Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 18 December 2024

Introduction

In October 2024, the fisheries policy authorities, the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland (DAERA), launched a 6-week consultation on amendments to Annex A of the Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS). The draft amended Annex A of the JFS which was consulted on was prepared jointly by the fisheries policy authorities.

This document provides the ‘summary of responses’ received to that consultation, as well as the joint UK ‘Government response’.

The UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government and DAERA are working productively together on fisheries management, in line with the JFS to contribute to the achievement of the fisheries objectives in the Fisheries Act 2020 (the Act). In turn this will deliver the UK’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, and biologically diverse oceans and seas.

Background

The Act provides a legislative framework for the sustainable management of the UK’s fish stocks and marine environment through 8 fisheries objectives. Under the Act, the fisheries policy authorities are required to set out policies for achieving, or contributing to the achievement of, these objectives in a JFS. The first, and current, JFS was published on 23 November 2022.

A key vehicle for supporting delivery of the policy ambitions set out in the JFS are Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs). The Act defines an FMP as a document that sets out policies designed to restore one or more stocks of sea fish to, or maintain them at, sustainable levels.

Under the Act, the fisheries policy authorities must prepare and publish each FMP in accordance with the timetable set out in Annex A of the JFS. This Annex also provides the list of which FMPs are being proposed; which of the fisheries policy authorities are responsible for co-ordinating the preparation and publication of each FMP; and which stocks, fishing type and geographical extent each FMP covers.

The consultation related solely to the details in the Annex and, in particular, proposing to amend the FMP publication deadlines. As a result of the fisheries policy authorities’ experience to date in delivering the FMP programme of work (including the publication of the first 5 FMPs in December 2023), it became clear that it was no longer possible to publish the remaining FMPs according to the original deadlines set out in Annex A of the JFS. The timescales were impacted by various factors, including the need for adequate time to engage stakeholders, changes to scientific advice and the pause in work required around the period of the 2024 UK General Election.

In addition, the consultation proposed a new FMP in Northern Ireland and sought views on whether Welsh Ministers should only remain as a responsible authority for the preparation and publication of those FMPs that extend to the Welsh zone.

Consulting on these proposed amendments to Annex A of the JFS provided an opportunity to also make some technical and other changes to some FMPs, for example, to stocks included and geographic areas, to ensure the plans align with the realities of fisheries management and available science.

Overview of responses

The consultation on amendments to Annex A of the JFS was published on Thursday 10 October 2024 for 6 weeks, closing on Thursday 21 November. The consultation was conducted using Citizen Space (Defra’s online consultation tool).

A total of 39 responses were received, 32 via Citizen Space and 7 via email, from a range of organisations and individuals. They have been grouped into categories based on how respondents identified themselves in their responses:

Interest of respondents	Number of respondents
Catching sector	12
Producer Organisation	5
Recreational Sea Fishing	3
Government or local Government	5
Environmental EU or other coastal	1
Non Individual (responding on behalf of a company or interest group)	11
Other	2
Total	39

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

Methodology

Each consultation question provided respondents with a “yes”, a “no” or a “no opinion” option, as well as the opportunity to provide written comments. The “yes”, “no” and “no opinion” responses have been quantified in the summary of responses by question below. In parallel, any written comments provided by respondents (qualitative responses) have been analysed and fully considered by the fisheries policy authorities. The summary of responses to each question combines both the quantifiable and qualitative analysis of the responses received.

Summary of responses by question

Question 2: Do you agree with the proposed new publication deadlines for the FMPs set out in Table 1 in the consultation document?

Response	Number of responses
Yes	31
No	7
No opinion	1

Of the 38 respondents who provided an opinion on this question, 31 were supportive of the proposal to amend the publication deadlines for the FMPs as set out in Table 1 of the consultation document.

Of those 31 supportive responses, 6 respondents commented that the current FMP publication deadlines, published in the JFS in 2022, were overly ambitious and ultimately unrealistic. They said that additional time provided by extending the publication deadlines would result in plans that were more robust, fit-for-purpose and of a higher quality. A few respondents in support of the proposal recognised that the delay does not mean there is an absence of fisheries management in the meantime. Five respondents said that extending the publication deadlines would allow for appropriate levels of stakeholder engagement and assessment of evidence to be completed so that the plans that are published are effective. Several respondents said that they would want these new deadlines to be the end of a ‘delivery window’ with the FMPs prepared and published as soon as possible within it. The extension should be an opportunity to improve the quality of the plans, ensuring they meet the Act’s objectives, and not be used to delay decision making.

Of the 7 who responded ‘no’ to this question, a number of common themes were highlighted. Some respondents said that any delay would have a negative impact on the fisheries policy authorities’ ability to manage fish stocks sustainably. Other respondents felt that because the fisheries policy authorities have already fallen behind on other environmental commitments, it was important that they kept to the previously published FMP deadlines. On the other hand, a number of respondents suggested an alternative approach instead, such as a phased publication of FMPs. A few respondents sought assurances that FMPs are still being prioritised and want clarification on the new proposed deadlines and workplan to achieve them. Additionally, that measures included in FMPs will be effective going forward.

Question 3: Do you agree with the proposal to make the technical and other changes to planned FMPs as set out in Table 2 in the consultation document?

Response	Number of responses
Yes	29
No	4
No opinion	6

Of the 33 respondents that provided an opinion on this question, 29 were supportive of the proposal to make the technical and other changes to planned FMPs that were set out in Table 2 of the consultation document.

Of those 29 supportive responses, one respondent said that the proposed changes would bring planned FMPs into line with a more common-sense approach. Other respondents noted that the proposed changes would help to adapt fisheries management strategies in anticipation of future challenges. Many respondents also commented on specific proposed changes to planned FMPs, with a number welcoming certain geographic changes as an opportunity to support the development of offshore wind, for example.

Of the 4 who responded ‘no’ to this question, there were several common themes highlighted. Several respondents felt that the proposed changes do not align with current scientific advice. Other respondents disagreed with the proposal of specific changes, including, but not limited to, the renaming and merging of certain FMPs. Some respondents also proposed supplementary changes, suggesting that the fisheries policy authorities extend the remit of some FMPs, or create new plans, to cover additional species.

Question 4: Do you agree with the proposal to create a new Northern Ireland Periwinkle FMP as set out in Table 3 in the consultation document?

Response	Number of responses
Yes	11
No	2
No opinion	26

Of the 13 respondents that provided an opinion on this question, 11 were supportive of the proposal to create a new Northern Ireland periwinkle FMP.

Of those 11 supportive responses, one respondent commented that periwinkle gathering is unregulated in Northern Ireland and said whilst not formally recognised as a key prey species for wading birds in the area, the gathering of periwinkles does have an impact on seabirds and waterbirds, both in relation to competition for prey and general disturbance at sites. That respondent added that these wider environmental impacts needed to be considered in the development and implementation of a new periwinkle FMP. Seven of the 11 respondents did not provide any specific comment, with the remaining 3 respondents providing comments outside the scope of this question.  

Analysis of the 2 responses that did not support a new Periwinkle FMP actually showed that their concern was that the proposal did not go far enough. Given the scale of unregulated shellfish harvesting in Northern Ireland, they both suggested that in addition to periwinkles, the new FMP should cover other species of hand-gathered shellfish such as oysters, blue mussels and cockles. They commented that this approach would facilitate a proactive and comprehensive management strategy for the main species of hand-gathered shellfish.

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposal that Welsh Ministers should only remain as a authority responsible for the preparation and publication of those FMPs that extend to the Welsh zone?

Response	Number of responses
Yes	13
No	2
No opinion	24

Of the 15 respondents who provided an opinion on this question, 13 were supportive of the proposal for Welsh Ministers to remain as an authority responsible only for the preparation and publication of those FMPs which extend to the Welsh zone.

Two respondents did not support the proposal, of which, one did not offer any additional comments to explain the reasoning behind their response. The second respondent raised concerns about the transient nature of fish stocks and the need for the Welsh Government to be involved in neighbouring waters.

Comments made outside of scope of consultation

Some responses raised topics outside the scope of this consultation, which did not focus directly on Annex A of the JFS. Therefore, they have not been considered in this response, but all the comments have been passed to the relevant policy teams across the UK. In most cases, these will be matters considered as part of the preparation and implementation of individual FMPs. Issues raised outside the scope of the consultation included:

• developing an evidence plan and evidence strategy for each FMP
• considering the impact of neighbouring waters in jurisdictions outside the UK
• funding for evidence gaps around non-quota stocks
• developing offshore wind development in Northern Ireland
• considering renewable energy in development of the Northern Ireland Non-Quota Shellfish FMP management measures

Government response

Although the majority of responses supported the amendments to Annex A, concerns were raised by some respondents on a range of issues. Fisheries policy authorities’ responses to some of the key themes and points are set out below in line with the consultation questions.

a) Changing FMP publication deadlines

Issue:  Extending FMP publication deadlines will have a negative impact on the ability of fisheries policy authorities to manage fish stocks sustainably

We do not believe this to be the case. The fisheries policy authorities already have well-established approaches to fisheries management. Our fisheries are effectively regulated with rules, regulations and management practices that support the achievement, or contribute to the achievement, of the Fisheries Objectives in the Act to improve the long-term sustainability of our stocks. 

FMPs are an important mechanism for ensuring our management practices are robust and able to secure the sustainability of our fish stocks in the longer-term. Providing additional time to develop the plans with strong engagement from industry and all the necessary assessments, will enable the fisheries policy authorities to consider potential impacts, safeguard against unintended consequences and create robust plans that will be effective in preparing our fisheries for the future.

Measures can still be introduced to manage our fisheries sustainably and safeguard the fish stocks if required before an FMP is in place.

Issue: How can interested groups be confident that the remaining FMPs will be published by the amended deadlines? Could the extension to publication deadlines be shortened to end of 2025 instead of end of 2026 as proposed in the consultation?

The fisheries policy authorities are committed to ensuring FMPs deliver on the requirements outlined within the Act. However, we have learnt from the experience of those plans that were published in 2023, that delivering them is a complex process. Extending the deadlines for publishing most FMPs by 2 years will give the fisheries policy authorities adequate time to compile the evidence needed to support development of the FMPs. This includes securing multi-agency input, providing for assessments to be produced, for example Strategic Environmental Assessments, and undertaking meaningful stakeholder engagement. 

We understand that stakeholders are eager for FMPs to be in place. However, stakeholders also want to be listened to and it is important we provide the space for that to happen and for those views to be properly considered. Several consultation responses reflected this point, highlighting the importance of sufficient time being taken to make FMPs fit for purpose and accurately reflect the requirements of the Act. The commitment to meaningful stakeholder engagement was welcomed as a driver for the extension. Nevertheless, some respondents were clear that all FMPs should be published as soon as feasibly possible and certainly not be delayed beyond the amended deadlines. 

Using the experience gained from publishing the first 5 FMPs in December 2023, we believe that completing each of the remaining FMPs in no more than 2 years beyond their original deadlines is realistic.

Some responses asked for a published timeline with milestones to track FMPs’ progress over the next 24 months. Others sought a plan of future stakeholder engagement, emphasising its importance and the need to utilise fully the period of the extended deadline. Both these important points will be picked-up as part of the development of each individual plan.

Some responses asked for the deadline extension for some plans to be one year rather than 2. An extension of only one year would not, realistically, provide sufficient time for the fisheries policy authorities to complete the work needed to prepare an FMP including meaningful stakeholder engagement. However, the fisheries policy authorities are committed to the next stages of work on the FMPs yet to be published progressing as quickly as possible. All endeavours will be made to deliver them before the amended publication dates.

b) Technical and other changes to planned FMPs

Issues raised in response to the question on technical changes included:

Issue: Concern over the creation of a Northern Shelf Cod FMP

Some concerns were raised about merging the North Sea and West of Scotland Cod FMPs, although respondents acknowledged that it reflected latest scientific advice. They felt that details relevant to some of the sub-stocks could be lost and that the combined plan must take account of the differences in these sub-fisheries such as Clyde, Minch and Inner Hebrides.

This proposal reflects the latest scientific understanding of the stock, bringing the FMPs in line with International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advice structures. Any relevant area-specific management measures for the North Sea and West of Scotland will be considered, as required, through the plan’s development.

Issue: Calls for some FMPs to cover additional species

There was a call for the Northern Ireland non-quota shellfish FMP not to be limited in scope to include only crab, lobster and scallops.  

The FMP includes the 5 main shellfish species (which are currently non-quota stocks) landed into Northern Ireland for which the Agri-food and Biosciences Institute publish annual stock assessments. These current non-quota shellfish species are brown crab, velvet crab, lobster, king scallop and queen scallop.

FMPs for other non-quota fish caught in Northern Ireland waters may be considered in the future if the JFS criteria for including a specific stock in an FMP are met and the available science supports the preparation and publication thereof.

The title of this FMP reflects that the species within scope are currently “non-quota” stocks and does not necessarily infer that management in the form of quotas will not be considered in the future.

Issue: Create new FMPs

There was a call for a new additional FMP for Northern Ireland to cover skates and rays. DAERA’s current focus is on the effective conservation management for both quota and non-quota priority elasmobranch species.

To develop specific conservation management advice, key information on skate and ray species in Northern Ireland waters is being sought through DAERA Elasmobranch Conservation Strategy. Some species included in the strategy are part of a mixed total allowable catch (TAC) for skates and rays within the ICES areas 6a and 7a and could potentially be included in a skate and ray FMP in the future should the criteria set out in the JFS for the inclusion of a specific stock in an FMP be met. 

There was also a suggestion that spurdog could be brought into an FMP. An initial 2 year TAC was advised following a noted increase in stock to avoid over-exploitation. For this reason, it is included in the Elasmobranch Conservation Strategy. If sufficient data is collected on stock levels following the 2 year TAC period, and the criteria set out in the JFS for the inclusion of a specific stock in an FMP are met, DAERA may consider an FMP for spurdog.

Issue: The names of some FMPs should change

One respondent observed that the reference in the Whelk FMP’s title to Welsh waters rather than the Welsh zone was inconsistent with the extent of the existing Welsh legislation managing these stocks.

The Welsh Government agrees that the use of ‘Welsh zone’ is more accurate and will make this change so the Whelks in Welsh waters FMP will become the Whelks in the Welsh zone FMP. For consistency, the Welsh Government will also amend the name of the Welsh Crabs and Lobsters FMP to Crabs and Lobsters in the Welsh zone FMP, on the same basis.

Issue: Are the proposed amendments in line with scientific advice?

One respondent queried whether the amendments to Annex A of the JFS proposed in the consultation were in line with scientific advice. The fisheries policy authorities are aware that fisheries management does not operate in a static environment. Fish stocks are ever-changing, and science is constantly evolving. We are taking account of that as we develop FMPs so they remain relevant and reflective of the broader situation. As far as possible, we will ensure that our management approach can be responsive to evolving scientific advice.

Issue: No update to the Narrative Impact Assessment (NIA)

One respondent felt that an assessment should be made of the impact of delaying the FMPs by 2 years during which time stocks or environmental conditions might have worsened.

We appreciate this point and the impact of the FMP timetable extension will be considered as part of the impact assessments prepared for individual FMPs or when they are prepared separately for specific policies.

c) New Periwinkle FMP in Northern Ireland

Given the threat from unregulated hand-gathering in Northern Ireland there were calls for the new Northern Ireland Periwinkle FMP to be broadened to include other species gathered in the intertidal zone such as blue mussel, oysters and cockles.

DAERA accepts the request to widen the scope of the Periwinkle FMP to include other species of shellfish that are gathered by hand. This will be reflected in the name of the new FMP which will appear in Annex A of the JFS: the Northern Ireland Intertidal Hand-Gathering of Shellfish FMP. The list of species in this FMP will now include blue mussels, oysters, cockles and razor clams.

d) Changes to authorities responsible for preparation and publication of FMPs

A concern to this question was raised regarding the extent to which fish move across boundaries. It was a pivotal consideration which informed the proposal for the Welsh Government to remain as a joint authority in those FMPs, co-ordinated by Scottish Ministers, where they extend to or are adjacent to the Welsh zone. The Welsh Government is striving to take a proportionate approach to fisheries management. As the consultation set out, the Welsh Government believe management actions relating to the risk of over-exploitation, socio-economic aspects and ecosystem interactions should be affected by those authorities which have regulatory responsibilities or direct fisheries interest in the areas in which the stocks covered by those FMPs reside.  

On balance, and for the reasons set out in the consultation, the Welsh Government intends to take forward the proposals that were consulted on.

Summary of changes being made to Annex A of the JFS

a) Changing FMP publication deadlines

All FMP deadlines will be amended as set out in the consultation document. These are set out in the amended version of Annex A of the JFS.

b) Technical and other changes to planned FMPs

All technical and other changes will be adopted as set out in the consultation document. These are set out in the amended version of Annex A of the JFS.   

c) New Periwinkle FMP in Northern Ireland

The scope of the Periwinkle FMP in Northern Ireland proposed in the consultation will be broadened to include other hand-gathered shellfish with a new title for the plan: the Northern Ireland Intertidal Hand-Gathering of Shellfish FMP.

d) Changes to authorities responsible for preparation and publication of FMPs

Amendments to the authorities responsible for the preparation and publication of FMPs will be made as set out in the consultation and in Annex A of the JFS. As a result, Welsh Ministers will no longer be listed as an authority responsible for preparing and publishing those 18 joint FMPs (of which Scottish Ministers are the Coordinating Authority) and which are not relevant to the Welsh zone or adjacent waters.

e) Other changes resulting from responses to the consultation

The Whelks in Welsh Waters FMP will be renamed to the Whelks in the Welsh zone FMP. For consistency, the name of the Welsh Crabs and Lobsters FMP will be changed to the Crabs and Lobsters in the Welsh zone FMP.

All the changes listed above, found in the amended Annex A of the JFS, will apply with immediate effect.

Next steps

FMPs are an important mechanism for delivering the UK’s ambitions to achieve world-class, sustainable fisheries. Work will continue to deliver them against the publication deadlines set out in the amended Annex A of the JFS. However, FMPs will not remain static. Plans will adapt and iterate over time as further evidence is gathered and measures contained within published plans are implemented.  

Each plan must be reviewed every 6 years from its publication, or sooner if required, and amended or replaced (following a consultation) to ensure that it is able to continue delivering its intended outcomes.

The Act requires the fisheries policy authorities to report on the implementation of policies contained in the JFS and also how those JFS policies have achieved, or contributed to the achievement of, the 8 fisheries objectives 3 years after publication of the JFS. This report is due to be published in November 2025. The Act also requires this report to set out the progress being made to implement policies contained in FMPs and how those policies have affected the levels of stocks of sea fish

Annex 1: List of organisations that responded to the consultation

These are presented in alphabetical order. Note that some respondents who wanted to remain confidential, or who did not provide a response to the confidentiality question, 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.

• Angling Cymru
• Angling Trust
• Anglo Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation (ANIFPO)
• Benone Fishing Company LTD
• Blue Marine Foundation
• Community of Arran Seabed Trust (COAST)
• Humberside Fish Producers Organisation
• Institute of Fisheries Management
• Natural England
• Natural Resources Wales
• National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
• North Channel Wind
• North Coast Shellfish
• Oceana UK
• Open Seas
• RenewableNI
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation
• Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association
• Scottish White Fish Producers Association
• Shark Trust
• Shetland Fishermen’s Association
• South Coast Angling Club
• South Western Fish Producers Organisation
• Southern Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority (IFCA)
• SSE Renewables
• Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust (SIFT)
• Ulster Wildlife
• Welsh Fishermen’s Association