Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 14 December 2023

Introduction 

This document summarises the responses received to the public consultation on the crab and lobster fisheries management plan (FMP), held between 17 July and 1 October 2023, and sets out the government’s response.  

Consultations took place at the same time on 5 other FMPs. A number of broad, cross-cutting themes from the consultation responses, which are relevant to all FMPs, are also addressed in this document. 

This document has 3 main parts: 

• introduction – context and a high-level overview of the consultation 
• summary of responses – summaries of themes and comments received as part of the consultation 
• government response – sets out the government’s response and intentions 

The summary of responses and government response are divided into separate sections covering the FMP and associated environmental report. 

As noted in the consultation, the UK has some of the best wild seafood resources in the world. Our fish stocks are a public asset that generate food and recreational enjoyment and create jobs in a sector with a strong sense of identity and pride in its communities. These stocks form a vital part of our marine ecosystems and natural capital.  

Many of our fish stocks are under pressure from fishing and climate change. Fishing can also have a negative impact on the marine ecosystem, for example through accidental bycatch or the effects of fishing gear on the seabed. It is therefore important to consider all the effects of fishing as part of our overall management of the marine environment. 

FMPs are a requirement of the Fisheries Act 2020 (‘the Act’). The Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) for England 2023 also sets out the important role of FMPs in the sustainable management of our fish and shellfish stocks.   

FMPs assess the status of stocks and set out policies and actions to restore stocks to, or maintain them at, sustainable levels. As set out in the Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS), where appropriate, these plans will contribute towards wider objectives under the Act.  

The crab and lobster FMP has been prepared and published to comply with the requirements in the JFS and in section 6 of the Act. The preparation process had regard for:   

• the prevailing Marine Plans (as required by section 58(3) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009) 
• the Environmental Principles (as required by sections 17(5)(a-e) and 19(1) of the Environment Act 2021) 
• the requirement for strategic environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 

Background to the consultation 

The consultation on the crab and lobster FMP and environmental report ran for 11 weeks from 17 July until 1 October 2023. 

The consultation was conducted using Citizen Space (an online consultation tool), by email and through a series of online and in-person engagement events. The analysis given in this summary is based on the responses to the consultation provided through all of these channels. 

Overview of responses 

In total, 93 direct responses to the consultation were received:

• 50 were submitted via the Citizen Space online survey
• 43 via email

The breakdown of responses consisted of: 

• 37 (40%) from the catching and producing sector 
• 16 (17%) from other sectors 
• 4 (4%) from interest groups 
• 6 (7%) from individuals 
• 5 (5%) from the processing sector 
• 2 (2%) from science and research sector 
• 1 (1%) from the supplier and retail sector 
• 1 (1%) from the marine industry sector 
• 21 (23%) sector not stated 

Stakeholders that selected ‘other sectors’ included:

• Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs)
• public bodies
• other governments
• environmental non-government organisations (eNGOs)

However, there was some crossover with the ‘interest group’ category, with some of the same stakeholder groups selecting this option instead. 

A list of organisations who responded to the consultation is set out in Annex 1. 

We also engaged with over 300 people at 23 in-person meetings where stakeholders were given the opportunity to discuss the draft crab and lobster FMP. A list of meeting locations is included in Annex 2. 

Online meetings were also used to gather views from a wide range of sectors and stakeholders including:

• the catching sector
• the wider supply chain
• eNGOs
• scientists
• academia
• EU attachés to the UK
• others interested in fisheries management

These engagement events were used as an additional method to seek and record views on the FMP. This input was particularly important considering the time of year (summer fishing season) and volume of domestic fisheries consultations held. Views and comments from these meetings were treated as part of the consultation and are summarised below. 

Methodology 

Due to the broad scope of the FMP and the qualitative nature of responses, an analysis based on the themes of responses was conducted. Using an iterative approach, each response was analysed twice to identify the topics raised by stakeholders and policy recommendations put forward. We have summarised each response, which has been used to produce the overall summary of responses outlined below. 

Comments and views were noted at in-person and online meetings. These notes were cross checked and then analysed using the same iterative process. Views from these engagement events have been included in the summary below and have been considered equally alongside the email and online responses. 

Headline messages 

We are very grateful for the time that stakeholders have taken to provide constructive input to help us improve and finalise the FMPs. A wide range of diverse and informative views were presented for which we have provided detailed summaries in the sections below.  

Overall, there was broad support for this FMP as an approach to improve the sustainability of crab and lobster stocks in English waters.  

There was support for the key short-term proposals to:

• raise the minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) for lobster and crawfish in certain areas
• ban the use of soft-shelled crab for bait
• pilot effort management and catch limits in specific areas

There were calls for regional variations in stock biology and economic impacts to be considered when introducing new measures and to consider phasing their introduction to reduce the impacts on businesses.  

There were challenges from various sectors, including industry, IFCAs and academia, for government to move faster to manage effort levels by introducing pot limits for crab and lobster, noting the need to apply the precautionary principle to prevent further effort increases while longer-term management approaches are developed. There were also calls for a broader review of conservation reference sizes. 

Details of the changes made to this FMP in response to the consultation are set out in the government response sections of this document.  

Summary of responses to FMP questions 

As part of the consultation, stakeholders were asked 13 questions via Citizen Space, which allowed them to express their views on the content of the proposed crab and lobster FMP. Summaries of the responses to these 13 questions are detailed in this section. Email responses and views from coastal meetings have also been summarised in this section. 

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the process for developing the Crab and Lobster FMP?  

While some stakeholders positively noted the extent to which stakeholders had been engaged in the FMP drafting process so far, it was generally stated that engagement should have reached out further.  

This was noted in particular for smaller operators and businesses, with concerns that their views were not being fairly considered within industry management groups or accounted for within the draft management plan. It was stated that input from the inshore fleet has been minimal, and further support is needed to help them attend meetings and engage with government, to ensure a more balanced development of policy that is not only based on the interests of larger operators. Concerns were also raised that the volume of consultation materials, and time given for responses, made it especially difficult to participate. 

It was also stated that this further engagement could better capture the views of IFCAs and facilitate conversations between scientists and fishers. This approach should be used to give stakeholders an active role in the development, delivery, and implementation of the crab and lobster FMP.  

Feedback, including from the catching sector and processing organisations, included a concern about a lack of ambition from government and the desire to see progress accelerated, with the belief that action to manage the fishery to date had been too slow. A fishery management group stated that gold standard management is still a long way off. It was suggested by others that early and effective management was needed to secure the future of the stocks and fleet, and proposed measures should be implemented without delay.  

The need for regular engagement linked to data collection was highlighted by the catching sector, especially given the pace at which some evidence can become out of date. An IFCA expressed views that limited engagement has resulted in evidence gaps. However, it was also highlighted by an EU stakeholder that continued and newly developed evidence collection throughout the duration of the FMP would be challenging, given the effort and resources required to do so.  

Question 2: What are your views on the evidence presented on the current state of crab and lobster stocks (and other related stocks) in English waters and can you provide any additional evidence that supports or differs from Defra’s view?  

Many stakeholders from across all the sectors agreed with the need to collect more, high-quality data to improve future stock assessments, and in turn reliably inform future management approaches. It was noted that despite gaps in the available evidence, the FMP recognises this.  

There was a desire from stakeholders, including an industry representation organisation and a conservation organisation, for more to be done to explore how various activities and pressures affect marine habitats. There was also a desire from an IFCA to differentiate between sectors of the fleet in the data presented, with a request for more evidence to be collected on heritage and communities, and for this to be considered during policy making.  

Many stakeholders from across the sector also questioned the reliability of the data currently being used for stock assessments, with limitations and assumptions of the current modelling highlighted. It was stated that there needs to be more transparency as to how data is currently collected and utilised. Concerns were raised by a processing organisation that landings data should not be used if it can’t be compared to accurate measures of effort, again pointing towards the need for improved data collection in the future. 

There was general feedback that fishing pressure is too high and stocks are experiencing overexploitation. This ranged from concerns that effort was increasing without limitation, to the belief that certain stocks were already at risk of collapsing. 

The role of larger, offshore vessels in the increasing amount of effort being applied to stocks was highlighted by stakeholders, including IFCAs, industry representatives and individual fishers. It was suggested that increases in effort by this sector of the fleet outside of the 6 nautical mile (nm) zone was compromising the sustainability of the inshore fishery. It was also noted that an updated stock assessment should account for the lack of certainty about the impact that current effort levels were having on stocks.  

Suggestions from across the sector noted that management measures within the FMP should be implemented at pace to reduce pressure on the stocks, which is consistent with the precautionary approach. There was a desire from industry representatives to also see further analysis of the impact of smaller, under 12 metre vivier vessels, and their consideration for further management.  

Many stakeholders shared views on potential future management approaches. This included both supporting and disagreeing with the continuation of the berried lobster ban, proposed MCRS increases, pot limitations, and bespoke regional solutions. 

Question 3: What are your views on the evidence gaps identified within the FMP?  

Many stakeholders agreed that more data is better in principle, and there was a desire from the catching sector to see stock assessments of the same quality as those used for certain whitefish. It was also raised by individuals, eNGOs and others that this would need to be collected appropriately, with the dedication of necessary investment and resourcing. It was suggested that evidence and data gaps need to be addressed quickly with clear timelines for doing so, as well as clear prioritisation of how the available evidence can be used in the interim.  

It was flagged, for example by an IFCA and a producer organisation, that effort data is likely inaccurate due to a lack of understanding of the volume of pots being used, and future stock assessments should incorporate data relating to pots hauled. The lack of data on the impact of recreational fishers was also highlighted, as was a concern about the accuracy of that fishers’ data.  

Stakeholders identified other areas where more data could be collected, such as bycatch and unregulated bait, ecological factors, impacts from other fisheries, and climate change adaptation and mitigations. A fishery management group also expressed a desire for better use to be made of existing data, facilitated by improved accessibility. 

There was broad support for future data and resultant management to be based on stock area, and a belief that adaptive management should reflect regional variations. In addition, it was noted by the shellfish industry that any future measures should be supported by an understanding of their socio-economic impacts. However, there are concerns that a finer scale approach to data collection could result in ineffective measures being applied on a wider scale. It was suggested by industry representatives that peer reviews should be carried out at the international level by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to ensure the accuracy and reliability of data collection, and that analysis is in line with international standards. 

The need for a robust, national system for recording and assessing stocks was raised by an IFCA, with the belief that this should use local datasets and in turn support regional assessments based on stock units. It was stated by stakeholders from the catching sector that these assessments should account for the impacts generated by the offshore fleet, with improved assessments of the effort exerted on the stocks by this sector being prioritised.  

Others from the catching sector did not agree that significant evidence gaps exist, and various stakeholders were keen that the gaps identified were not used to delay precautionary management from being introduced. It was proposed that urgent action is needed to address stock collapse and that sufficient evidence exists to do so. It was also suggested by industry representatives that greater focus was needed on better enforcement of existing measures, before developing new ones. 

Stakeholders from the catching sector welcomed greater collaboration and sharing of information between agencies, fishers and government. Some fishers have data to provide, but the need to build trust and an understanding of their expected input was raised by an industry representative, as they felt they have not seen the benefit of previous initiatives. 

Question 4: Do you agree with the actions to address the evidence gaps identified? Please provide information to support your view.  

It was noted by the catching sector that determining and achieving maximum sustainable yield (MSY) would require greater collaboration between agencies and fishers. There was a desire from this sector for stock assessments to be completed annually, with industry given the ability to feed into the process and for more transparency around how data will be funded and collected. It was also suggested that IFCA data could be further utilised while improved assessments are developed based on stock units. Various stakeholders noted that there should be better promotion and utilisation of the data that could be provided by fishers, alongside making greater use of fishers’ knowledge and expertise. 

There was also a desire from stakeholders, including an eNGO, to see effort management through input controls prioritised, with improved methods to assess catch as opposed to landings, and catchability efficiency accounted for. It was proposed by a conservation organisation that government should mandate the use of remote electronic monitoring (REM) to improve data collection. 

Stakeholders from the catching sector and a processing organisation stated that more resources should be dedicated to crawfish research, as this species is valuable and vulnerable to overfishing. Such research should be used to determine if current management is appropriate and to inform potential future management. The need for a greater understanding of the life cycles of crabs and lobsters, and the impacts of other fishing activities such as scallop dredging on migration, were also highlighted by an IFCA and others. 

There were concerns from stakeholders, including those from the science and research sector, that the actions listed in the FMP did not do enough, and were not fast enough, to guarantee stock sustainability, and that the evidence points towards the need to take a precautionary approach in the short term. A fishery management group also expressed concern that the FMPs do not follow a standardised approach across all plans, and lack in consistency as a result. There were also demands from an industry representative for greater clarity on resourcing and responsibility for filling evidence gaps, given there is a lack of detail in the FMP and supporting information for how the gaps will be addressed. 

Stakeholders, including an IFCA, considered that measures should account for regional variation and not receive blanket implementation across all English waters, with a desire to understand how FMP measures will interact with existing measures. Displaced impacts and conflicts between fisheries were also flagged, in particular for other gear types and fishing effort being exerted in other areas.  

Question 5: Do you agree with how the proposed measures have been prioritised?  

It was stated by stakeholders, including a processing organisation, that exploitation rates point towards the need to immediately implement robust management under the precautionary approach, given that the FMP lists all meaningful management as long term and several years from implementation. It was stated by an individual from the catching sector that vessels should be decommissioned to reduce effort levels and protect stocks, while others suggested addressing latent capacity to prevent additional larger vessels from entering the fishery.  

While some stakeholders did not wish to see the MCRS increased, more agreed with the need to increase and harmonise lobster and crawfish MCRS. Others believed that any increase should be phased and account for regional variations, as was flagged by stakeholders from the North East in particular. There was also support from stakeholders, including those in the catching sector, for aligning crab MCRS with inshore sizes, with those sizes investigated around the UK at the stock level. It was suggested, for example by an industry representative organisation, that maximum sizes should also be explored as a potential management measure.  

Catch limits were also supported by various sectors as a practical management approach, with the suggestion that this should be extended to crawfish to provide adequate protection. It was also stated by a processing organisation that allocation of these limits should account for vessel efficiency, as vessel length was no longer an accurate proxy for effort potential.  

There was support, including from the catching sector, for pilot schemes being used to test both pot limits and catch limits. Pot limits as a measure were supported in general. Increasing pot numbers were often highlighted as a cause of unsustainable effort levels, with a desire to see this addressed through regulation, although some noted concerns around how pot limits could be effectively enforced. Real-time area closures based on stock status were also supported, in particular by an industry representative, but there were concerns from inshore operators around the impacts this could have if applied to small boats in the inshore region, given they are already limited by weather conditions.  

There were also concerns from across the catching sector that any restriction on the landing of female crabs under the ‘3S approach’ (size, sex and season) would have significant financial impacts, given the fisheries that rely on being able to land females. However, it was suggested by a fishery management group that these females could be given a higher MCRS to increase protection. 

Prohibiting the landing and use for bait of soft-shelled brown crab received a high level of support from various stakeholders, with some suggesting that this could be extended to spider crab. Concerns were frequently raised, however, around how this could be accurately defined for compliance purposes.  

There was also a concern from an industry representative that the extension of a days at sea management scheme would result in increased effort being exerted. However, it was noted by an IFCA that this may be a potential alternative to the enforcement challenges of an offshore pot limitation. 

It was highlighted that while the need for further data to inform management was understood, this alone will not improve effort levels until there is further regulation. It was noted, by various stakeholders across the sector that capping and subsequently reducing effort should be seen as a priority to be tackled urgently in the short term. Views were expressed that the proposals are not ambitious enough and the timescales for implementation do not reflect the urgency for action. 

The need for all policy decisions to be based on scientific evidence was also reasserted, although resourcing concerns for gathering data were identified by an individual from the catching sector.  

An IFCA stakeholder stated that they do not see evidence collection from the recreational sector as a priority, as IFCA datasets can already help with this. Others from the catching and processing sectors said they were either not interested in recreational fishing impacts in general or disagreed with the need for these to be prioritised.  

Question 6: What do you think are the likely positive and negative impacts (stock sustainability, environmental, economic, social) of increasing the minimum landing sizes for lobster in English waters? Please provide evidence where possible.  

Various stakeholders from across the sector were supportive of the increased MCRS, with some suggesting that impacts on volume of catch should be short lived, and stock levels should then improve. 

It was stated that the proposed measure would help to improve the stock and the market for the stock, and that ensuring more breeding females would help to generate more marketable sized animals. Specific benefits to the sustainability and status of the stock were noted, as greater protections for reproduction and increased stock biomass would be provided. It was also noted by a processing organisation, an IFCA and others that there are clear benefits to enforcement when increasing the MCRS beyond the 6nm zone. 

However, it was flagged by stakeholders, including a processing organisation, that this measure alone would not be sufficient to guarantee sustainability without further supporting measures. An IFCA also stated that negative impacts may still arise from having different MCRS across administrative boundaries. It was also stated by another IFCA that blanket measures do not work, and stakeholders from the catching sector flagged that data on the size of maturity may be outdated and should instead account for regional variations, which could then ensure the expected benefits to the stock. 

The short-term financial loss that would be expected for the catching sector was often highlighted, with views expressed by a trade union among others that their local fleet would be unlikely to be able to bear the short- to medium-term losses associated with an increased MCRS at this time. It was also highlighted by an individual from the catching sector that an increase to MCRS could lead to an 80% decrease in expected catches during the summer season, and there were also concerns that specific inshore fisheries could be heavily impacted. There was a desire stated by an IFCA to see a full economic analysis of the expected impacts of this measure. 

The majority of stakeholders who responded, both from the catching sector and environmental organisations, strongly favoured a phased implementation, with suggestions for that period ranging up to 5 years. However, the enforcement challenge that would come from phasing in this measure was also highlighted by a processing organisation, with the view that immediate implementation is more aligned with the precautionary approach. 

Question 7: What do you think are the likely positive and negative impacts (stock sustainability, environmental, economic, social) of increasing the minimum landing sizes for crawfish in English waters? Please provide evidence where possible.  

Many stakeholders were supportive of the increased MCRS and agreed with the need to take further action to protect stocks that have been particularly vulnerable to overfishing. 

Increased overall stock biomass and improved reproduction were identified as benefits of this measure. It was stated by an individual from the catching sector that alignment of MCRS between inshore and offshore sizes will aid enforcement and accurate reporting of the location of catches. It was also stated by a stakeholder from the science and research sector that this measure needs to be applied to EU vessels in UK waters to be effective. 

Higher MCRSs have already been implemented in some regions through a voluntary approach, and stakeholders from those areas supported the national introduction of that size, pointing towards evidence-based benefits for stock sustainability. 

Again, it was noted by an environmental organisation, the catching sector and others that an increased MCRS as a standalone measure will not be sufficient to restore or maintain stock at sustainable levels. It was suggested by a processing organisation that appropriate technical legislation and guidance should be introduced to prevent any potential negative effects of this measure. Mandatory escape gaps and legislation requiring undersized lobsters to be returned immediately to the sea were named as potential negative effects. 

Some stakeholders, including an eNGO, suggested that a maximum landing size for crawfish should also be introduced to protect larger mating females, stating that these animals can produce up to five times more eggs than smaller females. Catch limits and seasonal closures were also proposed by stakeholders, including those from the catching sector, to work alongside this measure.  

It was stated that increased costs to consumers might decrease demand, and various stakeholders noted that there would be a negative economic impact in the short term. However, some, including stakeholders from the processing sector, noted that this could be short lived, in comparison to the longer-term benefits to the stock.  

A desire for the increased size to be implemented immediately without a phased approach was also expressed by the processing sector, as this would be in line with the precautionary approach, and simpler to enforce. 

Question 8: What do you think are the likely positive and negative impacts (stock sustainability, environmental, economic, social) of prohibiting the landings of soft brown crab for bait?  

The majority of stakeholders who responded from across the sector were supportive of extending the existing ban on the landing of soft brown crab to include crab landed for the purpose of bait, with some stating that it should never have been permitted. Others, including those from the catching sector and IFCAs, wanted to see the prohibition extended to other crab species such as spider crab. 

The positive impacts that were listed included preventing vulnerable individuals from being targeted, reducing effort, creating a larger breeding population, and helping to prevent a stock collapse. 

It was also stated by the catching sector that this measure should prevent the market value for crab from depreciating and ensure the animals that are landed achieve the highest market value, as the existing exemption has allowed a poor-quality crab product that is not fit for human consumption to be available on the market.  

Some stakeholders, including industry representatives, noted that there will likely be an impact to whelk fishers, and lessons can be learnt from existing research into synthetic bait alternatives. Others from the catching sector stated that there needs to still be a market for crab that has died, or is not fit for human consumption, and for waste material from crab processing. However, other stakeholders, including eNGOs, felt that this measure could be extended to prohibiting all crab being used for bait, as this would simplify and aid enforcement, and prevent higher level of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.  

Various stakeholders noted that the ability to enforce this measure will be crucial to its success, which is reliant on the ability to objectively define and measure which animals are classed as ‘soft’. It was suggested by an industry representative that this definition should be used on a precautionary basis. 

It was highlighted by an IFCA that any measure that is difficult to enforce can risk the effectiveness of the measure and lead to frustrations, and the particular challenge of enforcement at sea was noted for animals that are never landed. A number of stakeholders from the North East wished to see more detail on how cross-border management will ensure that crab caught from English waters will not be landed into Scottish ports to be used as bait. It was also suggested that imports of soft crabs should also be prohibited.  

Question 9: What considerations, such as interactions with existing management measures for these species, need to be taken into account whilst developing the proposed initial measures?  

It was stated by a processing organisation that there should be increased coordination between national and regional regulators, and the existing shellfish management groups could be used to facilitate this. The need for this unity between agencies to create awareness of upcoming regional regulations, ensuring that national measures don’t create too much of a burden at once, was also highlighted by a producer organisation, as were IFCA concerns that national implementation could risk undermining regional measures.  

The need for further stakeholder involvement in fisheries management and governance structures was highlighted by a supplier. Stakeholders from the catching sector noted their desire for measures to be regionally based and developed with fishers. They also suggested that these measures could start with voluntary schemes before mandatory implementation is considered. It was also stated, including by eNGOs, that enforcement needs to be consistent across all regions. 

It was stated by stakeholders, including an IFCA, that management applied outside of the 6nm zone should be improved to meet standards already in place in inshore waters. A producer organisation noted that harmonisation between inshore and offshore is vital for stock sustainability and fleet protection. It was added by a processing stakeholder that harmonisation needs to take place across stock units, but also consider displacement between regional authorities, adding that REM should be widely incentivised for use and uptake across the sector to support this work.  

The need for economic impact assessment data which estimates the likely costs and benefits to inshore coastal communities, and to manage risks to the industry during implementation, was highlighted by the catching sector. There was also a desire from this sector for the FMP to take into consideration the importance of cultural heritage, social, economic and environmental factors. It was stated, for example by an IFCA, that social and economic benefits should be shared with those who are reliant on local stocks, particularly given the lack of options for diversification within certain regions.  

There was a suggestion from a retired fisher that any management that reduces fishing effort would be positive, with others, including an industry representative, adding that capping and controlling effort at current levels should be prioritised, while further management is developed over time. The term ‘super crabbers’ was used by a stakeholder from the science and research sector, stating that all future building and licensing of these vessels should be stopped. 

It was highlighted by the processing sector that while the existing western waters effort regime only applies to vessels over 15m, the emergence of under 15m vivier vessels has created the need to incorporate an effort regime that covers the entire fleet. It was stated by an environmental organisation that this regime was ineffective altogether, and future measures need to be based on the best available scientific advice.  

Other measures highlighted to improve stock sustainability were pot limits on over 10 metre vessels, closed seasons, and the increased use of hatcheries. 

Question 10: Are there other technical measures or variations of the proposed measures that we should consider to restore and protect the crab and lobster stock in English waters and the wider ecosystem on which they depend, and why?  

Other technical measures or variations of the proposed measures that were provided in response to this question by a variety of stakeholders are included in the following list: 

• standardising and increasing size limits as a matter of urgency  
• aligning crab MCRS over time – including sizes increased on a regional basis, or phased implementation 
• maximum size limits for crab and lobster 
• pot limitations and soak times – with suggestions that such limits could vary across different vessel sizes 
• capping fishing effort through various means 
• pausing latent licences – although many argued that this removes flexibility and ability to diversify  
• vessel size limits within the 6nm zone – proposed as both over 12 metre and over 10 metre vessels 
• spatial and seasonal closures for crab and lobster – other stakeholders stated their desire for this to not be introduced, or not applied to smaller vessels, or be bespoke by gear type 
• biodegradable materials to reduce the impact of lost gear 
• area specific permits and compulsory gear identification 
• a national prohibition on the landing of crab claws 
• increase Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) 
• extension of the South Devon Inshore Potting Agreement (IPA) 
• addressing mobile gear impacts to crab habitats, particularly within the inshore area 
• government intervention to stabilise market value of crab 
• encouraging newer entrants to the fishing industry 
• REM to support enforcement  
• increased use and establishment of hatcheries 
• further promotion of existing v-notching schemes, with less intrusive methods explored 
• prohibiting the landing of soft lobsters 

The methods proposed to cap fishing effort were highlighted as extending or reviewing current days at sea limits, pot limits and catch limits, escape gaps, and seasonal closures.  

It was stated by IFCAs and stakeholders from the catching sector that there needs to be better enforcement of the offshore area, and that any new measures need to apply to as many operators and areas as possible. They proposed further analysis and specific measures to address the effort applied by larger vivier vessels, and concerns were raised around the interests of this sector dominating discussions. It was suggested by some in the catching sector that a prohibition on ‘factory style vessels’ from UK waters was needed. 

There were also concerns by fishers and IFCAs that any measures based on sex within the ‘3S (size, sex, season) approach’ would have unmanageable negative impacts for fisheries that rely on the landing of females. 

It was suggested by stakeholders in the catching sector that delaying implementation could mean that measures are introduced too late to protect stocks and the industry, with others from the science and research sector noting increased MCRS, pot limits, and effort management as measures that should be prioritised and introduced urgently.  

Industry representatives highlighted that a healthy marine environment is essential for human survival, with some adding that pollution needs to be prevented and stopped. A need to consider other pressures on the stocks, including dredging, wind farm development and cabling, was also highlighted by environmental organisations and fishers alike. Increased checks at merchants and export businesses were suggested by stakeholders in the science and research sector to support the effective implementation of measures. 

Question 11: Are there other measures which should be prioritised for early action in line with the precautionary approach? Please provide any additional views and evidence you would like us to consider.  

Other measures suggested by stakeholders for prioritisation in line with the precautionary approach, in addition to those proposed in the FMP, included the following:  

• extending IFCA jurisdictions to 12nm, to provide local stakeholders with more influence on their fisheries  
• seasonal closures during winter, with pots brought ashore during this period – this measure was not supported by others for market reasons 
• pot limits – particularly for outside the 6nm area. It was also suggested that days at sea limitations could be based on catch per pot 
• mandatory escape gaps – although issues with applying this to the velvet crab fishery were noted 
• electronic marking of pots 
• biodegradable gear 
• catch limits – although concerns around the practicality of enforcement were noted, alongside views that catch rates take care of themselves with appropriate national and regional management 
• recreational pot limits and effort restrictions 
• vessel size restrictions  
• increased HPMAs 
• phasing the increased lobster MCRS 
• effort limitation – particularly for outside the 6nm area 
• reviewing the effectiveness of the current berried lobster ban, and incorporating v-notching schemes 
• prohibiting all brown crab from being used as bait 
• further consideration of existing crab MCRS, and exploring whether this can be harmonised nationally  
• managing and controlling effort on brown crab – particularly for offshore vessels, although the need to consider updated stock assessments was noted 

It was also stated by stakeholders across the sector that substantive management needs to be brought in sooner to reduce effort and guarantee stock sustainability, especially for data-poor species. It was stated that as much precautionary work should be done in parallel to developing longer-term management measures.  Stakeholders were keen to be involved in these discussions and developments.  

Views were expressed by fishers that the MMO needs to ensure that any future grant funding of pots does not increase the number of pots in the water. There was also a desire to see crawfish effort increases addressed immediately, in line with the focus being given to crab and lobster, as well as a desire for latent capacity to be addressed to reduce or minimise the impact of the potential effort within the fisheries. 

Stakeholders from various sectors, such as the eNGOs, catching and processing sectors, were keen to see technologies such as REM being used to support data collection and improve transparency. There were also calls for accountability to be made mandatory, and for more detail to be provided regarding timelines for the delivery of measures. Others, including from fisheries management groups, wished to see more information on the impact of the relevant fisheries on the ecosystem as a whole. It was noted that an updated stock assessment must be prioritised to provide a more robust basis for management decisions. 

Question 12: How would you like to be involved in the delivery of the FMP and the future management of the English crab and lobster fisheries?  

Many stakeholders expressed their interest in continuing to be involved in the delivery of the FMP and future management. Suggestions for what this involvement could mean included being part of the decision-making process, sharing feedback and evidence, and being involved in determining the balance of environmental and socio-economic sustainability. Many would also like to be involved in the implementation of the measures, objectives and goals within the plans, and highlighted that the ability to respond to consultations was welcomed but opportunities for engaging should be wider. Regular updates on how the FMP process is developing, and opportunities to feedback, were also desired across industry sectors, as was clarity on who is responsible for implementing and reviewing the FMP. A concern was also raised around accidental non-compliance due to a limited understanding of requirements if measures are introduced too quickly or together.  

It was stated that there should be greater participation of the IFCAs to represent views from their areas, and IFCAs should be partners in the FMP cycle and work closely with Defra, including through comms, engagement, regulation and management. It was added by fishers and industry representatives that meetings should be held on dates and times that are inclusive for inshore fishers, alongside a desire to see more engagement in person. There was a desire from IFCAs for the Crab Management Group (CMG) membership to remain open, with industry encouraged to join and engage.  

It was stated that scientists of seabed ecology should be involved in interpreting data and delivering the FMP. 

A concern was raised by a science and research organisation that allowing the fishing industry to develop their own FMP can be viewed as a conflict of interest, and there was a desire for all stakeholders with an interest in the fishery to have access to the same data and working groups. Others from the catching sector wished to see more good news stories on successful fisheries management promoted, recognising the positive impact that stakeholders have on their fisheries and FMPs. 

Question 13: Are there any important connections with or links to other fisheries that we should consider when finalising this FMP or during its implementation process?  

Many stakeholders across the sector raised concerns about gear conflict between static and mobile gear. The impacts of towed gear like scallop dredgers and beam trawls on crab and lobster spawning grounds, and in particular the impact this had on potting gear in certain areas, was highlighted. Displacement was also flagged as a common concern, as seasonal closures for mobile gear could increase pressure on areas relied on by potting fisheries. Better data was desired by an IFCA and industry representatives to understand crab migration and spawning patterns, and for this data to be shared with mobile gear fisheries. 

There were suggestions from stakeholders to create designated areas for static gear that are permanently or seasonally closed to bottom trawled fishing, to avoid damage to crab and lobster stocks and pots. The link between the crab and whelk fisheries was highlighted, as brown crabs are often used as bait for whelk. Whelks are also fished using static gear and are therefore susceptible to similar conflicts with mobile gear fisheries as crabs and lobsters. 

Effort displacement into, and connections with, the EU and EU waters were also highlighted by the catching sector as needing further consideration and further engagement. Likewise, the desire was expressed to see controls of fishing applied to vessels of all sizes and all nations in a sustainable way. The need to consider diversification and displacement at the regional level was also highlighted.  

Many stakeholders in the catching sector and IFCAs wanted management measures that safeguard the inshore fisheries and protect smaller vessels from overexploitation by larger vessels that lack effective effort controls. There was also a desire by fishers for Defra to clarify how the crab and lobster FMP integrates with other government department policies and industries, and how these are being managed. 

Summary of responses to environmental report questions 

Stakeholders were asked 4 questions which allowed them to express their views about the content of the environmental report (ER) on the crab and lobster FMP. Summaries of the responses to these 4 questions are detailed below. 

Question 1: Is there any additional evidence we could consider, to inform our environmental baseline? 

Stakeholders suggested that the Project UK Fishery Improvement Projects should be reviewed and considered in relation to ecosystem and benthic impacts of potting. The research undertaken by Bangor University in 2022 for the project was highlighted for consideration. 

Some stakeholders felt that IFCA reports and data in general could be better used in relations to environmental effects of the fishery, particularly in relation to the number of pots lost by fishermen indicating the scale of the issue. Other stakeholders highlighted the importance of using historical evidence based on conversations with fishermen. 

In reference to cultural heritage, some stakeholders felt that the crab and lobster fishery itself should be acknowledged in the environmental report as a cultural heritage asset considering the historical importance and value of the fishery. 

Stakeholders identified overfishing by larger vessels, pot density, displacement from windfarms and aquaculture, and silt dumping as having a negative effect on the stocks. 

There was a suggestion that Appendix B of the ER should include the assessment of EIP indicator (E9) ‘percentage of our seafood coming from healthy ecosystems produced sustainably’. 

Several stakeholders submitted additional evidence for consideration on impacts of potting on seabed, pot bait, landing data, lost pots, and environmental fluctuations and changes on stocks. 

Question 2: Are there any other positive or negative environmental effects associated with the policies and actions of the draft crab and lobster FMP that we could consider? 

A small number of stakeholders highlighted lost gear as having negative environmental effects, such as ghost fishing, which can impact stocks and other species. This related to other stakeholders who highlighted the impacts of marine litter. 

Additionally, some stakeholders felt that the negative of effects of recreational potting on the environment had not been fully considered. There was also some concern about the equitable access to the fishery for recreational fishers considering the unknown impacts of recreational fishing. 

Some stakeholders felt that the ER could further consider the wider environmental effects of the crab and lobster FMP, by considering spatial and temporal protections to address issues including bycatch of undersized and sensitive species, climate change impacts caused by overcapacity of the fleet, and the impact on spawning and feeding habitats. 

Separately, stakeholders highlighted the impact of pot bait on the ecosystem as an evidence gap with more research needed to understand the wider effects of using pot bait on the ecosystem. 

Stakeholders highlighted regional differences in growth rates and size at maturity need to be considered further to understand the effects that changing MCRS could have on regional lobster and crawfish populations. 

Finally, stakeholders felt that further work was required to ensure that all FMPs work together to support the recovery of the environment. Some felt that the FMP aims and objectives fall short of national and international commitments for fishing sustainably. To achieve sustainability and allow marine biodiversity to rebuild, fishing should be precautionary, and ecosystem based. 

Question 3: Do you have any comments on the proposed actions set out in the environmental report to monitor and/or mitigate any likely significant (negative) effects on the environment of the FMPs? 

Stakeholders supported initiatives to monitor environmental damage from ghost gear but noted that if the policy to reduce ghost fishing requires gear to be modified or replaced, there should be provision to resource this.  

While pots and traps were acknowledged by stakeholders as having a low environmental impact, a small number of stakeholders highlighted bycatch as an issue which needs consideration. It was suggested that pots and traps should be restricted to areas where they don’t damage the environment or cause bycatch. Others felt that small-scale fishers using pots and traps should be prioritised over other fishing methods, such as trawls, which have a greater negative effect on stocks, bycatch and blue carbon habitats. 

Stakeholders suggested that new measures could cause displacement of effort, which could impact stocks and the environment negatively. They felt that this should be monitored carefully. As well as this, some stakeholders suggested that fisheries would benefit from wider ecosystem monitoring that considers sea temperature, water quality, sediment quality, as well as biological and chemical threats to the stocks and marine environment. 

Some stakeholders supported the FMP actions and the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process but felt that these actions should have been taken much sooner. 

Finally, stakeholders were concerned that increased monitoring could cause increased fishing of data limited stocks and suggested the FMP should aim to rebuild stocks rather than preserve stocks. 

Question 4: Do you have any additional comments in relation to the environmental report which you have not been able to provide in response to the previous questions? 

A small number of stakeholders felt that the consultation questions on the ER were too complicated. Others stated that they did not have time to read the ER. 

Some stakeholders suggested that mortality rates (for crawfish in particular) on larger vessels should be considered as this can have a negative effect on the stocks. More broadly, some feel that larger vessels are impacting the stocks a lot more than smaller inshore vessels that fish in a more sustainable way. It was suggested that recreational potting should be studied further to understand its impacts on the stock and wider environment. 

To better understand the status of the stocks, it was suggested to use more sea observers and use data and knowledge of fishermen, with more support given to lobster hatcheries to improve the stocks instead of focusing on restrictions.  

There was acknowledgement from stakeholders that bycatch of sensitive species is an issue in the fishery, but also that there is a lack of data around this, and the scale is therefore unknown. 

Stakeholders agreed with increasing MCRS and harmonising across areas to simplify management. However, stakeholders also suggested that increases to MCRS should be phased, and that it should be based on finer scale regional data. Some suggested that other aspects of management could be simplified such as standardising reporting to MMO and IFCAs. 

Stakeholders identified the following ways the ER could be improved: 

• indicate the SEA issues or receptors that may be affected by the policies of the FMP 
• indicate how SEA issues or receptors may be positively or negatively affected 
• indicate whether these affects are significant or require mitigation or policy changes 
• include clearer links between the issues raised by the assessment and the actions being taken to mitigate them in the FMP 
• recommend the FMP considers setting out how the objectives of the FMP will contribute to achieving good environmental status (GES) for the relevant UK Marine Strategy indicators

Stakeholders felt the crab and lobster ER should have stronger links to other reports and regulations including:  

• river basin management plans  
• UK Marine Strategy Part 3 to revised and adopted Part 3  
• OSPAR Quality Status Report 
• biodiversity duty 
• newly designated HPMAs 

Finally, it was suggested that the limited data regarding interactions between cultural heritage and the impacts of fisheries within English waters should be defined as a data gap. 

Government response: FMP 

Overview 

The FMP will manage how we fish our crab and lobster stocks in English waters so that the full benefits of the fisheries will be available to fishermen and their local communities. 

The FMP will build on the existing national and regional management measures already in place, so crab and lobster stocks are fished sustainably. 

We will improve our science and evidence to better understand these fisheries. We will continue working collaboratively with stakeholders to identify how we can close the main gaps affecting how we manage these fisheries. We will focus on improving data collection programmes and our stock assessments. 

In the short term (1 to 2 years), we will introduce an increase in the national MCRS for lobster and crawfish where appropriate to 90mm and 110mm respectively. We will also prohibit the landing of soft brown crab for bait and pilot the spatial management of brown crab and European lobster by stock-relevant areas rather than using administrative boundaries. 

In the medium term (3 to 5 years), we will consider introducing regional MCRS for brown crab and explore effort restrictions such as pot limits.   

Over the long term (5 years or more), we will develop and introduce measures to achieve our ambitions to create sustainable and profitable fisheries for future generations. These may include seasonal closures, other fishing effort limits, catch limits, landing restrictions based on sex, and gear design measures. 

Introduction 

This section sets out the government’s response to the crab and lobster FMP consultation. It first explains our decisions for this FMP and any changes we plan to make to the plan, followed by a more general response about cross-cutting FMP issues. 

The views provided throughout this engagement and consultation were diverse, with a wide range of opinions within and between all groups. All have been considered and have helped us develop our understanding of the views of stakeholders and the issues of importance. Some of this input has resulted in changes to the FMP. Others have not, largely because they were more appropriate to be reflected in the implementation stages. A minority of comments were unrealistic or unworkable and as such not taken forward. In this section, we explain why we have taken particular decisions. Given the volume, breadth and detail of stakeholder input, we are not able to provide detailed explanations on all points raised. 

This is the first version of the crab and lobster FMP. It sets out the first steps and longer-term vision necessary for sustainable management of this fishery. These plans will take time to develop and implement. They are intended to allow an adaptive approach and will be reviewed and improved over time, as we collaborate with the fishing sector and wider interests on the sustainable management of these fisheries. The FMP also outlines the commitment to take a holistic view and joined-up approach to environmental considerations when implementing new measures across the FMPs. 

We recognise the concerns raised about the use of the term ‘track record’ creating a ‘race to fish’ and the risks this poses to future fishing opportunities if stocks are overfished. So we want to be very clear that in future, should track record be considered, there would be further consultation with potentially affected parties to directly consider such issues. 

We will also learn lessons from how we currently manage quota stocks before introducing any catch limits for non-quota stocks. For example, we would carefully consider whether property rights should accrue to individuals or whether fishing opportunities should remain in public ownership and control.  

While FMPs set out specific policies, measures and actions that will contribute to more sustainable management of the relevant fisheries or the marine ecosystem and environment, there is a wider body of work being undertaken by government that will also contribute to this. For example, the creation of HPMAs, improving the management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), work to introduce greater use of REM, reform of discards policy, and ongoing work to reduce bycatch.  

Changes to the FMP following consultation  

We are responding to the challenge from across interest groups for government to move faster to manage effort levels for crabs through pot limits, by prioritising pot limit measures for development within the proposed pilot schemes. This work will support actions in the immediate term as well as help to progress effort management for crab in the long term. We recognise the need to apply the precautionary principle for crab stocks to prevent further effort increases while longer-term management approaches are developed and implemented.  

We recognise concerns raised around the potential economic impacts of certain measures, for example increases in MCRS. Many responses called for economic impacts and regional variations in stock biology to be considered when introducing new MCRS measures for lobster and crawfish. In response, we have committed in the FMP that we will recognise the importance of these impacts and will ensure they are considered and assessed when implementing these measures. 

We have committed to consider a phased approach to the introduction of MCRS measures, to mitigate the burdens on industry and the expected socio-economic impacts of these measures. 

We have strengthened commitments to consider how potential new measures for lobster will impact the effectiveness of the berried lobster measure. 

We will take a broader approach to reviewing the maximum landing size measure, recognising the benefits this may have for enhanced reproductive capacity of the stock.  

Where appropriate, we have also made minor technical changes to the FMP in response to stakeholder input and where we consider the information improves the FMP in terms of accuracy. 

The impacts of the new measures on data-poor species, such as spider crabs for example, will be considered as the measures are developed.  

The needs of the different fleet sectors, for example vivier vessels, and smaller operators, and the impact new measures could have on them, will be considered and assessed before any such measures are introduced. 

In line with the Act, delivery of the actions and measures for the crab and lobster FMP will be monitored and assessed against a set of monitoring indicators. We have changed the crab and lobster FMP to incorporate monitoring indicators. 

The final version of the crab and lobster FMP has been published on GOV.UK.

Response to wider themes raised by stakeholder engagement during consultation 

Latent capacity 

The issue of latent capacity was raised frequently through this engagement. Some stakeholders were keen that latent licences should be removed to help prevent an increase in effort on stocks. Others raised concerns that removing latent licences would be unfair and restrict fishers who rely on diversifying and adapting to circumstances. While the risks of latent capacity entering the fishery and further increasing pressure on stocks are recognised, we consider that understanding the impact active vessels are having on stocks, and developing improved measures to control this, are a higher priority than removing latency within the fleet. We will consider latent capacity as part of the overall development of effort management measures. Introducing robust and effective management is a high priority, and once introduced should negate the need to remove or manage latent capacity. 

Engagement and collaborative working 

The majority of stakeholders across all of the consultations were positive about the collaborative approach adopted to develop the FMPs and the efforts made by Defra and their delivery partners to engage people in the process.  

Many want this approach to continue through the implementation stages to ensure that stakeholder expertise can be taken into account. A number of stakeholders noted the need to adopt a coordinated approach to the implementation of FMPs and to help improve the ability of fishing businesses to plan ahead. We will continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders during the implementation phase of the FMPs. 

However, despite that extensive engagement and opportunities for input prior to the drafting of the FMPs, and during the formal consultation process, we recognise that some did not feel as included as others in the process to prepare the draft crab and lobster FMP. There were also a few comments about us actively discriminating against particular sectors, which we refute. 

We continue to review our engagement. In some areas there was little common ground between or within interests or sectors. This made developing solutions that are acceptable to all quite challenging. To achieve greater consensus, the finalised FMP takes on board several constructive responses that were received in the consultation process. This ensures we are meeting our legal and international commitments, while also balancing environmental, social and economic sustainability, in our approach to the management of these fisheries.  

In early 2024 we intend to initiate more work across the programme and in relation to particular FMPs to explore how government, regulators, scientists, industry, other stakeholders and recreational fishers can work together better in a respectful and constructive way. Both in terms of developing the crab and lobster FMP and in relation to its implementation. This will include developing a common language about the approaches taken, considering and articulating roles and responsibilities and ways of working better and earlier in processes, and improving communication. We are also keen to work more closely with initiatives like Fishing Into the Future to improve understanding.  

Views were also expressed about a lack of representation across sectors during the development of FMPs, and questions were raised about the impartiality of the delivery partners chosen to lead the development of the plans.  

The first FMPs were each developed in different ways, allowing us to trial new approaches and test how best to develop plans and engage with stakeholders. Delivery partners worked closely with industry groups and other stakeholders, and we will continue to build on this participatory approach and apply it to FMP development.  

This new approach has given fishers a greater role in helping to set the future management of this fishery, particularly in helping to identify unintended consequences, and securing greater buy-in across their sector. We are confident that the governance and clearance processes in place are robust and ensure that the legal requirements are met, and that the views and needs of stakeholders, and actions to protect stocks and the wider environment, have been considered and incorporated into plans appropriately.  

Volumes of material and timing of consultation 

Many stakeholders raised the issue of the volume of material that we consulted on and the timing of the consultation.  

We took the view that we wanted to be transparent and provide evidence and supporting material to help stakeholders provide informed responses. There had also been extensive engagement and informal consultation prior to the drafts being developed, which included familiarisation with FMPs. We ensured that more accessible summaries were prepared and held 23 in-person engagement events and a series of online meetings, where views were noted and fed into the analysis process. These events covered the wide range of interested sectors and stakeholders, including:

• a diverse catching sector
• the wider supply chain
• eNGOs
• scientists
• academia
• the EU Commission and Member States
• others interested in fisheries management

We will consider different approaches in future (while also recognising the guidelines for public consultations and our statutory requirements), as well as how much information is published at various stages. 

Pace of implementation and change 

There is a strong desire for much faster delivery and for there to be a clearer commitment to doing so. We have made some adjustments to the crab and lobster FMP to deliver some key changes faster. We have had to balance this against resources and a recognition that too much change would not be deliverable or would create unreasonable burdens on the fishing industry.  

To address to a desire for more clarity on the timing of the implementation of management proposals in the FMP, we have defined short term as 1 to 2 years, medium term as in the next 3 to 5 years, and long term as over 5 years.  

Application of the precautionary approach 

Stakeholders from within and outside the fishing sector raised the importance of the precautionary approach in fisheries management, although concerns were also raised about the risk of potential social and economic impacts in its application. The Fisheries Act recognises both the need for fisheries to be managed so as to achieve economic, social and employment benefits, and the precautionary approach as objectives.

Fisheries regulators will need to take a balanced and proportionate approach to a range of considerations to ensure we achieve our ambitions set out in the JFS for sustainable stocks, underpinned by a healthy marine environment, supporting a profitable fishing sector and thriving coastal communities. We will continue to be mindful of this balance during the implementation of FMPs, particularly how we build a better understanding of the risk to stocks from overfishing in data poor fisheries and how we work with the fishing sector and wider stakeholders to help inform management of those fisheries. 

The devolved administrations 

There were questions raised about how the measures will work across borders with the devolved administrations. More detail will be set out as we implement the FMPs – for example, on the areas where the measures will apply and the vessels that will be affected. 

Most fisheries management measures are devolved. It is therefore possible and probable that different management measures and approaches will apply in different fisheries administrations. Indeed, this is one of the key benefits of FMPs – bespoke management can be brought in which takes account of the different fisheries, conditions, industries, priorities or pressures. However, where deemed appropriate or desirable, the UK administrations may decide to collaborate and harmonise measures. 

Collaboration with the EU and compliance with the UK and EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA)  

Stakeholders raised the importance of collaboration between coastal states on fisheries management and the need for subsequent FMP management measures to be compliant with the TCA.  

As an independent coastal state, we recognise and value the importance of close working with other coastal states on fisheries management. We continue to look forward to deepening the excellent collaborative relationships the UK enjoys with our neighbouring coastal states and will ensure that our measures are fully compliant with the TCA.  

The TCA preserves the regulatory autonomy of the UK to manage our fisheries (and the EU to manage theirs). Alongside this, the UK will continue to cooperate with the EU on the management of shared stocks, where appropriate. This would be achieved through the development of a multi-year strategy and would require a commitment from both the UK and the EU. 

FMP evidence and data 

We acknowledge and plan to thoroughly review the substantial amount of evidence provided during the consultation, along with any additional evidence provided through continual engagement with FMP stakeholders. FMP evidence statements and evidence requirements will be updated to ensure evidence delivery priorities are reassessed to meet delivery and implementation ambitions of each plan. These will be published in 2024.  

A large proportion of stakeholders expressed concern about the government’s ability to address the evidence gaps identified in the FMPs. Stakeholders also highlighted the importance of adopting a collaborative approach to the development of evidence – working with the fishing sector and wider stakeholders to support the delivery of evidence requirements.  

A number of stakeholders called for there to be more co-ordination across fisheries authorities regarding data collection requirements on industry.  

It will not be possible or reasonable for government to fund all the evidence gaps identified across the FMP programme. Prioritisation will be needed. As well as looking at innovative ways to fill those gaps, to support the phased approach of FMP delivery and implementation, and progress towards meeting the Fisheries Act Objectives, in 2024 Defra will launch and publish an evidence approach that promotes collaboration across stakeholders to address identified evidence gaps for the crab and lobster FMP. 

We will take data requirements into account when developing new measures. We will also consider this as part of separate but linked work already under way to develop a more co-ordinated approach to data collection, management and use between fisheries authorities. 

Government response: environmental report 

Introduction 

This section sets out the government’s response to the crab and lobster FMP strategic environmental assessment (SEA), environmental report (ER) consultation. 

A SEA is a formal process to assess the effect of a plan or programme on the environment. SEA aims to: 

• provide a high level of protection to the environment 
• promote sustainable development 
• integrate environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of a plan or programme 

The SEA must be completed before the plan or programme is adopted to avoid unnecessary environmental harm arising from its proposed actions or outcomes. The SEA concentrated on the proposed objectives and actions of the draft crab and lobster FMP.  The ER sets out the findings of the SEA process. 

Undertaking an SEA of the draft crab and lobster FMP allowed us to identify the existing impacts of the fishery, better understand the environmental effects of the policies and actions contained in the plan, while ensuring we meet the requirements under the SEA Regulations 2004.  

The SEA process introduced environmental considerations into the preparation phase of the draft crab and lobster FMP, ensuring we continue to make progress on our commitment to deliver environmentally sustainable fisheries. The ER helped inform and influence the development of the proposals set out in the draft crab and lobster FMP and sets out recommendations on how the FMP could reduce the environmental impact of crab and lobster fishing into the future. 

We are grateful to all stakeholders for sharing their views. The responses to the consultation confirm that the environmental sustainability of the crab and lobster fishery is important and an essential component of managing harvesting to create a sustainable fishery. The responses have contributed to our understanding of the environmental risks that the crab and lobster FMP seeks to address. 

Respondents recognised the need for better data and evidence to fully assess the impact of the crab and lobster fisheries and to introduce targeted management to reduce or remove negative effects. Nevertheless, we acknowledge such data gathering must run in parallel with clear actions to manage current impacts. 

The consultation sought views on evidence and the environmental effects of FMP policies and proposed mitigating actions. Stakeholders were also able to provide comments on other matters. Our response to the views provided on these topics are set out in this section. 

Stakeholder responses have been considered and the crab and lobster FMP ER has been updated with additional recommendations. The full report will be published in 2024.  

The revised crab and lobster FMP has considered these recommendations and adjustments have been made where appropriate. 

Question 1. Evidence 

Stakeholders submitted a range of additional evidence to be considered to inform the environmental baseline, including the ecosystem impact of pot bait and lost pots, fishing effort (pot density), and the influence of environmental fluctuations and changes on stocks. There was also some support for providing more evidence on how the crab and lobster fisheries interacts with the marine environment.  

The evidence provided through the consultation has been collated and will be considered as part of FMP implementation and any future assessments. 

Question 2. Environmental effects of FMP policies 

Stakeholders raised the need to consider the positive and negative ecosystem effects of increased fishing effort, particularly in relation to bait use. Further points raised for consideration included the effect of ghost fishing caused by lost or discarded pots, the localised impact of harmonising MCRS, and the need for better understanding of recreational potting interactions. 

The additional effects provided through the consultation have been considered and included in Section 5. Assessment of Environmental Effects, as appropriate.  

Question 3. Actions to mitigate environmental effects 

Stakeholders wanted to see a consistent approach to managing the environmental impacts, including bycatch and benthic disturbance of crab and lobster potting inside and outside the 6nm limit, suggesting an improved application of the ecosystem-based approach to all areas of English waters. The ER has recommended that the FMP applies a consistent management approach across all waters the fisheries exist in.  

Stakeholders also raised concerns that increased monitoring of data-limited or emerging fisheries, without measures to manage effort, could lead to increased over-exploitation. The ER has recommended that the FMP considers measures to manage the potential environmental effects of data-limited or emerging fisheries while further evidence is being gathered.  

Question 4. Additional comments 

We welcomed the suggestions on where the ER could be improved, particularly around linking the assessment of the FMP’s policies and actions back to the SEA issues or receptors and associated UK MS descriptors. The revised ER has recommended the FMP considers setting out how the objectives of the FMP will contribute to achieving GES for the relevant UK Marine Strategy descriptors. 

 Stakeholders felt the ER should have stronger links to other reports and regulations including;    

• river basin management plans
• UK Marine Strategy (UKMS) Part 3 to revised and adopted Part 3    
• OSPAR Quality Status Report   
• biodiversity duty 
• newly designated HPMAs  

We have amended the ER to make these links.  

Several stakeholders raised that the wider environmental monitoring of the effects of potting not already being done through MPA conditions and UKMS should be considered. The ER has recommended the FMP considers monitoring activities beyond those already being undertaken. 

Annex 1: List of organisations that did not request confidentiality 

• Amethyst Fishing Company Limited 
• Anglo Scottish Fish Producers’ Organisation Ltd. 
• Blue Marine Foundation  
• The Blue Sea Fishing Company Ltd 
• CC Jenkinson & co ltd 
• Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation  
• Coombe Fisheries 
• Cornwall Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority 
• CS Shipping Ltd 
• Devon and Severn IFCA 
• European Commission 
• Historic England 
• International Transport Workers Federation  
• Isles of Scilly IFCA 
• Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) 
• Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee 
• Kent and Essex IFCA 
• Macduff Shellfish Ltd 
• Marine Stewardship Council 
• Mudeford and District Fishermen’s Association 
• National Federation of Fisherman Organisations  
• Natural England 
• New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association Limited 
• North Devon Fishermen’s Association and fulltime shell fisherman 
• North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority 
• North Western IFCA 
• Northumberland IFCA 
• NSKJP Shellfish LTD 
• Office for Environmental Protection 
• Oceana 
• Plymouth Fishing and Seafood Association 
• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation 
• Seafarms 
• Seal Research Trust 
• Shellfish Association of Great Britain 
• South Devon & Channel Shell fishermen 
• Southern IFCA 
• Sussex IFCA 
• Wembury Marine Conservation Area Advisory Group 
• Whitby Commercial Fishing Association 
• Worldwide Fund for Nature 

Annex 2: List of FMP consultation engagement meetings 

• Amble  
• Bridlington  
• Brixham  
• Brussels (hybrid in person and online) 
• Cromer  
• Folkestone  
• Gosport  
• Hull  
• Ilfracombe  
• Lowestoft  
• Newlyn  
• North Shields  
• Padstow  
• Peterhead  
• Plymouth  
• Poole  
• Rye  
• Scarborough  
• Shoreham  
• Stokenham  
• West Mersea  
• Weymouth  
• Whitby  
• Whitehaven  
• Whitstable (online)