6.6. Priority Species

For priority habitat and species, a competent authority can only be satisfied that there are IROPI under specific conditions. This could, in effect, raise the bar on the test for IROPI, as it requires an applicant to demonstrate that a plan or project will be benefit certain areas (such as human health, public safety, or the environment) or have regard to the Opinion of the EC.
Section 4 lists all the SPAs and qualifying features identified by the RIAA that are predicted to be adversely affected by the Array in-combination with other plans and projects.
None of the qualifying features listed in section 4 are identified as priority habitats and species by the Habitats Directive. This means that for the Competent Authorities to be satisfied that there are IROPI, the specific conditions attached to priority species and habitat do not need to be addressed.
Nevertheless, while there is no requirement to address these specific requirements, the Array will clearly be beneficial for human health and the environment due to its contribution to the decarbonisation of the energy sector (as evidenced in the proceeding sections). The knowledge that the Array meets this higher test associated priority species and habitats should provide the Competent Authorities with additional comfort that the Array is of IROPI.

6.7. Summary and Conclusions

This section demonstrates the case that the Array must be carried out for IROPI. The RIAA has found that the Array, in-combination with other plans and projects, will have an AEOI on the qualifying features of seven SPAs (none of which are priority species as defined by the Habitat Directive). However, in the backdrop of climate change and in the pursuit of energy security and affordability, the reasons for the Array are imperative and in the long-term public interest. These reasons are overriding when weighed against the conservation interests of the qualifying features of the affected SPA. This position is emphasised when the contribution of the Array to decarbonisation is considered against the threat of climate change on these species.

In sections 5 and 6 the Applicant has demonstrated that there are no Alternative Solutions and that there are IROPI for the Array. The third and final section of this Derogation Case demonstrates to Scottish Ministers that compensatory measures can be put in place if necessary to ensure the overall coherence of the national site network.
The Applicant is presenting two compensatory measures to offset the potential impact of the Array. The two proposed compensatory measures are (a) a predatory (mink) control measure in conjunction with the Scottish Invasive Species Initiative (SISI); and (b) a by-catch reduction measure in Portuguese waters in conjunction with the Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds (SPEA).
As summarised below, adequate reasons and evidence have been provided, to give Scottish Ministers confidence that these compensatory measures can be secured and will be effective compensation.

The Applicant has outlined the proposed compensation measures in the following reports, which are appended to this document ( Table 7.1 Open ▸ ).

This final section provides an overview of the two compensatory measures proposed. In Table 7.2 Open ▸ each measure is described alongside a summary of the underlying ecological evidence base and key details on their implementation.
The Applicant is confident that the compensation package presented Derogation Case is sufficient to fully compensate for the impacts outlined in in the RIAA (summarised in section 1.3).
The measures will directly compensate UK populations of the species impacted by the array and bring about substantial benefits for several other seabird species breeding in the UK. The measures will provide high compensation ratios, which can allow for significant compensation surplus if required. As such, they will provide a comprehensive solution that will maintain (and enhance) the overall coherence of the national site network.