Summary of responses and government response

Question 1

Introduction

Accepted Answer

This document summarises the responses received to the public consultation on the joint England and Wales king scallop fisheries management plan (FMP), held between 17 July and 1 October 2023 and sets out the governments’ response.

Consultations took place at the same time on one other joint England and Wales FMP and four England-only plans. A number of broad, cross-cutting themes from the consultation responses, which are relevant to all FMPs, are also addressed in this document.

This document has three main parts:

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

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

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

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

FMPs are a requirement of the Fisheries Act 2020 (‘the Act’). The Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) for England 2023 also sets out the important role of FMPs in the sustainable management of our fish and shellfish stocks. Welsh Government published the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 that provides an iterative framework to ensure that managing our natural resources sustainably is a core consideration in decision-making. Central to the Environment (Wales) Act is the need to adopt a new, more integrated approach to managing Wales’s natural resources to achieve long-term sustainability.

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

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

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

This is a joint plan with Welsh Government and therefore it has been prepared and published to comply with the Welsh Ministers’ duty to seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity and promote the resilience of ecosystems under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 (section 6(1)) and to contribute to the well-being goals and the Welsh Ministers’ well-being objectives set under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (sections 3 to 5).

Background to the consultation

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

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

Overview of responses

In total, we received 43 direct responses to the consultation. 25 were submitted through the Citizen Space online survey and 18 by email.

The breakdown of responses consisted of:

6 (14%) from interest groups
10 (23%) from the catching and producing sector
11 (26%) from other sectors
1 (2%) from science and research sector
15 (35%) sector not stated

Stakeholders that selected ‘Other sectors’ included Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs), public bodies, other governments, and environmental non-government organisations (eNGOs). However, there was some crossover with the ‘interest group’ category, with some of the same stakeholder groups selecting this option instead.

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

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

Online meetings were also used to gather views from a wide range of sectors and stakeholders including the catching sector, the wider supply chain, eNGOs, scientists, academia, EU attachés to the UK, and others interested in fisheries management.

The Welsh Government hosted an online event for stakeholders in Wales.

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

Methodology

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

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

Headline messages

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

Overall, there was broad support for this FMP as an approach to improve the sustainability of king scallop stocks in English and Welsh waters, as well as improving the ecological sustainability of the marine environment.

There was support for greater priority to be given to the development of an overarching management framework based on either an output control, which would limit the amount of stock taken from the fishery, or an input control, that would limit the effort expended on the fishery. Stakeholders supported the prioritisation of a review of existing measures in parallel to the development of a new management framework to ensure they are fit for purpose to achieve stock sustainability.

Alongside calls for prioritisation of actions to understand and mitigate the impacts of scallop dredging on the seabed, stakeholders also highlighted the need to develop a better understanding of the impacts towed gear has on other, non-targeted species and fisheries, for example, crustaceans, as well as addressing issues associated with gear conflict. Stakeholders suggested that greater links should be made across the various FMPs to improve understanding and address issues of shared interest, including spatial conflict, and utilise opportunities for alignment where possible.

Stakeholders widely supported the development of a ‘co-management approach’ to managing the king scallop fishery, although some stakeholders felt that there was a lack of representation on the group that developed the FMP from certain sectors and interested parties.

There were challenges around a lack of ambition from government and the need to move faster to develop and implement the management measures and actions within the FMP. While there was broad support around the need for improved management to prevent further over-exploitation of the stock, there were mixed views around the extent to which measures should be applied on a precautionary basis while the longer-term management approaches are developed.

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

Question 2

Summary of responses to FMP questions

Accepted Answer

As part of the consultation, stakeholders were asked 13 questions on Citizen Space, which allowed them to express their views on the content of the proposed king scallop FMP. Summaries of the responses to these questions are shown below. Email responses and views from coastal meetings have also informed this section.

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the process for developing the king scallop FMP?

Some scallop industry stakeholders indicated that they were happy with the current FMP process, supporting the approach taken to developing the king scallop FMP and the proposed long-term management plan for the king scallop fishery in English and Welsh waters.

A number of stakeholders felt that the collaboration between government and stakeholders had been effective throughout the FMP development process, with a good commitment from both government and stakeholders to collaborative working. Some catching sector stakeholders indicated that industry commitment to the FMP was more likely through the adoption of a more formalised co-management approach, which would lead to more trusted and supported management measures in the future.

Most stakeholders were supportive of the co-management approach. However, several smaller vessel owners and environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs) felt that the FMP development process disproportionately represented the interests of larger scallop vessel organisations, and there was a lack of representation from the smaller inshore fleet and eNGOs. Some conservation sector stakeholders also highlighted concerns around the level of involvement the scallop industry had in drafting the FMP and noted this as a potential conflict of interest. To be more inclusive and represent interests more widely, some stakeholders felt that existing and future management groups should include representatives from a wider range of sectors, and the ways in which these groups engage more widely with stakeholders should be improved.

There were suggestions from some scallop industry stakeholders and IFCAs that more consideration should have been given to the working patterns of industry as part of the planning for engagement events, with greater input sought from industry stakeholders to ascertain the most appropriate times and locations to hold events. It was also felt that more advanced notice and advertisement of engagement events should have been provided.

Most scallop industry stakeholders expressed frustration at the amount of time it has taken to get to the point where there is an FMP for king scallops in English and Welsh waters, particularly given the amount of work and discussion around improving king scallop management that has taken place over the years. Some stakeholders felt that the FMP lacked detail and timings to fill evidence gaps and implement meaningful changes into the fishery.

A number of stakeholders, including industry, eNGOs and scallop management groups agreed the evidence presented on the status of stocks in English waters was accurate, while noting that there was less evidence available on the status of stocks in Welsh waters. Most stakeholders supported the need to improve the evidence base and felt the evidence and research plan accurately reflected the evidence and data that is currently available, with gaps clearly highlighted.

Some eNGO stakeholders felt that the current evidence base was sufficient to make informed management decisions around stock sustainability and others felt that the available evidence could enable analysis of a mechanism to develop management measures such as output controls.

A number of industry, eNGO and scallop management group stakeholders felt that evidence gaps should be filled as a priority, with several stakeholders explicitly supporting the prioritisation of developing biological reference points.

Some inshore fishery, eNGO and IFCA stakeholders expressed concern over the increase in king scallop landings and the over-exploitation of the fishery. While some eNGO stakeholders agreed that the current management system for king scallop stocks was inadequate and supported the need for precautionary management to reduce the risk of over-exploitation, other scallop industry stakeholders felt that the precautionary approach should be avoided, and future measures should be evidence led to ensure they are successful and adaptive.

Some eNGO stakeholders felt that the impact of dredging on the marine habitat and bycatch needed to be assessed as there was concern over damage to the wider marine environment. A few stakeholders felt that there was a lack of consideration given to the wider ecological impacts of the fishery.

Some stakeholders suggested the following evidence sources to enhance the king scallop FMP evidence base:

the Good Fish Guide, produced by the Marine Conservation Society (MCS)
data from areas protected from scallop dredges for longer periods of time to create more accurate estimates of natural mortality and natural size and age structures
reports published by Bangor University relating to scallop stocks in Welsh waters
consideration of Ifremer^{[footnote 1]} and SELEDRAG^{[footnote 2]} project research
more use of gear innovation and technical measure trials from across the UK administrations
increased use of IFCA data
Project UK Channel scallop Fishery Improvement Plan (FIP) and North Sea, West of Scotland and Irish Sea FIP

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

Most stakeholders agreed with the evidence gaps identified by the FMP and felt that the evidence gaps had been considered effectively and set out comprehensively. While there was broad support for the actions set out to address the evidence gaps, some stakeholders felt prioritisation of research needs should be carried out as a priority to ensure the effective use of time and resources.

Scallop industry, eNGO and academia stakeholders commonly felt that there was a general lack of data around the impact of scallop dredging on the seabed, other species and other fleet sectors.

The catching sector, fishery management groups and eNGOs commented that significant investment and resource is needed to fill the identified evidence gaps and actions should be set out to explain how the collection of data will be funded and resourced throughout the FMP development process. A few stakeholders suggested that research needs could be shared across FMPs where possible, including examination of inefficiencies in data collection.

Some eNGO stakeholders felt that the existence of evidence gaps should not delay the development of management measures, and a precautionary approach should be taken in certain places to protect stocks and the wider marine environment.

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

Broadly, stakeholders agreed with the actions set out to address the evidence gaps identified. However, most stakeholders felt the evidence gaps were extensive and substantial resources would be needed to address them. The scallop industry and eNGOs commonly felt that there was a lack of clarity around how the actions would be achieved, who would be responsible for carrying out the actions and how the work would be funded. Some stakeholders expressed a desire for a more detailed plan that prioritised the evidence needs, identified responsibilities for delivering the actions and set out how the data collection actions would be funded.

A few stakeholders indicated they would like to have seen stronger commitments around timings for delivery of the actions.

Multiple eNGO stakeholders felt that actions towards delivering ecological sustainability should be prioritised, while other stakeholders suggested objectives to address the environmental impacts of the scallop fishery should be fast-tracked.

Some stakeholders felt that data collection could be expedited using real-time data collection, such as remote electronic monitoring (REM) and iVMS (inshore vessel monitoring system) methods.

There were mixed views on area-based closures.

Some stakeholders, across various sectors and organisations, including scallop industry, IFCAs and eNGOs, suggested that area-based closures were central to achieving stock sustainability, and that the FMP goals reflected that scallops are well suited to area-based management as their distribution is predictable, and their biomass and density rapidly increases when an area is protected. It was noted that within closed areas increased stock abundance can improve reproductive potential both inside and adjacent to the closed area.

A number of scallop industry and eNGO stakeholders felt that area closures should also be implemented to protect the wider marine environment. Some thought closures were effective at increasing biodiversity and the abundance of other commercial species, as well as protecting the seabed and allowing the re-growth of habitats which are essential for the settlement and survival of spat.

Other scallop industry stakeholders felt that area-based closures were an ineffective management tool to achieve sustainability, as they could lead to ‘boom and bust’ fisheries and encourage a large number of vessels to intensely fish an area in a shorter timeframe. Multiple catching sector stakeholders commented that area-based closures often lead to displacement issues and over-exploitation of stocks in other areas, along with other unintended consequences, such as economic inefficiency, increased demands for space at sea and gear conflict.

A number of stakeholders felt that evidence and data should be fully considered before implementing a closure to avoid any unintended consequences.

Scallop industry stakeholders broadly indicated a preference for implementing area-closures as part of a suite of management measures, with an overarching management framework in place. Some stakeholders felt that the precautionary approach should be used to implement measures while the evidence base is improved, and once a framework is established, all closures should be reviewed to ensure effectiveness.

Multiple eNGO stakeholders called for dredging to be prohibited in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) designated to protect benthic habitats, and others suggested the implementation of designated ‘Go Fish Zones’, where scallop dredging can be directed, or rotational fisheries.

Question 6: Are there particular stock areas you think closures could be beneficial to the FMP goals? Please provide any evidence you have that supports this.

Scallop industry stakeholders broadly indicated that while area closures were needed, implementation of closed areas should be considered as part of a management framework strategy and should be informed by science and evidence. Multiple catching sector stakeholders also felt that the implications on displacement should be properly considered, and the effects minimised where possible.

A few eNGO stakeholders felt that the emphasis of area-based closures should be on habitats rather than the stock areas, as the goals of the FMP should aim to protect the whole marine environment. Some stakeholders felt that scallop fishery closures should be applied to nursery grounds and areas of sensitive habitats, such as Falmouth to St Austell Bay Special Protection Area (SPA), a blue carbon habitat, with some calling for permanent closures of scallop fisheries. Other stakeholders preferred that closures should be implemented in areas of high juvenile stock densities.

Some scallop industry stakeholders recommended the continuation of the UK closure in International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) area 7d, with an extended timeframe to mirror the existing closure applied in EU waters of area 7d from May to October. Stakeholders felt that areas 7d and 7e are the most heavily fished areas and most accessible to larger dredging vessels, therefore would benefit from closed areas.

It was suggested by IFCAs that management applied outside of the 6 nautical mile (nm) zone should draw upon existing management within the 3 to 6nm zone as productive scallop fisheries located inside this area are commonly managed by closures over summer months. IFCA representatives highlighted that the closures during this period allowed stocks to recover while the meat and yield is poor and the scallops do not carry roes, allowing for greater profitability when the quality of scallops is higher and the prices increase over winter months.

There were comments that all scallop stocks required the application of spatial or temporal measures, with some eNGO bodies suggesting a dredging ban across the entire 0 to 3nm zone in English and Welsh waters.

It was indicated by shellfish industry stakeholders that proposals around king scallop fishery closures should work in tandem with other FMPs such as the crab and lobster FMP to reduce gear interactions and address increased demands for space at sea.

The majority of stakeholders agreed that the current western waters effort regime (WWER), that limits days at sea effort on the fishery, applicable to 15 metre and over vessels, was not fit for purpose. A variety of stakeholders, including the catching sector, fishery management groups, eNGOs and scientific advisors, commented that they did not want to see this management method strengthened as it is both unscientific and ineffective at achieving stock sustainability and protecting the marine environment, as it does not allow for gear innovations and only applies to a certain sector of the scallop fleet.

Stakeholders across the scallop industry, IFCAs and eNGOs supported strengthening technical measures applicable to the scallop catching sector. Suggestions included a limitation on the number of dredges permitted per side per vessel. Some also supported a 221kW vessel engine restriction within certain areas, to align with existing beam trawling engine restrictions, along with tow bar length limits and ring size limits. A few stakeholders indicated that dredge restrictions should be aligned across management boundaries, particularly where stocks overlap with administrative borders.

Several scallop industry stakeholders and IFCA representatives felt that while management should be aligned across borders, management should still respond to regional stock differences.

Some stakeholders highlighted that dredge limitations would help to protect the stocks and aid in ensuring future economic security of the industry as well as reducing the environmental impact on the seabed and surrounding sensitive species.

Some stakeholders felt that a review of existing measures should be prioritised to establish their scientific basis and effectiveness. There was also a desire for king scallop stocks to be understood by area to identify interactions with habitats and the wider marine environment, as some eNGO and scallop industry stakeholders commonly felt that proposing to strengthen measures without this information would be largely hypothetical. In gathering this information, potential environmental benefits of alternatives could be identified.

Some eNGO stakeholders also felt that the use of technologies such as REM and iVMS and gear in gear out technologies would identify seabed disturbance limits and identify where rotational management of stock areas could be beneficial.

Most of the stakeholders that provided a response to this question, including the catching sector, fishery management groups, eNGOs and IFCAs, agreed that output and input controls should be explored as a priority, and exploration of these management approaches should be carried out collaboratively to ensure the establishment of an effective management regime. Some stakeholders felt that the timeframe to develop an output or input control should be more ambitious. It was suggested that any management approach should aim to decrease the amount of time vessels spent at sea, thus reducing seabed impacts of dredging, while ensuring profitability of the fleet.

Some stakeholders felt that output controls were necessary, mentioning that other fisheries have had positive experiences implementing output controls, and supporting the exploration of effective fishery models in other countries. It was highlighted that output controls were often more efficient in terms of management and enforcement.

Some scallop industry stakeholders expressed concerns about the potential impacts of an output control as it was felt that it could be harmful to economic and social objectives, and highlighted the need to ensure any potential approach was managed equitably and in an economically viable manner.

Others scallop industry representatives supported the need to develop an input control, identifying that some scallop fisheries are currently managed through an effort control in English waters, and were of the view that stocks generally remain at or near maximum sustainable yield (MSY). However, some stakeholders felt that an input control could be a concern as allocated access to the fishery could be controversial.

A few catching sector and eNGO representatives felt that a combination of output and input controls were needed to effectively manage the fishery, noting input controls were needed to manage the size of the fleet and output controls were needed to manage the harvest rate relative to the stock biomass. A combination of both was thought to enable industry, government and scientists to adapt to a new management regime and establish how effective it is.

Generally, stakeholders agreed that a suite of measures was needed alongside an overarching management framework. Through this approach it was felt that stock sustainability could be achieved.

Some stakeholders, including scallop industry representatives, commented that any management measures must also apply to EU vessels. EU stakeholders also noted the importance of applying any future measures in accordance with the TCA.

Question 9: Are there any additional management measures that should be considered to protect king scallop stocks and the wider ecosystem on which they depend on, and why?

Some stakeholders that provided views relating to this question, including scallop industry, eNGOs and fishery management groups, felt that future management approaches should allow for greater gear innovation and respond to modern expectations of the fishery for example, reduced impact on the marine environment, while also remaining economically viable and mitigating the environmental impacts where possible.

Many stakeholders, such as the shellfish industry and eNGOs called for improved gear innovation and efficiencies, commenting that they supported the use of pots with lights and hand diving as an alternative to dredging. Some stakeholders said that the exploration of gear innovation was not possible under current legislation, and noted gear efficiencies could be detrimental to the stocks even when used under an improved effort control system. Some stakeholders requested that scientific permits to trial different types of innovative gear should be more easily available.

A majority of stakeholders from various interested groups such as eNGOs, fishery management groups and other shellfishery representatives, agreed that more technical measures should be introduced to improve selectivity and reduce bycatch of non-target species and the impact of dredge gear on the benthic habitat. Suggestions included increased ring size, a reduction in the number of dredge teeth permitted and limitations on the number of dredges allowed per side on vessels. Stakeholders also suggested the use of skid dredges and rubber mat gear to minimise gear interaction with the seabed.

Multiple scallop industry representatives suggested that latent licences should be frozen to avoid increases in scallop fishing vessels joining or re-entering the fishery and contributing to over-exploitation of the stock. Some stakeholders felt that, once new measures were introduced vessels that hold a licence entitlement, but do not currently fish scallops, could be encouraged to join the fishery as stock levels improve.

Some stakeholders from the scallop industry and eNGOs supported the use of REM and iVMS alongside gear-in gear-out technology, to gather reliable fisheries data to inform future management decisions and monitor the effectiveness of future input or output controls.

Some scallop industry stakeholders called for improved seasonal closures during the summer months, with suggestions to align with EU closures, while other stakeholders such as eNGOs called for permanent closures to large areas of scallop grounds, to protect the benthic habitat, and other commercial and sensitive species. There were also suggestions scallop dredging should be prohibited in MPAs designated to protect the benthic habitats and associated ecosystem.

A number of catching sector stakeholders highlighted that enforcement of management measures is essential to achieving the objectives of the FMP, therefore any proposed measures should be implementable and enforceable and have adequate resources in place to support this. Some stakeholders indicated that enforcement of current measures could be improved, which could contribute to improved stock sustainability. Stakeholders also noted that new management should be regularly reviewed to ensure its effectiveness.

An organisation with an interest in cultural heritage felt that the impact of scallop dredging on historical assets should be recognised within the FMP to give proper consideration of the potential physical damage caused to marine cultural heritage sites by mobile scallop fishing.

Question 10: Are there any measures which should be prioritised for early action in line with the precautionary approach, and why?

Some stakeholders, including from the shellfish industry and environmental bodies, felt that development of a management framework that conserves the stock, protects the wider marine environment and supports an economically viable industry should be given a high priority. Some suggested introducing an output control, establishing biological reference points and setting precautionary catch limits using the existing time-series of stock assessment data while data improves. Other scallop industry members proposed a more limiting days at sea effort regime as a precautionary measure.

Multiple stakeholders supported the early development of a harvest strategy and harvest control rules (HCRs), highlighting that prioritisation should be given to addressing the evidence gaps needed to develop the management framework. Some stakeholders, such as eNGO representatives, scallop management groups and scallop industry members, expressed concern at the timeframes suggested to deliver the harvest strategy and HCRs, and indicated that these should be shortened to deliver a precautionary approach and ensure the conservation goals of the FMP are met.

A number of stakeholders suggested that dredge technical measures should be prioritised for early action in line with the precautionary approach, proposing the alignment of measures across management boundaries and a limitation applied to the number of dredges allowed per vessel.

Several stakeholders felt that there needed to be more emphasis given to actions that reduce environmental impacts, feeling that urgent management measures should be implemented to meet the precautionary objective in the Fisheries Act. It was recommended by some eNGOs that the implementation of a 0 to 3nm zone dredging ban was needed, to increase protection of scallop stocks, sensitive species and habitats as well as blue carbon habitats.

Some stakeholders indicated there was a need to implement more closed areas in line with the precautionary approach, with a suggestion that a full spawning season closure should be implemented across the summer months. eNGOs felt it was necessary to close areas to scallop dredging that are sensitive and ecologically important habitats, and all MPAs designated to protect benthic habitats are closed to bottom towed gear. Some scallop industry stakeholders noted the benefits of closures as a precautionary measure but also acknowledged the pressures that closures put on increased demands for space at sea and displacement implications.

Contrastingly, some scallop industry stakeholders felt that the precautionary approach should be avoided as much as possible, as it lacks a robust evidence base to support the measures which can lead to unintended consequences.

Question 11: Do you agree that establishing a co-management approach is the most effective way to manage the king scallop fisheries in English and Welsh waters moving forward, and why? What role do you think you or your organisation could play to support a co-management approach?

The majority of industry, eNGO, IFCA and other interested party stakeholders who responded in relation to this question agreed with the establishment of a co-management approach, some stating that this approach was key to ensuring an efficiently run fishery with proper buy-in from stakeholders. Some stakeholders felt that the approach taken during the development of this iteration of the FMP had been successful and the king scallop industry as well as government had benefited from the co-decision making, as it created a common goal to manage natural resources.

Shellfish industry stakeholders and eNGOs acknowledged that the term ‘co-management’ was not yet defined, and this would have to be addressed to ensure accountability for the delivery of actions and objectives. Although this was recognised, some scallop industry stakeholders expressed concerns that conversations to agree a co-management approach and remit would be prioritised over the development and implementation of meaningful management measures.

Stakeholders generally agreed that the Scallop Industry Consultation Group (SICG) Working Group needed to be formalised. However, several stakeholders across the shellfish industry and eNGOs felt that the membership of the current SICG Working Group would not be sufficient as the formal co-management group. It was acknowledged that a wider representation of stakeholders was needed to ensure that all sectors, organisations and individuals are properly represented. Stakeholders particularly noted the need for better representation from smaller vessel owners, processors, hand divers and eNGOs.

A number of stakeholders highlighted that industry had a vital role to play in the collection and contribution to science and research that would inform management decisions. Through industry knowledge, the shellfish sector identified that socio-economic concerns could be examined as well as biological and environmental factors.

A few industry stakeholders highlighted that regional management was needed and, as such, regional management groups to be established to feed into the co-management process, as this would help to ensure representation from a wider range of stakeholders, who may find it difficult to engage with a wider group.

Welsh stakeholders referred to a strategic Ministerial Advisory Group for Welsh Fisheries and species-specific advisory groups which sit beneath it, and suggest these groups remain the appropriate structures to develop and deliver the measures necessary in Wales to achieve the aims of the king scallop FMP in Welsh Waters.

Stakeholders across industry and environmental groups highlighted that to ensure momentum is maintained, more extensive stakeholder engagement, including by Defra and the Welsh Government, would be needed to achieve positive outcomes. Stakeholders including shellfish industry, eNGOs and IFCAs noted that it would need to be clear to all stakeholders how they could engage with the development process.

Question 12: How would you like to be involved in the delivery of the plan and the future management of the English and Welsh king scallop fishery?

Most of the stakeholders who provided feedback relating to this question, from various sectors including industry, IFCAs, eNGOs and academia, expressed interest in being involved in the future development and introduction of the FMP and its measures. Some scallop industry stakeholders highlighted a desire to become or continue as members of the relevant scallop management groups that will input into future policy decisions. Stakeholders with experience of the co-management process, including some catching sector bodies and eNGOs, showed interest in providing expertise and advice to ensure the proper development of a co-management approach.

Some industry and eNGO stakeholders felt that in the current SICG Working Group there was a lack of representation from various sectors and organisations such as smaller vessel owners and environmental organisations and felt that there was disproportionate influence from larger vessel owners and larger vessel owner organisations.

Some environmental organisations stated that they would like to be involved in the future co-management group to ensure that environmental considerations and objectives are met, and a balanced, representative voice is provided throughout the group. They also recommended that terms of reference were developed and shared, and more stringent timeframes were provided for the delivery of objectives.

Stakeholders from sectors including eNGOs, IFCAs and industry highlighted that their organisations held a range of data and evidence that could feed into the FMP development process and would welcome the opportunity to contribute this. Multiple authorities welcomed the opportunity to be involved in the continuous future development of the FMP, noting that it is beneficial for authorities to work closely with government.

As highlighted above, most of the stakeholders who provided feedback relating to this question indicated that they would like to be involved in the development process by continuing to cooperate with managers and feeding into stakeholder engagement events. Some IFCAs supported involvement at both local and regional levels to build on constructive engagement with the inshore fleet and ensure their contributions are fed into the development process. It was suggested that improved and varied routes to provide feedback was fundamental to ensuring effective information sharing.

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

A number of stakeholders from across various sectors and organisations, including the shellfish industry, IFCAs, eNGOs and academia, felt that gear interaction with other fisheries should be considered more thoroughly. It was highlighted that the dredge fisheries interact with crab, lobster, whelk and demersal flat fish species, causing gear conflict and mortality to the bycatch species. Some stakeholders indicated that there needs to be a better understanding of the impacts towed gear has on spawning stocks and spawning grounds for scallop and other species, for example, crustaceans. Stakeholders suggested that greater links should be made across the various FMPs to address issues of shared interest, including spatial conflict and utilise opportunities for alignment where possible. Some identified that the use of technologies such as iVMS could be useful to minimise spatial and gear conflict.

Several stakeholders, again from across various sectors and organisations, recommended the consideration of gear innovations to reduce the impacts of gear on the seabed, wider marine environment and bycatch, noting that the dredge fishery has significant negative impacts on recruitment of other fisheries by causing harm to the seabed habitat.

Some stakeholders from the catching sector suggested that the effect of beam trawlers that fish in scallop grounds should be investigated to identify if their scallop catching effort increases over time. Other stakeholders called for greater understanding of the impacts nomadic scallop fleets have on stock sustainability.

Scallop industry stakeholders called for greater consideration of shared stocks between EU and Crown Dependency waters. Stakeholders identified that stocks do not exist in isolation and therefore the management of the stocks must consider the impacts on all areas.

Multiple stakeholders, largely from the 15 metre and over scallop catching sector, called for the freezing of latent licences to remove the possibility of vessels with a licence entitlement, but not currently active in the scallop fishery, diversifying into the fishery when the stock status improves.

Question 3

Summary of responses to environmental report questions

Accepted Answer

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

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

Of those that responded to this question, almost half provided additional evidence, in relation to the evidence developed for the Project UK king scallop Fisheries Improvement Projects.

There were also some suggestions for further evidence or information to be included, such as on total damage to marine environments and other marine biota caused by scallop dredging, emissions data from vessels and impacts from other seabed users, for example, aggregate dredging and windfarm developments.

There was a suggestion that Appendix B of the ER should include the assessment of Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) indicator (E9) Percentage of our seafood coming from healthy ecosystems produced sustainably.

Stakeholders suggested that the environmental baseline would be improved by assessing how the scallop fishery interacts with and influences the ecosystem as a whole, and that consideration should be given to aspects such as climate change, adaptation and mitigation, blue carbon stores, essential fish habitats, bycatch of other species, undersized species and PET (protected, endangered, threatened) and habitat utilisation of scallops.

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

For positive effects, the responses included consideration of moving to an output control management framework / total allowable catch (TAC) for scallop fishing, improving efficiency and thus reducing time spent on the fishing ground and lessening the environmental impact.

Stakeholders also noted that any catch limit set would need to consider natural variations in stock level, should be limited by the precautionary principle, and should not compromise scallop populations, the wider environment or carbon stores. It was noted that spatial and temporal closed areas protect larval settlement and habitats. It was also suggested that innovations around gear efficiencies could lead to a reduced footprint (in line with the scallop FIP action plan).

For negative effects, it was suggested that the alignment of measures could lead to a reduction in management standards in areas that are currently better protected, and that there was potential for negative environmental effects if existing gear regulations are lifted to allow for innovation without robust reasoning and evidence. A concern was also raised about the impact of displacement of large nomadic vessels from the introduction of spatial and temporal closed areas.

Concerns were raised about the impact of bottom-towed gear on the environment (for example, scallop dredges). It was suggested that a 12nm ban of bottom trawled gear would have a positive environmental effect and would be beneficial for the recovery of habitats, the protection of blue carbon habitat and an overall improvement of fish stocks. Furthermore, it was stated that more work is required to strengthen the policies in the king scallop FMP and ensure that commitments are time-bound and include measurable aims and outcomes to deliver national and international commitments, such as fishing below MSY, as a buffer to account for other non-fishing impacts.

It was also noted that there were both positive and negative effects for marine heritage assets, including the discovery of marine heritage assets during fishing activity and the physical disturbance of cultural heritage on and within the seabed caused by fishing.

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

Stakeholders noted that several impacts have been addressed in the ER, such as vessel displacement, increased pressure on unprotected habitats, benthic habitat damage due to scallop dredging, and the associated impact on the wider ecosystem. However, many felt that the management proposals in the FMP were insufficient to fully address these impacts, that objectives were too vague and that mitigation measures are urgently needed rather than further research.

It was suggested that the FMP must set out how its policies and actions will deliver or contribute to the achievement of good environmental status (GES), in particular by reducing the effect of the fishery on the seabed. Stakeholders suggested that further management was required within MPAs and should be considered for impacts occurring outside MPAs to protect designated features within sites. Immediate spatial management measures to reduce impacts on the benthic community and wider ecosystem were proposed to mitigate the impact of scallop dredging.

It was suggested that further work should take place to explore the impact of fishing gear and the appropriate level of fishing in the right areas, in order to minimise environmental impacts. it was suggested that REM technology or observers should be used in this work. Some stakeholders also requested that the work of the Benthic Impact Working Group be open to discussion and scrutiny.

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

Stakeholders suggested that more work needs to be done on different types of bottom gear, such as ‘N-viro’ or suction dredges, to reduce impacts of gear on the habitat and species. Consideration should also be given to less impactful methods of scallop fishing, such as potting. In addition, it was suggested that sufficient headroom should be allowed in the fishery to encourage new entrants using less damaging gear and to support innovation.

Stakeholders provided additional evidence for consideration on the impact of scallop fisheries on the marine environment.

Stakeholders identified the following ways the ER could be improved:

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

Stakeholders felt the king scallop ER should have stronger links to other reports and regulations including:

river basin management plans
UKMS Part 3 to revised and adopted Part 3
OSPAR Quality Status Report
biodiversity duty
newly designated HPMAs

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

Question 4

Government response: FMP

Accepted Answer

Overview

The FMP will improve the way we manage king scallop fisheries in English and Welsh waters and increase the benefits they provide to fishers and coastal communities in the long term.

The FMP will prevent over-exploitation to ensure the king scallop fishery is economically viable, whilst at the same time reduce the impact of scallop dredging on the marine environment.

We will improve our understanding of these fisheries by conducting monitoring surveys, improving stock assessments and addressing evidence gaps, in collaboration with stakeholders.

In the short term, we will ensure relevant scallop management groups are diverse and represent the full range of stakeholders.

In the short-medium term, 1 to 5 years, we will review the current regulation of king scallop fisheries and develop a new framework of measures, which may include fishing effort limits and catch limits, to ensure long-term viability. As part of the review, we will look for opportunities to simplify regulations, for example, by aligning gear requirements where appropriate.

Over the next 1 to 5 years, we will improve our knowledge of the impacts of scallop fishing on the seabed and work with fishermen to reduce their impact in sensitive areas to help protect our marine environment.

Over short-medium term, 1 to 5 years, we will work with fishermen to improve our understanding of how area and seasonal closures can protect stocks and the seabed, whilst maintaining viable fisheries for future generations.

Introduction

This section sets out the governments’ response to the king scallop FMP consultation. It first explains our decisions for this FMP and any changes we plan to make to the draft plan we consulted on, followed by a more general response about cross-cutting FMP issues.

We are very grateful for the time that all stakeholders have taken to provide constructive input to help us improve and finalise this FMP. The views provided were diverse, with a wide range of options within and between interest groups. All have been considered and have helped us develop our understanding of the views of stakeholders and the issues of importance. Some have resulted in changes to the draft FMPs. Others have not because they were more appropriate to be reflected in the implementation stages, or in a minority of cases because they were unreasonable or unworkable. In this section, we summarise the responses received and explain why we have taken particular decisions. Given the volume, breadth and detail of the responses, we are not able to provide detailed explanations on all points raised.

This is the first version of the king scallop FMP. It sets out the first steps and longer-term vision necessary for sustainable management of this fishery. These plans will take time to develop and implement. They are intended to allow an adaptive approach and will be reviewed and improved over time as we collaborate with the fishing sector and wider interests on the sustainable management of these fisheries.

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

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

We recognise concerns raised around not only the impact of scallop dredging on seafloor integrity, but also around the potential impacts of bottom-towed gears on non-target species and fisheries, and the wider marine environment. The FMP includes objectives which aim to understand and mitigate issues associated with gear conflict, as well as improved understanding of the impact king scallop vessels have on the marine environment, including other, non-targeted, commercial species, such as lobster and brown crab.

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

Changes to the FMP in response to stakeholder engagement through consultation

In response to calls for prioritisation of the proposed actions and management measures, we have set out in the FMP the areas that will be prioritised for early action. The 3 priority areas are:

the review of existing management measures
the development of a management framework
the assessment and mitigation of the effects of scallop fishing on seafloor integrity

These priorities were informed by the responses provided as part of the consultation and identified as areas in which sufficient and timely progress is needed to ensure stocks and the wider environment are protected.

We have recognised within the FMP the need for timely progress towards planning and starting work on the priority areas set out in the FMP. However, it has not been possible to include more specific timings for delivering measures within the FMP, which is a key area of concern raised by stakeholders, due to the need to collaboratively identify the required actions and timescales for delivery. We have therefore provided clarification on next steps, including the development of detailed work plans and wider implementation planning across the suite of FMPs.

We have committed to carrying out a review of existing measures as a high priority, to ensure they are fit for purpose to achieve stock sustainability. This review will include consideration of how and whether existing measures can be strengthened in the short term, on a precautionary basis where required, to provide increased protection to stocks, including where there may be opportunities for broad alignment of measures (where appropriate), such as aligning dredge limits outside of the 12nm zone.

As highlighted by stakeholders and acknowledged within the FMP, a significant amount of evidence around potential future management approaches for king scallop, including examples of best practice to deliver sustainable fisheries, has been gathered in recent years. This provides opportunities for prompt action to inform and introduce measures in the short term, while we continue to build our evidence and develop longer term measures.

We have committed to prioritising actions that will assess and mitigate the effects of scallop fishing on seafloor integrity and the wider marine environment. This will include identifying and collating information on existing evidence and data required to map the interactions of scallop fishing with non-target species and the wider environment.

We have strengthened commitments to ensure more representative stakeholder engagement, both through membership on the relevant scallop management groups and through wider stakeholder engagement.

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

Read the published king scallop fisheries management plan.

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

Response to wider themes raised by stakeholder engagement through consultation

Engagement and collaborative working

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

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

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

We continue to review our engagement. In many areas there were mixed views between and within interests or sectors. This made it challenging to develop solutions acceptable to all. To achieve consensus, the finalised FMP takes into account a number of constructive responses that were received in the consultation process. This ensures we meet our legal and international commitments and we are balancing environmental, social and economic sustainability in our approach to the management of these fisheries.

We intend to initiate more work across the FMP programme in relation to how governments, regulators, scientists, industry and other stakeholders can work together better in a respectful and constructive way. Both in terms of development of further FMPs but also in relation to the implementation of them. This will include developing common language about the approaches taken, considering and articulating roles and responsibilities to inform better ways of working and improve communication earlier in processes. We are also keen to work more closely with initiatives like Fishing Into The Future to improve understanding.

Views were also expressed about a lack of representation across sectors on the groups during the development of FMPs. Questions were also raised about the impartiality of the delivery partners chosen to lead the development of the plan. Each of the first 6 FMPs has been developed in a different way, so we can try new approaches and test how best to develop FMPs and engage with stakeholders. Delivery partners have worked closely with industry groups and other stakeholders when drafting the FMPs. In the White Paper 2018 we made a commitment to work closely and create a greater shared responsibility to managing our fisheries with industry members. This participatory approach is one we will continue to build on and apply to FMP development. It has given fishers a greater role in helping to develop the future management of this fishery, particularly helping identify unintended consequences and securing greater buy-in for actions across their sector.

Volumes of material and timing of consultation

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

Defra took the view that we wanted to be transparent and provide evidence and supporting material to help stakeholders provide informed responses. There had also been extensive engagement and informal consultation prior to the drafts being developed, which included familiarisation with FMPs. We tried to ensure that more accessible summaries were prepared and held 23 in-person engagement events and a series of online meetings where views were noted and fed into the analysis process. These events covered the wide range of interested sectors and stakeholders, including a diverse catching sector, the wider supply chain, eNGOs, scientists, academia, EU Commission and Member States, and others interested in fisheries management. The Welsh Government hosted an online event for stakeholders in Wales.

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

Pace of implementation and change

Stakeholders expressed concerns that the actions set out in the FMP did not move fast enough to provide sufficient, timely protection to stocks. A greater level of ambition from governments was called for, to deliver actions in the short term that will have a benefit to the stock and provide greater certainty to industry.

We have made some adjustments to the FMPs to deliver some changes faster, by identifying high level priorities and taking more immediate action in 2024. We have had to balance this against resources and a recognition that too much change in a short period of time would not be deliverable and could create unreasonable burdens on the fishing industry.

Application of the precautionary approach

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

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

Management borders

There were questions raised about how the measures will work across borders of the UK fisheries policy authorities. More detail will be set out as we implement the FMPs – for example, on the areas where the measures will apply, the vessels affected, and so on.

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

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

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

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

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

FMP evidence and data

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

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

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

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

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

Difference between offshore and inshore management and having so many different regulations

Some stakeholders raised the issue of differences in management between offshore and inshore areas, and in some cases the wide range of differences in regulations within the same fishery between different areas. These issues were widely perceived to be a risk to the sustainability of the stocks or fishery in question, and to either create unnecessary burdens on business or created imbalances in competition between fishing businesses.

We recognise these issues and want to use FMPs to ensure that fisheries are being managed at an appropriate level (meaning fishery) rather than being influenced by lines on charts. Where appropriate and agreed, this will require cooperation or agreement between UK fisheries policy authorities or the EU.

Enforcement of existing regulations

A number of stakeholders raised the importance of effective enforcement of existing fisheries management regulations as a key area for consideration by the fisheries regulators.

We recognise the importance of the effective and proportionate enforcement of existing regulations. In English and Welsh waters, Defra and the Welsh Government will continue to work with the relevant authorities to ensure concerns about enforcement raised in the public consultation are addressed.

How do FMPs work together in an area of sea?

A number of stakeholders raised questions about regional management of fisheries and how FMPs will work together coherently. As well as this there was concern around the cumulative effect of measures across all of the FMPs.

This is a very important area that we will continue to explore during the FMP implementation phase. A key part of this will be looking across the entirety of the FMPs and subsequent measures and identifying areas of convergence and divergence. This will allow Defra and the Welsh Government to better predict and mitigate any negative cumulative effects that may come from introducing a variety of measures simultaneously.

Indicators

A number of stakeholders raised questions about the indicators for measuring success of the FMP. We have considered the comments and revised the plan indicators.

The Fisheries Act requires us to set out the indicators for measuring the effectiveness of the plan. These are set out in the ‘Implementation, monitoring and review’ section of the FMP.

Increased demands for space at sea

Several stakeholders raised concerns about increasing competition for space at sea adversely effecting access to fishing grounds.

We have established a cross-government Marine Spatial Prioritisation (MSPri) programme, which focuses on future use of English seas.

The Welsh National Marine Plan includes policy provision to protect areas of importance to our fishing industry, including key habitats and fishing grounds, as well as encouragement to develop the underpinning evidence base required to facilitate positive fisheries management decisions. Encouraging and facilitating coexistence and co-location of different activities in Welsh waters to help ensure the optimum use of finite marine space is another theme of the Marine Plan.

Ecosystem-based approach

Several stakeholders called for stronger, quicker action to reduce the risk to seafloor integrity from scallop dredging. The measures proposed in the FMPs will ensure we support a transition toward an ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) approach.

Defra and the Welsh Government recognise the concerns about the potential impacts of this fishery on the seabed. In response we have amended the FMP to give more immediate priority to actions that will map the footprint of the king scallop fishery and assess the impact of dredging on the wider marine environment. This work will take place alongside the development of fishery management measures and will be prioritised and agreed as detailed work plans are developed. Opportunities for strengthening technical measures that will both increase selectivity and reduce impacts on the benthic environment will also be explored.

Latent capacity

The issue of latent capacity was raised frequently through this engagement. Some stakeholders were keen that latent licences should be removed to help prevent an increase in effort on stocks. Others raised concerns that removing latent licenses would be unfair and restrict fishers that rely on needing to diversify and adapt to circumstances.

While concerns around the risk of latent capacity entering the fishery and further increasing pressure on stocks are recognised, we consider that understanding the impact active vessels are having on stocks and developing improved measures to control this are a higher priority than removing latency within the fleet. We will consider latent capacity as part of the overall development of effort management measures. Introducing robust and effective management is a high priority, and once introduced may negate the need to remove or manage latent capacity.

Question 5

Government response: environmental report

Accepted Answer

Introduction

This section sets out the governments’ response to the king scallop FMP strategic environmental assessment (SEA), environmental report (ER) consultation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stakeholders recognised the need for better data and evidence to fully assess the impact of the king scallop fishery to introduce targeted management to reduce or remove negative effects. We acknowledge such data gathering must run in parallel with clear actions to manage current impacts.

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

Stakeholder responses have been considered and the king scallop FMP ER has been updated with additional recommendations. The full report will be published in 2024. The revised king scallop FMP has considered these recommendations and adjustments have been made where appropriate.

Question 1. Evidence

Stakeholders submitted a range of additional evidence to be considered to inform the environmental baseline, including on the impacts of trawling, blue carbon habitat data and scallop habitat status. There was also some support for providing more evidence on how the scallop fishery interacts with the whole marine environment.

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

Question 2. Environmental effects of FMP policies

Some stakeholders submitted views stating how a total allowable catch (TAC) system could reduce overall effort, leading to less environmental impacts through reduced footprint and fishing efficiencies. Others were concerned about the impact that spatial and temporal closures could have on displacing effort into other areas. There was also concern that aligning measures on a national scale in England could lead to a reduction in management standards, while removing exiting gear regulations to allow for innovation must be evidence-based.

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

Question 3. Actions to mitigate environmental effects

Stakeholders wanted to see more immediate measures introduced to address adverse impact of king scallop fishing on the seabed, suggesting the improved application of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. We recognise the concerns raised by stakeholders and the ER has recommended the FMP considers more immediate actions. Specifically, there should be clear actions to reduce or remove the impacts of dredging on the most sensitive species and in the most sensitive areas, not already afforded protection through MPA or HPMA management.

Stakeholders also thought we should give more consideration to encouraging less impactful methods of king scallop fishing, including hand diving or more innovative ways of fishing such as potting for king scallops. The ER recommends the FMP sets out policies to reduce the impacts of king scallop fishing on the environment that can include promoting alternative ways of harvesting.

Question 4. Additional comments

We welcomed the suggestions on where the ER could be improved, particularly around and associated UK MS descriptors. The revised ER has recommended the FMP considers setting out how the objectives of the FMP will contribute to achieving good environmental status (GES) for the relevant UKMS descriptors.

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

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

We have amended the ER to make these links.

Several stakeholders suggested the ER should provide clearer recommendations to address existing environmental impacts caused by the king scallop fishery. We agree the ER should provide clarity in its recommendations, however, we note its purpose is to provide recommendations on the strategic issues arising from the objectives and proposed actions of the FMP as currently drafted. The ER can highlight other broad environmental issues that the FMP could address (such as possible impact on sensitive species) but cannot propose specific measures (such as prohibit king scallop dredging within 12nm of the coast). It is for the FMP process to consider the issues and decide what actions it should take to address them.

Question 6

Annex 1: List of organisations that did not request confidentiality

Accepted Answer

Association of Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authorities (AIFCA)
Amethyst Fishing Company Limited
Blue Marine Foundation
CFPO
Comité Régional de Pèches de Normandie France (CRPN)
Coombe Fisheries
Cornwall IFCA
Devon and Severn IFCA
European Commission
French Authorities
G&M Roberts Fishing Ltd
Historic England
International Transport Workers Federation (ITF)
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)
Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee
Kent and Essex IFCA
Macduff Shellfish
Manx Fish Producers Organisation
Marine Conservation Society
Marine Stewardship Council
Natural Resources Wales
National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)
North Eastern IFCA
North Western Waters Advisory Council
Oceana
Office for Environmental Protection
Open Seas
Scallop Industry Consultation Group
Scottish Fishermen’s Federation
Scottish White Fish Producers Association
Sussex IFCA
Southern IFCA
South Western Fish Producer Organisation
University of York
Welsh Fisherman’s Association
Wembury Marine Conservation Area Advisory Group
West Coast Sea Producers Ltd
Western Fish Producers Organisation
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

Question 7

Annex 2: List of FMP consultation engagement meetings

Accepted Answer

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

The French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea ↩
Foucher Eric, Quinquis Jerome, Ton, Caroline (2020). SELEDRAG: Etude comparative de la sélectivité des dragues à coquilles Saint-Jacques Pecten maximus. R.RBE/HMMN/RHPEB-2020-01. ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Introduction

Background to the consultation

Overview of responses

Methodology

Headline messages

Summary of responses to FMP questions

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the process for developing the king scallop FMP?

Question 2: What are your views on the evidence presented on the current state of king scallop stocks (and other related stocks) in English and Welsh waters and can you provide any additional evidence that supports or differs from our view?

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

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

Question 5: What role can area-based closures play in effectively achieving stock sustainability and FMP goals under the proposed new management framework (in terms of environmental, economic, social)?

Question 6: Are there particular stock areas you think closures could be beneficial to the FMP goals? Please provide any evidence you have that supports this.

Question 7: Where do you see opportunities for strengthening existing measures to ensure they are fit for purpose to achieve stock sustainability and FMP goals under the proposed new management framework (in context of environmental, economic, social)?

Question 8: Do you agree with the proposal to explore and develop a scientifically based output control approach and/or input control approach, and are there potential benefits and drawbacks (environmental, economic, social) that should be considered early in the process?

Question 9: Are there any additional management measures that should be considered to protect king scallop stocks and the wider ecosystem on which they depend on, and why?

Question 10: Are there any measures which should be prioritised for early action in line with the precautionary approach, and why?

Question 11: Do you agree that establishing a co-management approach is the most effective way to manage the king scallop fisheries in English and Welsh waters moving forward, and why? What role do you think you or your organisation could play to support a co-management approach?

Question 12: How would you like to be involved in the delivery of the plan and the future management of the English and Welsh king scallop fishery?

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

Summary of responses to environmental report questions

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

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

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

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

Government response: FMP

Overview

Introduction

Changes to the FMP in response to stakeholder engagement through consultation

Response to wider themes raised by stakeholder engagement through consultation

Engagement and collaborative working

Volumes of material and timing of consultation

Pace of implementation and change

Application of the precautionary approach

Management borders

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

FMP evidence and data

Difference between offshore and inshore management and having so many different regulations

Enforcement of existing regulations

How do FMPs work together in an area of sea?

Indicators

Increased demands for space at sea

Ecosystem-based approach

Latent capacity

Government response: environmental report

Introduction

Question 1. Evidence

Question 2. Environmental effects of FMP policies

Question 3. Actions to mitigate environmental effects

Question 4. Additional comments

Annex 1: List of organisations that did not request confidentiality

Annex 2: List of FMP consultation engagement meetings

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK