Hansard

Five years ago, we passed a hugely ambitious marine act. The marine plan, which follows it five years on, is crucial.

As other members have said, the plan is a decision-making framework. The document must remain up to date and reflect national priorities and policy; it must also provide the basis for regional and local decision making. That is the context in which the RACCE Committee felt that the draft plan is not fit for purpose. As many have said, the plan is overprescriptive in some areas, but too vague in others. Rob Gibson ably set out the committee’s concerns in that regard.

I very much welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has accepted our amendment. We wanted not to delete but to move on and add to the Government’s motion, in particular to reflect the excellent representations that were received in evidence to the committee. It also enables us to flag up a couple of issues that were not covered in the motion.

The debate has been a good one, reflecting the quality of the advance briefings that we all received. Those have been extremely helpful.

Through our amendment, we wanted to flag up the central issue of the health of Scotland’s seas and the importance of enhancement, recovery and protection. We wanted to note the concerns expressed by the don’t take the P out of MPAs campaign and, in particular, to recognise the significant challenges posed in progressing delivery of the plan and ensuring capacity not only at the regional level, in the new regional partnerships, but in our local authorities to monitor and assess developments and to consider the potential cumulative and interconnected impacts of new development.

We recognise the importance of the national marine plan interactive in making sure that the national and regional marine plans are living documents. Our overarching objective must be sustainable development and recognition of its three legs: environmental, social and economic interests. The crucial issue for the marine environment is not just to look at how things are now, but to think to the future, in particular about climate change adaptation and mitigation.

A key issue that has been stressed is the capacity, resourcing and expertise to make the decisions that will be needed, following on from the marine plan. How will the regional marine and spatial planning partnerships be able to progress those parts of the national marine plan that we in the committee think are vague?

The idea of sharing Marine Scotland’s expertise and science is crucial. I observe in relation to renewables, for example, that the time lag for local authorities to gain expertise in onshore marine was years, and extra investment was needed from ministers. A huge amount of catch-up will be needed, because marine technologies are changing all the time; so is the science and the knowledge about the impact on our wildlife. Therefore, we have a challenge in front of us. It is crucial that we get the balance right, whether in relation to fishing, aquaculture, oil and gas, renewables, transport, the leisure industries or nature interpretation. The interplay among all those different uses will be judged and decided not just by what is in the plan, but by how the regional partnerships and our local authorities get involved.

That is why the science base that Tavish Scott mentioned is so important. Science will not make the decisions for us but it will at least let us weigh up the choices and make more informed decisions.

The precautionary principle, which Rob Gibson mentioned, is crucial. If we are not sure, we can always come back to an issue, but we must ensure that we do not make things worse.

Some important issues were raised in the briefing from Scottish Renewables, which is concerned that there should not be ad hoc, year-on-year changes to the national marine plan. I understand that concern—it is a concern about stability, which was raised by Tavish Scott, too. However, given the pace and scale of change in the marine environment and the industries that are active in it, the committee felt quite strongly that we need to revisit the marine plan, not just in five years but perhaps in three.

RSPB Scotland made an important point about the fact that national policies must be implemented within safe environmental limits and be supported by robust environmental assessment. The RSPB’s concern is that the lack of an overall assessment of the plan compromises the potential of the plan to deliver.

Environmental assessment of every protected area in the marine environment is more important than ever. If we are to achieve

“Clean, healthy, safe, productive and diverse seas”,

if they are to be

“managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and people”

and if we are to live within environmental limits, we need the knowledge base. That is a key issue because it is about the relationship between what we need as a society and what many of our most fragile rural communities need to keep living and growing. It also affects the long-term capacity of our marine environment to be exploited to deliver jobs and economic benefits. That is why the committee wanted to flag the concerns of the don’t take the P out of MPAs campaign.

I echo the comments from Claudia Beamish and Rob Gibson about the need for conflict resolution. In fact, conflict resolution was mentioned by everybody who talked about the local issues and is a crucial issue for us to focus on. Graeme Dey, Margaret McDougall and Elaine Murray also raised the issue. We need to draw on the expertise and experience that are already there. The work that has been done in Shetland and Clyde is important—we need to draw that in.

However, we cannot wait until those pilots are complete before we take decisions. Because of the length of time that it has taken to get to the marine plan, there are decisions that need to be taken throughout the country. That makes the experience of volunteers, local organisations and marine planning partnerships hugely important now and not just in future.

Margaret McDougall referred to the work that has been done by COAST. In its submission to the Clyde marine protection area, it touches on some of the win-wins that Dave Thompson talked about. When we have sustainable fisheries and local involvement, and when we try to bring together the interests of sustainable fisheries, recreational sea angling, tourism, leisure and other sustainable developments, there are potential win-wins. The research that COAST highlighted in its submission talks about the economic benefits that come from making the most of small-scale but cumulatively important developments.

The same point was made by Jean Urquhart, when she asked how we can ensure that those opportunities are delivered properly. She made an important point about policing of the process and of what people are doing. We need to be confident that what people aspire to do is what happens in practice.

Elaine Murray made an important point about drawing on the expertise across boundaries. I want to finish on that issue. A huge amount of expertise is there already—we need to learn from that. If there is one thing that we need to take forward, it is the knowledge and information that are already there. The real challenge is to ensure that those who will be responsible for marine planning have that knowledge and expertise at their fingertips because, in the end, that will be the measure of whether the process is successful.