Assessment Findings and Mitigation
|
ICP Vision |
1. Air Quality |
2. Noise |
3. Soil/ Sediment |
4. Water environment |
5. Biodiversity |
6. Cultural Heritage |
7. Landscape |
8. Material Assets |
9. Population & Human Health |
|
“Scotland’s ferry services, supported by other transport services, will be safe, reliable, affordable and inclusive for residents, businesses and visitors enabling connectivity, sustainability and growth of island and peninsula communities and populations”. |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
P |
P |
Whilst the primary drivers of the ICP (safety, reliability, affordability and inclusivity) directly / indirectly contribute to long-term benefits associated with SEA objectives 8 (material assets) and 9 (population and human health), it is not clear whether the ICP Vision would lead, in practice, to positive or negative effects on the natural and historic environment (SEA objectives 1 – 7). In addition, it is unclear how the term ‘sustainability’ applies to the Vision. No cumulative effects have been identified in relation to the ICP Vision.
Proposed enhancement includes consider rewording the overall Vision and/or accompanying text, or adding new text elsewhere in the document, to include specific reference to the protection and enhancement of Scotland’s unique natural and historic environment when designing and implementing policies and actions that support the Vision, and clarify how the term ‘sustainability’ applies to the ICP Vision. The full assessment of the ICP Vision is presented in Appendix 4.
Assessment of the Priorities / Outcomes and Mitigation
Table 5 - Summary of the Assessment of SAP Outcomes in relation to SEA objectives 1 – 9 provides a summary of the scores applicable to the potential effects of the SAP Outcomes.
|
SAP Outcomes |
1. Air Quality |
2. Noise |
3. Soil/ Sediment |
4. Water environment |
5. Biodiversity |
6. Cultural Heritage |
7. Landscape |
8. Material Assets |
9. Population & Human Health |
|
1.1. Will provide reliable and resilient service |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
P |
P |
|
1.2. Will get people and goods where they need to get to |
P |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
P |
P |
|
1.3. Will be transparent |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
P |
|
2.1. Will ensure that marginalised members of our communities have safe and fair access to ferry services they need |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
O |
P |
|
2.2. Will be easy to use for all |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
P |
|
2.3. Will be affordable |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
P |
|
3.1. Will support people making sustainable and active travel choices |
P |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
P |
P |
|
3.2. Will support integrated travel choices |
P |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
P |
P |
|
3.3. Will help make our island and other ferry dependent communities great places to live, work and visit, supporting healthy population balances |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
|
4.1. Will allow people to make travel choices that minimise the long-term impacts on the environment and the wellbeing of future generations |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
|
4.2. Will adapt to the effects of climate change |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
P |
P |
|
4.3. Will help deliver our net-zero target |
P |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P/U |
P |
|
Potential Cumulative Effects |
P |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
P |
PP |
Individually, there is uncertainty on whether Outcomes 1.1, 2.1, 3.3 and 4.1 have potential for positive or negative effects on SEA objective 1 (air quality) as the number of services and associated vessel / vehicle / people movements may increase or decrease as a result of the ICP, and there is also uncertainty on the mechanisms for implementing some of these Outcomes. At the same time, outcomes 1.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.3 are considered to contribute to reducing the number of private vehicles using ferry services, and for ferry services to gradually decarbonise, having an overall positive effect on SEA objective 1 (air quality). In combination, there is a clear intent perceived to reduce the overall dependency on private vehicles to access ferry services by facilitating better integration with public transport and encouraging active travel; and, for any new vessels / services to be more efficient and less polluting. Accordingly, SAP outcomes are considered to have a not significant positive cumulative effect on SEA objective 1. Other outcomes are found to have no effects on SEA objective 1.
Individually, there is uncertainty on whether Outcomes 1.1, 2.1, 3.3, 4.1 and 4.3 have potential for positive or negative effects on SEA objectives 1 – 7, as the number of services and associated vessel / vehicle / people movements may increase or decrease as a result of the ICP, and there is also uncertainty on the mechanisms for implementing some of these Outcomes and their benefits on these SEA objectives. Overall, no / unknown cumulative effects have been identified on SEA objectives 2 – 7.
Individually, outcomes 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.2 are considered to contribute to benefits on SEA objective 8 (material assets), including by supporting the development of a safe, resilient and reliable transport network, and promoting integration with other transport modes, which implies increased efficiency / sustainable use of existing infrastructure. In combination, these are considered to have a not significant positive cumulative effect. Other outcomes are found to have no / unknown effects on SEA objective 8.
All outcomes are considered to individually contribute to long-term benefits on SEA objective 9 (population and human health), reflecting the vision of the ICP, which includes enabling connectivity, sustainability and growth of island and peninsula communities and populations. In combination, these are considered to have a significant positive cumulative effect, as together, through the improvement of ferry services, their integration with other transport modes, building trust, reducing inequality and access barriers, increasing affordability, promoting active travel or contributing to a reduction in air pollution, they are likely to have complementary direct and indirect positive effects on SEA objective 9 in the short, medium and long-term.
Proposed mitigation and enhancement measures have been indicated in Appendix 4 and are summarised herein:
- Priorities / Outcomes mainly cover ferry services, active travel and public transportation, and although aviation and potential new fixed links of bridges, tunnels and causeways, are described in the SAP, these modes of transport / infrastructure elements are not specifically referred to in any of the four priorities and associated Outcomes, as such it is unclear how the ICP supports these.
- It is recommended to consider rewording the description of Outcomes to ensure these are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound (SMART) or to set out how progress towards the Outcomes will be monitored in a SMART way.
- It is recommended to consider rewording the Outcomes (or their description in the SAP) to include / emphasise the benefits anticipated on the natural and historic environment, protection requirements and/or enhancement opportunities, which are relevant to ferry services, port developments, as well as other interventions associated with transport modes that are intended to support these. This includes:
- adding reference to protection of the natural and historic environment when designing and implementing policies and actions that support Outcomes, in relevant Outcomes and/or as a separate set of policies described in the SAP that underpin the ICP.
- further highlighting environmental benefits, e.g. from the effective integration of ferry services with other transport modes (in Outcome 1.2), from promoting active travel (in Outcome 3.1), etc.
- extending the scope of outcome 4.2 beyond ferry services, including reference to adaptation of port infrastructure and other transport services (where relevant) to climate change, and highlighting the benefits achieved for other SEA topics.
- extending the scope of outcome 4.3 beyond ferry services, including reference to promoting net-zero targets in port infrastructure development and relevant interventions associated with other transport modes; and highlighting the benefits achieved for other SEA topics in the description of the outcome, e.g. how outcome 4.3 contributes to reducing GHG emissions and how this benefits SEA topics 2-8.
- It is recommended to consider adding clear reference to the overarching sustainable transport hierarchy in which active travel and integration with public transportation are prioritised over measures that support private vehicle uptake when considering capacity and demand.
The full assessment of individual SAP Priorities / Outcomes is presented in Appendix 4.
VPP
Assessment of the Objectives and Mitigation
Table 6 – Summary of the assessment of VPP Objectives relation to SEA objectives 1 - 9 summary provides a summary of the scores applicable to the potential effects of the VPP Objectives.
|
VPP Objectives |
1. Air Quality |
2. Noise |
3. Soil/ Sediment |
4. Water environment |
5. Biodiversity |
6. Cultural Heritage |
7. Landscape |
8. Material Assets |
9. Population & Human Health |
|
1 To maintain and safely operate ferry connections for CHFS and NIFS communities, and that opportunities continue to be taken through vessel and port investment to enhance services in support of the growth of island populations and economies. |
U |
U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
P |
P |
|
2 To improve weather and technical reliability, primarily through renewing the fleet and upgrading ports in response to asset age and condition. |
U |
U |
N/U |
U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
PP |
P |
|
3 To reduce the average age of the total fleet (across both CHFS and NIFS networks) to around 15 years by the end of this decade. |
P |
P |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
PP |
P |
|
4 To improve resilience through an expansion in the CHFS major vessel fleet and through increased interoperability and standardisation of vessels and ports within the major and small vessel fleets. |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
P |
P |
|
5 To improve accessibility for transport users through vessel and port design, informed by the proposed Accessibility Standard, once available. |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
P |
|
6 To provide additional vehicle-deck capacity to address identified “pinch points” where there is practical, beneficial and affordable. |
U |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
P |
|
7 To progressively decarbonise both vessel fleet and port operations, by 2045. |
P |
P |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
P |
P |
|
8 To retain a major vessel in the fleet for resilience purposes until at least 2030. |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
P |
|
Potential cumulative effects |
P |
P |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
PP |
PP |
Individually, Objective 4 is considered to have potentially negative effects on SEA objectives 1 (air quality) and 2 (noise) as, in the absence of reference to natural environmental protection, Objective 4 could result in an increased number of people / traffic / vessel movements during asset operation with associated effects to air and noise quality, and potential negative effects on air quality and noise during construction works associated with port upgrades. At the same time, it is not clear whether Objectives 1, 2 and 6 would have a positive or negative balance on air quality or on noise overall. However, positive effects on SEA objectives 1 (air quality) and 2 (noise) would clearly arise through the implementation of Objectives 3 and 7 in the long-term.
In combination, whilst there may be short-term negative effects during the construction phase of port works or small scale negative effects during the operational life of ferry assets (as the vessel fleet is only anticipated to add two vessels), the long-term benefits achieved through the increased adoption of modern and less polluting vessels and overall decarbonisation of the vessel fleet and port operations, are considered to overall have positive effects on SEA objectives 1 and 2. Other objectives are found to have no effects on SEA objectives 1 and 2.
Individually, there is some uncertainty on whether Objectives 1, 2 and 4 could have negative effects on SEA objectives 3 (soil/sediment), 4 (water environment), 5 (biodiversity), 6 (cultural heritage) and 7 (landscape). These could be affected negatively by any potential increase in the number of vessels / services operating (long-term and small scale) or by construction works at port locations (short-term). Other objectives are found to have no / unknown effects on SEA objectives 3 - 7. Overall, cumulative effects on these SEA objectives are rated as unknown.
Individually, objectives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 are considered to contribute to benefits on SEA objective 8 (material assets), including by supporting the development of a safe, resilient and reliable transport network and efficient use / management of port infrastructure, including in response to climate change, considering sustainable options. In combination, these are considered complementary and likely to have a significant positive cumulative effect. Other objectives are found to have no effects on SEA objective 8.
All objectives are considered to individually contribute to long-term benefits on SEA objective 9 (population and human health), reflecting the vision of the ICP. In combination, these are considered to have a significant positive cumulative effect, as together, through the continued operation of ferry services with improved connectivity, accessibility, resilience that result in socioeconomic effects, and reduction in air pollution, they are likely to have complementary direct and indirect positive effects on SEA objective 9 in the short, medium and long-term.
Proposed mitigation and enhancement measures have been indicated in Appendix 4 and are summarised below for easy reference:
- It is recommended to consider rewording the description of Objectives to ensure these are SMART or to set out how progress towards the Objectives will be monitored in a SMART way.
- It is recommended to consider rewording the Objectives or developing a separate set of principles or policies underpinning these to include reference to natural and historic environmental protection requirements and/or enhancement opportunities. This could also include:
- adding reference to criteria considered in the assessment of needs for vessel replacement and port upgrades, noting whether this includes environmental / sustainability criteria.
- ensuring consistency with the SAP, adding reference to a sustainable transport hierarchy in which active travel and integration with public transportation are prioritised over measures that support private vehicle uptake when considering capacity and demand.
The full assessment of the VPP Objectives is presented in Appendix 4.
Assessment of the Project Categories and Mitigation
Table 7 - Summary of the assessment of VPP Project Categories in relation to SEA objectives 1 - 9 outlines the scores applicable to the potential effects of the VPP Project Categories.
|
VPP Project Categories |
1. Air Quality |
2. Noise |
3. Soil/ Sediment |
4. Water environment |
5. Biodiversity |
6. Cultural Heritage |
7. Landscape |
8. Material Assets |
9. Population & Human Health |
|
A. Fleet renewal |
P/U |
P/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
O |
P |
P |
|
B. Port upgrades |
P/U |
P/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
P |
P |
|
Potential cumulative effects |
P |
P |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
PP |
PP |
Individually, project categories A and B are considered to have both positive (i.e. through decarbonisation and modernisation of assets) and unknown effects (i.e. due to potential negative effects associated with short-term port construction works and long-term small-scale changes in the number of vessel / traffic movements) on SEA objectives 1 (air quality) and 2 (noise). In combination, the long-term benefits achieved through the increased adoption of modern and less polluting vessels and overall decarbonisation of the vessel fleet and port operations, are considered to overall have positive effects on SEA objectives 1 and 2.
Individually, project categories A and B are considered to have potential for negative effects on SEA objectives 3 – 7 associated with short-term construction effects and long-term (but small scale) operational changes in ferry services (noting that the latter would not have an effect on SEA objective 7 (landscape)). Given that there is uncertainty on whether long-term benefits associated with fleet renewal and port upgrades could have an effect on SEA objectives 3 – 7, individually potential effects are rated as both negative and unknown. In combination, these are overall rated as unknown.
Individually, project categories A and B are considered to contribute to benefits on SEA objectives 8 (material assets) and 9 (population and human health) including by supporting the whole life cycle of vessels and circular economy objectives, ensuring efficient use of port infrastructure and resilience and overall increased connectivity to local communities). In combination, these are considered complementary and likely to have significant positive cumulative effects.
Proposed mitigation and enhancement measures have been indicated in Appendix 4 and are summarised below for easy reference:
- it is recommended to consider including reference in the VPP to the principles by which new vessels should be designed and built and how environmental / heritage protection requirements are to be considered through existing project appraisal, development and business case approval processes.
- it is recommended to consider developing policies / principles to follow during the planning of port upgrades, so environmental protection can be considered from the outset, and increase opportunities for enhancement measures to be considered at an early stage.
- it is recommended to consider adding specific reference to adherence to circular economy / waste hierarchy principles as part of “principles for fleet renewal” or similar to further strengthen benefits to SEA objective 8.
The full assessment of the VPP Project Categories is presented in Appendix 4.
Assessment of Reasonable Alternatives
Findings of the Assessment of the ‘Maintaining the Ferries Plan’ Alternative
Table 8 - Summary of the assessment of the 'Maintaining the Ferries Plan' alternative in relation to SEA objectives 1 – 9 outlines the scores applicable to the potential effects of the ‘Maintaining the Ferries Plan’ alternative.
|
‘Maintaining the Ferries Plan’ Alternative |
1. Air Quality |
2. Noise |
3. Soil/ Sediment |
4. Water environment |
5. Biodiversity |
6. Cultural Heritage |
7. Landscape |
8. Material Assets |
9. Population & Human Health |
|
Intention ”deliver first class sustainable ferry services to communities, stimulating social and economic growth across Scotland” |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
O/U |
P |
|
Working Principle ”concentrate on the correct service profile to meet the needs of the community” |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
U |
O/U |
P |
|
Working Principle ”ensure that there is always sufficient capacity on the route to meet demand” |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
O/U |
P |
|
Working Principle ”ensure wherever possible that each island or remote peninsula community has at least one direct ferry route to the Scottish mainland” |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
O/U |
P |
|
Working Principle ”all second routes on the network are currently required” |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
N/U |
O/U |
P |
|
Working Principle ”work towards combining routes that overlap and compete with one another so that we emerge with a stronger single route option” |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
P |
|
Working Principle ”strengthen and augment existing routes rather than start up new routes” |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
P |
|
Proposal category ”Improved services” |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
O/U |
P |
|
Proposal category ”Changes to routes, including new routes” |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
O/U |
P |
|
Proposal category ”New vessel provision (i.e. purchase / charter / replace)” |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
P |
|
Proposal category ”Port upgrades” |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
O/U |
P |
This alternative only scores positively on SEA topic 9, which reflects that it was originally conceived to prioritise socioeconomic growth over other environmental aims and aspirations. The expanded scope of the ICP in relation to the Ferries Plan can be considered to overall decrease the potential negative effects that implementing this alternative would have, and to overall increase the opportunities for environmental enhancement.
In addition, maintaining an out-of-date plan would mean that existing issues that have been identified by island communities through consultation would not be addressed, and all decisions associated with transport for ferry dependent communities in Scotland would be made based on an assessment that was carried out back in 2009. This would not only have the potential to result in negative indirect effects on SEA objectives 8 (material assets) and 9 (population and human health), but also contradict higher-level policies, including in relation to environmental and historic protection (e.g. the Ferries Plan does not consider contribution to GHG targets), potentially resulting in negative effects on SEA objectives 1 – 7.
The full assessment of the ‘Maintaining the Ferries Plan’ Alternative is presented in Appendix 4.
Findings of the Assessment of the ‘No replacement Plan’ Alternative
Without the ICP, decisions associated with transport for ferry dependent communities in Scotland would be made based on more generic and higher-level policies, namely the NTS, the NPF4, the NIP and the SNSET (see Section on Relationship with Other Qualifying Plans and Programmes). These would fail to address existing issues that have specifically been identified by island communities through consultation, hindering the management and delivery of ferry services by the Scottish government.
Overall, without a strategic vision, desired Outcomes, or sector-specific objectives that guide the delivery of ferry services and associated infrastructure, this alternative would potentially result in negative indirect effects on SEA objectives 8 (material assets) and 9 (population and human health), and neutral effects on SEA objectives 1 – 7. There would also be lost opportunities for environmental enhancements that are achieved through the ICP.