Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and Government response

Updated 13 May 2024

Introduction

Defra consulted on the expansion of remote electronic monitoring in English waters during 2023, alongside consultations on other reforms such as fisheries management plans and a new approach to managing discards in England. We proposed an approach to the long-term adoption of remote electronic monitoring that moves from a voluntary phase to mandatory fishery-wide implementation. This document summarises feedback to that consultation and the Government response to it.

This document has three main parts: 

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

Background

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

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

Overview of responses

A total of 60 written responses were received, 45 via Citizen Space and 15 via email. Responses were received from a range of individuals and organisations. These have been grouped into categories based on how respondents have been identified from Citizen Space.

Number of respondents interest recorded via citizen space.

Interest of respondents	Count
Producer/ catching sector	21
Supplier	1
Science/ research	5
Interest group	7
Individual	3
Other	8
Total	45

Respondents 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 within the ‘interest group’ category, with some similar respondents selecting this option instead. 

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

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

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

Methodology

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

Comments were noted during in-person and online meetings. These notes were cross checked and then analysed using the same iterative process. Views from these engagement events have been included in the summary below and have been considered equally alongside the email and online responses. Comments arising from engagement events that coincided with responses received through Citizen Space will not be presented independently once more.

Headline messages

We are very grateful for the time that stakeholders have taken to provide constructive input on our plans for remote electronic monitoring in English waters. A wide range of diverse and informative views were presented for which we have provided detailed summaries in the sections below. 

Respondents were broadly in favour of introducing remote electronic monitoring as a tool by which to improve the sustainable management of our fisheries. This was seen as something that could provide better information about stock status, stock biology and climatic stress factors.

There was also broad support for specific parts of our proposed approach. For example, setting up steering groups to aid implementation. The benefits of being aligned with fisheries management plans and the UK’s devolved administrations were recognised.

Other parts of our proposed approach received more mixed responses. For example, having an initial voluntary stage. Some expressed support for quicker implementation and mandatory rollout instead.

Other respondents considered that there was an unjustified targeting of certain priority fisheries and suggested other fisheries could be considered. Further information can be found in Annex 3.

Some respondents suggested that incentives, such as additional quota, would support uptake and involvement from industry. There were also calls for Government funding to support the purchase, installation and maintenance of remote electronic monitoring systems. This could help mitigate potential regulatory compliance costs.

On the consultation process, there was broad support for engagement having included face to face events and webinars but it was also noted that this consultation took place at the same time as other consultations and it was challenging for some respondents to deal with this much information.

Summary of responses to questions

Q1. What do you think about our vision for remote electronic monitoring?

Forty-five out of 45 respondents from Citizen Space provided a response to this question, raising a range of issues. Twenty-seven respondents expressed positive views, while 17 responses were negative.

Positive feedback included that remote electronic monitoring could:

• enable fully documented fisheries, where introduced
• ensure accurate fishing trip data
• enable corroboration of self-reported data
• improve monitoring of sensitive species bycatch
• improve our ability to make use of data captured via fisheries monitoring to inform management decisions
• others also cited that remote electronic monitoring could remove the need for observer programmes, which have more limited coverage of overall fishing activities.

Many respondents supported the vision but suggested that we introduce remote electronic monitoring more quickly to address concerns relating to sensitive species bycatch.  Some respondents also stated that the implementation of remote electronic monitoring would support Defra’s discard reform policy, by monitoring discarding rates of vessels within the proposed priority fisheries. Several participants requested a more precise timeline for implementation of remote electronic monitoring. Some respondents also stressed that engagement with fishing industry stakeholders would be crucial for the roll out of remote electronic monitoring, also highlighting how important it would be to make clear where data goes, what it is used for and also that it is available to those who provide it where possible.

Respondents also highlighted the potential challenges which will present themselves if remote electronic monitoring systems are not interoperable with those used in neighbouring administrations. Many responses expressed the view that remote electronic monitoring requirements should be applied to all vessels that fish in English water, including non-UK vessels.

In relation to observer programmes, some respondents highlighted that these allowed more in-depth data collection to take place, generating insights that analysis via remotely gathered data could not.

Other responses included feedback that the proposed introduction of remote electronic monitoring raised concerns about privacy and the possibility of increased costs and workloads. Some stakeholders recognised Defra’s vision, however questioned how the current technology can support fisheries management, given the challenge of analysing the significant amounts of data that remote electronic monitoring will generate. One response asserted that remote electronic monitoring will only receive support from industry if a guarantee is made that data will only be used for scientific research.

Q2. Do you agree with:

A. Taking a targeted approach beginning with specific priority fisheries.

Forty-five of 45 respondents from Citizen Space responded to the question. Twenty-six respondents agreed with taking a targeted approach, with 13 disagreeing.

Number of respondents from Citizen Space on agreement of targeted approach.

Response	Count
Agree	26
Disagree	13
Neither	6
Sum	45

Those in favour of the approach stated that it was right to begin with specific high priority fisheries, with respondents commenting that it would allow different fisheries time to adapt. They agreed that a blanket rollout which tackles all fisheries and waters at the same time is not feasible. Some also flagged that human observer programmes should be retained for a period after the implementation of remote electronic monitoring to verify that the system is optimised for its purpose.

Those in disagreement felt that a targeted approach would disadvantage other fisheries and suggested alternative approaches. These included aligning with fisheries management plans (FMP) and discard reform proposals. They commented that the current proposal does not provide sufficient evidence to justify the targeted approach to fisheries.

Of those six who answered neither, one highlighted the importance of evaluation between each step to ensure a smooth transition.

B. Keeping vessels under 10m in length out of scope

Out of 45 respondents from Citizen Space, 14 agreed that vessels under 10 metres in length (U10m) vessels should be excluded from proposals.

Number of respondents from Citizen Space on agreement of excluding U10m vessels.

Response	Count
Agree	14
Disagree	24
Neither	7
Sum	45

Of those in agreement, some respondents highlighted that U10m vessels contributed to a smaller proportion of total catches, but encouraged further trials of remote electronic monitoring technology on smaller vessels. Additional comments stated that rollout should be restricted to vessels over 10 metres in length (O10m) because U10m vessels would be disproportionately affected by the cost of remote electronic monitoring systems. Another respondent mentioned that U10m vessels are already subjected to a range of management measures which affect them disproportionately. Others noted that the lack of space onboard many U10m vessels would make them unsuitable for such monitoring equipment. One commented that offshore fisheries should be the priority fisheries as they are data deficient.

Twenty-four respondents disagreed or held no view. Of those who disagreed, concerns were raised that this would mean there is not a level playing field and would contradict Defra’s vision for fully documented fisheries in English waters. Some respondents also said that U10m vessels represent a large proportion of overall fishing activity, and they are responsible for a proportion of sensitive species bycatch. Therefore, the exclusion of U10m vessels could result in a data gap of their fishing activities environmental impacts.

Of those who neither agreed nor disagreed with keeping U10m vessels out of scope, one raised the concern that vessel length might not be an instructive indicator of environmental impact, suggesting that engine size could be considered as an alternative.

C. Working together with the fishing industry

Thirty-five out of 45 respondents from Citizen Space supported the concept of steering groups to support the implementation of remote electronic monitoring in the five priority fisheries. Points raised within these responses included that co-management is essential to achieving shared outcomes, encouraging broader acceptance and helping to feed fishers’ knowledge into policy making progress. Many respondents also believed that steering groups could potentially increase the support of the proposal.

Number of respondents from Citizen Space on agreement of setting up steering groups.

Response	Count
Agree	35
Disagree	8
Neither	2
Sum	45

Of the 8 respondents that disagreed, one highlighted the risk of industry groups with commercial interests taking advantage of this approach to exert more influence than other stakeholder groups.

D. Beginning with voluntary early adopters within priority fisheries moving to mandatory requirements in time

Of the 45 respondents from Citizen Space, 19 agreed with our approach, the remaining 26 either disagreed or held no view.

Number of respondents from Citizen Space on agreement of beginning with voluntary approach.

Response	Count
Agree	19
Disagree	21
Neither	5
Sum	45

Those who agreed highlighted advantages of this approach for early adopters, including the opportunities to demonstrate the sustainability objective as set out in the Fisheries Act 2020, and to contribute to the design and development of remote electronic monitoring implementation. One also highlighted that a voluntary approach should incentivise a higher uptake from vessels. Another participant highlighted the importance of keeping stakeholders informed during the voluntary progress.

Amongst those who disagreed, there was a view that a voluntary approach would not enable fully documented fisheries and could also hinder the implementation of fisheries management plans. One respondent noted a concern that the voluntary approach will create a risk of punishing those trying to do the right thing.

Q3. For each priority fishery, do you agree with the definition? If not, what would you change (gear type/location/vessel size)

Forty-five out of 45 respondents from Citizen Space responded to this question. One respondent suggested that the implementation of remote electronic monitoring should include U10m and O10m vessels across all fisheries in order to create a level playing field. Another respondent suggested removing the spatial definitions for all priority fisheries, on the basis that separating priority fisheries into International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) areas will create confusion and possibly increase the difficulty of enforcing future requirements.

One participant mentioned that careful consideration must be given to those fisheries which are operating across multiple administrations or in neighbouring countries.

Fishery A

Twenty respondents agreed with the proposed definition. One respondent suggested that scallop vessels should be included within this definition.

Six respondents disagreed with this definition. One respondent said that all pelagic trawls should be included, not just over 24m, but also urged the inclusion of vessels that target sandeels within this fishery.

Eighteen respondents neither agreed nor disagreed. 

Fishery B

Seventeen respondents agreed with the proposed definition, expressing positive opinions that the categorisation is suitable. Some respondents suggested further filtering of the proposed definitions based on whether species targeted by each fishery are overfished in UK waters.

Eight respondents disagreed with the definition, with no specific reasons provided by respondents.

Nineteen respondents neither agreed nor disagreed.

Fishery C

Eighteen respondents agreed with the proposed definition, including O10m demersal trawls, using mesh sizes up to 120mm.

Nine respondents disagreed with the definition. Of those who disagreed, it was suggested that vessels which use mesh sizes up to 130mm operating in ICES Area 4b should be included. Another respondent suggested excluding all vessels under 15 metres in length (U15m), as they felt that they present the same risk as U10m vessels.

Eighteen respondents neither agreed nor disagreed. One expressed an interest for further clarification on vessel definitions, citing the example that not all demersal trawls operate in the same way.

Fishery D

Eighteen respondents agreed with the definition.

Nine respondents disagreed with the definition. Changes suggested included the expansion of fishery D to cover static net gears and the exclusion of U15m vessels, the latter suggestion proposed by a respondent who felt that they pose equivalent risk to U10m vessels. One participant suggested that ICES Area 7d should be included within the defined area of this proposed fishery.

Eighteen respondents neither agreed nor disagreed.

Fishery E

Sixteen respondents agreed with the definition. Of those who agreed, one mentioned that the definitions of fishery C and fishery E are very similar, and therefore suggested that we combine those two and replace with other priority fisheries suggested in Q4 below.

Eight respondents disagreed with the definition. One of the respondents suggested that vessels U15m in length should be excluded due to the belief that they pose the same risk as U10m vessels. One participant suggested that ICES Area 7d should be included in the defined area.

Twenty-one respondents neither agreed nor disagreed.

Q4. Do you think any other fishery should be prioritised?

Forty-five out of 45 participants from Citizen Space responded to the question.

Twenty respondents agreed that other fisheries should be considered, suggestions included:

• potting vessels
• dredging vessels, particularly scallop dredgers
• freezer trawlers
• longline fishing
• otter trawl fishery
• U10m demersal trawls
• U10m gillnetters

One participant suggested the North Sea and English Channel bass fishery as a priority fishery, which includes ICES Areas 7c and 7d. These other fisheries were proposed mainly due to their impact on the environment or a high risk of interaction with sensitive bycatch species. It was again mentioned by four respondents that excluding U10m vessels in the proposal could potentially reduce our ability to assure sustainable and responsible fishing activities.

Fourteen respondents answered “No”, with one agreeing that the priority fisheries covered the majority of fisheries that should be focused on. Another respondent suggested further filtering of the priority fisheries based on overfished species in UK waters. The remaining 11 respondents did not answer. It should be noted that some respondents either answered “No” or did not answer due to their disagreement with the introduction of remote electronic monitoring generally.

Q5. What are your views on the proposed timeline and order of implementation?

Forty-two out of 45 participants from Citizen Space responded to the question.

Eight respondents agreed with the proposed timeline. They believed this timeline will allow any issues to be resolved prior to mandatory requirements being introduced. One respondent also highlighted the need to maintain flexibility instead of setting a rigid target.

Four respondents felt that the proposed timeline was too fast to allow industry to adapt accordingly. One respondent mentioned it will be crucial to test and monitor the technology before full implementation. A longer timeline, respondents stated, would allow us to learn from experience and implement any necessary changes.

Seventeen respondents argued that the proposed timeline was too slow and not ambitious enough, with some of those citing the relatively small number of vessels – 161 English registered vessels – in scope in terms of the overall fleet. Some believed that 12 to 24 months would be a more suitable lead-in period for full implementation across all priority fisheries. Three respondents suggested that we prioritise fishery B, two participants suggested we prioritise fishery D; highlighting the issues of incidental high risk species bycatch and significant catches of skates, rays and other elasmobranch species for which data is poor respectively.

Q6. Do you have any additional views on the proposed priority fisheries?

Thirty out of 45 participants from Citizen Space responded to this question. A total of 12 respondents either provided no comments or simply responded “no”.

The remaining 18 responses contained further comments. Some views included that there was a lack of transparency and evidence of the selection process. Another respondent indicated that remote electronic monitoring should only be introduced on high-risk vessels.

Another respondent suggested that the proposed fisheries largely consisted of vessels with relatively low catching capability. Some felt that priority fisheries have been segmented differently to other concurrent policy proposals such as fisheries management plans and discards reform, creating confusion and conflict.

One respondent also mentioned that the implementation of remote electronic monitoring should be focused on scientific data collection for better fisheries management, as opposed to an enforcement tool.

Another respondent proposed the inclusion of an objective to monitor catches of non-quota species for fishery C.

Q7. What are your views on the important data objectives in Table 2 in each priority fishery?

Thirty-eight out of 45 participants from Citizen Space responded to this question.

Several respondents mentioned that an improved observer programme could deliver the same outcomes as remote electronic monitoring, especially in gathering data on sensitive and non-quota species. They also highlighted the perception that the introduction of remote electronic monitoring, and the possible use of the data it generates for enforcement purposes is an indication of a lack of trust in the catching sector.

Some respondents stated that to avoid confusion, consistent data objectives should be applied across various priority fisheries. Monitoring discards and interactions with sensitive species were suggested as fundamental data objectives, because the information is vital to informing Good Environment Status (GES) targets. Another respondent asserted that data objectives in Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS) and the UK Fisheries Act 2020 should be included in the proposed objectives.

Others recognised that our proposed objectives would improve our knowledge of fishing activity and recognised the potential for remote electronic monitoring to an effective tool for identifying non-compliant activity in areas where this has previously been difficult.

One respondent also commented that the proposed monitoring objectives are not sufficiently aligned with industry interests and suggested that the lack of overlap could limit uptake or engagement.

Q8. What additional data objectives you think could be useful for each priority fishery?

Thirty-three of 45 participants from Citizen Space responded to this question. Eighteen participants responded ‘Yes’ and gave further suggestions for certain priority fisheries as below.

Fishery C

• interactions with sensitive species

Fishery E

• interactions with sensitive species
• impact on benthos
• monitoring discard survivability
• improving data on non-quota species
• identifying fish habitats such as spawning and nursery ground, contributing to a better understanding which could lead to more sustainable fisheries management

One respondent recommended a comparison between remote electronic monitoring and existing monitoring tools. Two participants again highlighted the importance of consistent data objectives across all priority fisheries.

Fifteen respondents either answered ‘No’ or did not answer the question.

Q9. Do you have any views around how different aspects of remote electronic monitoring should be funded?

Thirty-nine of 45 respondents from Citizen Space answered this question.

Many respondents suggested that the Government should fund the installation of remote electronic monitoring via an appropriate grant scheme. In this way, these respondents stated that the Government would be able to demonstrate the value of remote electronic monitoring as a cost-effective data collection system.

It was also mentioned by respondents that public funding could enable implementation of remote electronic monitoring to take place faster. Some suggested that the Government should fund early adopters initially, before transitioning to an industry-funded model.

Some respondents also noted that if industry-funded, remote electronic monitoring would be an additional financial burden.

Others recommended that industry should pay maintenance and repair costs, thereby incentivising vessel owners to keep the systems in good condition. Respondents also mentioned that it would be reasonable for Government to initially fund the data costs, however this should become a standard operating cost to vessel owners in the long term. Concerns around data ownership and data sharing were once again raised by respondents.

Comments from email responses and meeting feedback indicated that vessels should have access to their own data for their own purposes, such as industry-led projects. They also flagged the importance of uniformity in the approach between different countries.

Q10. Is there anything else you would like to comment on regarding implementation or generally on our plans to expand the use of remote electronic monitoring in English waters, as set out in this consultation?

Many raised concerns about the consistency in approach between different countries, stressing the importance of enabling interoperability.  

Some respondents suggested additional trials of the technology to mitigate the risk of data being tampered with. Issues around data ownership and data sharing were also raised. Respondents suggested that those who review the data collected should possess the relevant expertise to conduct effective analysis.

Some respondents endorsed remote electronic monitoring as an effective monitoring tool, but one requested further evidence to prove its cost effectiveness.

One highlighted as a priority the health and safety of skippers and crew members, suggesting that remote electronic monitoring will create extra workloads by requiring skippers and crew to spend additional time on tasks such as sorting catches.

Other respondents also expressed a preference for remote electronic monitoring requirements to apply to all vessels that fish in English waters, including non-UK vessels, to ensure fairness. Although some participants suggested to prioritise foreign vessels to cross check the data they submitted.

Government response  

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

Overview

We will avoid a one-size-fit-all approach and take a targeted approach, according to the data needs within each identified fishery. 

Remote electronic monitoring systems will begin to be implemented in all priority fisheries within the next five years. This will apply to all vessels over 10m in length active within those fisheries in English waters, including non-UK vessels. Once we are satisfied that implementation issues have been resolved for each priority fishery, we will then make it mandatory to have these systems installed. There will be two years notice given of that to allow vessels time to adapt and for installation to take place. We will seek to coordinate our policies within the UK and with third countries to mitigate the risk of introducing measures which conflict with those in neighbouring jurisdictions.  
Our next steps will be to begin implementation by starting with the priority fisheries set out in the consultation over the next five years, see table 1 below. We will ensure there is a minimum of 24 months’ notice before mandatory measures come into force for each fishery. We will continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders throughout through steering groups.

Table 1: Proposed priority fisheries. 

Priority Fishery	Vessel size (metres)	Gear type	Fishing location (See Annex C for charts)	Likely data objectives	Potential timeline
Fishery A	Over 24m	Pelagic trawls	All English waters	Catch composition information and verification, improved data on interactions with sensitive species	Early adopter phase begins 2024
Fishery B	Over 10m	Demersal seines (flyseines)	English waters of the Southern North Sea and English Channel (ICES areas 4c, 7d and 7e)	Catch composition information and verification, improved data on non-quota species	Early adopter phase begins 2025
Fishery C	Over 10m	Demersal trawls using mesh sizes up to 120mm	English waters of the North Sea (ICES area 4b)	Monitoring discarded fish	Early adopter phase begins 2026
Fishery D	Over 10m	Fixed and drift nets (gill and trammel)	English waters of the Celtic Sea and English Channel (ICES areas 7e-j)	Interactions with sensitive species, improved catch and discards information	Early adopter phase begins 2027
Fishery E	Over 10m	Demersal trawls including beam trawls	English waters of the Celtic Sea and English Channel (ICES areas 7e-j)	Monitoring discarded fish, improved data on non-quota species	Early adopter phase begins 2028

Priority fisheries and monitoring objectives

Many respondents suggested the inclusion of additional monitoring objectives. We agree that there is potential for remote electronic monitoring to deliver additional benefits and we will consider these as the early adopter phases develop – ensuring we take on views from stakeholders through the steering groups.

A number of responses also proposed the inclusion of other fisheries or closer alignment with those covered in the first tranche of FMPs and discards reform plans. We also recognise that the Scottish Government have now confirmed they will progress with the mandatory implementation of remote electronic monitoring on pelagic vessels and scallop dredge vessels. At this stage, we will continue with the priority fisheries identified in the consultation document. This is because our evidence and analysis indicated these should be the priorities and the feedback received has not changed these conclusions. However, we will continue to coordinate with other administrations to consider interactions between respective measures and will continue to discuss emerging priority fisheries with stakeholders. It may be that over time other priorities or opportunities will emerge that cause other fisheries to become priorities. This could be considered in the ongoing development of fisheries management plans.

A few responses highlighted that excluding U10m vessels could go against the principle of creating a level playing field, with sensitive species bycatch of the U10m fleet highlighted as a particular concern. However, we remain of the view that it is not proportionate or practical currently to include this section of the fleet.

Nevertheless, we will continue to investigate thresholds other than vessel length and are committed to focusing on the issue of sensitive species bycatch as a highlighted area of concern from consultation responses. Participants also raised practical queries such as how vessels switching between priority and non-priority fisheries will work in practice. We recognise that there will be many such practical issues and the proposed steering groups are the means of finding solutions for these. That will enable us to provide detailed guidance ahead of the measures becoming mandatory.

Summary: We will continue with the proposed priority fisheries but consider additional fisheries as implementation progresses.

Engagement and collaborative working

Most respondents across all of the 2023 fisheries consultations were positive about the efforts made by Defra and their delivery partners to engage people in the process. Many want this approach to continue through the implementation stages to ensure that stakeholder expertise can be considered.

We will continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders during the implementation phase. Respondents have been divided on whether to include non-industry stakeholders in priority fishery steering groups. This will be taken into consideration, and we recognise that the appropriate mix of steering group members will vary on a case-by-case basis. We aim to establish steering groups with memberships which reflect the stakeholders relevant to specific fisheries as necessary throughout the early adopter phase.

Respondents also raised the concern that there might be too many steering groups to be set up by different proposals, such as fisheries management plans and discards reform. We recognise this concern and will ensure co-ordination wherever possible and appropriate.

Summary: We will establish steering groups for each fishery and seek to have input from multiple stakeholder groups.

Timeline

We acknowledge concerns from some that our proposed timeline is too slow. We also recognise concerns from others that the introduction of measures should be gradual to ensure that implementation is effective from the outset with as little disruption as possible fishing industry. We recognise the need to strike a balance between these concerns.

Factors we have had to consider include available resources, potential burdens on the fishing industry and the quality of implementation.

As remote electronic monitoring has not been deployed in English waters before, there will be implementation challenges requiring time to resolve.  We can identify some challenges now, but we will need to adapt our approach to implementation as new challenges arise. Another factor we need to bear in mind is building our capacity to analyse the data generated and use the outputs. There is little benefit in hurrying to install remote electronic monitoring systems on more vessels if the data cannot be used. A phased implementation helps with this.

Summary: We will look to progress implementation according to the timeline outlined in the consultation.

Data and technology

Questions were raised about the processing, storage, ownership, sharing and analysis of remote electronic monitoring data with several concerns regarding privacy and data sharing. Various data handling models can be applied to data collection, analysis and outputs, which will be examined as we work through implementation. The proposed steering groups will help to inform decisions on data and the suitability of the different approaches. Vessel’s owners and masters will be informed how their data will be used and privacy safeguards put in place where applicable.

Respondents also raised concerns regarding possible malfunctions of remote electronic monitoring technology whilst vessels are operating at sea. We have considered the feedback from the consultation. We will ensure to focus on this area when we trial the remote electronic monitoring technology, and that appropriate guidance will be provided in due course as we move towards any mandatory requirements. 

Summary: We will engage further about our approach to data and we will ensure that appropriate guidance is in place to cover exceptional circumstances such as system malfunctions.

Cost and funding

Several respondents were concerned about the financial implications of introducing remote electronic monitoring on board vessels fishing in English waters. There will be further engagement with stakeholders on the funding model before remote electronic monitoring becomes mandatory in any fishery.

Summary: How remote electronic monitoring will be funded will be subject to further consideration and engagement with stakeholders.

Domestic and international considerations

Responses to the consultation highlighted the importance of a level playing field in terms of how remote electronic monitoring measures are applied in English waters. We recognise this as a priority and can confirm that any mandatory remote electronic monitoring measures introduced in English waters will apply to all fishing vessels, regardless of nationality. Similarly, our ambition is for remote electronic monitoring measures to apply to English vessels wherever they are operating, although we recognise there may be additional complications to work through there.

With this in mind, we also commit to working with other administrations in the UK and in other States to try to achieve interoperability. We recognise concerns that vessels fishing in English and other waters could be subject to multiple requirements to have remote electronic monitoring on board. It would be better for all parties for such vessels to have systems which meet all requirements rather than duplicate systems for time spent in different areas or fisheries. This would require common data standards and protocols and is something we will seek to progress as part of implementation.

For vessels that do not fish in other waters, we will not introduce a one size fits all system for the sake of interoperability with neighbouring jurisdictions and will endeavour to ensure measures are proportionate within English waters.

Summary: To ensure a level playing field is maintained, we will apply the same monitoring requirements to all relevant vessels in a fishery. We will work with other administrations and jurisdictions to achieve interoperability where possible and to avoid vessels needing multiple remote electronic monitoring systems on board.  

Annex 1 - List of organisations who responded to the consultation

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

• Anglo Scottish Fish Producers Organisation
• Blue Marine Foundation
• Credit Sea Fishing
• Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (IFCA)
• Eastern England Fish Producers Organisation
• European Association of Fish Producers Organisation Ltd
• Isle of Man Government Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture
• Leach Fishing
• Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
• National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)
• Natural England
• Newcastle University, School of Nature and Environmental Sciences
• North Atlantic Holdings Ltd
• Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Association (NIFF)
• Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation (NIFCA)
• Peter & J Johnstone
• Plymouth Fishing & Seafood Association
• Rederscentrale
• The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation
• Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation (SFO)
• Sea Fishing Trip
• Seal Research Trust
• Shark Trust
• Shetland Fishermen’s Association (SFA)
• Sussex Dolphin Project
• The Open Seas Trust
• The Scottish White Fish Association
• University of Surrey
• Wembury Marine Conservation Area Advisory Group
• Western Fish Producers Organisation (WFPO)
• Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC)
• World Cetacean Alliance (WCA)
• World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

Annex 2 - List of consultation engagement meetings 

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

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

Annex 3 - Breakdown of responses per question

Question 2. Do you agree with:

Table 2: A. Taking a targeted approach beginning with specific priority fisheries.

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Neither
Producer/ catching sector	11	8	2
Supplier	0	1	0
Science/ research	3	1	1
Interest group	5	1	1
Individual	0	2	1
Other	7	0	1
Sum	26	13	6

Table 3: B. Not including U10m vessels at this stage.

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Neither
Producer/ catching sector	6	12	3
Supplier	1	0	0
Science/ research	2	3	0
Interest group	2	4	1
Individual	0	2	1
Other	3	3	2
Sum	14	24	7

Table 4: C. Working together with the fishing industry, and setting up steering groups to design remote electronic monitoring programmes.

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Neither
Producer/ catching sector	16	4	1
Supplier	1	0	0
Science/ research	5	0	0
Interest group	4	3	0
Individual	1	1	1
Other	8	0	0
Sum	35	8	2

Table 5: D. Beginning with voluntary early adopters within priority fisheries moving to mandatory requirements in time.

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Neither
Producer/ catching sector	9	8	4
Supplier	1	0	0
Science/ research	2	3	0
Interest group	2	5	0
Individual	0	2	1
Other	5	3	0
Sum	18	9	18

Question 3. For each priority fishery, do you agree with the definition?

Table 6: Fishery A

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Neither
Producer/ catching sector	9	3	9
Supplier	1	0	0
Science/ research	5	0	0
Interest group	3	2	2
Individual	0	1	2
Other	3	0	5
Sum	21	6	18

Table 7: Fishery B

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Neither
Producer/ catching sector	6	6	9
Supplier	1	0	0
Science/ research	5	0	0
Interest group	3	1	3
Individual	0	1	2
Other	3	0	5
Sum	18	8	19

Table 8: Fishery C

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Neither
Producer/ catching sector	6	6	8
Supplier	1	0	0
Science/ research	4	0	1
Interest group	2	2	3
Individual	0	1	2
Other	3	0	4
Sum	16	9	18

Table 9: Fishery D

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Neither
Producer/ catching sector	8	4	9
Supplier	1	0	0
Science/ research	4	1	0
Interest group	2	3	2
Individual	0	1	2
Other	3	0	5
Sum	18	9	18

Table 10: Fishery E

Interest	Agree	Disagree	Neither
Producer/ catching sector	6	5	10
Supplier	1	0	0
Science/ research	4	0	1
Interest group	2	2	3
Individual	0	1	2
Other	3	0	5
Sum	16	8	21

Question 4

Table 11: Do you think any other fishery should be prioritised?

Interest	Yes	No	Not answered
Producer/ catching sector	4	13	4
Supplier	1	0	0
Science/ research	4	1	0
Interest group	5	2	0
Individual	0	2	1
Other	6	1	1
Sum	20	19	6

Question 8

Table 12: Are there additional data objectives you think could be useful for each priority fishery?

Interest	Yes	No	Not answered
Producer/ catching sector	8	11	2
Supplier	0	0	1
Science/ research	3	0	2
Interest group	3	1	3
Individual	0	1	2
Other	4	2	2
Sum	18	15	12