Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 14 December 2023

Introduction

This document summarises the responses received to the public consultation to the whelk 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 five 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 three main parts:

• Introduction – context and a high-level overview of the consultation
• Summary of responses – summaries of themes and comments received as part of the consultation
• Government response – sets out the 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 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 whelk FMP has been prepared and published to comply with the requirements in the JFS and in section 6 of the Act. The preparation process had regard for:

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

Background to the consultation

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

The consultation was conducted using Citizen Space (an 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, 29 direct responses to the consultation were received, 14 were submitted via the Citizen Space online survey and 15 via email.

The breakdown of responses consisted of:

• 8 (28%) from the catching and producing sector
• 6 (21%) from other sectors
• 2 (7%) from interest groups
• 1 (3%) from the processing sector
• 1 (3%) from science and research sector
• 11 (38%) sector not stated

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

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

We also engaged with over 300 people at 23 in-person meetings where stakeholders were given the opportunity to discuss the draft whelk 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 stakeholders and policy recommendations put forward. We have summarised each response, which has been used to produce the overall summary of responses outlined below.

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

Headline messages

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

There was broad support for this FMP as an approach to improve the sustainability of whelk stocks in English waters.

On the consultation process, views were mixed with support for the government’s stakeholder engagement through webinars, coastal meetings and working groups; there was some criticism that the government did not allow enough time for consultees to consider the quantity of information presented and respond to multiple consultations running at the same time.

Stakeholders said they had observed changes to the whelk fishery in English waters over the past few years. They noted an expansion of the nomadic fleet, characterised by ‘all weather’ vessels and intensive fishing activities. They noted the direct correlation of this nomadic activity with fewer opportunities for the inshore ‘small-scale fleet’ that is bound within coastal waters.

Concerns were raised over the future sustainability of the whelk stocks resulting from absence of regulation in offshore waters, increased risk of overfishing in other fisheries and subsequent move into the ‘open’ whelk fishery. There were calls for better information relating to stock status, stock biology and climatic stress factors to support the development of whelk management measures. Views were expressed on the need for government to bring forward whelk management using the Fisheries Act’s precautionary objective.

Although stakeholders were broadly in favour of introducing management measures, support varied on how these had been prioritised.

The introduction of a permit or entitlement scheme received the most support, but views varied on how ‘open’ or ‘restrictive’ this measure should be. The proposed spawning closures measure was deemed, at this stage of the FMP, as less of a priority, considering the current limited evidence to support such an approach and its implications on the various fleets.

Other longer-term measures received more support for quicker implementation. These included an increase of the whelk minimum reference conservation size (MCRS) in English offshore waters and pot limitation with a minimum riddle size. Although not a proposed management measure, there were calls for the fishing activities of the nomadic fleet to be restricted beyond the 20 nautical mile (nm) zone. Those who expressed concerns about the proposed management measures felt there was a need for the whelk fishery to allow access to new entrants and avoid hampering the diversification of existing fishermen who need the flexibility to move between fisheries. Others noted that they needed more information on the proposed measures to be able to provide an informed opinion.

Summary of responses to FMP questions

As part of the consultation, stakeholders were asked, via Citizen Space, 11 questions which allowed them to express their views on the content of the proposed whelk FMP. Summaries of the responses to these 11 questions are detailed below. Email responses and views from coastal meetings have also been summarised in this section.

Evidence gathering

The consultation questions were developed and designed to gather general views on the approach to the FMP development as well as seek specific views on the measures set out to achieve the overall FMP objectives.

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

On the process for delivering the whelk FMP, industry and eNGOs expressed strong support for the government’s ambitions and there was broad agreement with the principles underpinning the development of the whelk FMP. Stakeholders, including from the catching sector and eNGOs, made general observations and offered advice around the need to take a precautionary approach, while evidence was being gathered. Comments were provided on the need for more clarity on sustainable harvest strategies as well as timelines for interim policy steps in the finalised FMPs. It was also recommended that finalised FMPs should have regard for the Environmental Principles Policy Statement and consider how the protection of the marine historic environment and marine cultural heritage, such as underwater structures of archaeological and cultural importance, could be incorporated into fisheries management.

There was also general recognition among eNGOs and industry that the development of the whelk FMP presents the government with a unique opportunity to introduce progressive fisheries management for this specific fishery. On the one hand, some stakeholders including from the fishing sector and the Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) expressed the desire for government to accelerate progress and maintain the delivery momentum on FMP work. On the other, they felt that the rushed timescales for the whelk FMP development could be seen as a risk to creating plans that may not have been debated sufficiently, especially by all the active whelk commercial fishermen around the country.

Other views from the fishing sector indicated the desire for the proposed management measures to be implemented without further delay to protect the stocks from fishing pressures and to secure the fleet’s financial viability.

Concerns were raised by an eNGO on the nature of the delegated authority given to the delivery partner for the development of the whelk FMP, which, having been led by industry, risks being associated with conflicts of interest. A public body highlighted that the general FMP approach has been perceived as not complying with the United Nations Fisheries and Agriculture Organisation (UN FAO) Fisheries Management Guidelines. The point was made that in the whelk FMP, as currently drafted, it is often difficult to identify the policies that fisheries authorities are required to follow when discharging their functions. It was proposed that the finalised FMP needs to set out clearly the interim steps that will be taken to ensure that stocks are best positioned to achieve maximum sustainable yield (MSY), even during any data gathering stage.

Stakeholders also commented on the quality of stakeholder engagement during the development of the whelk FMP. Some stakeholders that were members of the whelk management group (WMG) felt that they had had sufficient opportunities to engage in and contribute to the development of the FMP through their membership. Others, who did not have opportunities to engage through working groups, felt disengaged from the initial development stage of the FMP, discussions and engagement events that had taken place around the country. Various views highlighted that larger vessel owners and operators are more likely to participate in government fora and influence policy development, in contrast to smaller operators who are more likely to prioritise their available time to fishing. It was therefore thought that stakeholders should be paid to engage with government and provide expertise to compensate for time lost to fishing and incurred costs.

Engagement through the WMG was described by some of its members as inclusive and well-organised, while others that did not have opportunities to engage through that forum, noted that the group had exhibited lack of transparency and inclusivity during the whelk FMP development process. Additional comments on the membership of the WMG highlighted the need for the group to extend its membership to all UK stakeholders with an interest in the fishery. Similarly, it was felt that throughout the whelk FMP development process, the WMG had provided limited opportunities for engagement with conservation bodies and eNGOs.

Some IFCAs also noted that their knowledge, expertise and data should have been captured during the drafting of the whelk FMP and emphasised the importance of closer engagement with the IFCAs when it comes to implementing the whelk FMP.

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

It was generally accepted that the information presented in the whelk FMP on the current state of whelk stocks had been captured in a comprehensive evidence summary. However, the need for consistent language on the use of terms such as minimum landing size (MLS) and MCRS in the whelk FMP and other FMPs would have helped. There was recognition that there is a significant lack of data for whelk stocks outside the 6nm zone, which was needed to implement an effort-based management approach. However, in the absence of strong evidence, it was suggested that the precautionary approach should be implemented. Various anecdotal views were also given on the health of whelk stocks in English waters as either being stable or at decreased levels of recruitment and exploitation.

It was noted that varying data requirements set by the IFCAs and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), including different legislative requirements and reporting forms, are burdensome and could be streamlined. It was suggested that there should be better join-up and collaborative governance across organisations. Various organisations also expressed the willingness to share their research and fisheries data with the government to aid the development of whelk management measures.

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

Stakeholders commented that the evidence and research plan adequately reflected the evidence and data that are currently available. The need to improve the evidence base further was supported and suggestions were made for industry and government data to be collated into an integrated data set. Any new data set should be gathered at a regional level to capture regional whelk stock differentials, regional seasonality and local catching practices. In addition, it was proposed that the definition of ‘regional’ could be clarified as per the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) sea areas. It was also suggested that additional work is required to identify best practice of fishers, uniformity of regulation and the most effective forms of management, from an ecological and practical perspective.

Anthropological information was also described as necessary to support fisheries management, noting that the knowledge produced by fishermen is not anecdotal evidence; it is as scientific as anyone who works within an institution. Those involved in fisheries management, it was suggested, should recognise that social science information comes in a different format, but it is equally valuable to the development of the whelk FMP and proposed management measures.

Further recommendations were proposed, and evidence gaps were identified which will inform the government’s evidence work in the development of the whelk FMP.

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

There was broad agreement that the identified evidence gaps and the proposed research plan were both comprehensive and informed. Comments did suggest that a lot of evidence is already being gathered by industry, government and other organisations; that presents an opportunity for data sharing to assist with the whelk management in English waters.

It was also proposed that various industry and scientific working groups should be able to coordinate their research activities, share their work to support the implementation of the whelk FMP, and provide a common platform of emerging evidence. It was noted this can be further enhanced with data collection via remote electronic monitoring (REM), with on-board cameras for all vessels involved in the whelk fishery.

Question 5: What are the benefits and drawbacks (environmental, economic, social) of putting in place a permit/entitlement system for whelk fishing in English waters?

There was broad agreement that, in principle, a permit or entitlement system is an appropriate way to manage the whelk fishery in English waters. It was recognised that a permit or entitlement scheme can be an effective short-term approach to restricting fleet expansion and managing effort in cases of stock decline, while the longer-term evidence needs are being addressed. It was noted that a restrictive system was needed to prevent overfishing and protect the marine environment while maximising the social and economic benefits to those who are genuinely reliant on the whelk fishery.

Various comments were provided around the need for access to such a scheme to be determined by eligibility criteria such as a track record, alongside various conditions including data collection. Other comments highlighted the need for the scheme to provide opportunities for new entrants and flexibility for existing fishermen to move between fisheries and allow for diversification. It was also suggested that individual circumstances that may have prevented fishermen from fishing in the past, such as COVID-19 and high fuel prices, would need to be considered when determining access and eligibility criteria.

Various benefits and drawbacks of permits and entitlements were put forward by eNGOs and the catching sector. It was recognised that the whelk fishery is currently an open fishery with minimal controls on vessel numbers, landings or pots deployed in offshore English waters. It was noted that a restricted scheme may cap the number of vessels in the fishery, enable an ongoing data collection programme and provide the framework for the introduction of future management requirements. It was suggested that for the scheme to be effective and bring conservation benefits to the stocks, it would also need, in its initial stages, to address the effort deployed by participating vessels. Such a scheme would also have to consider facilitating equal access to the fishery for both larger offshore and smaller inshore fleets.

Other stakeholders from the fishing sector expressed frustration at the prospect of restricting access, as the whelk fishery has always been considered as a ‘backup’ fishery that afforded flexible access from other fisheries. Further concerns were raised that the scheme could cause a ‘race to fish’ as fishermen will try to get a track record, and it was noted that some boats buy permits just to secure access to a fishery, into which they hardly engage. It was highlighted that the need for a whelk permit or entitlement for small vessels is negated by the amount of time these vessels can spend at sea. Therefore, only a pot limit, it was suggested, may be sufficient as a management approach, although enforcement challenges with a potting limitation scheme have to be addressed.

Stakeholders from the catching sector and the IFCAs raised concerns about a monetary value being attached to a permit or entitlement and its implications for new entrants. Stakeholders from the inshore sector noted that aggregation of entitlements was seen as potentially bringing the control of the fishery into the hands of a few organisations, while disproportionately affecting smaller inshore vessels that need to diversify to maintain fishing opportunities.

Other stakeholders with experience in inshore whelk fishing proposed that regional whelk management may be more effective with technical measures, such as standardised and harmonised riddles and compulsory size sorting. It was acknowledged that there would be potential enforcement challenges in such an approach.

Question 6: What other points would need to be considered when developing a permit or entitlement scheme?

Stakeholders offered a variety of views about what aspects should be considered during the development of a permit or entitlement scheme, some of which are captured below.

Compulsory riddle sorting of whelk catches based on defined length-width relationships was proposed as a requirement of the permit or entitlement scheme, together with gear and effort limits in offshore waters, including restrictions on pot numbers and pot size. In addition, it was recommended that an increase to the current MCRS in English offshore waters and closed seasons during important reproductive periods may provide addition stock protection.

The establishment of a total allowable catch (TAC) through the development of harvest control rules and harvest strategy was also recommended for consideration. It was also suggested that the ability of trawlers to land modest quantities of whelk bycatch with nets should remain unconstrained by the permit scheme.

Some inshore considerations were also highlighted by some stakeholders. It was suggested that at IFCA level there is a need for harmonised best practice for riddle sizes and pot size as well as pot limits for the coastal waters in the 0 to 3nm zone and inshore waters in the 3 to 6nm zone and beyond into the offshore area. It was also suggested that to enable the harmonisation and enforcement of such an approach, the IFCA jurisdiction should be extended out to the 12nm zone. Explicit concern was raised about the inshore sector and coastal communities with specific challenges and vulnerabilities. It was highlighted that the distinct character of inshore fishing boats of smaller size, lower earning capacity and reduced mobility, renders them less able to absorb the costs of management interventions relative to large offshore boats. Further views were provided on the need to restrict fishing within a 20nm zone to vessels whose normal home port is in adjacent inshore waters, and it was suggested that the introduction of regional permits might stop vessels migrating between areas.

Other views were offered on considerations for designing a permit scheme or entitlement, such as access of EU vessels to English whelk stocks, ownership of permits or entitlements, eligibility criteria, number of permits allocated and whether they should be transferable or not. The cost of a permit, in relation to small inshore vessels, was noted as an area of concern. Addressing the impacts of a potential fee for the permit or entitlement, a proposal highlighted the benefits of a mixed shellfish permit, which could deliver administrative harmonisation and a tiered approach for the various fleets and fisheries. The fishing character of nomadic fleets and the need to limit the activity of nomadic vessels was raised in various responses.

It was also suggested that the decision-making and enforcement authority of a permit or entitlement scheme that may be applied in offshore areas should be comprised of MMO and IFCA representatives.

Question 7: What are the benefits and drawbacks (environmental, economic, social) of restricting the number of vessels fishing for whelks in English offshore waters? 

It was noted that it may be necessary to restrict the expansion of the whelk sector as a first step in the development of a management system for the English whelk fishery. Views from the inshore sector highlighted that in the last few years, there has been an increasing displacement of vessels into English whelk fishing grounds. The pressure on the stocks was described as being further exacerbated by the presence of bigger vessels of higher engine and gear capacity. Although in some areas a balance between fishing effort and whelk stocks is being observed, stakeholders from the fishing sector highlighted that this perceived equilibrium is increasingly under threat by the absence of regulation in the offshore whelk fishery in English waters.

Having a limited number of active vessels targeting whelks was noted by the catching sector as a benefit of a permit or entitlement scheme, insofar as it may provide the restricted fleet with some certainty of potential economic returns. On the other hand, those who will be excluded from the fishery will be negatively affected, as their economic opportunities will be reduced. This may disproportionately affect those fishermen who periodically target whelks and a few other stocks, for which flexibility to move between them is necessary for their economic survival.

Restricting the number of vessels was seen by other inshore stakeholders as a business disincentive for new entrants, further hampering the rejuvenation of an aging fleet. It was also noted that a restricted fleet would reduce the number of species that fishermen can target. The point was made that this could have an impact on the conservation of other stocks as it would increase fishermen’s reliance on fewer species.

Other stakeholders felt that the whelk FMP document did not have a sufficient level of detail on the proposal, and they were, therefore, unable to answer the question.

Question 8: What do you think are the benefits and drawbacks (environmental, economic, social) of putting in place closures to protect whelk spawning stocks? 

Views were divided about the effectiveness of this measure.

It was felt that spawning closures, in theory, can benefit the stocks and the species that predate on them. It was felt that it is important to allow whelks to breed at least once before they are removed from the fishery, and therefore local seasonal closures may be beneficial to the stocks.

If spawning closures were to be implemented, it was suggested that they should be done at local level and supported by subsidies or access into alternative, local fisheries. The closure strategy should consider the available evidence and biology of the species in various areas, together with seasonal fluctuations in market demand, to mitigate against negative economic impacts to the sector. It was suggested that spawning closures must only be for potting and not for trawl bycatch fisheries to avoid unintended consequences, such as closing large areas to trawling, which could have socio-economic impacts to the trawl sector. Other views from the fishing sector highlighted the risk of displacement of effort into other areas and other fisheries.

Points were made about the effectiveness of this measure due to the behaviour of the species, such as the non-feeding, ‘ignoring of baited pots’, and burrowing behaviour during spawning, leaving fishing grounds empty of animals. In another part of the country, it was observed that the North Sea weather is such that fishing activity stops at certain times of the year and that affords a good level of protection to the stocks.

There were views presented on the whelk species biology and science underpinning the proposed spawning closures. These views noted that as whelk stocks have been found to contain sub-stocks which may spawn at different times, designing an appropriate closed season could be a difficult task. It was also noted that there are indications that spawning is influenced by water temperature and therefore environmental and climate factors would present additional challenges that would need to be addressed when designing a spawning closure.

Stakeholders including from the catching sector and the IFCAs felt that given the limited knowledge of fine-scale variations in spawning seasonality, it would not be an appropriate measure at any significant scale in the short-term. It was concluded that the scientific evidence to underpin spawning closures as a management tool would need to be strengthened sufficiently to allow for a scientifically informed approach. It was noted that the lack of biological, social, or economic evidence to regulate a seasonal closure should not preclude voluntary seasonal closures being introduced by the industry.

Question 9: Do you agree that the measures that have been prioritised for early action are the right ones and in line with the precautionary approach?

Overall, there was support for the government’s proposals for an adaptive, iterative management approach, with short-, medium- and longer-term measures. There was also strong support for the identified evidence needs and agreement that the government should prioritise the data collection necessary to support the introduction of whelk management measures.

On the specific management measures, a broad range of stakeholders, including inshore fishermen, IFCAs and eNGOs, agreed that, in principle, and while further clarity needs to be provided, the permit or entitlement scheme with conditions has correctly been identified as a priority measure. It was suggested that it should be designed with input and support from relevant bodies and implemented without further delay. In the design of the permit or entitlement scheme, stakeholders urged the government to carefully consider the restrictive nature of this management measure. Issues such as eligibility criteria, data requirements, enabling continuing access for new entrants, limiting the activity of nomadic vessels, ownership of permits, fees and transfer of permit benefits must be taken into consideration.

The proposal to put in place closures to protect whelk spawning stocks was not regarded as a short-term priority, mainly because more analysis is needed on the scientific basis and practical implications to various areas and fleets.

Advice was provided by stakeholders as to which measures should be considered for further development instead. These are summarised below:

• introduce a higher MCRS in English offshore waters, utilising existing evidence and potentially harmonising with higher inshore MCRSs
• limit whelk fishing effort through pot limitation with pot tagging, increased minimum riddle size and REM for enforcement
• restrict the activity of nomadic vessels to outside of the 20nm zone
• consider technical conservation measures such as pot and escape hole designs

Question 10: How would you like to be involved in the delivery of the plan and the future management of the English whelk fishery?

Stakeholders expressed the desire to continue to be involved throughout the planning and delivery stage of the short-term whelk management measures and any longer-term management of the English whelk fishery.

Various organisations also welcomed the opportunity to continue to collaborate in the development and implementation of the whelk FMP and support the government in this work. Stakeholders offered to share advice, relevant datasets, processing data, and a variety of other scientific evidence to improve understanding of the species and support deeper knowledge of the distinct nature of inshore and offshore fleets.

It was highlighted that active fishermen are keen to be involved in further meetings and consultations and to share their knowledge of the whelk fishery. Many fishermen noted time constrains and reluctance to take time away from fishing, as that means loss of income for themselves and their crew. In such cases, it was felt that online or local, face-to-face meetings, with consideration for non-fishing periods and tide times, have worked best, with minimum disruption to active fishermen.

Question 11: Are there any important connections with or links to other fisheries that we should consider when finalising this FMP or during its implementation process? 

Marine and spatial planning issues and their impacts on stocks, foraging grounds and fishing activities have been highlighted as having important links with the whelk FMP. For example, stakeholders noted that a possible reason behind the increased pressure on whelks in certain areas was the presence of significant numbers of spider crabs. This was making it impossible to fish with nets, and meant that netters were moving to whelking to ensure a continued income.

Other links with the crab and lobster FMP and the proposed prohibition on the landing of soft crab for bait were also identified as having potential conflicts with the whelk FMP, for whelk baited pots as well as in the spurdog fishery. However, it was noted that spurdog, squid and spider crab could potentially be used as alternative whelk bait. The prohibition of soft crab for bait should therefore be factored into any proposed additional whelk management and other linked FMPs.

Various other views were offered on the whelk FMP’s interactions with EU vessels and the importance of a joined approach. Similarly, the current fragmented management in the Irish Sea was viewed as particularly problematic for the fishing sector.

Various challenges faced by coastal fishing communities were highlighted. These included poor stocks, lack of opportunities for inshore fishermen, significant difficulties in attracting new entrants and a pronounced reliance on foreign crews, the consolidation of quota into fewer and increasingly foreign hands. There were also comments on the need for the FMP process to consider the smaller scale sector, recognise the importance of English inshore waters to the fleet and communities, and redress the imbalance of opportunities between the coastal fleet and the industrial sector.

Summary of responses to environmental report questions

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

There were fewer comments on the ER than the FMP and although some individuals did respond, most responses were from eNGOs, catching sector organisations such as producer organisations, and fishermen’s associations, IFCAs and other public bodies.

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

Stakeholders suggested additional evidence on regional fisheries inshore management and the low carbon footprint of the whelk fishery should be considered to inform the environmental baseline.

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

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

Stakeholders primarily discussed the positive and negative effects of restricting effort. It was identified that reducing effort through pot limits would benefit both whelk stocks and have a positive effect on the environmental footprint of the fishery. However, restrictions on the whelk fishery could lead to displacement into other static gear fisheries, having a negative effect on vulnerable stocks.

Also, it was suggested that a closed season for potting could lead to negative seabed effects if areas previously occupied by pots are open to trawl and dredge fishing activity.

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?

Suggestions were made to mitigate the effects on the environment. Some stakeholders argued for a consistent application of an ecosystem-based approach to management inside and outside the 6nm zone to minimise damage to marine ecosystems resulting from fishing. Alongside this there was a desire to ensure consistent management of stock and environmental impacts inside and outside of the 6nm zone. Some suggested that this could be achieved by harmonising offshore fishery into all current inshore management regimes.

Finally, it was felt that Defra and the MMO should simplify rules where possible, to make them more manageable.  

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 stakeholders noted they did not have time to read and consider this consultation.

Over half of the stakeholders discussed the environmental impact of the fishery. Several stakeholders acknowledged that the whelk fishery has a limited environmental impact beyond the stock itself. However, some stakeholders agreed that the fishery has the potential to contribute to marine litter as set out in the report.

There was disagreement on the extent of bycatch as an issue in the whelk fishery, with reference to recent trials in the Channel whelk fishery showing low levels of bycatch.

Stakeholders identified the following ways the ER could be improved:

• indicate the strategic environmental assessment (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 a clearer link between issues raised by the assessment and the actions being taken to mitigate them in the FMP
• recommend the FMP considers setting out how the objectives of the FMP will contribute to achieving good environmental status (GES) for the relevant UK Marine Strategy indicators

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

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

In reference to cultural heritage, some stakeholders felt that the whelk fishery itself should be acknowledged and assessed as part of the cultural heritage of fishing ports and coastal communities.

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 will manage how we fish our whelk stocks in English waters so that the full benefits of the fisheries will be available to fishermen and their local communities.

The FMP will prevent over-exploitation, aiming to achieve whelk fisheries that are economically viable over the long term.

We will address our science and evidence gaps to better understand the stocks and the fisheries that depend on them. We will continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders to close those gaps affecting how we manage the fisheries. We will focus on our data-collection programme and improve stock assessments.

In the short term, 1 to 2 years, we will address immediate concerns on the sustainability of stocks by introducing a permit scheme or entitlement with conditions to manage effort in the whelk fisheries.

Over the medium term, 3 to 5 years, we will support the introduction of an increased and, where possible, harmonised minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) in offshore English waters for whelk. We will gather evidence to better understand the impact of seasonal closures, and review pot limits and gear design measures, all with the intention of protecting the whelk stocks and the viability of the whelk fisheries.

Over the longer term, 5 or more years, we will establish how catch limits will be worked out and implemented to achieve our ambitions for sustainable whelk fisheries for future generations.

Introduction

The following sections set out the government’s response to the whelk FMP consultation. We first explain our decisions for this FMP and any changes we plan to make to the plan, followed by a more general response about cross-cutting FMP issues.

The views provided throughout this engagement and consultation were diverse, with a wide range of options within and between interest groups. All have been considered and have helped us develop our understanding of the views of stakeholders and the issues of importance. Some of this input has resulted in changes to the FMPs. Other responses have not, largely because they were more appropriate to be reflected in the implementation stages. A minority of comments were unrealistic or unworkable and, as such, were not taken forward. In this section, we explain why we have taken particular decisions. Given the volume, breadth and detail of stakeholder input, we are not able to provide detailed explanations on all points raised.

This is the first version of the whelk 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 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 FMP also outlines the commitment to take a holistic view and joined-up approach to environmental considerations when implementing new measures across FMPs.

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

We also recognise the concerns raised about consolidation of permits, permits gaining value and markets for permits being created. Learning the lessons from the fishing vessels licensing regime, any whelk permit created would remain in the ownership and control of government or the regulators and would not be tradeable.

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

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

Changes to the whelk FMP following consultation

The need for better data and evidence to build on the existing whelk evidence base is a constant theme in the responses. We noted the need to use existing evidence and to have a consistent reporting mechanism for fishermen to input their fishing data requirements. We propose to continue to develop our understanding of the whelk stocks, and of the various fishing and environmental impacts on them, through additional evidence.

We agree that there should be better recording of catch, and that there may be different approaches to deliver more accurate data, whether in-person on-board observers, REM or other methods, to help improve our understanding of whelk stocks. We propose to consider these further alongside other policy developments and scientific work, and with other emerging FMPs.

Where appropriate, we have also made minor technical changes to the FMP in response to stakeholder input, where we consider the information improves the FMP in terms of consistency with other FMPs, such as in the use of the term MCRS. We have changed the FMP to reflect that.

As highlighted in the responses and coastal meetings, the proposal for a permit or entitlement scheme offers the opportunity to develop a framework for adaptable management and we propose to start work on this soon. We recognise the concerns raised by stakeholders of making the system restrictive to new entrants, limiting flexibility of existing fishermen, and linking the system to eligibility criteria, such as a track reference period. We accept that the detail of this proposal will need to be worked through. All information, evidence and views provided will be considered when we develop this measure. We will engage with stakeholders further and we will consult again before we introduce this measure.

As highlighted in the responses and coastal meetings, opinion was divided on the effectiveness of spawning seasonal closures. Given the limited knowledge in spawning seasonality, it would not be an appropriate measure to prioritise in the short-term. We therefore propose to consider this measure at a later stage when our evidence base has improved. We have changed the whelk FMP to reflect that.

Responses emphasised the need to introduce a higher MCRS in English offshore waters, using existing evidence and potentially harmonising with higher inshore MCRS. We propose to give greater priority to this measure and consider it for further development in the short term. We have changed the whelk FMP to reflect that.

We also note that stakeholders discussed the benefits of a whelk pot limitation scheme to curb whelk fishing effort in offshore waters in a way that is consistent with current inshore management, where appropriate. We believe that there is merit in exploring this further and we propose to do so earlier than originally proposed. We have changed the whelk FMP to reflect that.

The impact of nomadic fishing activity on the whelk stocks was also highlighted in the responses. Although this was not a proposed measure in the whelk FMP, we propose to consider this issue further with relevant stakeholders, but we have not changed the whelk FMP.

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

Read the final version of the whelk fisheries management plan.

Response to broad themes raised by stakeholder engagement during consultation

In this section, we summarise the various cross-cutting FMP themes that emerged through the consultation responses. We explain why we have taken particular decisions. Given the volume, breadth and detail or the responses, we are not able to provide detailed explanations on all points raised. 

Engagement and collaborative working

Most stakeholders were positive about the collaborative approach adopted to develop the whelk FMP and the efforts made by Defra and their delivery partner to engage people in the process. 

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

However, despite that extensive engagement and opportunities for input prior to the drafting of the FMP, and during the formal consultation process, we recognise that some did not feel as included as others in the preparations and initial discussions of the whelk FMP. There were also a few comments about us discriminating against particular sectors, which we do not accept.

We continue to review our engagement. In some areas there was little common ground between or within interests or sectors. This made developing solutions acceptable to all exceedingly challenging. What we have therefore tried to do is chart a reasonable course, by reacting to the constructive responses received and ensuring we are abiding by our legal and international commitments, while balancing environmental, social and economic sustainability. 

We intend to initiate more work across the FMP programme to explore how government, regulators, scientists, industry, other stakeholders, and recreational fishers can work together better in a respectful and constructive way. Both in terms of developing the whelk FMP but also in relation to its implementation. This will include developing a common language about the approaches taken, considering and articulating roles and responsibilities and ways of working better and earlier in processes, and improving communication.

Views were also expressed about a lack of representation across sectors during the development of FMPs. Questions were also raised about the impartiality of the delivery partners chosen to lead on the development of the plans.

The first FMPs were each developed in different ways, allowing us to try new approaches and test how best to develop the plans and engage with stakeholders. Delivery partners worked closely with industry groups and other stakeholders, and we will continue to build on this participatory approach and apply it to FMP development.

This new approach has given fishers a greater role in setting the future management of this fishery, particularly in helping to identify unintended consequences, and securing greater buy-in across their sector. We are confident that the governance and clearance processes in place are robust and ensure that the legal requirements are met, and that the views and needs of stakeholders, and actions to protect stocks and the wider environment, have been considered and incorporated into plans appropriately.

Volumes of material or 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 held 24 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 fishermen, eNGOs, EU member states, retailers and others.

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

Pace of implementation or 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 whelk FMP 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 create unreasonable burdens on the fishing industry.

Application of the precautionary approach

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

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

Collaboration with the EU and compliance with the UK and EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the 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 states and will ensure that our measures are fully compliant with the TCA. The TCA preserves the regulatory autonomy of UK to manage our fisheries (and the EU to manage theirs). Alongside this, the UK will continue to cooperate with the EU on the management of shared stocks, where appropriate. This would be achieved through the development of a multi-year strategy and would require a commitment from both the UK and the EU.

FMP evidence and data

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

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

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

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 the whelk FMP.

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

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

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

We recognise these issues and want to use the whelk FMP to ensure that the whelk fishery is being managed at an appropriate level (for example, by fishery) rather than being influenced by lines on charts. Where appropriate and agreed, this will require cooperation or agreement between regulators, or the EU.

Enforcement of existing regulations

Some stakeholders raised the importance of effective implementation of existing fisheries management regulations as a key area for consideration by the fisheries regulators.

We recognise the importance of the effective and proportionate enforcement of existing regulations. In English waters, Defra will continue to work with the MMO and IFCAs on this area to ensure that concerns raised in the public consultation are addressed.

Government response: environmental report

Introduction

This section sets out the government’s response to the whelk FMP, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) environmental report (ER) consultation.

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

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

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

Undertaking a SEA of the draft whelk 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 whelk 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 whelk FMP and sets out recommendations on how the FMP could reduce the environmental impact of whelk fishing into the future.

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

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

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

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

Question 1. Evidence

Stakeholders suggested that the ER should consider the low carbon footprint of whelk fishery.

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

Stakeholders raised that introducing management that restricts whelk fishing could lead to displacement into other static gear and towed gear fisheries, that could have more detrimental environmental effects. In contrast, it was suggested that limiting pot numbers would have a positive environmental effect by limiting the footprint of the fishery.

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

Question 3. Actions to mitigate environmental effects

Stakeholders wanted to see a consistent approach to managing wider environmental impacts inside and outside the 6nm zone.

Objective 5 in the whelk FMP sets out actions to assess the impacts of whelk fishing activity on the wider marine environment. Harmonisation across jurisdictions will be considered where appropriate, as management interventions are developed.

Question 4. Additional comments

We welcomed the suggestions on where the ER could be improved, particularly around linking the assessment of the FMP’s policies and actions back to the SEA issues or receptors and associated UK MS descriptors. The revised ER has recommended the FMP considers setting out how the objectives of the FMP will contribute to achieving GES for the relevant UKMS descriptors.

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

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

We have amended the ER to make these links. 

Annex 1: List of organisations that did not request confidentiality 

• Association of Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authorities
• Blue Marine Foundation
• CS Shipping Ltd
• Coombe Fisheries
• Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority
• European Commission
• Historic England
• International Transport Workers Federation
• Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee
• Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority
• Leach Fishing
• Macduff Shellfish Ltd
• Marine Conservation Society
• National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
• New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association Ltd
• North Eastern Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority
• Northumberland IFCA
• Office for Environmental Protection
• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation
• South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen
• Southern Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority
• Sussex Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority
• Waterdance
• Western Fish Producers Organisation
• World Wide Fund for Nature

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)