The Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament sat recently and as we reported on oil leaks they agreed to write to the Scottish Government (again). SEPA, SNH, MCA and the Scottish Government all responded to our petition. We were then allowed to respond to these organisations – first the response to SNH:
RESPONSE TO SUBMISSION FROM SNH (PE1637/A)
The penultimate paragraph of SNH’s response to our petition says:
“To identify appropriate locations for ship to ship transfers, it may be appropriate for the MCA to carry out a strategic overview of the activity in UK waters. This would allow for an assessment of the environmental effects on potentially sensitive sites at that strategic level”.
We take this to be a reference to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as required by European Directive 2001/42/EC, and would argue that SEA of ship-to-ship (STS) oil transfers in UK or Scottish waters may be not only “appropriate”, but a legal requirement. This matter has not been fully considered by the Public Petitions Committee.
Scotland has seen contentious and environmentally questionable proposals in both the Firth of Forth and the Moray Firth, so this strategic aspect needs to be addressed urgently to determine what suitable sites we may have for STS activities in Scotland which will allow trust ports to make appropriate plans for their sustainable development. Marine Scotland has undertaken SEA in respect of matters as diverse as marine renewables and wild seaweed harvesting. Why should STS transfers be any different?
We note that in their response to the petition, as in their response to the 2015 CFPA application, SNH provided limited advice on European Protected Species (EPS), other protected species and Priority Marine Features. EPS include bottlenose dolphin, harbour porpoise, minke whale, otter and Atlantic salmon, all of which occur in the Inner Moray Firth, and it is clear that STS transfers at the proposed location are likely to disturb at least the bottlenose dolphin population, so the requirement for an EPS licence – for which Marine Scotland would be the determining authority – should also have been highlighted. The matter of EPS licensing also needs to be followed up by the Public Petitions Committee.
