Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 13 May 2024

Introduction

Defra consulted on proposals for reforming the way we manage discards in England during 2023, alongside consultations on other reforms such as fisheries management plans and the expansion of remote electronic monitoring in English waters. We proposed changes to the way that catches are counted against quota and a focus on measures to avoid and reduce unwanted catches. This document summarises feedback to that consultation and the government response to it.

This document has three main parts: 

• Introduction – context and a high-level overview of the consultation
• Summary of responses – themes and comments received as part of the   consultation
• Government response – this sets out our plan going forward

Background

There was a 12-week consultation running from 17 July to 9 October 2023. You can view the consultation documents, which include detailed background and context on our proposals, on Citizen Space. The consultation was conducted using Citizen Space (a UK government online consultation tool) and accompanied by extensive stakeholder engagement in the form of face-to-face meetings and webinars.

The analysis presented in this summary is based on the feedback received from Citizen Space and also the meetings and webinars.

Overview of responses

A total of 52 responses were received, 40 via Citizen Space and 12 via emails. Responses were received from a range of individuals and organisations. These have been grouped into categories based on how respondents have been identified from Citizen Space.

Table 1: Number of respondents interest recorded via citizen space.

Interest of respondents	Count
Producer/ catching sector	18
Recreational sea fishing	2
Science/ research	4
Interest group	9
Other	7
Total	40

A list of organisations who responded to the consultation in writing is set out in Annex 1. Six respondents stated they wished for their response to be kept confidential. We also engaged over 300 people across 23 face-to-face events at different locations. A list of meeting locations is included in Annex 2.

Additionally, online meetings were used to gather views from a wide range of stakeholders including the catching sector, the wider supply chain, eNGOs, scientists, academia, representatives of other governments, and others interested in fisheries management. 

These engagement events were used as an additional way to seek and record views on reforming management of discards. Views and comments from these meetings were treated as part of the consultation and are summarised in our analysis. 

Methodology

Questions 2, 8, 10 and 12 followed an agree or disagree, unanswered or do not know response. Questions 3, 4 and 6 provided options while question 11 provided a yes or no response.

All other questions required a methodological qualitative analysis for which a thematic analysis was used. Using an iterative approach, each response was analysed twice to identify both the themes raised by respondents and policy recommendations put forward with a consistency check then completed. We have quantified the analysis where possible. We have summarised each response, which has been used to produce the overall summary of responses outlined below. Weighting is not used in this analysis of response, due to the small sample size received and overlapping of membership across different organisations.

Comments were noted during 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. Comments arising from engagement events that coincided with responses received through Citizen Space will not be presented independently once more.

Summary of responses to questions

Q1. Do you agree with these principles?

Of the people who provided an answer through Citizen Space, 22 said they agreed with all the proposed principles.

Working collaboratively

Thirty-five respondents agreed with this principle.

Respondents said that it is essential to make sure that any revised policy and regulation can collectively and effectively be designed and enforced in actual fishing operations. Working collaboratively should apply across the British Islands and internationally and should also involve conservation bodies and scientists.

Three respondents disagreed with this principle because they considered that the fishing industry was unlikely to want effective monitoring and enforcement.

Table 2: Number of respondents from Citizen Space on the agreement of working collaboratively principle.

Response	Count
Agree	35
Disagree	3
Don’t know	1
Not answered	1
Sum	40

Risk-based

Twenty-four respondents from Citizen Space agreed with this principle. Respondents said this approach is sensible if resources are limited so long as it is science-based. Some also said that all fisheries management should be risk-based and proportionate. Others noted that we need an appropriate evidence base to support our risk assessment rather than taking a precautionary approach, particularly with pelagic species.

Nine respondents disagreed with this principle. Questions on whether a focus on higher risk stocks could mean vessels discarding more of other species were raised. Some respondents said we should focus on mixed fisheries and not on single stocks. Furthermore, this approach was seen by some respondents as a short-term solution and not a guarantee of meeting fisheries objectives and good environmental status.

Table 3: Number of respondents from Citizen Space on agreement of risk-based principle.

Response	Count
Agree	24
Disagree	9
Don’t know	5
Not answered	2
Sum	40

Fishery-focused

Twenty-six respondents from Citizen Space agreed with this approach and 8 respondents disagreed.

Some said this approach needed to be at the individual vessel level because the many variations between them mean that each vessel may need to find its own solutions. Others noted that discarding can’t be completely avoided but can be significantly reduced. Many respondents argued that more use of remote electronic monitoring could help reduce discarding. Some respondents agreed that a one-size-fits-all approach was too broad and unworkable, whilst others said that the landing obligation had been phased in and allowed different approaches between stocks, and the real problem was that it wasn’t enforced. Flexibility and innovation were needed.  

However, some said the focus should be on the marine environment and not the fishing industry, but others did recognise that solutions can change depending on fishing patterns and gears.  Others said it’s a short-term solution that doesn’t guarantee meeting the fisheries objectives and good environmental status.

Table 4: Number of respondents from Citizen Space on the agreement of fishery-focused principle.

Response	Count
Agree	26
Disagree	8
Don’t know	4
Not answered	2
Sum	40

Other points

Some respondents suggested a discard ban for bass and other non-quota species. Others sought more flexibility on gear choice for fishers. Some noted that there is a risk of complication if different rules are in place for different waters. Concern was also expressed by some about exceeding International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advice catch limits.

Q2. Which fisheries or stocks do you think we should prioritise?

There was no overall consensus on priority stocks. Every stock that we proposed received support from some respondents, but also opposition from others. Many either did not know or did not provide an answer.  

Several respondents suggested mixed fisheries with vulnerable or depleted stocks should be prioritised. Some respondents also suggested other priorities including bass, sharks, skates and rays. Others suggested the focus should instead be on improving unselective gears to manage discards. Respondents also remarked that there are major problems with discarding of sea bass, which would be significant due to the 5% rule.

Of those who disagreed with the proposed priority stocks, some argued it would be inappropriate to deprioritise stocks simply because discard volumes may not cause fishing mortality to exceed catch limits. Others noted that more time was needed to identify priority stocks and highlighted the need to avoid choke in mixed fisheries. Some also said that the data used in our analysis was out of date and unreliable.

Table 1: Number of agreements for different priority fisheries stocks from Citizen Space.

Name	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Not answered
Celtic Sea Cod	13	2	12	13
Celtic Sea Haddock	12	3	12	13
Celtic Sea Whiting	10	5	13	12
North Sea Cod	15	4	8	13
North Sea Hake	12	5	9	14
North Sea Saithe	11	3	9	17
North Sea Whiting	10	10	8	12
West of Scotland Cod	11	6	9	14
West of Scotland Haddock	10	8	10	12
West of Scotland Whiting	9	7	10	14
Irish Sea Cod	13	2	11	14
Irish Sea Whiting	11	3	11	15
Other	12	4	8	16

Q3. Which catch accounting option do you prefer and why?

Of the people who provided an answer through Citizen Space, 3 respondents preferred option 1 because it was considered simple to understand and administer, and it would provide more certainty compared to option 2. Twenty-one responded that they did not know, neither agreed or disagreed or did not answer.

Sixteen respondents preferred option 2. Several respondents pointed out that this option would encourage the use of selective gears and reduce discard rates. Some respondents also considered that option 2 may generate stronger compliance including reporting. Respondents generally thought that this option would be fairer for all vessels.

Some considered that this should not only apply to English registered vessels and that a harmonised approach is needed in the UK and internationally. Others considered that the method of catch accounting is immaterial unless it’s supported by economic incentives to reduce bycatch.

Table 5: Number of respondents from Citizen Space on the preference of catch accounting options.

Option	Count
One	3
Two	16
Don’t know	14
Not answered	7
Sum	40

Q4. If we went ahead with your preferred option, how do you think we should implement this? And Q5. How do you think we should be accounting for catches against quota?

Respondents who preferred option 1 noted that it was similar to the approach in place before the landing obligation was introduced, and so they understood the principle behind this option.   

Respondents who preferred option 2 made some broader suggestions. Some would like to see unannounced checks to ensure that bycatch was correctly recorded with fines for not declaring catches correctly. Others considered that more observer programmes were needed to determine specific discard rates. Some also said that remote electronic monitoring was required. Others suggested there should be an uplift in quota and the focus should not just be on enforcement.

Some respondents also made wider points such as suggesting that catch limits should not exceed scientific advice. Others considered that a working group should be established first to assess data and evidence prior to implementation.

Other points made include:

• accounting for catches is too complex
• quota should be managed at individual vessel level
• quota breaches must be taken seriously
• withholding quota reduces liquidity in quota trading that helps to minimise discards
• more accurate data is needed generally

Q6. What do you think about creating steering groups to jointly identify and implement gear modifications and to consider other technical measures such as area closures?

Of the people who responded through Citizen Space, 30 agreed with the proposal to create steering groups to jointly identify and implement gear modifications or to consider other technical measures such as area closures. The composition of the groups was seen as important with respondents suggesting they needed a balanced and broad representation of recognised scientists, policy developers, industry and others with key interests.

Respondents also suggested the groups needed to have regional knowledge and be transparent with a clear decision-making framework in place. The groups should be properly resourced and could investigate the use of incentives to reduce discards and evaluate ways of simplifying regulations. Some suggested that it may be possible for the groups to suggest binding targets for change.  

Five respondents did not agree with the proposal. It was said that voluntary gear modifications would not work, would not work quickly enough or were even impractical. Some suggested that it would be better to remove gear and area restrictions and instead, base everything on actual catches with effective remote electronic monitoring.

Table 6: Number of respondents from Citizen Space on agreement of setting up a steering group.

Response	Count
Agree	30
Disagree	5
Don’t know	3
Not answered	2
Sum	40

Q7. Do you have any initial views on the suggested otter trawl and beam trawl modifications?

Of the people who provided an answer through Citizen Space, some respondents supported potential gear modifications for otter trawls. This included escape panels, raised fishing line trawls (to reduce bycatch of skates and rays) and separator panels. Others said that codend modifications were too vague but supported increasing mesh sizes. For beam trawlers, there was support for larger meshes in the trawl body while some supported cutting rigging twine, which can reduce capture, and removing tickler chains. Some respondents disputed the association of beam trawlers with higher discard rates.

Other respondents said that gear modifications should come via fisheries management plans and that a one-size-fits-all approach cannot work due to regional differences in gear set-up. Remote electronic monitoring was considered essential by some for monitoring purposes.

Q8. Do you agree with the approach of making gear modifications mandatory for all vessels operating in a particular fishery? Please explain why or why not.

Of the people who provided an answer through Citizen Space, 14 agreed with making gear modifications mandatory for all vessels operating in a fishery. Some said that voluntary arrangements don’t work and are unenforceable, while others noted that mandatory gear requirements are already in place in many fisheries. Others suggested that funding should be made available if mandatory requirements were put in place.  

Some respondents said that there was a need for rigorous remote electronic monitoring. Others noted that other modifications could be justified if they demonstrated improvements in discards and bycatch reduction. Some also suggested mandatory arrangements should apply to the under 10 metre fleet too.

Thirteen respondents disagreed with the approach. Some respondents said that this had been tried previously and it would not improve gear selectivity. Others said that mandatory requirements would not be needed if catches were fully documented and verified. Some also said that for mandatory requirements to work, incentives for gear changes would be required.  

Thirteen respondents said that they did not know, neither agreed or disagreed or did not have an answer.

Table 7: Number of respondents from Citizen Space on agreement of adapting mandatory gear modification in priority fisheries.

Response	Count
Agree	14
Disagree	13
Don’t know	7
Not answered	6
Sum	40

Q9. Do you have any initial views on the questions we have identified around area closures?

Of the people who provided an answer through Citizen Space, most respondents were positive about area closures. Some said that they could help protect spawning fish and juveniles and could potentially include real-time closures to reduce unwanted catch or choke. This was said to require effective monitoring technology, making links with remote electronic monitoring.

Other respondents thought that area closures were not a solution and that they would not work in mixed fisheries, potentially even leading to more discarding. It was said there would be little impact on discarding rates from larger offshore vessels but there would be possible financial and environmental consequences. Some noted that marine protected areas would be more effective than area closures. It was also noted that more data was required.

Q10. What are your views on the possibility of creating a voluntary discard prevention charge scheme?

Of the people who provided an answer through Citizen Space, three respondents agreed with this approach. It was suggested that the scheme could allow the potting sector to access affordable bait for fishing. It could also ensure catches are being recorded against quota. It was noted that other countries have tried similar approaches. 

Eleven respondents disagreed with this approach. Some said that the scheme would not encourage selective fishing because it would not prevent fishing continuing once quotas have been exceeded. It was also suggested that the discard prevention charge could lead to overfishing and high grading. Others said it fails to meet the bycatch objective and conflicts with the Joint Fisheries Statement.

Twenty-six respondents neither agreed or disagreed, did not provide an answer, or did not know.

Many respondents asked questions about how the scheme would work, including:

• how this would affect quota utilisation rates
• how the scheme could work for pool vessels
• how the level of the discard prevention charge quota would be set

Table 8: Number of respondents from Citizen Space on agreement of creating a discard prevention charge scheme.

Response	Count
Agree	3
Disagree	11
Don’t know	1
Not answered	25
Sum	40

Q11. Would you be interested in taking part in any discard prevention charge scheme or its development and testing?

Of the people who provided an answer through Citizen Space, only four respondents said they would be interested in taking part in any discard prevention charge scheme, or its development and testing. Twenty-one respondents said that they would not be interested. It was said that there was no need for such a scheme in pelagic fisheries while others said it was unfair to smaller operators. Some respondents said there was concern about potential impacts on markets and administrative burdens, while others said that retaining pool quota would only offset or delay discards rather than prevent them.

Fifteen respondents said it was either not applicable or did not know but it could be worthy of further discussion. Others were interested in trialling the scheme but questioned where the extra quota would come from.

Table 9: Number of respondents from Citizen Space on interest in taking part in discard prevention charge scheme.

Response	Count
Agree	4
Disagree	21
Don’t know	8
Not answered	7
Sum	40

Q12. Do you agree with our proposals to continue using exemptions in English waters from 2025?

Of the people who provided an answer through Citizen Space, 19 respondents agreed with the proposed approach. 

It was noted that current exemptions were practical, realistic, and sensible in response to the discard ban. However, they need to be applied to all vessels fishing in English waters. Some said that not all discarding is negative and that exemptions should focus on survivability rates, not gear design. Others suggested creating an exemption for those who towed gear for 90 minutes or less because more discarded fish would survive.

Nine respondents disagreed with the proposed approach. Some said that exemptions do not reduce discarding and do nothing to increase selectivity. It was also said that monitoring of compliance with exemptions is challenging and that exemptions have mitigated the impact of the landing obligation and stalled progress in selectivity. It was questioned whether the survivability criteria of high survivability exemptions properly reflect long-term survival and subsequent breeding.

Certain beam trawl exemptions have been highlighted as useful, but concerns were raised about two proposed gear changes due to loss of legal size sole and plaice. For example, increasing the lower trawl to 180 mm and the codend to 106 mm could result in the loss of legal sized sole, plaice and other valuable species such as squid. Others said that applying exemptions only in English waters will cause confusion. Some respondents were surprised about the proposed removal of the high survivability exemption for turbot in the North Sea.

Twelve respondents either did not know or did not answer the question.

Table 10: Number of respondents from Citizen Space on agreement of using the exemption in English waters from 2025.

Response	Count
Agree	19
Disagree	9
Don’t know	9
Not answered	3
Sum	40

Q13. Do you have any initial views on making lower risk parts of the fleet exempt?

There were mixed views in response to this question. Some said that vessels cannot be exempted entirely from the landing obligation as no part of the fleet is low risk, and there should be a level playing field across all vessels. Doing this would give an unfair advantage to the under 10 metre fleet. Instead, exemptions should be based on their application such as the gear type being used, and the target species being fished. Others said that there is merit in a risk-based approach, and this could help avoid unnecessary administrative and financial burdens. However, the evidence would need to be robust, and the approach needs to be open to review.

Q14. Are there other ideas for reforming discards management that we should consider?

Respondents said that the focus should be on encouraging the use of selective and low impact gears, mitigation and avoidance with a well-resourced approach to data collection as well as proper monitoring and enforcement. Others suggested an expansion of interspecies flexibility and quota flexibility along with considering non-quota species.

One specific measure put forward was for a trial of improved codend selectivity for sole fishing in the North Sea. It was also noted that the cumulative impact of different measures together needed to be considered and this should include fisheries management plans and marine protected areas.

Government response 

We have considered all the feedback received from stakeholders and used this to help decide what to do next. We plan to proceed with some of our proposals, but others have changed as a result of the feedback received from the consultation. Given the volume, breadth and detail of the responses, we are not able to provide detailed explanations relating to all points raised but we have responded to the main areas of feedback below.

Principles

We will adopt the three proposed principles of working collaboratively, being risk-based in how we focus our measures and adopting a fishery-focused approach. A clear majority of respondents supported these principles. Comments on having an appropriate evidence base were raised. We will continue to work with the best available scientific evidence when it comes to where we focus our measures. We also consider that it is essential to draw upon the expertise of industry and other stakeholders. Working collaboratively will enable us to explore respondents’ questions on understanding the needs of mixed fisheries and more broadly, to get discards reform right. We will work collaboratively to achieve this. 

Summary: We will adopt these three principles in our approach to discards reform.

Priorities

Overall, there was no consensus from respondents on the 12 higher risk stocks in the Celtic Sea, Irish Sea, North Sea and West of Scotland. This was based on latest available data, but respondents raised concerns about this being out-of-date and not aligned with industry experience in 2023. Defra recognises the importance of updating stock prioritisation with the latest available data and discussing current priorities with stakeholders. Other fisheries also need to be assessed to quantify risk-based operational practices. We will need to consider cross-cutting issues between discards reform and other policy areas, including fisheries management plans.

Summary: We will continue to review and update the analysis of stock prioritisation and discuss this with stakeholders.  

Catch accounting

Of the two options proposed, option 2, the deduction of estimated discards after catches are landed, was the preferred option. Respondents said this would encourage the use of selective gears and reduce discard rates, but this would depend on the discard rates applied to each vessel and whether they are based on gears in use. The more tailored the rate is to a particular gear type, the more accurate discard levels will be. Overall, this would be fairer for all vessels. Moreover, with the use of data management systems, including the potential use of remote electronic monitoring in the future, there could be very accurate information available. We will now progress with this option.

Respondents also had a variety of ideas on how implementation could work, including increased observer programmes to determine the specific discard rates in each fishery when using different gear types. We will work with stakeholders to consider this.

Summary: We will implement option 2 and will work with stakeholders to do this effectively.

Turning to how respondents thought we should be accounting for catches against quota, there was a wide variation of perspectives on how this could be achieved. Some respondents said a fairer system is required. Others supported a baseline multiplier that can be changed periodically via remote electronic monitoring and observers. A reliable multiplier rate should be set, but it should allow for adjustments based on factors such as mesh sizes or the impacts of climate change. Catches against quota should be measured by vessel. We will do a catch accounting trial in 2024 to test this and then in 2025 we plan to begin including discards along with landings when accounting for catches.

Summary: We will trial option 2 in 2024 and then plan to implement the new catch accounting approach in 2025.

Measures to avoid or reduce unwanted catch

We asked three questions on this: whether stakeholders supported establishing steering groups to identify ways of reducing bycatch such as gear modifications and area closures, their views on suggested modifications to otter and beam trawls and if these modifications should be mandatory.

Respondents wanted the groups to be balanced and have a broad range of representation of recognised scientists, policy developers, industry and others with key interests. The groups needed to be regionally sensitive, proactive, transparent with a clear decision-making framework in place. A small number of respondents said that voluntary gear modifications would not work, would not work quickly enough or were impractical. Some noted that it would be better to remove gear and area restrictions and instead, base everything on catches with effective monitoring.

There was support for proposed modifications to otter and beam trawls. Some thought that codend modifications were too vague, but they supported increasing mesh sizes.

Others noted that almost all gear modifications in the consultation document had been made and have already significantly reduced discards. Some said that gear modifications should come via fisheries management plans, but a one-size-fits-all approach cannot work due to regional differences in gear set-up. 

There was no clear consensus in respondents’ comments on whether gear modifications should be mandatory for all vessels operating in a fishery.

We will set up the groups in different parts of the country to explore ways of reducing discards through discard reduction schemes, which will include discussion of gear modifications. This regional approach will encourage sharing of knowledge across regions and inform on regional specificities. This approach could begin in the North Sea Nephrops fishery and build on trials that have already been done there to find more selective gears.

Summary: We will establish groups to identify ways of reducing unwanted catch.

Area closures

In consultation, we proposed to use the steering groups to explore expanding the use of area closures and whether the current approach to area closures is working, whether they are helping to reduce unwanted catch or choke and to also consider the use of real-time closures and technology in area closures. Most respondents were in favour of introducing area closures in various scenarios, including avoidance of bycatch and their use in real-time to reduce unwanted catch or choke. The support of technology would also help. Respondents said that area closures were vital for stock management and they could also be applied in smaller areas if required. However, there was some resistance to area closures, including views that they solve nothing, didn’t work in mixed fisheries and would lead to further discarding.

Summary: We will consider the responses to area closures and engage with stakeholders again through the proposed groups before any changes are made to this approach.

Discard prevention charge

The consultation responses showed limited support for such a charge along with the potential challenges of its implementation. We will not proceed with this proposal at this time due to challenges around its practicality and feasibility.

Summary: We will not proceed with the discard prevention charge scheme at this time.

Exemptions

The consultation asked if stakeholders agreed with our proposals to continue using exemptions in English waters from 2025. We also included a small number of proposed changes, including modifications to existing exemptions and the discontinuing of some existing exemptions. It was noted that keeping exemptions in place was a practical, realistic and sensible response to the discard ban. There was clear support for the proposals from many respondents. However, there were a small number of respondents who were not in favour of continuing with exemptions generally because they felt that exemptions do not reduce discarding or increase selectivity. A few questions on the inclusion and continuation of exempting certain species were raised. It was suggested that confusion could arise if rules around exemptions were applied to England only.

Summary: We will continue to use exemptions as one of the ways to manage the discard ban. We will continue to review and make changes to exemptions in line with the best available scientific evidence. We will work with the devolved administrations and other States to align rules where appropriate.

Other ideas

The consultation asked respondents two questions about other ideas they had to reduce discarding.

As part of our risk-based approach to managing discards. We asked whether stakeholders had any initial views on making lower risk parts of the fleet exempt. Most respondents were against this proposal because of the need for a level playing field across the fishing sector. It was noted that no vessels can be entirely exempt from the landing obligation. However, a small number thought that all lower risk vessels should be exempt.

Summary: We will not proceed with a blanket exemption for these vessels at this time.

We asked respondents for other ideas to reform discards management. There was a range of responses including calling for the removal of international vessels from UK waters, expansion of interspecies and quota flexibilities, and the inclusion of de minimis exemptions of boarfish amongst others.

Summary: We will continue working with stakeholders on some of these ideas to see if any could be trialled in the near future.

Annex 1 – List of organisations who responded to the consultation

These are presented in alphabetical order. Note that some respondents who wanted to remain confidential do not appear on this list, however their views have still informed the analysis of this consultation and are incorporated in the tables presented throughout.

• ANIFPO/ NIFPO Northern Ireland Gear Trials Project
• Anglo Scottish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd
• Angling Trust
• Blue Marine Foundation
• Catching Sector Association
• Channel Future Fisheries Group
• ClientEarth
• Cornish Fish Producers Organisation
• Danish Fish Producer Organisation
• Eastern England Fish Producers Organisation
• European Association of Fish Producer Organisation
• European Union
• Humberside Fish Producers Organisation
• Isle of Man Government Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture
• Leach Fishing
• Marine Stewardship Council
• Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, The Netherlands
• National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
• North Atlantic Holdings Ltd
• Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (NIFCA)
• North Sea Fishermen’s Organisation
• North Western Waters Advisory Council
• The Open Seas Trust
• OPF24
• Peter & J. Johnstone
• Plymouth Fishing and Seafood Association
• Rederscentrale
• RSPB
• Scottish Government, Marine Scotland
• Shark Trust
• Seal Research Trust
• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation
• Shetland Fishermen’s Association
• South Western Fish Producers Organisation
• SNTech
• United Kingdom Association of Fish Producers Organisation
• Wembury Marine Conservation Area Advisory Group
• Whale and Dolphin Conservation
• Plymouth Fishing and Seafood Association
• World Wide Fund for Nature

Annex 2 - List of consultation engagement meetings

This is a list of locations where engagement took place across all fisheries consultations in summer 2023, This included consultations about fisheries management plans, remote electronic monitoring and discards reform as well as other matters. It may be that some of these engagement sessions did not result in feedback about this specific consultation.

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

Annex 3 - Breakdown of responses per question

Question 1

Table 2: Do you agree with these principles? Working collaboratively.

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Not Answered
Producing/ catching sector	17	1	0	0
Science/ research	3	1	0	0
Interest group	7	0	1	1
Recreational sea fishing	1	1	0	0
Other	7	0	0	0
Sum	35	3	1	1

Table 3: Do you agree with these principles? Risk-based.

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Not Answered
Producing/ catching sector	14	2	2	0
Science/ research	2	2	0	0
Interest group	4	3	1	1
Recreational sea fishing	0	2	0	0
Other	4	0	2	1
Sum	24	9	5	2

Table 4: Do you agree with these principles? Fishery-focused.

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Not Answered
Producing/ catching sector	14	2	2	0
Science/ research	3	1	0	0
Interest group	4	2	2	1
Recreational sea fishing	0	2	0	0
Other	5	1	0	1
Sum	26	8	4	2

Question 3

Table 5: Which catch accounting option do you prefer and why?

Interest	One	Two	Don’t know	Not Answered
Producing/ catching sector	3	3	10	2
Science/ research	0	3	1	0
Interest group	0	6	0	3
Recreational sea fishing	0	0	2	0
Other	0	4	1	2
Sum	3	16	14	7

Question 6

Table 6: What do you think about creating steering groups to jointly identify and implement gear modifications and to consider other technical measures such as area closures?

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Not Answered
Producing/ catching sector	14	3	0	1
Science/ research	3	1	0	0
Interest group	5	1	2	1
Recreational sea fishing	2	0	0	0
Other	6	0	1	0
Sum	30	5	3	2

Question 8

Table 7: Do you agree with the approach of making gear modifications mandatory for all vessels operating in a particular fishery?

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Not Answered
Producing/ catching sector	1	10	3	4
Science/ research	2	2	0	0
Interest group	5	0	2	2
Recreational sea fishing	2	0	0	0
Other	4	1	2	0
Sum	14	13	7	6

Question 11

Table 8: Would you be interested in taking part in any discard prevention charge scheme or its development and testing?

Interest	Yes	No	Don’t know	Not Answered
Producing/ catching sector	2	11	3	2
Science/ research	0	1	2	1
Interest group	2	4	1	2
Recreational sea fishing	0	2	0	0
Other	0	3	2	2
Sum	4	21	8	7

Question 12

Table 9: Do you agree with our proposals to continue using exemptions in English waters from 2025?

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Not Answered
Producing/ catching sector	13	1	3	1
Science/ research	2	2	0	0
Interest group	2	3	2	2
Recreational sea fishing	0	1	1	0
Other	2	2	3	0
Sum	19	9	9	3