14. IROPI Case: Step 4 – An Overriding Interest

14.1. A Balancing Exercise

379. The IROPI stage of the HRA process necessarily involves a balancing exercise and the exercise of judgement by the decision maker.
380. It is for the Scottish Ministers in conjunction with the SofS to determine whether the substantial, long-term public interests that The Project serves, outweigh the public interest in the conservation of the qualifying species of the affected SPAs.
381. The Scottish Ministers’ and the SofS must exercise that judgement in a rational and a reasonable manner in the context of the HRA framework described in earlier sections of this Report. However, ultimately it is a matter of discretion as to the balance to be struck.

14.2. The Relevant Conservation Interests

382. The Applicant’s most precautionary assessment of the RIAA has concluded AEOI in respect of the following SPAs because of predicted levels of adult mortality of the following qualifying species:

• Forth Islands (kittiwake, guillemot, razorbill and puffin)
• St Abbs Head to Fast Castle (kittiwake, guillemot and razorbill)
• Fowlsheugh (kittiwake, guillemot and razorbill)
• Farne Islands (kittiwake)
• East Caithness Cliffs (kittiwake and razorbill)
• Troup, Pennan & Lion’s Head (kittiwake)
• Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast (kittiwake)
• Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA (kittiwake)
  383. The impacts which result in the Applicant’s conclusion of AEOI are summarised in section1.6 above. Further background information on the affected SPAs including the reasons for their designation, population size and conservation status can be found in the RIAA.

14.3. The Overiding Factors

384. The Applicant is confident that the long-term public interests served by The Project override the AEOI identified in respect of the above SPAs (individually and cumulatively) for the reasons set out in this Part C.
385. The qualifying interests affected in this case are not priority habitats or species, to which the Habitats Regulations attach especial importance. While the impacts are at levels which it is concluded give rise to AEOI, compensatory measures are proposed which would secure the overall coherence of the national site network.
386. On the other side of the balance, The Project is necessitated by long-term public interests of the highest priority: decarbonisation and security of affordable energy supplies.
387. Both fall within the core IROPI category which is “reasons relating to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment”, being reasons which the Habitats Regulations mandate can be overriding even in circumstances where AEOI has been found in respect of priority habitats and/or species. Decarbonisation is imperative in order to protect human health and public safety, as well as to deliver beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment, for all the reasons set out in the preceding sections. The ECJ affirmed in 2019[93] that ensuring the security of the electricity supply “at all times” constitutes an IROPI. Either reason, then, even in isolation, can and would constitute IROPI. Together, the case is beyond doubt.
388. On this point, it is noted that the recent DTA guidance (draft, 2021a) suggests that, in general, the interests served by OWF development are likely to outweigh and override the conservation interests:

“Given the urgency of the climate change crisis, and having demonstrated the absence of alternative solutions, Scottish Ministers anticipate that it is highly unlikely that the public interest served by delivery of offshore wind proposals will not override the conservation interests.”

389. This advice is also consistent with the conclusions reached by the SofS in each of the five previous UK OWF decisions which relied upon the HRA Derogation Provisions.
390. In conclusion, The Project is a project of national strategic and overriding importance for reasons set out at length above but which can be distilled as follows:

• Delivery of up to 4.1GW of low-carbon electricity – enough to power more than 5 million homes each year, starting from 2026.
• A substantial near-term contribution to decarbonisation, offsetting millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum from 2026.
• More than 4.1GW of OWF capacity is required in Scotland and the wider UK to meet policy aims and legal targets for 2030. Without The Project, the 2030 targets would not be met.
• If developed at its full technically achievable capacity, The Project would provide enough energy to replace 19% of Russian gas imports to the UK.
• Decarbonisation and energy security are both urgent imperatives. The scale of and timelines associated with The Project align with that urgency.
• The Project is the only Scottish offshore wind project of significant scale proposed to commission between 2025 and 2030. The Project can “plug the gap” between Scottish CfD AR3 OWFs and ScotWind (likely to start to come on stream from the 2030s onwards).
• Development of The Project is advanced and there is a high degree of certainty attached to its deliverability and cost efficiency for many reasons including location (shallow waters), design (fixed bottom turbines) and large scale (4.1GW).
• The Project enacts, to a large measure owing to its scale, Scottish and UK energy, climate change, planning and marine planning policies, serving the long-term public interests (as set out at a) – g) above. Without The Project, it is probablethat delivery of multitude policies will fall short, including: the Scotland Sectoral Marine Plan, Scottish Energy Strategy, the Ten Point Plan, UK Net Zero Strategy and UK Offshore Wind Sector Deal, as well as the targets set by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, the (UK) Climate Change Act 2008 (as amended) and the Net Zero Strategy: Build back Greener.
  391. For all these reasons, The Project is an essential part of the future generation mix.
  392. The long-term public interests that The Project serves therefore demonstrably outweigh the predicted harm to each and all affected SPAs which are the subject of this Derogation Case.
       

15. Summary of Part C: IROPI

393. The Project would contribute substantially to Scotland’s and the UK’s legally binding climate change targets, providing a significant near-term contribution to decarbonisation of energy supply, whilst also contributing to the essential tasks of ensuring security of supply and providing low-cost energy for consumers in line with the Scotland and UK Government’s national policies.
394. These are reasons which fall within the core IROPI category of human health, public safety or benefits of primary importance of the environment.
395. There is an overriding public interest in authorising The Project to further the fundamental policy objectives it will serve, which demonstrably outweighs the AEOI which is predicted in respect of the identified SPAs.
396. The Project will also contribute materially to the economic and social landscape in Scotland and the UK and can provide substantial employment opportunities and skills development, particularly in coastal communities, whilst also playing a major role in supporting Scotland and the UK’s supply chains.
397. This Report demonstrates a compelling case that The Project is indispensable and must be carried out for IROPI.

Part D: Compensatory Measures

16. Introduction to Compensatory measures

16.1. Overview

398. Having demonstrated in Parts B and C, that there are no Alternative Solutions and that there are IROPI for the Proposed Development, Part D now demonstrates to the Scottish Ministers that compensatory measures can be put in place if necessary to ensure the overall coherence of the national site network. This is presented should the Scottish Ministers adopt the most precautionary assessment conclusions of the RIAA and conclude AEOI in respect of the Forth Islands, St Abbs Head to Fast Castle, Fowlsheugh, Farne Islands, Flamborough and Filey Coast, East Caithness Cliffs, Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast and Troup, Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPAs, as outlined in Table 4.

16.2. Content and Structure

399. This section provides a summary of the process that the Applicant has carried out to select a suite of compensatory measures. This section also provides a summary of each proposed compensatory measure, an assessment of feasibility and a justification of the sufficiency of each measure. Further details on the measures are available in the Colony Compensation Measures (CCM) Evidence Report, Fisheries Compensation Measures (FCM) Evidence Report and Implementation and Monitoring Plan (IMP) which have been submitted alongside this document.

16.3. Consultation

400. The Applicant has undertaken extensive consultation about compensation for the Proposed Development with relevant stakeholders as part of the preparation of the Derogation Case. Detail on this consultation is presented in the Consultation Log (Appendix 1 of this document) and is referred to in the relevant sections below. Consultation with various stakeholders about the proposed compensatory measures will continue post consent.

17. Compensatory Measures Selection Process

401. The Applicant has used a five-step process to select the proposed compensatory measures. This is set out below.

• Step 1 - Risk to conservation objectives

–      Quantify the nature and extent of potential adverse effects and the conservation objectives which may be undermined

–      Show how these effects might affect overall network coherence,

• Step 2 – Aims and Objectives

–      Specify the aims and objectives of compensatory measures

• Step 3 - Feasibility of potential compensatory measure options

–      Assessing the feasibility of potential compensatory measure options (technical, legal and financial)

–      Identify a final list of proposed compensatory measures and carry out a detailed feasibility assessment

• Step 4 - Assess the extent of the proposed compensatory measures and the sufficiency of each measure in ensuring the overall coherence of the National Site Network

• Step 5 - Implementation and monitoring plan

–      Providing an overarching implementation and monitoring plan

402. This five-step process was undertaken for the Proposed Development and is set out below.

17.2. Step 1 – Quantifying Effects on Conservation Objectives

403. Conclusions from the RIAA drawn from the Scoping Approach have been used in this section to quantify the effect on the conservation objectives of SPAs adversely affected. As discussed in section 1.6, this worst-case approach is considered by the Applicant to be over-precautionary, but it is presented here to allow Scottish Ministers to consider all the potential requirements for compensation and, therefore, all measures put forward as options.
404. Table 18   Open ▸ presents the predicted annual adult mortality of all SPA features that the RIAA, using the Scoping Approach, found an AEOI. The mortalities for kittiwake represent a combined impact value for collision and displacement. The mortalities for all other species are a result of displacement only. As stated in section 1.6 for the majority of features a conclusion of AEOI is due to the in-combination effect of other plans and projects.  Only for two features at three SPAs was an AEOI identified from the Proposed Development alone (guillemot at Forth Islands, Fowlsheugh and St Abb's Head to Fast Castle, and kittiwake at St Abb's Head to Fast Castle).
405. This table demonstrates that the combined impacts of displacement and collision from the Proposed Development may negatively impact the conservation objectives of Forth Islands SPA, St Abbs Head to Fast Castle SPA, Fowlsheugh SPA, East Caithness Cliffs SPA, Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast and Troup SPA, and Pennan and Lion’s Heads SPA by increasing adult mortality. This means that the population of the impacted species may no longer form a viable component of the site in the long term.
406. For the Farne Islands and the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPAs the combined impacts of displacement and collision from the proposed development may negatively impact the conservation objectives by increasing adult mortality. This means that the capacity of the population to be maintained or restored may be compromised. This potential reduction in population at the impacted sites means that the National Site Network may not be able to sustain a viable population and therefore overall network coherence may be compromised.

Table 18: The predicted annual adult mortality from the Proposed Development for SPA qualifying features adversely affected. Mortalities are calculated using the Scoping Approach. Relevant Conservation Objectives affected also provided.

17.3. Step 2 – The Aims/Objectives of Compensatory Measures

407. The overall aim of the compensatory measures is to maintain the coherence of the national site network given the potential impacts of the Proposed Development.
408. The objective of the compensatory measures is to offset the impacts on the adult population at the impacted sites that may occur from the proposed development. This can be achieved by implementing measures that reduce mortality, increase recruitment, breeding success, and/or productivity.
409. Therefore, the Applicant put in place a process to identify compensatory measures that would deliver the positive changes to seabird demographics identified above.

17.4. Step 3 – Assessing the Feasibility of potential compensatory measure options

410. Step 3 provides a summary of the process by which potential compensatory measures were considered and feasible options selected.
411. The chosen suite of compensatory measures was derived, by the Applicant, through a 5-step process (Figure 12). This began with a review of possible impacts and likely SPAs and species for which compensation might be required, followed by a literature review of the pressures upon relevant seabird species, alongside extensive expert stakeholder consultation through structured questionnaire and subsequent discussion to gauge opinion on key limitations for populations and the likely best means of tackling those limitations. Consultation reinforced the need for the planned review of key prey fish and their fisheries. 

Figure 12 The five-step evaluation process used to derive a series of potential compensatory measures

412. Initial consultation included all key stakeholders including regulators, statutory conservation bodies and representatives from those organisations with responsibility for particular colonies from the Scottish and English east coast from North Caithness Cliffs (Moray Firth) in the north to Bempton Cliffs (Yorkshire) in the south and encompassing the four ‘focus SPAs’ (Forth Islands, Fowlsheugh, St Abbs to Fast Castle and the Farne Islands) with greatest potential to be most impacted by the Proposed Development. A total of thirteen sites within nine SPAs were represented by the 15 interviewees.  
413. Stakeholders were asked to rate the various pressures facing seabirds from high to low. Poor prey availability was the highest ranked pressure on seabirds (High/Very High) affecting all species ( Table 19   Open ▸ ). Extreme weather events via climate change including outside the breeding season were considered the next most important (Medium/High), especially in relation to some species. Human disturbance and predation typically within the breeding season were only thought to be important for a specific combination of species, colonies and years. Habitat availability was considered to be of Very Low importance within all of the SPAs. The importance of a lack of prey relative to available breeding habitat for example was encapsulated by one respondent: [there is] “plenty of protected cliff nesting habitat for birds to safely starve on. Little or inadequate network of key marine protected areas for birds to forage in.” Accordingly, there was a striking lack of appetite for compensation focussed on provision of additional nesting habitat (see Table 20   Open ▸ ).

Table 19: Pressures on key seabird species as rated by stakeholders and expressed as median rank score (from scores from 0–10) where < 2 = Very low, 2–4 = Low, 4–6 = Medium, 6–8 = High, 8–10 = Very High

Table 20: Efficacy of potential compensation for key seabird species as rated by stakeholders and expressed as median rank score (from scores from 0–10) where < 2 = Very low, 2–4 = Low, 4–6 = Medium, 6–8 = High, 8–10 = Very High

414. By contrast, compensation focussed on improving prey availability was seen as being of Very High value for all species and overwhelmingly important overall ( Table 20   Open ▸ ). This was also directed at reducing fishing effort in the vicinity of colonies, potentially both directly for important prey species (e.g. sandeels or clupeids) or to prevent accidental indirect damage to prey stocks and their habitats through the use of fishing gear directed at other species (e.g. scallop dredging).
415. Following the approach shown in Figure 12, generic options for compensation were then refined into a series of specific compensatory measures that could be applied to the potential impacts of the Proposed Development, on kittiwake, guillemot, razorbill and puffin. 
416. The compensatory measures identified were broadly divided into wider fisheries-based measures aimed at increasing the prey resource available to seabirds and thence productivity, recruitment and survival, and a suite of colony-based measures derived from site-specific issues that focus on reducing mortality, improving breeding success and productivity at a specific colony or series of colonies.
417. The two types of compensatory measure are seen to be complementary. For example, while fisheries-based measures are seen to have the potential for benefits at a population or meta-population scale, they are indirect in nature by operating through prey fish to seabird productivity and survival. Colony-based measures, on the other hand, operate directly on seabird productivity and survival. Colony-based measures also draw directly from the established principles of conservation management (e.g. protection from humans or predators)
418. The importance of different types of measures was seen to vary for different species, with some being more targeted at a particular species. For example, although a reduction of fishing pressure on sandeels (generally lesser sandeel Ammodytes marinus) may benefit all species to a greater or lesser extent, this was seen to be most crucial for ‘sandeel specialists’ such as kittiwake. Control of particular predators was also likely to be species and location-specific, although the removal of rodents, especially rats, from a seabird island may benefit all seabirds through a variety of direct and indirect mechanisms. Nevertheless, the strength of the response may be much higher for some species (e.g. burrow-nesting puffin).
419. The mixture of measures to be developed was thus seen as interactive and broadly synergistic with, for example, a measure to increase prey supply being boosted by a specific colony-based measure providing further protection to chicks benefitting from the quantity and quality of adult provisions, thereby maximising productivity and the prospects and survival. Thus, even small likely ‘gains’ from a particular measure were seen to be valuable where these contributed to a collective whole. In other words, all potentially beneficial measures were investigated, even if these were not likely to have a ‘population-scale’ benefit in isolation.
420. The scope for the potential benefit of colony-based measures was also illustrated by the considerable differences of the performance of nearby colonies indicating local limiting factors that, in turn, have potential to be ‘managed’ at the colony level.

Fisheries-Based Measures

421. Fish stocks are important for the breeding success and/or survival of seabird populations that forage on these stocks. There have been numerous examples of the benefits of improved fisheries management on fish stocks and consequent benefits to seabird populations. Further detail is provided in the FCM Evidence Report.
422. Many seabirds in the North Sea are known to be dependent on sandeels, particularly in the breeding season. Evidence from the east coast of Scotland and in Shetland has shown that breeding success of many species can be affected by low sandeel abundance. There is also evidence from kittiwakes that adult survival may be reduced if sandeel stocks are sufficiently depleted.
423. Appropriate management of sandeel fisheries in the North Sea was therefore considered to be the most suitable and sufficient compensation measure for the predicted impact from the Proposed Development on kittiwake, guillemot, razorbill and puffin.
424. The Applicant has developed two management options for Scottish Ministers to consider:

• Option 1 – Closure of the SA4 Sandeel Fishery: Due to the location of the Proposed Development and the potentially impacted SPA colonies being within or in proximity to SA4 this option proposes an extension of the existing sandeel prohibition zone, to include the whole of SA4. Fishing for sandeels would be prohibited within SA4 aside from an allowance of up to 5000 tonnes for monitoring.
• Option 2 – Ecosystem based management of SA4 Sandeel Fishery: This option would be delivered through the implementation of a SA4 Sandeel Management Plan (SMP) and monitoring of seabirds and sandeels. It provides the opportunity take an adaptive approach to manage fishing pressures by allowing the sandeel stock and increase the overall resilience of the marine ecosystem whilst allowing sustainable fishing to continue.

Colony-Based Measures

425. A hierarchical approach to evaluation of the colony-based compensation was adopted. The principal focus of compensation was to match the combinations of the likely impacted species and SPA colonies within the Firth of Forth (e.g. compensate for Kittiwake at breeding colonies within Forth Islands SPA). However, where there was little scope to do so, the next preferred option was to undertake compensation at connected perhaps non-SPA colonies (e.g. Dunbar) within the Firth of Forth. Where this was not possible or was thought to be insufficient to compensate for potential impacts, compensation outside of the Firth of Forth was sought with the measures benefitting the wider SPA network. 
426. Most colony-based measures that originated during consultation stemmed from ideas suggested by stakeholders, especially wardens and researchers associated with colonies. However, further ideas originated from literature review as well as personal experience of colonies and/or conservation management. As such, measures frequently (although not always) focussed and targeted to a species-specific issue at a particular colony. From what was a ‘long-list’ of ‘concept’ measures, the more efficacious were selected for further development using a matrix-based approach incorporating a range of criteria including reward, confidence, cost, technical difficulty, efficacy, feasibility and additionality. The question of additionality was generally seen to be satisfied with novel measures or by a measure being over and above the level of management already undertaken.
427. Colony-based measures brought forward for further development were as follows: 

• Remove introduced rodents from islands, with the preferred option to carry this out in the Firth of Forth. This could benefit all relevant breeding species (kittiwake, guillemot, razorbill and puffin) but perhaps especially razorbill and puffin breeding in crevices and burrows respectively. 
• Diversionary feeding of peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus at St Abbs Head primarily to reduce predation pressure on kittiwake (but also including other species) at the SPA. 
• Funding a warden (and research) to protect and enhance productivity of kittiwake at Dunbar Castle and surrounds as a non-SPA colony. 
• Supplementary feeding of kittiwake nestlings to improve breeding success. This would require a trial with Centre for Ecology and Hydrology on the Isle of May.  
• Control of specialist avian predators including individual/pairs of large gulls or corvids where identified, to potentially benefit kittiwake and any of the auk species. 
• Control of foxes at Longhaven Cliffs (part of Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA) to reduce predation pressure on razorbill, puffin and guillemot.
• Take steps to reduce human disturbance, primarily at St Abbs Head. 
• Removal of coastal and marine litter, primarily through collaboration with the Forth Estuary Forum and reinvigoration of the Coastal Litter Campaign. 
  428. During the process of taking forward these measures, several have proven difficult, and others have altered subtly in the light of more detailed consideration of relevant information, further stakeholder engagement, and clarity relating to the mechanisms by which the compensatory measures might be most effectively delivered. Measures that were discounted from further consideration included diversionary feeding of peregrine falcon at St Abbs Head and reducing the impacts of human disturbance at St Abbs Head. In addition to the list above, the possibility of removing rats from Handa Island SPA was raised later in the process during a follow-up discussion with SWT and was subsequently taken forward. Two further measures were identified and taken forward for further development. These were a reduction in the Gannet harvest at Sula Sgeir and the funding of work to incubate gull eggs removed from buildings by pest control companies
  429. The list of the colony-based measures taken forward for discussion with regulators, SNCBs and other stakeholders as a part of the Applicant’s seabird compensation consultation process was as follows: 
• Remove introduced rodents from islands, both within Firth of Forth and from Handa Island SPA. This could benefit kittiwake, guillemot, razorbill and puffin but most especially razorbill and puffin breeding in crevices and burrows respectively. 
• Funding a warden (and research) to protect and enhance productivity of kittiwake at Dunbar Castle and surrounds as a non-SPA colony. 
• Control of specialist avian predators through diversionary feeding of raptors and large gulls, to potentially benefit kittiwake and any of the auk species.
• Removal of coastal litter from non-SPA islands in the Firth of Forth to benefit breeding colonies of kittiwake, razorbill, guillemot and puffin.
• Supplementary feeding of kittiwake and puffin nestlings to improve breeding success. This requires trials to establish benefits and methodology.
• Cessation of Gannet Harvest at Sula Sgeir
• Gull Egg rescue and incubation  
  430. The feedback given in response to these consultation meetings was used to further refine and prioritise the list of measures further.
  431. Since compensatory measures must be additional to current management, it is inevitable that focus is directed either towards non-SPA sites where resource for any form of seabird management is either limited or lacking entirely, or towards novel and untried techniques. Since all SPAs have management plans, any obvious issues are identified and plans are put in place to tackle them as a part of the management process, even if resources may be limited. On NatureScot’s advice any items listed in a management plan were considered subject to additionality on the basis that there is already an intention and/or plan to tackle them. Although advice from NatureScot stated that compensatory measures should be on a ‘like for like basis and/or in close proximity to where the impact will occur, it was difficult to identify measures that could be implemented at SPA colonies since most management plans are effective in identifying problems, even if resourcing to tackle them may be lacking.  
  432. By contrast additionality was not an issue at non-SPA sites where there is generally no resource for the management of seabirds. Two non-SPA sites were identified in the Firth of Forth that would benefit from funding to better manage their seabird colonies and where stakeholders were open to improving conditions for birds. These were the Kittiwake colony at Dunbar and Inchcolm island, which supports small breeding colonies of Kittiwake, Razorbill and Puffin. Although measures to improve conditions for seabirds at non-SPA colonies were well received during the Applicant’s seabird compensation consultation process, the quantity of compensation they might deliver is limited because non-SPAs support much smaller numbers of birds.
  433. Feedback from the Applicant’s seabird compensation consultation process was most positive in relation to removal of rats from islands. However, for rodent eradication from islands to qualify as compensation the island must have rats and must also support at least some of the key species for which compensation is required. Furthermore, support from the landowner and any other relevant stakeholders is also fundamental. Only one island within the Firth of Forth met these criteria: Inchcolm.
  434. Since there was general support for work to eradicate rats from seabird islands it was decided to look for an additional island for rodent removal to generate further compensation. Although Handa had been identified in discussion with SWT during stakeholder consultation, NatureScot questioned whether there might be a more suitable location for compensation nearer the Firth of Forth. A review of islands was conducted to ascertain whether this may be the case. Although other islands were identified, only Lambay and Handa supported large colonies of the key species and also had a known rat problem. Since Lambay is offshore of Ireland, it was agreed that Handa (being located in closer proximity to the Proposed Development) was the most appropriate compensation location.
  435. Prioritisation of other colony-based measures was established though feedback from the Applicant’s seabird compensation consultation process, and as a result measures were classified into three Tiers, which are defined below: 
• Tier I: Measures that are agreed to be beneficial, were generally viewed positively, and which can be implemented within the next year.
• Tier II: Measures that are agreed to be beneficial, but which are difficult to quantify, or which require a further data-gathering stage prior to implementation. 
• Tier III: Measures which were discussed as a part of the consultation process, but which were not progressed due to lack of support from SNCBs and/or regulators, but which may still have the potential to deliver some compensation benefit.
  436. It should be noted that Table 21   Open ▸ only includes compensatory measures relevant to the key species (i.e. those species where the is a potential for an AEOI at SPAs from the Proposed Development).

Table 21: Prioritised colony-based compensatory measures, their location, and the key species which will benefit.

437. Following a review of the feasibility of delivery of each measure and in view of the final outcomes of the RIAA, the list of compensatory measures to take forward was refined to three. The final list of measures encompasses a fisheries management measure – for which there are two options for delivery - and two colony measures. These have been taken forward for further consideration within a detailed feasibility assessment.
438. The chosen compensatory measures are:

• Management of the SA4 sandeel fishery

–      Option 1: Closure of the SA4 sandeel fishery and monitoring of seabirds and sandeel; or

–      Option 2: Ecosystem-based approach for management of SA4 and monitoring of seabirds and sandeel

• Rat eradication and biosecurity measures at Handa island

–      Implementation of an eradication programme, implementation of biosecurity measures, improvements to seabird habitats and monitoring of seabirds.

• Dunbar Castle wardening role

–      Implementation of a Kittiwake Management Plan which will detail actions to reduce disturbance, and actions to manage kittiwake habitat as well as monitoring kittiwakes at Dunbar.

Detailed Feasilbility Assessment of Proposed Compensatory Measures

439. The Applicant’s detailed feasibility assessment has been carried out to ensure each of the measures selected meets the key criteria for compensation. The list of key criteria was developed in view of the suite of guidance documents available on compensation (see section 2.2). The assessment is presented below in Table 22   Open ▸ to Table 25   Open ▸ and demonstrates to Scottish Ministers that each of the chosen measures is feasible in respect of all criteria assessed.

Table 22 Detailed Feasibility Assessment for Management of SA4 Sandeel Fishery: Option 1 - Closure of the SA4 sandeel fishery and monitoring of seabirds and sandeel

Table 23 Detailed Feasibility Assessment for Management of SA4 Sandeel Fishery: Option 2 - Ecosystem based approach for management of SA4 and monitoring of seabirds and sandeel.

Table 24 Detailed Feasibility Assessment for rat eradication and biosecurity measures at Handa Island

Table 25 Detailed Feasibility Assessment for Dunbar castle wardening role

17.5. Step 4 Sufficiency of Proposed Compensatory Measures

440. The Applicant has proposed two categories of compensation: colony-based measures which focus on improving productivity at relevant colonies and fisheries-based measures that aim to improve prey availability leading to both an increase in productivity and survival. These measures are complementary and, when implemented, will provide significant long-term benefits to relevant seabird populations. The section above has also demonstrated that the proposed measures are feasible, ecologically effective and can be secured.
441. The aim of implementing these compensatory measures is to ensure the overall coherence of the national site network, given the potential negative impacts of the Proposed Development. The table below shows the balance of overall annual impacts and benefits to the SPA network for both Fisheries Management and Colony Based Measures combined. This shows the high compensation ratios that the measures will deliver resulting in a significant compensation surplus and demonstrates that the proposed measures have sufficient substance and scale to offset any impacts from the Proposed Development, deal with any residual uncertainty and interim losses and - in the case of sandeel measures - provide a mechanism for compensation for impacts of future Scotwind projects. The compensation ratio has been assessed using the worst-case impacts derived from the Scoping Approach, and the most conservative estimate of the likely benefits.

Table 26 Balance of overall annual impacts and benefits to the SPA network for both Fisheries Management and Colony Based Measures combined

442. Further details of the approach to assessing the scale of the benefits for each individual colony measures is shown in the CCM Evidence report. The FCM Evidence report provides further details on the methodologies to quantify the benefits from the proposed fisheries measures and also provides detailed PVA assessment to demonstrate the long-term benefit to SPA populations.

17.6. Step 5 - Prepare Implementation and Monitoring Plan

443. The Applicant has prepared a detailed Implementation and Monitoring Plan as part of its Derogation Case submission. The IMP provides the evidence to Scottish Ministers that the selected compensatory measures can be delivered in a timely manner and can be relied upon to secure the overall coherence of the national site network.