Anyone coming to the Scottish Government for a licence will be perfectly clear what the policy context is and what conversations they should be prepared for. If they do not want to bury the cable, they need to have a fairly strong justification for why they are not going to bury the cable. The other point is that it is not simply about safety and the environmental impact. It is also about network security. If you bury cables, the actual network that that cable supports is much more secure, so the likelihood of your constituents on Dura having the cable broken in the future is very much reduced. There is a whole balance of things here that need to be considered, and that is the balance that I believe is set out in the cable's chapter. That is the balance that will enable faster decisions to be made, but the proof of the paving ultimately will be in the evening. I would just add to that. I am picking up on what David said. It is given that kind of rounded clarity and protection, so you are clear from the outset and all stakeholders are clear from the outset what the process is and how their interests can be fed in. In that particular case, it might be of the utmost importance that the process is as quick as possible, but it is also of equal importance that it is safe, it protects network security, it considers environmental impacts, etc. It is setting out that kind of rounded framework from the start so that everyone is clear about that and how they can represent their interests within it. Speed is potentially one benefit, and we would certainly hope that that will prove to be the case. The fact that there is a clear route in for all the other interests is equally important. Will you consider listing the exemptions? If I were a developer, I would say, let's try an exemption out and see what happens. Will you issue guidelines on what exemptions might exist? I would certainly consider that. Alex Ferguson. That is a very brief question, which ties into Mike Russell's last question. In my part of the world, if you bury cables, you are likely to disturb unexploded World War 2 ordinance, much of which then washes up on the shore to be picked up by curious holiday makers, beach comers, whatever it might be. How is that sort of localised issue taken care of in the national plan? I don't think that that has already been an issue in some respects, and I think it became an issue, if I remember rightly, because a cable was laid through that area in the late 70s. Timescales are a bit beyond me. I don't think that we would have to look very carefully at any proposition to lay anything through that area, purely from the starting point of safety of getting it on the seabed. I don't think that the particular Boffort Stike issue is in this document, but certainly it would have to feature large in any consideration of any activity in that area. In the national marine plan, shouldn't it feature in the document? I think that it features probably in the generality. It's not mentioned per se. I mean, we haven't said Boffort Stike is a no-go area or anything like that, but I think that it's featured, as I say, in the generality that I can't find it off the top of my head. There is this general proposition. If you're going to lay a cable, you need to have some idea of where you're going to lay the cable and avoid areas of difficulty, which Boffort Stike is certainly on. Is there any draft of that policy specifically to highlight the nature of the consideration that's required? Local issues like that would obviously be picked up as part of that consideration, and that's part of the common sense approach that we appreciate needs to be taken. We're looking at carbon capture and storage, because it's linked to this at the moment. Angus MacDonald. Yes, thanks, convener. Good morning. Are you going back to the issue of pipelines, particularly in the North Sea, if I could refer to chapter 10 on carbon capture and storage? I note that, in addition to the Peterhead project, chapter 10 also mentions the other key potential CCS project, which is, in my constituency in Falkirk East, the Captain Clean Energy plant proposed for Grangemouth. One of the two marine planning policy chapters in chapter 10 states that the development of marine utility corridors, which will allow CCS to capitalise where possible on current infrastructure in the North Sea, including shared use of spatial corridors and pipelines, could you give the committee an outline of this chapter on carbon capture and storage and explain what a marine utility corridor is and what other activities might use such a corridor and what the environmental impact might be? I think that the basis of this particular chapter is really to try and support through the planning process this kind of emerging sector and also to ensure that we are tied up clearly on the marine planning side with what's set out in the national planning framework 3 document because carbon capture and storage is very much an activity where marine and terrestrial planning need to align to enable the sector to grow. We've had some information fed in from the sector itself in response to the consultation, which has led to some changing around the wording in terms of commercialisation, etc. Trying to get a better picture of where the sector is now and where it might go over the lifetime of the plan. In terms of the marine utility corridors concept, that is really looking at where there is existing infrastructure to serve oil and gas in the main, making the most effective use of that existing infrastructure and operations and maintenance along that existing infrastructure which could also serve this emerging carbon capture and storage sector. In terms of the specific environmental impacts, we highlight some of those in the plan, along with potential for habitat damage, potential for pollution, potential for acidification. There's also a bit more detail on that in Scotland's Marine Atlas, which is our main evidence base for the plan. OK, thanks. You mentioned habitat damage. Given that the pipelines are already in existence, presumably that would be... Yeah, that's the kind of point of where possible using existing infrastructure so that you wouldn't create additional habitat damage, but that might not always be possible, so it acknowledges the need for new infrastructure. That would obviously have an impact, potentially, on habitats. Thank you. Just a question that follows on from this because I'm looking at the offshore wind and marine renewable energy section. The map on page 86 of the report shows plan options for offshore wind and marine renewable energy. Surprisingly, given the early stages of its development, you haven't marked on this the consented areas at the present time. Can you tell me why? This map is really reflecting the outcomes of the process that we went through alongside the consultation on the plan. We were also consulting on the sectoral marine plans for offshore wind and waving tidal. This map reflects the outcome of that one specific process. We do tell on the map that updated data sets will be available on NMPI, which is National Marine Plan Interactive. That's a GIS portal that we host on our website, which contains all the data, all the data about existing lease sites, etc. It has that in different layers, so people can click on and off what it is that they're particularly interested in. Sorry, the point about NMPI was in the opening statement. Pardon? The point about NMPI was in the opening statement. The point about why I'm asking is that it's important for people to realise that you've drawn up a plan at this stage with suggested areas. The consents, for example, Nenner Murray Firth came before that process. Do you think, theoretically, that there would be any difficulties with those now in the areas that have been consented? I wouldn't have thought so, no. Obviously, they've got licenses. It depends on the kind of detailed work that the developers are doing, but I wouldn't anticipate any difficulties with it. In terms of the information, we could update the map to put the existing areas on if that would be helpful. I'll just raise it because, for clarity's sake, when people see plan options, they understand it's plans for the future, rather than some things that are already consented. Since it's at such an early stage and nothing has been built yet, offshore barring a couple of small tidal machines in place, it would be quite useful for those to be reflected. That information would be available, so it would be a simple matter to update the map if that was thought to be helpful. It is useful. I just wanted to link that to the next thing, which is probably to do with... Oh, yes. The point is that the information is changing all the time, and you're capturing this at a particular point. It would be very useful yesterday to see the study from the British Ornithology Trust and the Environmental Research Institute that showed that seabirds, by and large, about 99 per cent managed to change their flight patterns to avoid offshore wind towers and so on. Is that the kind of thing that you would be able to build into this when you talk about the spatial aspects of the information? Would you be thinking about how far apart a particular structure should be in the overall plans? I think in terms of... I'm not so much in terms of the overall plans, but certainly in terms of consenting individual developments. That sort of information is exceptionally important. I think that, in some senses, we are conscious that the marine planning process ought to be a web-based process, and that will allow it then to pick up the incremental work that goes on all the time. The paper document, in a sense, is a point in time, and will always remain a point in time. So, hopefully, as Anna was saying, we will be able to update NMPI with new and better information as it moves forward, which will give people a better understanding of what we're trying to do. In terms of the actual question, that was a very interesting study, which the scientists at Marine Scotland and Aberdeen ran, with some interesting results. As I said, that informed some of the licensing decisions, but I'm not sure it will inform any decision on how far apart the individual developments will be. It can inform how far apart the bits and pieces of a development in turn will be, but not the developments per se if I've understood it correctly. I'm just quite keen to... I'm really interested in two other aspects. One, the feeding patterns of seabirds, and two, the migratory patterns of certain of these seabirds as well. Given that we can identify major areas in the west coast here, I have issues related to the feeding patterns, which were increasingly understanding of the long distances that some seabirds travel to areas just off Rattrie Head, in fact, in the northeast, where it's one of the OWNE2 items for potential development. Are you just interested to know if that's the kind of information that you've taken into account? It depends if that information was available at a particular point in time. We've taken in as much information in these maps. I need to go back and look at the set of opportunities and constraints which underpin how these maps were created. I'm happy to share with you how that was done. If it's interesting, there's an ornithologist in the marine lab who, as I say, was involved in the study that you mentioned and has a lot better understanding of the feeding patterns and migratory patterns of birds than I ever will have, I'd be happy in some sense for him to come and talk through that study with you if that would be helpful. To know these things, because we are. I was just going to say, as David said, the key point is that if the information was available at the point when we were doing the planning process, it would have been taken into account that all the environmental information that we had that's relevant would have been fed into the models that sit behind the planning process. If that information becomes available at the point between planning and actual licensing, then it will be taken into account at a licensing point. We won't just say, well that's fine, you can have a licence because you're in that area. That's clear in the first renewables policy that proposals are still subject to licencing and consenting processes. That process will pick up any additional information that's become available in the interim. Did you have a point to Claudia Beamish? It doesn't work, thank you for being answered. Right, we'll go back to some of the sectoral chapters. Graham Day, Wild Salmon, and Boris. Anyone else who wants to come in on that part? Yeah. We're in the sea so we'll stay in the sea until we've come to Wild Salmon. We've got it completely clear about Wild Salmon, are we? In which case, the sea fishery then. Good morning to everybody as well. It's just very briefly, really, chapter 6 on the sea fisheries. There's a couple issues. Sea fishing activity has the potential to interact significantly with a number of other sectors and difficult to accurately predict precisely where activity will take place. It also states that there are key emerging issues concerning the interactions between the fishing industry and other interests. It would be interesting to find out what those key emerging issues are and maybe just a brief general view on where we're going with the sea fisheries part of the chapter and some of the key aspects of that. In terms of interactions, as you've highlighted there, fishing is such a widespread industry and activity. It has the potential to interact with virtually anything else that has been planned at sea, particularly if that is around the creation of physical infrastructure that could potentially present a hazard. Those are the kind of things that are emerging in terms of where is there going to be new activity and where is that new activity going to result in actual physical infrastructure which may have an impact on the safety of fishermen or may disrupt or displace the actual fishing stocks themselves. More generally in terms of the fishing chapter and where we're going with it, we've had quite a lot of input through the consultation process around this and it was also an aspect that was picked up in the independent investigation which was undertaken on the plan. That's led to quite a lot of re-drafting of the first three marine planning policies and that's again quite similar to what we were looking at in the cables chapter trying to set out a staged approach to what must be considered so your first consideration is around is fishing taking place and can that be safeguarded where possible so that's your kind of step one and then your step two is looking at where that might not be possible or where there will be some impact how can that impact be best mitigated and making sure that you're involving the fishing industry in that process of mitigation and developing a sort of agreed strategy around that so that's the kind of overall framework that the chapter is trying to support also looking at potential impacts on fishing stocks so trying to be clear about which parts of the sea are particularly important in terms of for example nursery or spawning areas and affording protection to those but also looking at the cultural and economic importance of the industry in particular areas and what potential impacts there could be on that so trying to take quite a rounded view of how fishing may be affected by other activities and how best to mitigate for those impacts That's really useful Thanks for that. You mentioned there's redraftings already and issues are emerging how obviously we'll come to a stage where we've come to the stage that the marine plan is in the solid print therefore can we adjust when the plan in the future once we actually find out some emerging issues or conflicts that may have unintended consequences perhaps? Just to clarify the comments of it redrafting, we're from the sort of consultation draft to this draft we're not planning to do much more redrafting at this point but in terms of how we might adapt and in relation to new activity or new science as we've already discussed or different interactions that may occur because activity changes I suppose there are two key things on that one is the general framework that we set out in all the general policies in the early section of the plan is really trying to encapsulate our view of what sustainable development means and the key parameters that are set out for that so if for example a whole new sector was to emerge that we haven't covered in this plan then it would still be subject to those general policies around sustainable development so we think there's still a reasonable holistic framework in there that can pick up on issues even if they're not specifically mentioned at the moment and then the other point to note is that the plan probably has a lifespan of about five years we're required to monitor and review the plan under both the UK legislation and the Scottish legislation the timescales for which are slightly different but the furthest the waste timescale is the five-year review period so there's always that opportunity to build in to review where things are emerging through the process and we would want to pick that up through monitoring of implementation that's crucial we'll just deal with agriculture at the moment I just wonder if you may perhaps summarise briefly for us how you feel the marine plan gets us where we need to go with aquaculture given the contentious nature of the subject the impact that aquaculture has on the areas in which it's located I think the overall approach here aquaculture is an interesting area in that it's currently very much embedded in the terrestrial planning system so aquaculture consents etc are currently led by local authorities rather than by the marine licensing system so where we're trying to get to in the chapter is really to say regional marine plans and marine decisions and local authorities and planning decisions need to be taken together or certainly from a common evidence base to look at all the relevant issues in terms of location of future development and that the system carrying capacity at a kind of water body or lock system scale should be a key consideration in that in terms of some of the issues that we know people are concerned about in terms of sustainability we've tried to highlight those particularly within the chapter and point 2 where on-going research and development is taking place into those issues and that that should be fed into these future decisions Marine Scotland science are also taking forward a piece of work trying to develop existing locational guidance to take a kind of a broader range of potential impacts and also to consider whether there's potential for the industry to move further offshore where impacts may be easier to mitigate Could you say a little bit more please some anno or other members of the panel about aquaculture in relation to on-going research you'll know that we took evidence in the aquaculture bill in this committee and I'm wondering about having taken into account the assessment of the impact of the quite robust increases in targets for the finfish industry in your assessments and whether there's going to be on-going research about that I would echo my previous answer in terms of we've maintained the targets that were set out in the consultation draft and we think that it's important to give that overall context and direction for the industry as I said we've tried to be clearer within the chapter about what the key issues are likely to be around that more of a focus in the wording of the policy around the carrying capacity but also looking at issues around disease and sustainability of feed in particular and highlighting in the references the on-going work that's going on there the work that I referred to in terms of the development of locational guidance will pick up on those issues as well so the outcome of that work will similar to the renewables planning we'll be looking at where's the potential to take forward development so where's water depth etc appropriate and the constraints that would prevent development and those could be some of these environmental issues if we have robust evidence about the interaction between farmed and wild fish for example that will be fed into that model I see so I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you saying can you reassure me that this information as it's on-going and as the research develops in relation to the impacts and the increase in this industry that would be fed in is this the joy of having the web-based arrangement could that be fed in so that the criteria could then be changed to some degree if necessary either way more than five years it's part of the advantage of having a web-based system is that it's more easily updated and current information and research can be fed into that if it's available in such a way that it kind of fits the system so the system that we have at the minute is very spatial so if you have information or data that gives you some sort of spatial constraint or parameter then that's quite easily fed in if the research is kind of more general then we're developing our website around the national marine plan a sort of national marine plan online area where we've got all the research that's currently referenced in the plan highlighted and we would add that to emerging research would be added to that website so it would be available I think in terms of the kind of actual spatial planning as I said Marine Scotland ourselves are doing a project around that and we would hope that that would become a common evidence base for local authorities and regional plans going forward and would be updated as we come through that's helpful I want to talk about the chapters related to recreation and tourism now, Alex Ferguson thank you convener, yes indeed and if we could move on to chapter 12 on recreation and tourism and the chapter seems to a certain extent to focus on the perceived tension between tourism and recreation and other aspects of the plan such as the need to protect habitats and species and indeed the environment itself to what extent do you believe that tension is significant and could you perhaps just discuss a little bit how the draft plan balances the two sides of that equation if I can put it that way I don't think I've kind of set this out previously so just to quickly explain how what we've looked at in relation to all the sectoral chapters which you'll probably realise from reading it so for each of them we've looked at each of the sectors that are covered in the kind of sectoral chapters we've looked at what is that sector likely to require to grow in an economic sense how does it interact with other marine users particularly other commercial users what are the impacts on the environment and what are any climate change impacts or potential risks in the future that need to be taken into account so we've followed that process through for the recreation and tourism sector as well and I think the sort of key issues coming out of that are really in terms of recognising the importance of the environment to the sector so a lot of the value of recreation and tourism around the coast and in the sea is based on the fact that it's a stunning natural environment that people want to to visit and want to spend time in so we've tried to highlight in the kind of policies that kind of win-win situation of protecting and enhancing the environment for its own sake but also because that could then become economically viable through recreation or tourism so I think we've more emphasised that although we have acknowledged that those things themselves may impact on the environment and that needs to be mitigated for in terms of potential interactions with other sectors I think a lot of it is really similar to maybe some of the interactions in the sort of transport or sections because you're really talking about what might interfere with people's access to the marine environment or the coast or what might pose a hazard while they're using the area so it's focused around that I don't think we've pulled any strong policies where we think that is a particular issue the other thing to highlight is again the strong interaction between this sector and terrestrial planning because a lot of the access issues etc will need to be picked up in the land use system and joining up between that and what's suggested here so for example we reference the long distance walking and cycling routes in the national planning framework and the coastal aspects of that feed through into the marine plan just to emphasise that in terms of the interactions there's an aggregate level interaction in some respects between large developments and recreation I think one of the difficulties we've had is that a key part of the interaction is actually the sector within itself there's so many different aspects of the sector so diving and surfing shouldn't necessarily happen in the same place for safety reasons but it's the level of activity for all these things I think at this point at a level where that interaction isn't perhaps critical and effectively what we've tried to do is set out a framework that says when to surf or whatever these are the kind of factors that you need to take into consideration it's one of the few sectors I think it's possibly the only sector that really has within it that kind of level of interaction actually within the sector rather than between the other marine sectors thank you that raises a bit of a concern in my mind because we have a national marine plan and yet as you're talking about very specific tourism sectors coastal walking whatever it might be and you actually list a number of activities and key areas if I'm a completely independent person which I'm absolutely not in this category representing Galloway as I do but I look at the list of activities and I see that recreational sea angling is very much a key area in Dumfries and Galloway which it is but very many of the other activities listed also refer to that and are you not in danger within a national plan of becoming a little bit too specific on local activities is what I'm trying to ask I think one of the difficulties we had with representing the sector is some of that there's quite a lot of data gaps and a lot of information is collected in different ways that it's not easy to kind of aggregate up to a national picture but we're actually doing some work around that at the minute in terms of how we can get better data and more robust data collection methods so that that can feed into the next iteration of the national plan but also feed into regional plans so regional plans are very clear about what their local priorities are and we weren't able to map this kind of whole sector in the same way that we have been able to for the other chapters because of that sort of diversity of activity but also because there isn't a lot of robust data underpinning a lot of these things so what's listed there is really an attempt to demonstrate the range of activity that takes place some of the key areas just to give that overall national perspective that might be a different way of doing that I absolutely understand that but you yourself described this entire document right at the start as a framework for decision makers how can you have such a general approach in something that is a framework for decision makers I'm sorry, I don't mean to be critical but this is really raising questions I don't necessarily think I take your point to the general approach I think that unlike the other sectors or most of the other sectors we don't have a lot of information on recreation there's no real central source that we can go to to get any national information on diving we know diving happens in certain places we know kayaking happens in certain places and not other places and that's really the extent of the information we have and in effect what we've tried to do is list the activity in the area and effectively what we're saying to a developer who picks this document up if you're developing in the coast off Dumfries and Galloway then you need to think about recreational sea angling or if you're surfing but whatever else is a key consideration that you need to think about in terms of your development so it's signposting to the developer that there are issues here that you need to go and look at but the whole chapter is not it's about supporting economically productive activities I just think there's a danger of confliction here but I think other members want to come into do you want to respond to that point? I think that's right the individual chapters do a couple of things as Anna was saying the key point in terms of most of the leisure and recreation stuff is access and that tends to be a terrestrial issue and that's why we flag that for the local authority planning system but the chapters do more than simply promote economic growth in that sense they also put the issues of that sector on the map for other developers similarly if someone was building a marina you would expect them to look through the other chapters and see if they are there is important aspects in other development areas and go and talk to those developers and that's the general framework that we've tried to provide here to give it some boost and then to make sure that everyone else takes account of those individual sectors if I can add to that sorry, yes there are key messages here for the regional marine planners as well and they will have good knowledge of the recreation and tourism interests in their area as you've already indicated for example in Dumfries and Galloway so the other thing that I think is quite important here has come up a lot in consultation with for example the yachting sector is that this now requires that applications for development consider the implications for recreation and tourism so for example we consider implications for moorings and we've had a lot of feedback that these issues are not always considered at the right time where moorings are already in place so again the message is here that if you are a local authority you know where those moorings are particularly in the western isles for example so those issues can be taken into account so in a way that framework works for the regional level okay just on a point here just a point of clarity perhaps for me rather than other committee members we were talking about local authorities and their part in this are you satisfied that all local authorities have the necessary expertise to grasp the interaction that they need to have with the national marine plan and if they don't how do they acquire it recognise that that's an important challenge and most local authorities at the moment don't have a specialist marine planner for example however a lot of local authorities will have a lot of knowledge about their own local marine and coastal environment perhaps with more emphasis on the coast in some areas we've looked particularly at the issue of integration between the two systems as a kind of way into that discussion if you like and we developed a sort of draft planning circular as part of the consultation package that was trying to draw out that integration give more information about the marine planning system to exist in local authority planners and then look at some of the areas of potential good practice where there could be liaison and co-ordination between the two going forward and we've updated that circular and published it alongside the redraft of the plan and we recognise that that's the kind of first step really and we want to do a lot more work with local authorities both in terms of becoming familiar with marine planning and some local authorities will become directly involved in the regional marine plans also but also about the integration between the two systems and can I ask what initial feedback are you getting from local authorities is it one of yeah that's fine that seems sensible or help a mix it's probably a mixture some local authorities particularly in the sort of island are very keen to get involved in regional marine planning for example and see themselves as the kind of lead partner in those marine planning partnerships in the future the authorities it might be more complicated because you've got several local authorities that will all feed into one marine region and they might be a little less sure we've been doing some pilot work with Orkney and Highland a sort of pilot plan for the Orkney and Pentland Farth waters and there a member of staff from each local authority has been working with a Marine Scotland official to form a sort of working group on that plan together and I think they've found that a very positive experience and are able to bring a lot of their skills and background as terrestrial planners and see how that can apply to marine planning but also that there are a lot of other things that need to be taken into account and might be quite different so I think where we've been working closely with people it's been quite a positive experience for marine planning out in particular Okay, thank you Two more points here from Mike Russell and then Claudia Beamish I think that this discussion raises some very considerable concerns in my mind about a point which I raised earlier and I just want to push it a little bit it seems to me that there's something entirely commendable and useful and desirable in having a national marine plan but when we go into the detail I mean I'm looking at page 95 where Ferguson has referred to When we go into the detail of what activity is undertaking where we are endeavouring both on a national level to give indications and on a local level to create regional marine plans and now I've heard the word regional marine planners I think we are in danger of creating a cat's cradle of regulation and guidance which inevitably the further it is from government the more restrictive it will become and I just wonder what thinking is being undertaken in government about ensuring that this is a simple framework for decision making and is not moving towards accruing all sort of prescriptive powers unconsciously which will actually make development and living and activity much more difficult I haven't heard anything I have to say with the greatest respect today that makes me less worried about that and I do think it is important as this moves forward that those responsible for it take that point to the heart of their thinking because otherwise their good intentions will become very very complex and restrictive at local level I think that's a fair comment and I think we are aware of that possibility but I think our general planning principle Gen 1 there's a presumption in favour of sustainable development and use of the marine environment when consistent with the policies of this plan that's the basic driver to help activity go forward in the marine area but I fully accept your point that the superstructure around that might in itself become a hindrance to it How then do you get the general principles understood as being the things that people should think about and the rest of it should help them to think about it because that's not actually what comes across what comes across is the general principles are great now let's get on to the detail of page 95 and I do think there's an issue in terms perhaps of drafting or approach or promotion that will require very very strong guidance if we are not actually to be bogged down by the infrastructure I think that as Anna said earlier the general principles provide the framework in which we would expect everything to happen in that sense and that also provides the flexibility for new activities we might not have a section for a new activity but it would still be subject to the general principles the general framework and I think that allows the flexibility I fully take your point about the promotion of it that we perhaps need to give more emphasis to the general policies rather than the sectoral policies the sectoral policies almost by definition are always going to be the larger part of the document we have a lot more sectors than we have the general policies but as I say I'm happy to think about and to try to if you think it's worthwhile rebalance between the general and the specific I certainly do think it's worthwhile I think that part of the issue if you come back to the very first question about who the plan is for and I answered it by saying that there are a range of audiences and part of the detail there is to speak to those audiences and to reassure them that their activity is seen as important and as one that is supported by the planning process so some of the detail I think is necessary for that message but as David said the division between the general and the sectoral policies we've done small things around the presentation like used the same colour for all the sector policies and then had the general ones as a distinct part of the plan this is the overall framework and then here's the detail that sits behind it and I think that there's a lot we can do to promote that message more clearly and to make sure that that feeds down to regional planning but I do think that we also need to think about the other audiences for the plan and what they need to see out of a national marine plan as well I think in some sense is the general policies will probably stand the test of time whereas you'll see significant change in the actual sectoral policies as this process rolls forward so I think that if you like the general policies are the bedrock of the approach and as I've said I'm happy to look again at how that is promoted OK, it's on the table Claudia Beamish I'd just like to understand get a bit more clarity around the regional marine plans in relation to their status and how that relates to local planning because you've said that sometimes the local authorities will be the lead, sometimes they won't I went to an evening event last week where there were very positive and robust coastal partnerships of which there are those as you'll know right round the coast of Scotland who had concerns about how they would fit in as voluntary organisations whom have been functioning for many years so there's all those issues and I'm wondering about how you really become engaged what the plans are for engagement I know it's early days and also what the status is I think that in terms of the coastal partnerships there are a variety of coastal partnerships as you say round the coast and they each have differences in organisation and approach in focus and so on that suits their individual area and I think that we've been conscious process to try and pick up on the good work that the coastal partnerships do the engagement they have with their local communities and try to build that where we can into the marine regions so for example we have certainly in the Clyde we've used the Clyde partnership as the kind of basis for pushing forward that region now that works in the Clyde it doesn't necessarily work elsewhere and we don't necessarily have LCPs but we would certainly see the LCPs local coastal partnerships as providing a lot of community engagement infrastructure that a marine planning partnership a marine region will actually require so our approach has always been to try and to some extent shift the LCPs into the regions where they've existed and where that brings benefit to both parties in a sense Can you just clarify what is the status then of the regional marine plans in terms of actual applications and planning to what degree do they have to be taken into account or I was just going to come to that so we don't have any yet but just to be clear but when a regional marine plan exists it has to be adopted by ministers and then it effectively has the same status as the national marine plan that applies to the actual region so it needs to be taken into account in the same way as the national marine plan will need to be taken into account So without wanting to try and make things difficult there could be a conflict between what is decided at the regional level and the national level bearing in mind that there are the general principles that have to be taken into account by everybody but in terms of the detail there could be There shouldn't be a conflict because the regional marine plan is required under the legislation to accord with the national marine plan and as part of the process of adoption by ministers that would be one of the sort of checks and balances if you like that would be being looked at Well we'll have stakeholders in after this you know where we can explore some of these things but there's a couple of general points first of all on subject chapters on shipping, ports, harbours and ferries any point that you wanted to make Alex Ferguson get? Well I think just to really ask the question that came out of the analysis of consultation responses which is has suggested that the or has focused on that there's a degree of concern that if you sort of designate certain ports and harbours in a certain way you will have a detrimental impact on others I just would appreciate your brief comments on that issue that was raised Yeah we've taken that into account to an extent in how we've reworded one of the policies Yeah so transport 2 now looks at a kind of national level and a regional level I suppose so we're still identifying particular ports and harbours which are of national significance and they're really aligned with those which tie in with national developments or the national renewables infrastructure plans but then as a second tier to that policy we're being clear that regional marine plans should also identify ports and harbours that are significant in their area so that's how we've attempted to pick up that concern Okay yep I'm actually interested in that because you have produced a national framework and left it up to the regional plans to pick up on their aspects which is rather going back to the point that Mike Russell and I were making is what I think this plan should be doing so I'm grateful to you for that explanation Thank you I've got a couple of issues just to ask you about the interaction with the Ministry of Defence because the impacts on species the impacts on sea and land users for example on exercises where GPS is jammed the impact on the development of on and offshore wind there was a flight paths of training zones all interact with where we're at and the western aisles issues about that related very recently to applications for small community wind farms close to the test range in North US How do you find interaction with defence because is the experience out there that planning applications that might have any implications often don't hear about the objection to the last minute have you been getting a good interaction with the Ministry of Defence in terms of this plan In terms of the plan we've been mainly interacting with the central Whitehall apartment we haven't had any particular difficulties around that I don't know if there's anything from the licensing process I would need to be fair my impression is that we have a decent interaction with MOD through one of their subcontractors rather than with MOD per se but I would need to go and check that to be clear to not mislead you in any sense but that's my understanding of it certainly I'll make the general catch all at the moment if there are things you wish to follow up in writing to us that we'd be happy to accept that as one of them and there are other things that emerge from things you've said already it's just a general concern that sustainability and many other issues which we're interested in are affected dolphins, porpoises there's increasing evidence of the effects of joint warrior exercises particularly of Cape Wrath in my constituency we would need to know that these kinds of things are being emphasised by the marine plan because fundamentally we're interested in the sustainability of the natural environment as the basis for anything that we've planned to use it for just on the issue of noise certainly 1517 on 123 makes the point that the MOD do comply with the relevant legislation as far as we're at I know that that's the point you make I'm afraid that science is developing and perhaps there are questions about whether that's adequate but anyway you've said that there it's not an immobile situation but I would hope it would be taken into account right I think that's all in sectoral just a question to wrap up if possible from Claudia Beamish on more vision and outlook sort of questions which have cropped up in many sections so far right, thank you convener in terms of the vision and objectives and principles of the plan which you have covered quite a lot of in your evidence today I note for the record that the plan's vision for the marine environment is clean, healthy safe, productive and diverse seas managed to meet the long term needs of nature and people which is obviously a big challenge and we all hope that the plan will contribute very robustly to underpinning this could I ask you in relation to the principles of sustainable development which are obviously very important here how that relates to one of the general plan, is it GEN do you say how that relates to the issue of enhancement which is under number nine I think because it would seem that sustainable development isn't the same thing as enhancement and I'm wondering how that will be taken into account there was quite a lot about enhancement and protection in enhancement in the consultations and it also came up in I understand in the sustainability appraisal which I've had a brief look at I mean I think that this chapter so all the general policies are attempting to be clear about how we're interpreting sustainable development for the purposes of the plan so given that as you pointed out gen nine explicitly talks about protect and we're in it appropriate to enhance the health of the marine area we would see that as an intrinsic part of sustainable development because this entire chapter each of the policies represents of how we're seeing sustainable development applying across the plan so I don't think it's contrary or different from sustainable development and we have tried to emphasise it particularly within that policy gen nine so it's kind of stated in the policy text box itself and then throughout the text which sits under that we do mention quite a few times that it's not just about protecting what's already there but there should be consideration of the potential for enhancement and that should be taken forward where possible so we talk about that specifically in relation to MPAs at 4.42 and also in relation to biodiversity and associated ecosystem services and I think in relation to sorry that's at 4.5a and then also in relation to geo-diversity as well just under that so to say I wouldn't say the two things as being separate I think the consideration of opportunities for enhancement and activities to take that forward we see as being part of sustainable development we've tried to highlight where particularly we think that that's a key issue of other bits in the sexual chapters particularly as I alluded to earlier in the tourism and recreation chapter where there's a particularly obvious link between enhancing the natural environment and the potential for that sector to capitalise on that so that's been highlighted as well so can I just push you on that what would happen if in say oil and gas or a different sector the developer said no it's not possible you've said where possible everyone could just come back and say oh it really isn't possible in this instance because dot dot dot I'm looking from a future perspective to say how will our seas be protected in terms of what you're saying about the needs of nature and people but also the long term needs but I think sometimes it won't be possible to enhance so that will be a fair argument in some cases we would look at it the same as we look at other aspects of environmental protection at the moment in terms of our advisory bodies etc you know is there a realistic opportunity there that should be pushed through that process or as I say in some cases it won't be realistic but the plan has given us the hook to have that discussion with the developer whoever's bringing the proposal forward thank you and just two other brief points in relation to sustainable development and one to cumulative effect in terms of sustainable development in relation to oil and gas understand that well I quote that there's a name for the maximum recovery of reserves and I'm wondering how that fits with the movement to a low carbon economy in terms of sustainable development and also I would like to just ask you to comment on the very important aspect of cumulative effect I know we've touched on it in some of the sectoral discussions but in terms of is it gen 21 the issues around cumulative effect was that's going to be whether our competing or even indeed complementary developments but maybe too many of the same kind even something as positive as you know the local people being involved with tourism for their own future whatever how will that operate I think certainly in terms of the cumulative impact it's an emerging area that I think to some extent we're beginning to get a handle on purely in terms just of the scientific terms of what are the cumulative impacts of a development and that's a can be a very prolonged and detailed process in a very difficult process and I think part of the problem is that as our understanding of how the marine ecosystem actually works and how the structure and function of that system is impacted by development we will actually be in a much stronger position to begin to understand the cumulative impact of the variety of developments and I think that's just an issue for the future we are going to have to work hard we can do kind of project level cumulative impacts, environmental cumulative impacts at the moment but we're not much far beyond that and it's just going to have to be a process of pushing this agenda forward because ultimately the cumulative impact of all the development is actually pretty key to all of this so it's the agenda that we're trying to promote in that sense sustainability appraisal has had to look at cumulative effects as does at project level environmental impact assessment it's required to do so through legislation but it's one thing to legislate and another thing to do that and cumulative effects assessment is very much an emerging area as David said so there are a lot of training courses there's a lot more experience, we're getting better at doing it from all aspects of the different environmental assessments including habitat regulations appraisal which is a definite requirement there so I think it's important to bring this to the attention of developers, decision makers and the regional marine planners just to remind everybody that these are key areas and particularly because so much of the activity in the marine environment requires that quality of that environment to be continued I was the first part of your question about oil and gas I think our position on that is quite clearly set out in the sort of background and context part of the oil and gas chapter which is basically highlighting existing Scottish Government policy supporting a move towards a low carbon economy inherent within that moving from fossil fuel based energy towards renewable sources but given that the reality is oil and gas are set to remain a vital source of energy in the time while that transition is taking place then the Government thinks it's sensible to secure reserves from within Scottish waters as far as possible so we try to set that out more clearly as a result of that issue coming out quite a lot in the consultation responses but it's really reflecting existing policy on both those aspects both the transition and how we use the reserves in the interim period I'm just highlighting that it says as I understand it maximise recovery of reserves so perhaps that's a question for me to ask to the Cabinet Secretary I'd like to thank the witnesses who've offered us some more detail on certain points that were raised there and we would welcome these as we take forward this discussion with stakeholders and ministers so thank you very much for that as we have agreed earlier this session will now move into private but before I close the meeting it's next meeting the first in 2015 on Wednesday 7 January the committee will take evidence on the draft on marine plan from stakeholders and consider a public bodies act consent memorandum on the abolition of the homegrown timber advisory committee I'd like to note on record the committee's thanks to all of those who have participated in meetings throughout 2014 stakeholders, Scottish Government ministers and officials, the clerks, the spice official report broadcasting and security and I would like to wish everybody see some greetings at the moment and I now ask to clear the public gallery this meeting is closed in public