Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 17 July 2023

Foreword

Over the last two years, concerns have been raised from the English inshore catching sector and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), about the increasing efficiency of newer, larger flyseine vessels, and the development of new fisheries using flyseine gear on the sustainability of demersal non-quota species (NQS).

Defra ran a public consultation from 25 August to 16 November 2022 to gather further evidence on the impact of flyseining in English waters and asked for views on different technical measures to protect stocks from the potential risk posed by this flyseine effort, to support sustainable fishing and reduce pressure on demersal stocks.

Alongside the written consultation, Defra carried out extensive stakeholder engagement to capture views from both UK and EU stakeholders.

This document provides a summary of responses to the consultation and sets out the actions the government intends to take. The analysis presented in this document is based on the formal responses to the written consultation, but we have also taken account of all views expressed in other discussions in the government response.

Overview

Policy background

The 2018 Fisheries White Paper, ‘Sustainable fisheries for future generations’, sets out the UK’s commitment to reshape fisheries management following our departure from the EU. Continuing to champion sustainable fishing and adopting management measures to rebuild and maintain stocks in the long term is central to future management.

Non-quota species (NQS) are stocks not subject to a total allowable catch (TAC). They are often high value, potentially vulnerable and generally data poor species. The importance of NQS is recognised in the UK Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS), where UK fisheries authorities highlight our intention to manage NQS in future through effort or catch limits, fisheries closures, and technical measures. The JFS also sets out our intention to prioritise the development of management approaches for NQS domestically, through fisheries management plans (FMPs) and, where appropriate, ‘multi-year strategies for the conservation and management of non-quota stocks’ under the UK/EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA).

We have limited data on NQS, limited management and are therefore unable to accurately assess the health and sustainability levels of all NQS stocks that are targeted in English waters. The Fisheries Act sets out the precautionary objective in which the absence of sufficient scientific information is not used to justify postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species, non-target species or their environment.

In the consultation we sought further evidence on the impact of current fishing activity on demersal species and continue to do so through the development of the Channel demersal NQS FMP. We remain conscious of pressures on the stocks and of not waiting to act given concerns about the potential vulnerability of demersal NQS.

The consultation proposed some ways to support effective management of NQS, while complementing longer term management through the ongoing Channel demersal NQS FMP process. The aim is to put in place a cohesive approach which:

1. Implements an appropriate level of protection for unmanaged, valuable but data poor demersal NQS.
2. Addresses the reported impact of flyseining in English waters.

Number of responses

A total of 45 responses were received, 27 via Citizen Space (our online consultation tool) and 18 via email. The breakdown of these responses consisted of:

• 33 (73%) representatives of fisheries organisations and businesses
• 12 (27%) individuals.

Out of 45 responses, 13 formed a part of four separate co-ordinated responses. While individual responses have been logged, we have removed duplicates from the overall analysis. We have therefore analysed 36 responses, including one response for each co-ordinated response.

A list of organisations who responded to the consultation is set out in Annex 1. One respondent stated they wished for their response to be kept confidential.

Methodology

Due to the qualitative nature of responses, a thematic analysis was conducted. Using an iterative approach, each response was analysed twice to identify both the themes raised by respondents and policy recommendations put forward. 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.

Headline messages

Of the 36 responses analysed, 78% of respondents agreed, to varying extents, that they were in favour of introducing some form of measure or agreed something should be done to manage flyseine vessel pressure on demersal NQS.

Most respondents say they have observed changes to demersal NQS stocks in English waters over the past few years. They noted an expansion of the flyseine fleet and increased effort in the Channel and southern North Sea as having a negative effect on demersal NQS, with many believing this fishing method is not viable in the long-term. Concerns were raised over future sustainability of the stocks, the elevated risk of overfishing and the negative impact on inshore opportunities. There were calls for better information relating to stock status and the impact of the flyseine fleet on these fisheries.

Though respondents were broadly in favour of introducing measures, support across the proposals varied. Some proposed measures received more support, such as the removal of the squid derogation, or restrictions to engine size; others were more mixed, such as introducing an entitlement system or placing restrictions on rope length and diameter. Those who expressed concerns about introducing management measures felt there was an unjustified targeting of flyseiners. Some respondents also suggested several further proposals to consider as part of this consultation.

Summary of responses by question

Evidence gathering

The first four consultation questions intended to gather further evidence about the impact of flyseining on demersal NQS, to see if there have been any changes to fish stocks or fishing patterns and methods in the last few years, and to understand any effects this has had, or will have on stocks or the industry.

Question 1: What changes have you observed to demersal NQS stocks in English waters in recent times? Do you consider that any of these stocks are at risk of being overfished?

31 out of 36 respondents provided a response to this question.

Of those that answered the question, 74% stated they had observed detrimental changes to demersal non quota stocks, and the other 26% had either observed minimal changes, no changes or were neutral in their response.

Many respondents stated that the increase in the flyseine fleet and associated effort in the southern North Sea and the Channel is having an adverse effect on demersal NQS. Additionally, several respondents noted a significant risk of overfishing from this increased pressure, with a few respondents requesting management measures to be introduced urgently to provide protection for demersal NQS. Further, several respondents stated they have observed changes to stocks, including a decline in species, sizes and catch of both quota and non-quota in English inshore waters (0–12 nautical miles (nm)). This was raised as a concern for inshore fishing opportunities. Some respondents however, stated there has been an increase in catches of NQS, and some stocks are seen in abundance in some areas.

A small number of respondents stated there were minimal or no changes to demersal NQS stocks in the past few years, noting that every year is unique for these stocks, and fluctuations are based on the previous year’s recruitment. These respondents did not agree that demersal NQS were at risk of being overfished, with some noting that landings data appears consistent over the past few years.

Some respondents noted the lack of data surrounding demersal NQS, stating it was difficult to accurately assess changes over the years, or if these stocks were at risk of being overfished as data was limited. One respondent highlighted the sustainability risks with an unregulated sector and noted the precautionary objective as an appropriate response to the lack of data.

Question 2: What changes have you observed in fishing patterns and methods in relation to demersal NQS stocks in English waters, in recent times?

26 out of 36 respondents provided a response to this question.

80% of respondents who answered the question observed changes to either fishing patterns or methods in relation to demersal NQS stocks, with 65% noting these changes as negative, and 15% as positive. The other 20% were either neutral, unsure, or the response was unclear.

Most respondents highlighted the growth of the flyseine sector as having a negative effect on demersal NQS stocks. Some considered the move to this method resulting from the ban on pulse fishing. Others highlighted a greater focus on NQS in recent times. Mostly, respondents believed that this fishing method is not viable in the long-term and has led to overfishing of inshore grounds, resulting in stock decline, reduced catches of NQS, and a restriction of opportunities for the inshore fleet.

Some respondents noted a change in inshore fishing patterns, stating local vessels will concede certain areas that have been fished out by these larger vessels. They also commented on the nomadic nature of the flyseine fleet, which allows them to diversify easily into other areas, where inshore vessels would be restricted.

Respondents who felt there had been positive changes noted that fishing methods have been adapted to help improve sustainability of fish stocks and benefit the environment, with respondents highlighting lower fuel consumption, lower running costs and the economic advantages of targeting NQS with this method.

Question 3: What effects do you think any changes in fishing patterns and methods have had or will have on (a) demersal NQS; and (b) different sectors of industry (of any nationality)?

26 of the 36 respondents provided a response to this question.

Of those that answered the question, 81% felt that changes to fishing patterns and methods have had or will have an effect on either demersal NQS or the industry. 7% observed no changes, and 12% were neutral in response.

Several respondents noted that changes to fishing patterns and methods is already having an effect on demersal NQS stocks. They attribute a reduction in NQS and poorer stocks in some areas to the increased pressure of seiners and other industrial trawlers in the Channel. Respondents largely felt without restrictions on this fishing method, pressure on NQS would continue and lead to devastating impacts for the stocks, further overfishing and eventual stock collapse. One respondent, however, noted they had not observed any changes to demersal stocks.

Many respondents stated flyseining is having a negative impact on the inshore sector, reporting a decline in NQS landings by English vessels and lower earnings for English businesses. The competition with larger vessels was reported as a concern for the inshore fleet, with respondents claiming it had potential to devastate small-scale fisheries, and in turn, impact wider coastal communities and tourism. A few respondents highlighted a potential issue of displacement into other areas and to other stocks, where the impact would be unknown.

Question 4: Is there any other evidence/data available about these matters?

25 out of 36 respondents provided a response to this question.

84% of those that answered the question provided examples of further evidence/data that could be explored in relation to the impact of flyseining on demersal NQS stocks. The other 16% either suggested more evidence should be gathered or they felt there was no other available evidence/data on these matters.

Suggestions for further evidence or data included:

• using Automatic Identification System (AIS) and Global Fishing Watch (GFW) data to track vessel activity in the Channel
• reviewing landings and catch data for NQS, including Marine Management Organisation (MMO), local fishery, EU, and vessel monitoring systems (VMS) data to analyse trends over time
• first-hand experience and observations from fishers
• information and discussions from advisory groups
• data on new build EU vessels and EU regulations for flyseine gear
• information on net design and mesh sizes, and data on fishing patterns and scale of effort available on request.

A few respondents highlighted that the lack of data is challenging, and suggested more research was required to better understand the impacts on this fishery. Recommendations included scientific surveys and better discards data.

Suggestions for technical measures

The remaining six questions looked at potential technical measures that could be introduced to manage and protect demersal NQS from the risk posed by flyseiners. The last question was left open for respondents to capture any further measures they felt Defra should consider.

Question 5: What are the benefits and drawbacks of putting in place a licence entitlement system for flyseine gear in English waters? What might work for such a system (for example a link to engine power, or a track record period based on average landings)?

27 out of 36 respondents provided a response to this question.

Of those that answered the question, 48% of respondents were against introducing an entitlements system, with 30% in favour, 7% neutral and 15% unsure or the response was unclear.

Arguments against the proposal focused on an apparent discontent with the current licensing and entitlements system, with concerns raised around the perceived unfairness of the system, in its restriction of new entrants into a fishery, and the monetising of licences. However, others noted trust in the licensing system, stating it was a tried and tested way of controlling fishing pressure, and felt this had the potential benefit of creating a fairer fishery for all. Some respondents highlighted the adaptability of this management approach, in its quick implementation, effectiveness, and ability to easily add or remove entitlement conditions.

Some respondents felt an entitlement system based on a track record period would not solve the issue of increased effort or catch capacity of the flyseine fleet, which was seen as too much already. There were also concerns surrounding the lack of an evidence base to support the reference period, and the potential disadvantage to the inshore sector, who do not have the same catching capabilities. One respondent suggested an area specific track record may account for nuances.

Some respondents referenced engine power specifically, with most of those opposed to linking this to an entitlement system, arguing that engine power is not a key component of flyseining and therefore any link to engine power would be questionable. Others mentioned potential control issues, highlighting concerns around misreporting engine size and power.

Question 6: What are the benefits and drawbacks of introducing a restriction of engine power to (a) 221kW; or (b) 600kW for demersal seine gears in the English 0–12nm zone?

29 out of 36 respondents provided a response to this question.

Of those that answered the question, 55% were in favour of placing a restriction on engine power in the 0–12nm zone, 28% were against introducing a restriction on engine power, 14% were neutral in their response and 3% were unsure or the response was unclear.

Out of those in favour of restricting engine power, 81% were supportive of restricting to 221kw, 6% for restricting to 600kw, and the other 13% of respondents did not specify a preference.

Several respondents felt restricting engine size would be an effective way to manage flyseine effort, and would provide consistency with current management measures, as in those for beam trawlers, as well as complementing work on future domestic policy. Respondents stated an engine cap would limit the size and growth of flyseine vessels, in turn providing greater protection for inshore grounds and allowing demersal NQS stocks to recover. Many referenced the potential benefits of this measure for English businesses, and wider inshore fishing opportunities, by harmonising the sectors and reducing the spatial squeeze from larger vessels. Respondents also considered there to be environmental benefits through lowering emissions, reducing the impact on the wider environment from limiting engine size and therefore size of gears worked.

Some respondents felt engine size was not the best way to manage effort, re-iterating comments made under the evidence gathering section that engine size is not the main component of this fishing method. They noted flyseine vessels tend to be multi-purpose, so the larger engine size is on account of vessels twin-rigging for the other part of the year. Respondents stated there is a danger of vessels being refitted with smaller engines and turning to flyseining for the full year, which would counter the aims of the consultation. A few also mentioned there could be an increase in fishing effort to account for this lower engine limit. There were also a few concerns raised over the potential effort displacement into other areas or to other fisheries.

There were mixed views on how this measure could be controlled effectively. Some felt this proposal would be easily monitored by regulators, and straightforward for vessels to comply with. However, a few concerns were raised over the current issues with monitoring and enforcement of engine power, which led some to believe this measure would not work in practice. A few comments highlighted the importance of a robust inspection process to ensure compliance.

Question 7: What are the benefits and drawbacks of removing the derogation of 40mm mesh size for a directed squid fishery in English waters?

26 out of 36 respondents provided a response to this question.

Of those that answered the question, 65% were in favour of removing the derogation that allows a 40mm mesh size for a directed squid fishery in English waters. The other 35% consisted of 8% who were against removing the derogation, 19% who were neutral and 8% who were unsure, or the response was unclear.

This proposal received the most support, with respondents stating this would help to create a more sustainable fishery that would benefit all stakeholders. There were calls from respondents to remove the derogation with urgency, seeing no justification in keeping this measure, and viewing it as going against all other conservation methods in place to protect stocks. Respondents saw stock benefits as the most important reason to remove this derogation, noting it would reduce the catch of juvenile fish and reduce the accidental bycatch of other species, such as bass, and therefore help stock recovery.

A few respondents noted that a larger mesh size would reduce catches of squid, affecting vessel operators. Other respondents, however, stated that as squid is a fast-growing, short-lived species, larger squid would be caught in a short amount of time, accounting for a higher weight per fish, and therefore bring an economic benefit. Some respondents also highlighted that most flyseine vessels work larger mesh sizes than required in the Channel already, so this may lessen any impact on operators.

Those who were more neutral in their response tended to focus on the data, stating any decision should be taken with the full information on the state of the stock and be backed up by good scientific advice. Others noted that they did not have data to answer this question, or without further data it would be difficult to judge the effect of this measure.

Some respondents felt this measure could be easily monitored, where others felt there may be challenges relating to potential loopholes around targeting or additions to cod-end sizes. Respondents did, however, note these loopholes could be managed through effective enforcement.

Question 8: What are the benefits and drawbacks of restricting vessels’ rope diameter for demersal seines to 30mm–40mm in English waters?

26 out of 36 respondents provided a response to this question.

The responses to this question were mixed, with those who responded 34% in favour of introducing a restriction to rope diameter, 31% who were against introducing a restriction, 31% neutral, and 4% unsure or the response was unclear.

Some respondents stated this measure could help to reduce the efficiency of the flyseine fleet, by limiting the size of gear a vessel could use and therefore cap overall effort and catching capabilities. There were believed to be environmental benefits for restricting the size of net, with respondents noting this would reduce ground contact and cause less damage to the seabed. One respondent suggested a restriction in diameter might increase damage to the seabed, by allowing smaller rope to cut into it more easily.

Those who were against introducing this measure felt it was unfairly targeting flyseine gear where other fishing methods use similar rope and have no restrictions. Respondents highlighted that adapting the gear to a smaller diameter would increase wear and tear of the rope, resulting in more breakages. This was seen as both an economic and environmental concern. Respondents suggested there would be higher costs for replacing rope more often, resulting in an economic loss for operators. Further, they noted this could lead to an increase in marine litter, with more breakages of smaller rope at sea resulting in more lost fishing gear. Some respondents felt this also posed a safety risk, with any amendments to the rope having the potential to change current fishing patterns which could have a negative effect on vessel and crew safety.

Concerns were also raised on how this would be monitored and enforced effectively, noting any regulations would need to be easily understood to ensure compliance.

Question 9: What are the benefits and drawbacks of restricting rope lengths for demersal seines to 1,500m in the English 0–12nm zone; and/or 3,000m–3,200m in the English 12–200nm zone?

27 out of 36 respondents provided a response to this question.

Of those that answered the question, 52% were in favour of introducing a restriction to the length of the rope, 19% were against, 22% were neutral and 7% were either unsure or the response was unclear.

Most responses to this question reiterated previous discussions on rope diameter, though there was stronger support for placing restrictions on rope length. Regarding environmental benefits and drawbacks, some noted that there would be less fuel consumption from a longer haul time, and therefore fewer emissions. Others noted more fuel consumption would lead to an economic loss.

Respondents felt this measure would provide social benefits for English fishers and promote co-existence between larger flyseine vessels and the inshore fleet, by reducing their ability to cover as much ground and therefore reducing their efficiency.

Responses for both rope length and rope diameter suggested that this could be part of an overall management approach. For length, respondents concluded this measure must be linked with a reduction in effort or it will not stop the flyseine fleet. In both questions, it was thought a reduction in engine power would suffice, without restricting rope size, as smaller gear would be needed anyway.

Question 10: Are there other technical measures or variations of the proposals above we could consider to help manage pressures on demersal NQS stocks in the English 0–200nm zone?

30 out of 36 respondents provided a response to this question.

80% of respondents who answered the question suggested further measures to consider to help manage pressure on demersal NQS stocks.

A number of respondents called for an outright ban on flyseine gear within the 0–12nm zone, including the suggestion a ban should go further than inshore grounds and instead should be banned completely in the Eastern Channel and southern North Sea. A few, however, noted that flyseiners should not be excluded from these areas unless there is evidence to do so. One respondent suggested creating designated inshore areas where flyseiners would be restricted from fishing.

Many respondents stated there needs to be better monitoring of vessels and recording of catch, including more data and evidence collection through in-person observers or remote electronic monitoring (REM) to improve understanding of these demersal stocks. They also suggested that monitoring equipment, including VMS should be installed on all vessels fishing in English waters.

Several respondents also proposed expanding existing Celtic Sea management measures to increase the minimum mesh size for flyseine gear.

Other suggestions included:

• placing restrictions on vessels for example by maximum vessel size or vessel weight
• introducing a Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) for NQS
• introducing a quota system management for NQS
• introducing effort restrictions through a ‘days at sea’ regime
• using UK/EU Multi-Year Strategies (MYSTs) as an avenue to take proposals forward

Respondents also noted that it was important to work together with industry, and scientists to create an in-depth knowledge and understanding of NQS.

Government response

As set out in the JFS and with the development of the first set of FMPs for publication in 2023, we continue to place importance on the protection and sustainable management of NQS. We have read, analysed and carefully considered all the consultation responses and taken them into account in considering potential technical measures to introduce. We are grateful to all respondents for sharing their views.

The responses to the consultation confirm there is a need to act in English waters to introduce management measures that provide a level of protection for demersal NQS and, reduce the pressure of flyseiners on these stocks in the short-term. In parallel it is clear we need to consider medium and longer-term management of demersal NQS through the development of the Channel demersal NQS FMP for stocks in the English Channel, which will be consulted on this summer and published by the end of 2023.

The need for better data and evidence to fully assess the impact of flyseiners on demersal NQS stocks remained a constant theme in the responses. The Channel demersal NQS FMP will provide an important platform to continue developing our understanding of these stocks, and the impacts of this flyseining fishery on them.

We proposed five technical measures in the consultation. Below we outline our next steps based on the responses to the consultation.

Introducing a licence entitlement system for flyseine gear in English waters

As highlighted in the responses this proposal offers adaptable management, quick implementation and provides a tried and tested way of limiting effort. We recognise the concerns raised by respondents of linking a system to a track reference period or engine size, and that the detail of this proposal will need to be worked through and would require further consultation before being introduced. We believe this option is best considered further within the Channel demersal NQS FMP, which is being developed to provide a more holistic framework for managing demersal NQS.

Introducing a restriction of engine power to (a) 221kW; or (b) 600kW for demersal seine gears in the English 0–12nm zone

As also highlighted in the responses, there was some support for placing a restriction on engine capacity in English territorial waters. We propose this measure is also considered further within the developing Channel demersal NQS FMP.

Removing the derogation for all towed gears that allows the use of mesh size of at least 40mm in a directed squid fishery

There was strong support for removing the derogation allowing the use of a smaller mesh size in a directed squid fishery. We therefore propose to take forward the removal of this derogation. While acknowledging concerns over lack of data, squid is caught as part of a highly mixed fishery which includes risks to other juvenile demersal NQS. We therefore believe removing the derogation will provide a level of protection for squid and provide wider benefits for demersal NQS.

This derogation is set out in legislation which means we will need to lay a statutory instrument (SI) to remove the derogation, which we intend to do as soon as practicable.

Restricting rope lengths for demersal seines to 1,500m in the English 0–12nm zone; and/or 3,000m–3,200m in the English 12–200nm zone

Restricting vessels’ rope diameter for demersal seines to 30mm–40mm in English waters

As also highlighted in the responses, there was mixed support for placing restrictions on rope lengths and/or diameter for demersal seines in English territorial waters, and that should either or both measures be introduced the enforceability of such measures would need further consideration. We therefore propose this measure is also considered further within the developing Channel demersal NQS FMP.

Other technical measures or variations of the proposals above we could consider to help manage pressures on demersal NQS stocks in the English 0–200nm zone

Some respondents called for an outright ban on flyseine gear within the 0–12nm zone, and/or beyond into the Eastern Channel and southern North Sea. We believe this could unnecessarily penalise the smaller, more traditional flyseiners operating in English waters so will not be taking forward as an outright ban of all flyseining activity. We agree there should be better monitoring of vessels and recording of catch, and that there may be different approaches to deliver more robust data, whether in-person observers, REM or other methods, to help improve understanding of these demersal stocks. We will consider further in light of other policy development and scientific work, and through the developing Channel demersal NQS FMP.

We note that several respondents proposed expanding existing Celtic Sea management measures to increase the minimum mesh size for flyseine gear. We believe that there is merit in exploring this further and propose to do so through the developing Channel demersal NQS FMP.

Annex 1: List of organisations that responded

The following organisations did not request anonymity:

• Association Pleine Mer
• Bremner Fishing Company
• Cornish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd (CFPO)
• CRP Normandie
• Credit sea fishing
• Belgium Government
• Netherlands Government
• Eastern England Fish Producers Organisation
• FIFE Producers Organisation
• Genesis trawler ltd
• Greenpeace
• Institute of fisheries management
• Leach Fishing Enterprises
• Lowestoft Fish Producers’ Organisation Limited
• Newhaven/SX Fish & Flake Ice Soc Ltd
• North Atlantic Holdings Ltd
• North Atlantic Fish Producers Organisation Ltd
• North Sea Fishermen’s Organisation
• New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association (NUTFA)
• Scott Fishing
• Scottish White Fish Producers Association
• European Anglers Alliance
• South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen Ltd.
• South East Fishermen’s Protection Association (SEFPA)
• Sussex Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (IFCA)
• South West Fish Producers Organisation (SWFPO)
• Thanet fisherman’s association/Temple fishing Ltd
• Western Fish Producers’ Organisation Ltd (WFPO)