Following on from yesterday there were a couple of questions left unanswered from the batch that Mark Ruskell MSP put together.
To ask the Scottish Government what meetings (a) ministers and (b) officials have had with (i) Scottish Natural Heritage and (ii) Scottish Enterprise at which proposals by Cromarty Firth Port Authority to carry out ship-to-ship oil transfers were discussed, broken down by (A) date and (B) location.
Cromarty Rising Comment : that is perhaps disappointing that that Scottish Government have not held any such meetings to discuss this – if they had then they wouldn’t have had such a poor answer to the next question:
To ask the Scottish Government how it uses section 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) to assess the impact on wildlife sites of ship-to-ship transfers of (a) oil and (b) other chemicals in (i) harbour authority areas, (ii) other inshore waters and (iii) offshore waters, and what assessment it has made of (A) the impact of its approach and (B) whether its approach meets the requirements of the habitats directive.
Cromarty Rising Comment: keen watchers of oil leaks would have seen that number 56 was on that very subject and why the Scottish Government are wrong in their assertion that it “no oor problem”. Interestingly, nearly the same question was asked a decade earlier in relation to the Firth of Forth and the answer seems to have been completely different.
Question S2W-24710: Mark Ruskell, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party, Date Lodged: 27/03/2006
To ask the Scottish Executive by what process regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, as amended, is applied to assess the implications for European wildlife sites of ship-to-ship transfers of oil and other chemicals in (a) harbour authority areas in Scotland, (b) other inshore waters and (c) offshore waters and whether this process meets the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive.
Answered by Rhona Brankin (26/04/2006): The merchant shipping legislationrelating to ship to ship transfers of oil and other chemicals is not specifically covered by Part IV of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994and as such Regulation 48 and 49 of theConservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 do not apply as a matter of law to such proposals. However, Regulation3(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 requires every competent authority in the exercise of their functions, to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of thosefunctions. Regulation 48 and 49 transpose the requirements of Article 6(3) and 6(4)into domestic law.
Where a European Protected species(EPS) is present and the project is likely to cause any effects which would constitutean offence under Regulations 39 or 43, the promoter of the project requires a licenceunder Regulation 44, which will only be granted if the three tests in that Regulation are met. These tests apply whether the EPS is within or outside a European site.
Cromarty Rising Comment: any budding environmental lawyer out there like to hazard a guess as to why two completely different answers to what is essentially the same question? As explained previously the MCA are now the competent authority when it come to making the “Appropriate Assessment” but European Protected Species (such as whales and dolphins) are nothing to do with them – that is a Marine Scotland function, part of the Scottish Government. We will try and seek some clarity on this one……