Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 10 October 2024

Introduction

This document summarises the responses received to the public consultation on the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish fisheries management plan (FMP) held between 17 July and 1 October 2023, and sets out the government’s response.

Consultations took place at the same time on 5 other FMPs. 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 3 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 government’s 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 and 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 a range of issues, such as 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 all 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.  

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 Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish 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)
• 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

Background to the consultation

The consultation on the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish FMP was held between 17 July and 1 October 2023. This document summarises the responses and sets out the government’s response.

The consultation was conducted using Citizen Space (Defra’s 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 31 direct responses to the consultation:

• 16 were submitted through the Citizen Space online survey
• 15 were submitted by email or other means

The breakdown of responses consisted of:

• 11 (36%) from other sectors
• 9 (29%) from the catching and producing sector
• 8 (26%) from interest groups (including individuals)
• 2 (6%) from the recreational sea fishing sector
• 1 (3%) from science and research sector

Of the 31 responses, 3 were from individuals, and the remaining 28 were on behalf of organisations.

Stakeholders that selected ‘other sectors’ included Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs), public bodies, other governments, and environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs). During analysis, some of these were regrouped to reflect the majority selection and create consistency. For example, some IFCAs chose ‘interest’ group, while the majority chose ‘other’.

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 Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish 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.

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 respondents 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 the goals of this FMP, with strong support for further information gathering. Some comments outlined opportunities to strengthen these goals further by either reinforcing wider linkages (to the JFS, the Act, and commitments under the EIP). Some responses asked for less narrative within the FMP and considered the existing goals to be too high level. Many respondents called for stronger actions linked to these goals, in particular those relating to restoring or maintaining fish stocks.

Many respondents felt that the stakeholder engagement for this FMP was not as robust, inclusive or wide ranging as other plans, with an over reliance on existing forums, and that opportunities to engage with inshore and recreational sectors were missed. Respondents from across different sectors requested further engagement on the future development of the FMP.

There was general support received for proposed technical measures around implementing minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRSs) and increasing mesh sizes, however additional concerns were raised in reference to these such as ensuring that measures implemented are considerate of regional and area differences. Respondents consistently highlighted links between the FMP and Defra’s proposals for discards reform, as well as Defra’s development of the use of remote electronic monitoring (REM), which many respondents considered to be an important tool to consider in implementation.

Some respondents found the description of proposed MCRSs unclear and requested consistency with measures elsewhere in the English Channel.

Proposals to identify and fill evidence gaps received wide ranging support. The loss of small fish surveys was raised a number of times, while the need to understand climate change (both in terms of impacts on the fishery, and the potential gear impacts on carbon sediments) was also highlighted. Requests for greater specificity in actions, including those relating to evidence gathering, was a common theme.

Concerns were raised around species that were not included in the MCRS measures or managed through total allowable catches (TACs). Dab and flounder, in particular, were highlighted.

Finally, many highlighted that flatfish are caught within a mixed fishery and, therefore, there are important links with other fisheries, such as nephrops and cod, and those in other North Sea demersal areas. A small number of respondents suggested the Eastern Channel and North Sea components may be better managed separately as quite distinct fisheries.

Summary of responses to FMP questions

As part of the consultation, stakeholders were asked 9 questions via Citizen Space which allowed them to express their views on the content of the proposed FMP. Summaries of the responses to these 9 questions are detailed below. Email responses and views from coastal meetings have also been summarised in this section. Not all responses addressed each question, and some provided only overarching comments rather than addressing specific points.

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the process for developing the mixed flatfish FMP?

Many respondents outlined support for the FMP development process. However, comments across different stakeholder groups highlighted that, compared with other FMPs, there was less engagement during the development of this FMP, and a few respondents indicated that inshore and recreational interests were less captured in the plan as a result. Many respondents from across the stakeholder groups expressed disappointment that there were not more opportunities to engage during the FMP development process. Suggestions were received that co-management could be delivered and improved by increasing engagement and communication. A minority of views supported Defra’s lead role in the FMP development process and were critical of industry-led approaches to FMP development more generally.  

In responses to this question, while many respondents showed support for the actions outlined, many were critical of the level of detail and suggested that the actions needed to include more detail. Others noted that the level of detail was appropriate for the first iteration of the FMP.

A few respondents also highlighted concerns with regulatory complexity where FMP areas or stocks overlapped, and expressed their desire for consistency in management approaches between FMPs.

Respondents representing international interests requested greater involvement of the Specialised Committee on Fisheries (SCF) in the development of the FMP. They also raised the importance of making measures consistent across the whole stock, including measures in EU waters.

In response to this question, many respondents set out their expectations for FMPs more widely, and eNGOs in particular pointed to external commitments that they felt should be considered in the development of FMPs. Some respondents also criticised the quantity of information and the number of consultations held during the same period.

Question 2: What are your views on the evidence presented on the current state of the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish stocks in English waters and can you provide other evidence which supports or differs from ours?

Respondents welcomed the evidence provided, were broadly in agreement about the evidence presented, and were supportive of aims to resolve gaps in the evidence base. A range of respondents from different sectors also suggested that using baselines and presenting further evidence of stock status would be helpful in tracking progress.

Responses from eNGOs demonstrated particular support for the use of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advice but suggested that TACs needed to include total mortality as well as provide some level of buffer, particularly in the face of climate change, wind farm development and other anthropogenic change. Further suggestions included that catches should be set at lower levels to accommodate uncertainties. Other responses expressed concern with the quality of data on flatfish used in ICES assessments, highlighting the small fish surveys that have been discontinued.

IFCA respondents welcomed developing the evidence based and some offered additional records and anecdotal evidence. Many respondents offered to provide further evidence relating to fishing activity and stock status, in particular around the Thames and Eastern Channel.

One respondent noted a need for caution in drawing conclusions from decreasing landings, given the declines in fleet activity. A further respondent with commercial interests also questioned the summary of evidence and TAC reductions for some stocks, based on their own catch summaries from vessels within their producer organisation. This data showed increasing, rather than declining, landings in some stocks. This respondent also noted concerning reductions in sole landings by their members.

There was general agreement from respondents about the state of available evidence around halibut, flounder and dab. Respondents from the recreational sector suggested that flounder and dab should be identified as of greater recreational importance, and raised recreational interest as a socio-economic factor that should be considered in the FMP. Some respondents also pointed to a number of existing projects that may contribute to this programme, including fishing diaries, club records and other survey work.

Question 3: What are your views on the goals for the management of flatfish in English waters of the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel?

Most respondents agreed that the goals and actions to achieve them were appropriate. However, some were concerned that goals were too high level and lacked detail or sufficient time commitments. This was a view shared across sectors. Some also suggested the actions lacked prescriptive language and should set binding targets.

Goal 1: Develop an improved evidence base for quota and non-quota flatfish stocks in the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish fishery

While most respondents agreed with the goal, some requested additional information on how it would be achieved, with further detail and commitment to use the additional evidence to support further management. Additionally, a few respondents referenced the importance of following a precautionary approach. A small number of respondents requested plans for the improvement of evidence for specific stocks.

Goal 2: Deliver effective management of the harvesting of flatfish stocks within the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel area

Some respondents strongly supported goal 2. Some called for strengthening of language and management of stocks at a biomass above a level that can achieve maximum sustainable yield (MSY). eNGOs and IFCAs outlined the importance of considering associated economic, social and environmental issues in relation to delivering effective management, which some felt is currently deliverable within TAC-setting mechanisms. However, a minority of views maintained that the current approach is not optimal for recreational interests in the flatfish fisheries, suggesting that it does not deliver an abundance of larger fish.

Goal 3: To support wider environmental sustainability by understanding how the fishing activities within this FMP impact on the wider marine environment and identify options to minimise negative impacts

Of those who commented on goal 3, most called for additional clarity. Some respondents gave suggestions for how bycatch and discards might be addressed. Additional suggestions for actions to support this goal included further understanding on how fishing activities impact marine protected features, including through spatial management, and the use of REM. One respondent contested that there is already sufficient evidence of the impacts of bottom towed gear and other fishing activities, and requested more specific actions. One IFCA suggested an additional action to identify important fish habitats so these could be better managed.

Goal 4: To better understand the social and economic value of the fisheries to the coastal communities within the FMP area

Goal 4 was supported by most respondents. Some requested additional clarity on actions to achieve this goal. One respondent suggested recreational interests should be included as part of this goal, given the importance of dab, flounder and other flatfish for recreational activity.

Goal 5: Explore options for mitigating risk onto the fishery from the changing climatic conditions

Some respondents directly expressed views relating to goal 5. One respondent on behalf of an interest group welcomed the goal but suggested that climate-related impacts on fisheries should be incorporated into TAC setting. Another from the international commercial sector also welcomed a climate change goal, supporting further research into changing climatic conditions, highlighting that changes in the wider marine ecosystem are often incorrectly attributed to the fishing industry.

In their responses to this question, many recreational respondents offered views more generally around goals, and were concerned that there were no specific goals or actions that recognised recreational interest in the flatfish fisheries. Where recreational respondents offered views, some suggested actions should focus on recovering stocks, including protecting nursery and breeding areas, increasing mesh size to 100mm, and raising the MCRS to support recruitment. Some of the recreational respondents emphasised the community benefits of recreational angling and the need to include this in the FMP goals.

In responses to question 3, like some recreational respondents above, others also included comments and suggestions on measures including MCRS. These comments have been included in the analysis of question 5, but it is noted that there are logical links between this measure and the goals of the FMP.

Question 4: What are the benefits and drawbacks (environmental, economic, social) of principles for TAC setting for Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish fishing in English waters? What points would need to be considered when delivering this?

Respondents from the catching and producing sector expressed concern regarding what they considered to be an inflexible approach to TAC setting, where MSY approaches are used to set TACs without considering the complexities of a mixed fishery. They maintained that more flexibility should be enabled in this context. The same respondents expressed concerns with existing gaps in ICES advice. A particular concern was raised about the risk of creating choke stocks and the potential for a discard issue as a result.

Similarly, one respondent raised a concern that the suggested TAC realignment for lemon sole and witch may risk creating choke. Choke risks were also raised in relation to the suggested MCRS proposed by the FMP, and the challenge of implementing these within a mixed fishery context, across boundaries, and within the current grading system. Similar concerns were also raised about the suggestion for the consideration of the use of 100mm mesh size in 7d. alongside the implementation of MCRS. There was some uncertainty about the proposals to stage the introduction of MCRS in short and longer term actions.

One respondent from the catching and producing sector noted that annual TAC fluctuations should be avoided to reduce socio-economic impacts on individual fishers. They also encouraged adoption of multi-annual plans with the EU to create stability for the sector, highlighting the role of the SCF in achieving this. Another respondent, however, expressed concerns with sharing arrangements for the FMP stocks.

Respondents from the recreational sector suggested a need for alternative approaches to TAC management. In particular, that MSY approaches were considered to be inappropriate for species with recreational interests, and that joint TACs encourage overexploitation of species (lemon sole, witch, turbot and brill). Consequently, an ecosystem-based approach was suggested as a preferred option, as well as TAC setting within scientific advice for each species within the entirety of their spatial distribution.

Respondents from IFCAs shared their support for the TAC realignment work for lemon sole and witch, and turbot and brill. In relation to setting TACs generally, one IFCA suggested juvenile stages may be overexploited where TACs are set. They also noted specific issues with TAC setting of flatfish in relation to the nephrops otter trawl fishery, and disadvantages that small scale inshore vessels can face from introducing TACs on species.

eNGO responses shared similar views. Some supported the principles for TAC setting but emphasised that ICES single stock advice should constitute the maximum catch level rather than advised TAC level, and were generally supportive of the realignment of the lemon sole and witch, and turbot and brill TACs. They emphasised a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach, as well as setting TACs below MSY, and suggested that discards should be considered as part of this. Others eNGO respondents agreed with the principles for TAC setting, but questioned their implementation, emphasising a mixed fishery approach to flatfish within the FMP, to ensure that all species within mixed fisheries are fished within sustainable limits. Some suggested areas where the principles could be strengthened, such as setting TACs below FMSY  (fishing mortality at levels consistent with MSY) reference points and using precautionary reference points where stocks are data limited.

Question 5: What are the benefits and drawbacks (environmental, economic, social) of introducing minimum conservation reference sizes for lemon sole, turbot and brill in 7d?

The responses to this question were varied but broadly respondents supported the introduction of a MCRS for lemon sole, turbot and brill as a precautionary measure. Generally, respondents focussed on the larger size MCRS and were concerned at a potential lack of harmonisation with the Channel demersal non-quota species (NQS) FMP. Some explicitly expressed their confusion around which MCRSs were to be implemented.

Recreational respondents were supportive of introductions of MCRS, at the greater size class outlined in the draft FMP to enable more fish to achieve maturity and breed. Some respondents outlined additional evidence that suggested larger MCRS should be set, that MCRS should be set for other species within the FMP, including in a precautionary way.

Respondents from the catching and production sector provided varied responses to this question. Some thought it was a reasonable suggestion but outlined drawbacks, including impacts on the inshore fleet and enforcement issues in implementation, particularly where MCRSs are not consistent between regions and coastal states. Others also shared this view and supported harmonising MCRSs between sea basins. Two international respondents did not support the proposed 40cm turbot and 35cm brill MCRS (although supported 25cm for lemon sole), as the sizes do not align with that of other coastal states. It was noted that some producer organisations already operate with MCRS for the species outlined, and also for dab. Various respondents suggested survival rates should be better understood for these species.

One respondent also raised concerns about discarding of undersized fish, in particular where stocks are subject to quotas. They requested additional monitoring of discards and reduction of TACs to accommodate discard levels.

Many respondents linked implementation with mesh size increases and REM implementation. When considering mesh size increases, some respondents expressed concern for the possible reduced catches of sole and the impact on inshore vessels. One suggested a phased approach to increasing mesh size starting with larger vessels. A further response emphasised the need to couple MCRS with mesh size increases for benefits to other smaller individuals of other stocks, such as dab and flounder. The same response also suggested various other measures to safeguard fish at vulnerable life stages.

Question 6: What are the benefits and drawbacks (environmental, economic, social) of towed gear measures in 7d?

Many responses to this question suggested uncertainty about what was being proposed, and what the question was asking.

One respondent expressed concerns about any measure to limit towed gears in the 0 to 12 nautical mile (nm) zone and the disproportionate impact on the inshore fleet, including the safety implications of creating incentives to fish further from shore. Others also highlighted concerns about the impacts on the inshore fleet of any possible measures.

Some respondents from both eNGOs and the recreational sector were supportive of any measures to limit the impact of towed gears in the 0 to 12nm zone. One requested more action to reduce the impact of towed gears on seabed integrity and in habitats beyond Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Others also emphasized bottom towed gears should not be permitted in MPAs. A few expressed concerns about the language around possible management measures for towed years, suggesting the wording was too vague and insufficient to make progress.

A minority of respondents disagreed that there should be any measures for towed gears in the 0 to 12nm zone, highlighting potential restrictions as potentially discriminatory.

Question 7: Do you agree that the actions to improve the evidence base are appropriate for the flatfish FMP?

Respondents across stakeholder groups agreed with gathering more evidence and were generally supportive of the actions supporting the goals. Some had suggestions for additional actions that should be considered.

Many respondents asked for the FMP to include more detail on timelines, actions and how indicators will be used to monitor the plan, identifying a need for measurable outputs. Some also noted the need to better understand the impacts of, and possible responses to, climate change.

A few respondents were supportive of actions to gather more information on halibut, and agreed with actions to consider reopening the sole survey in area 7d.

Additional actions proposed by various respondents included:

• improving understanding of the impact of fishing on seabed disturbance
• improving the evidence base for flounder
• developing greater evidence to support fisheries management to avoid the need for precautionary approaches

One respondent outlined that the FMP makes a significant contribution to collection of evidence. A further respondent suggested that presenting uncertainties and data gaps that occur in assessment evidence would improve transparency of the FMP.

Question 8: How would you like to be involved in the delivery of the plan and the future management of the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish fishery?

Almost all respondents stated they wanted to be involved in the future, some offering support through data collection to close evidence gaps, providing expertise, helping design measures and having an input in decision making.

Respondents from the recreational sector identified the importance of recreational fisheries for flatfish and suggested that this recreational involvement should be further considered in the plan.

Respondents from the EU identified that they would like to remain involved in the development of FMPs and future measures for flatfish, noting shared water interests. The SCF was highlighted as a forum for discussion and cooperation in the future.

Most respondents on behalf of eNGOs welcomed their involvement and suggested options for future engagement. Some outlined the FMP’s links to ongoing projects including various Project UK Fishery Improvement Projects.

Question 9: are there any important connections with or links to other fisheries that we should consider when finalising this FMP or during its implementation process?

Nearly all respondents emphasised that it is important that all FMPs adopt joined up policy approaches. This included specific suggestions for links to the Channel demersal NQS FMP, the Southern North Sea demersal NQS FMP and the North Sea Nephrops FMP, as well as broader North Sea and demersal plans, where flatfish species can be an important bycatch. Displacement was also raised as a potential issue to consider, in the context of developing management measures across, and outside of, the FMP area.

Additionally, respondents raised connections between the FMP and the MPA network, alongside other spatial protections. Enforcement and REM were also raised as tools to consider in the monitoring of FMP management measures. Connections were drawn between the ongoing consultations at the time on REM and discards reform, and the need for FMPs to be consistent with approaches taken forward in other policy areas.

Some eNGOs raised the need for a stronger connection within the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish FMP to ecosystem-based approaches, as well as wider agreements and commitments, including the Fisheries Act, the JFS and good environmental status (GES) commitments under the UK Marine Strategy (UKMS).

Some IFCAs and respondents from the recreational sector raised the consideration of recreational fisheries within the FMP, including identifying possible links to the national angling strategy and other recreational work and programmes.

Summary of responses to the environmental report questions

Stakeholders were asked 4 questions which allowed them to express their views about the content of the environmental report (ER) on the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish FMP. Summaries of the responses to these 4 questions are detailed below.

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

Several respondents suggested evidence from the Project UK Fishery Improvement Projects should be used to inform the environmental baseline. Some respondents felt more area-specific data would be better, as the baseline at the UK level is not specific enough to the area covered by the FMP. There was a suggestion that Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and IFCA landing data could be used to inform the UKMS descriptors of GES D1 biological diversity, D4 food webs and D3 commercially exploited fish.

Respondents suggested that the environmental baseline would be improved by assessing how the fishery interacts with and influences the ecosystem as a whole, and that consideration should be given to aspects such as climate change, benthic impacts, essential fish habitats, and inshore ecosystems.

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

Respondents stated that the negative effects on the environment could be reduced by banning or reducing bottom towed gear in the inshore 0 to 3nm zone. Other respondents raised additional concerns about the negative environmental effects of gravel dredging.

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?

Concerns were raised about the lack of management action in the FMP to reduce the impacts of bottom towed gear, despite these impacts being highlighted in the ER. It was also suggested that the government ban all bottom towed gear or at least restrict bottom trawling in the inshore 0 to 3nm zone.

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?

A small number of respondents stated that repetition and language divergence across the FMP hindered their ability to fully consider the ER.

Respondents identified the following ways the ER could be improved:

• indicate the SEA issues or receptors that may be affected by the policies of the FMP
• indicate how SEA issues or receptors may be positively or negatively affected
• indicate whether these effects are significant or require mitigation or policy changes
• include clearer links between the issues raised by the assessment and the actions being taken to mitigate them in the FMP
• recommend the FMP considers setting out how the goals of the FMP will contribute to achieving GES for the relevant UKMS indicators

Respondents felt the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish 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 highly protected marine areas (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.

Government response: FMP

Overview

The FMP sets out how we will manage quota and non-quota species of flatfish in the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel, so that the full benefits of the fisheries will be available to fishers and local communities.

We will improve our science and evidence to better understand these fisheries. We will work collaboratively with stakeholders to identify how we can close the main evidence gaps affecting how we manage these fisheries over time. We will focus on developing better stock assessments and data on which to develop sustainable harvest limits.

As some time has passed since the consultation on the proposed FMP (the consultation closed on 1 October 2023), we have been able to make progress in some areas where we received support.

An interim measure to effectively split the lemon sole and witch, and turbot and brill joint TACs was agreed in the SCF in 2023 and implemented in negotiations with the EU for 2024. Additionally, an ‘of which’ special condition included in the negotiated Written Record has enabled an extension to the TAC management area for lemon sole, witch and brill in area 7d to better align with their distribution. This enables progress towards more sustainable management of these 4 species in the FMP area.

We are also pleased to be able to update on the restarting of a sole survey in the Thames area of ICES division 4c.

We also intend to introduce the following measures:

• in the short term, implement minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) for lemon sole (25cm), turbot (30cm) and brill (30cm) in division 7d
• in the medium to long term, explore implementation of gear restrictions, including gathering evidence on potential viable options for towed gear management and mesh size changes in ICES division 7d

In the FMP we set out our actions for achieving the FMP goals over the short and medium to long term. Many of these actions include establishing, developing and using evidence to support flatfish management within the FMP area. Through consultation feedback, actions have been further developed.

The goals, actions and specific measures developed in this FMP will work to achieve our vision, which is to enhance the long-term sustainable management for the flatfish species covered by this FMP in the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel, ensuring that all stocks can be assessed and fished at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 

Following feedback on the FMP development process, we will also explore how to better engage with stakeholders with interest in the mixed flatfish fisheries covered by this FMP.

Introduction

This section sets out the government’s response to the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish FMP consultation. It first explains our decisions for this FMP and any changes we have made to the plan following consultation feedback. Finally, we cover more general feedback 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 opinions within and between interest groups. These 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 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 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 this FMP. It sets out the first steps and longer-term vision necessary for sustainable management of this fishery. The plan will take time to develop and implement. It is intended to allow an adaptive approach and it will be reviewed and improved over time as we collaborate with the fishing sector and wider interests on the sustainable management of these fisheries. The plan has a statutory review period at 6 years but can be reviewed sooner if needed.

While FMPs set out specific policies, measures and actions that will contribute to the sustainable management of the relevant fisheries, ecosystems or the marine environment, there is a wider body of work being undertaken by government 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 (REM), reform of discards policy, and ongoing work to reduce bycatch.

Changes to the FMP following consultation

We take on board the feedback received from some regarding the length and clarity of the FMP. We have restructured the plan and removed information that is available elsewhere in supporting documentation. In making improvements for clarity within the FMP, we now refer to the objectives as goals, to distinguish these from the linked objectives of the Fisheries Act and Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS).

The loss of small fish surveys was highlighted a number of times, and we are pleased to confirm the restarting of a survey in the Thames area of ICES division 4c to provide more data on sole recruitment. We will continue to explore whether the sole survey in division 7d could be reopened.

Since the proposed FMP was consulted on in 2023, we have been able to successfully implement an interim measure to effectively split joint total allowable catches (TACs) for lemon sole and witch, and turbot and brill, and a special condition in our negotiated Written Record for 3 of these stocks has enabled TAC management that better corresponds with their spatial distribution. While longer term solutions are pursued, this represents progress towards our goal to deliver effective management of stocks within the FMP.

We note that some respondents expressed confusion in relation to the measures to implement MCRS for lemon sole, turbot and brill, and we confirm that in the short term the proposed sizes will align with the measures being implemented through the Channel demersal non-quota species (NQS) FMP and Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (IFCA) management of these species in the English Channel. Alignment between regions was a common theme in responses to question 5, and any increase to the MCRS will need to be considered with this in mind. In the medium to long term we will consider the evidence for raising the MCRS to better align with the maturation size for these species. The FMP has been updated to reflect the need for clarity around these proposed measures. We have also included MCRS implementation as both an action relating to the sustainability goal, and as an indicator for monitoring the effectiveness of the plan.

We also considered that actions outlined in other sections of the FMP should be listed as distinct actions relating to specific goals. This includes referencing our commitment to review the TAC management areas for lemon sole, witch, turbot and brill, and commissioning ICES to develop a stock assessment for halibut, along with other actions referenced elsewhere in the plan. These are now consolidated into the actions section relating to each goal. In the interests of improving clarity, we have also amended the wording of Goal 5 (Explore options to mitigate against and adapt to the impact of climate change within the fishery) and the wording of various actions.

One additional action has been included and a further existing action has been amended following consultation feedback. Firstly, acknowledging feedback within responses to the environmental report (ER), we would like to better understand the impact of fishing gear interactions with the marine environment in flatfish fisheries as part of Goal 3. Secondly, as part of the action to ‘identify the communities reliant upon the fisheries within this FMP’ for Goal 4, we would like to also include ‘…building understanding of recreational activity for flatfish species’. Some consultation responses highlighted that the FMP did not recognise the recreational importance of some flatfish species.

Many respondents expressed that the stakeholder engagement for this FMP was not as robust, inclusive or wide ranging as other plans, with an over reliance on existing forums and missed engagement opportunities with inshore and recreational sectors. We take on this feedback and will explore how to better engage with stakeholders with interest in the mixed flatfish fisheries in the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel in future iterations of this FMP.

We have now published the final version of the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish FMP.

Overview of cross-cutting or common responses and questions across FMPs in the consultation

Engagement and collaborative working

The majority of stakeholders across all of the FMP consultations to date were positive about the collaborative approach adopted to develop the FMPs and the efforts made by Defra and its 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 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 aim to work collaboratively with stakeholders during the implementation phase of the FMPs.

However, despite engagement and opportunities for input prior to the drafting of the FMPs, and during the formal consultation process, we recognise that some parties did not feel as included as others in the preparations of the FMPs. We continue to review our engagement and will seek improvements in collaborative working with stakeholders.

In some areas there is little common ground between or within interests or sectors. This makes developing solutions acceptable to all particularly challenging. What we have therefore tried to do is chart a reasonable course, taking on board the constructive responses. At the same time we are continually ensuring we abide by our legal and international commitments and obligations, seeking to appropriately balance environmental, social and economic sustainability in our approach to fisheries management.

We intend to initiate more work across the FMP programme, and in relation to particular FMPs, to explore how government, regulators, scientists, industry, other stakeholders, and recreational fishers can work together better in a respectful and constructive way. This will assist in the development of further FMPs and in implementation. Some of this involves developing common language about the approaches taken, considering and articulating roles and responsibilities and ways of working better and earlier in processes, and improving communication. We are also keen to work more closely with initiatives like Fishing Into the Future to improve understanding.

Volumes of material and timing of consultation

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

We 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 ensured that more accessible summaries were prepared, and arranged 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. 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.

Since the initial consultation phase, we have further refined our process to better balance the desire for transparency and evidence-based decision making and accessibility of information for stakeholders.

Pace of implementation and change

There is a strong desire for much faster delivery and for there to be a clearer commitment to doing so. We have made some adjustments to the FMPs to deliver some changes faster. We have had to balance this against resources and a recognition that too much change would not be deliverable or would create unreasonable burdens on the commercial fishing sector and coastal communities.

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 economic 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 manage risks and help inform management of those fisheries.

The devolved administrations

There were questions raised about how the measures will work across borders with the devolved administrations. More detail will be set out as we implement the FMPs – for example, on the areas where the measures will apply and the vessels that will be affected.

Most fisheries management is a devolved competency. It is therefore possible and probable that different management measures and approaches will apply in different fisheries administrations. Indeed, this is one of the benefits of FMPs – bespoke management can be brought in which takes account of the different fisheries, conditions, industries, priorities or pressures. However, where appropriate, 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)

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 excellent collaborative relationships the UK enjoys with our neighbouring coastal state partners and will ensure that our measures are fully compliant with the TCA and expect these standards and arrangements to be reciprocal.

The TCA preserves the regulatory autonomy of the 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

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.

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.

It will not be possible or reasonable for government 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 underway to develop a more co-ordinated approach to data collection, management and use between fisheries authorities.

Government response: environmental report

Introduction

This section sets out the government’s response to the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish FMP, strategic environmental assessment (SEA), environmental report (ER) consultation.

An SEA is a formal process to assess the effect of a plan or programme on the environment. It 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 goals and actions of the draft Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish FMP. The ER sets out the findings of the SEA process.

Undertaking an SEA of this 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 Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish 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 FMP. It also sets out recommendations on how the FMP could reduce the environmental impact of channel non-quota fishing into the future.

We are grateful to all respondents for sharing their views. The responses to the consultation confirm that the environmental sustainability of the 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 FMP seeks to address.

Stakeholders recognised the need for better data and evidence to fully assess the impact of the fishery, and to introduce targeted management that will reduce or remove negative effects. Nevertheless, 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 is set out below.

Stakeholder responses have been considered and the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish FMP ER has been updated. These updates have been considered in the revised FMP. The full report has been published alongside the FMP. 

Question 1. Evidence

Stakeholders suggested a range of additional evidence to be considered to inform the environmental baseline, including Project UK Fishery Improvement Projects, and MMO and IFCA data. There was also some support for providing more evidence on how the fishery interacts with the ecosystem as a whole.

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

There were concerns about the environmental effects of gravel dredging, however this is not within the scope of the FMP.

Others were concerned about the effects of bottom towed gear. This has been considered and included in sections 3 (Environmental baseline) and 6 (Proposed measures to reduce significant negative effects), of the ER, as appropriate.

Question 3. Actions to mitigate environmental effects

There were concerns about the lack of action to mitigate the effects of bottom towed gear on the seabed. We have acknowledged consultation feedback, and the FMP has been amended to set out clearer actions to reduce the environmental impacts of bottom towed gear.

Question 4. Additional comments

We welcomed the suggestions on where the ER could be improved, particularly around the associated UKMS descriptors. The revised ER has recommended the FMP considers setting out how the goals of the FMP will contribute to achieving GES for the relevant UKMS descriptors.

Stakeholders felt the 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

We have amended the ER to make these links.

Annex 1: List of organisations which did not request confidentiality

• Angling Trust
• Anglo Scottish Fish Producers’ Organisation Limited
• Association of Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities
• Bass Angling Conservation Limited
• Blue Marine Foundation
• ClientEarth
• Eastern England Fish Producers’ Organisation
• Emilia Jayne Limited
• European Commission
• Historic England
• Humberside Fish Producers’ Organisation Limited
• Joint Nature Conservation Committee
• Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
• Leach Fishing
• Marine Conservation Society
• Marine Stewardship Council
• Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, The Netherlands
• Natural England
• New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association Limited
• National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
• North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
• Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
• Oceana
• Office for Environmental Protection
• Rederscentrale
• Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
• Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
• University of Southampton
• World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

Annex 2: List of FMP consultation engagement meetings

• 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)