Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 16 December 2025

Introduction 

This document summarises the responses received to the public consultation on the cockle fisheries management plan (FMP) and the associated environmental report. It also sets out the UK government’s response.

Consultations took place at the same time on 4 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 

FMPs are a requirement of the Fisheries Act 2020 (‘the Act’). The Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) for England 2025 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.

Background to the consultation 

The consultation on the cockle FMP was held between 10 October 2024 and 19 January 2025. 

We conducted the consultation:  

• using Citizen Space (an online consultation tool) 

• by email  

• 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 channels.

Overview of responses 

In total, we received 11 direct responses to the consultation: 

• 6 were submitted through the Citizen Space online survey 

• 5 via by email 

The breakdown of responses consisted of: 

• 5 from the catching sector (including individuals)  

• 3 from local government 

• 1 from an environmental organisation 

• 2 other (groups or individuals not already covered) 

Of the 11 responses, 3 were from individuals, and the remaining were on behalf of organisations. A list of organisations who responded to the consultation is set out in annex 1.  

We also held 5 in-person meetings where stakeholders were given the opportunity to discuss the draft 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 

• environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs) 

• scientists 

• academia 

• the EU Commission and EU attachés to the UK 

• others interested in fisheries management 

These engagement events were used as an additional method to seek and record views on the FMP. 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 stakeholders have taken to provide constructive input to help us improve and finalise the FMPs. Stakeholders presented a wide range of diverse and informative views for which we have provided detailed summaries in the sections below .

Stakeholders expressed support for the ambition of the cockle FMP, which recognises the importance of adaptable and flexible local management for cockle fisheries in English waters. The local knowledge of regulators and industry members was seen as crucial for the future survival of cockle stocks and dependent sectors, as well as for the wellbeing of coastal communities.

Regarding the cockle consultation process, views were mixed. While there was support for stakeholder engagement through coastal events, webinars, and industry meetings, there was some criticism of the practical organisation of these events and the numerous and lengthy consultation documents.

The cockle FMP goals and actions were described as clear and appropriate, capturing the needs of the fishery while reflecting stakeholders’ aspirations. Stakeholders provided helpful suggestions for improvement of their scope, delivery and timescales.

Stakeholders noted water pollution, unregulated fisheries and bird predation data as significant challenges to the cockle industry. The cockle sector has provided insights, information and suggestions in addressing these challenges.

The creation of a national cockle forum received some support. The hosting organisation, the scope of membership and form of engagement require further consideration.

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 cockle FMP. Summaries of the responses to these 9 questions are detailed below. Email responses and views from coastal and online meetings have also been summarised in this section.

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the engagement process for developing this draft cockle FMP? 

The fishing sector and eNGOs expressed support for the government’s ambition. Stakeholders, including from the catching sector, regulators and eNGOs, made general observations on the scope of the FMP and offered advice around the need to strike a balance between taking a precautionary approach and maintaining the status quo, while evidence is being gathered. 

There was general recognition amongst the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) and eNGOs that the Association of IFCAs (AIFCA) was the most appropriate representative body to lead the delivery of the cockle FMP.  

The quality of materials to facilitate discussions was noted as good, as was the early engagement carried out by the AIFCA on the scope and objectives of the cockle FMP. Some felt, however, that the lengthy, technical consultation documents may have prevented some stakeholders from understanding the proposed policies and engaging fully with the consultation process. The linguistic challenges of the local, hand-gathering work force, for whom English is not a first language, were also thought to be at the heart of low awareness and engagement in some areas in North West England.

The general level of AIFCA and government engagement with stakeholders during the consultation process (webinars and in-person stakeholder events) was considered thorough, demonstrating quality dialogue with relevant sectors and capturing the key issues of local cockle fisheries. Most stakeholders commented positively on the AIFCA’s inclusive engagement approach. In contrast, others claimed that there had been insufficient stakeholder input as a result of limited membership of the cockle FMP Evidence Group. In some areas it was felt discussions could have been more focused on specific actions and deliverables relevant to the business needs of fishers rather than the more generic FMP objectives and principles.

Stakeholders were also concerned about the low attendance levels at engagement events, and a perceived reluctance to speak openly which may have impacted the information shared and subsequently used to inform the cockle FMP.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on the evidence needs identified in the draft FMP? 

There was consensus that comprehensive evidence was used to support drafting of the cockle FMP, both from broader stakeholder engagement and local datasets from those IFCAs with commercially important cockle fisheries. Additional evidence was offered to support the actions laid out in the draft FMP – for example through the sustainably managed cockle fisheries in the Dee Estuary and Burry Inlet.

The need to improve the FMP evidence base was supported with suggestions for IFCA data on emerging, private and unregulated fisheries to be assessed as a priority - to inform potential measures beyond the 6 nautical miles (nm) zone and in areas not currently managed. Similarly, ensuring contemporary input to the government Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme was highlighted so that fishers’ needs are considered within the context of increasing spatial pressures on cockle fisheries.

The precautionary approach was discussed in the context of insufficient evidence on the environmental effects of suction dredging or hydraulic suction dredging for cockles. In contrast, others questioned the need for a precautionary approach when there is a good scientific understanding of the stock size in most cockle fisheries.

Comments were made on cockles entering the marketplace from unregulated sources with traceability implications. The need to address the discrepancy between national and local fine-scale evidence and data was highlighted as a priority.  

One IFCA noted that the use of the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) Good Fish Guid’ should be treated as outside the scope of the evidence that considers the environmental impacts or sustainability of the fishery within an FMP.  

The need to develop further the evidence around the interactions and impacts on bird and prey availability was supported by Natural England. 

Additional eNGO views noted the need for a consistent publication format of evidence statements for all FMPs. This was to ensure stakeholders have proper access to the available evidence and can comment on the basis of informed shared knowledge.

Question 3: What are your views on the proposed goals for the management of cockle fisheries in English waters? 

There was broad agreement that the proposed goals for cockle management, although high level, were:  

• clear and appropriate to the needs of the fishery  

• reflecting stakeholder aspirations  

• supporting the need to ensure sustainable stocks  

Views from eNGOs varied. Some promoted the benefits of applying the MSC Fisheries Standard to the management of the cockle fishery while others remained concerned about the limited reference to cultural heritage. Others highlighted the lack of specific management measures as a risk to the government’s obligation to meet the Fisheries Act objectives and called for a detailed plan to implement the FMP policies, setting out how they would be achieved . 

The goals of the FMP were broadly supported by Poole Harbour fishers, who highlighted their priorities as expanding both the domestic and international market for their premium product.  

Views varied on the specific goals. For goal 1 (stock sustainability), stakeholders supported the aim to address issues common to all cockle fisheries. Having local management with a strong focus on evidence was seen as one of the foundations of goal 2 (evidence base). However, it was intimated that it lacked reference to managing the fisheries in the context of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and that the interpretation of an ecosystem-based approach was limited.  

It was acknowledged that goal 3 (fishery framework) needs to focus on securing a future for the cockle industry as it faces market challenges in the UK and high export costs. Stakeholders suggested that a strong management framework, coupled with consumer preference for eco-labelled fish and seafood, would make cockle fisheries more sustainable.

Question 4: What are your views on the proposed actions to deliver the goals of the draft cockle FMP? 

Many respondents did not answer the question directly but provided important insights into aspects of local cockle fisheries.  

Most agreed that cockle fisheries around the UK are so distinct and unique from each other that a national plan based on a single approach will not work. It was highlighted that the cockle fishery has the potential for long-term sustainability but that periods of rapid growth or decline create challenges for the sector - uncertainty and income fluctuations. More needs to be done to help the export of cockles while addressing the challenges of water pollution and export certification.

While fishers felt that current local management was appropriate, an eNGO suggested that management for areas beyond IFCA districts where stock and fishery data are limited should be precautionary in line with the Fisheries Act. A national ban on commercial harvesting of cockles outside existing management measures was suggested until further evidence provides a better understanding of the health of the stocks.  

Some responses focused on specific FMP actions with suggestions for better phrasing. There was support for action 1 (goals 1 and 3) and activities around the development of a national, strategic framework to address common cockle management issues such as evidence and data.  

Views varied on action 2 (goals 1 and 2), which looks to develop national mechanisms to detect inshore and offshore emerging fisheries. Some noted that the emergence of an inshore dredge cockle fishery was unlikely, while others highlighted the impact an emerging offshore cockle fishery would have on the sector and the marine environment. Other stakeholders commented on existing MMO management processes being insufficient to classify offshore cockle fisheries.

There was also support for creating a register of private cockle fisheries in English waters, helping to clarify the boundaries of private grounds, and integrating private and public cockle stock management.   

There was strong support for action 3 (goal 2) that proposes to review the data collection framework and evidence base relating to interactions between cockle fisheries and designated bird prey requirements. The importance of continued management at a local level according to the requirements of local cockle fisheries was highlighted, especially within the context of relevant MPA management. It was suggested that this action could be broadened to consider visual disturbance pressures to designated bird species.   

Similarly, action 4 (goals 1, 2 and 3) which focusses on the need to assess the data collection framework for social and economic data used to inform management decisions, had strong support. The alignment of national and local datasets was proposed, alongside the need to better understand employment figures and the balance of trade. The proposal to streamline the shellfish certification process and export certification was also welcomed.

Action 5 which proposes to set up a national cockle forum had variable support. Stakeholders called for greater consideration of associated governance and membership, as well as appropriate policies for the forum to explore beyond the scope of regional management.  

More generally, stakeholders felt actions could be more clearly linked to the need to make better use of existing evidence, and with assigned roles and responsibilities to add more clarity and strength of intent. Others called for committed actions rather than future consideration.

The timeline for implementation was also raised. In particular, the majority of actions are over the long-term, which could lead to delays in purposeful action being taken. The need for clearer prioritisation outlining the steps to be taken, and those responsible to deliver them were noted, to ensure the FMP is meeting the objectives of the Joint Fisheries Statement.

Question 5: If a national cockle forum is established, who needs to be involved in this group?   

Broadly, stakeholders felt that the creation of a national cockle forum could bring opportunities for wider engagement across all cockle sectors, embedding industry knowledge in cockle management . A more joined-up, strategic approach between government and regulators to address common issues was seen as the primary purpose of such a forum. Various existing shellfish groups and regulating bodies were proposed as possible host organisations.

Stakeholders felt that balanced representation with membership spanning all relevant sectors, government, eNGOs and independent academics, will be critical to the success of the forum.

Others argued that a national forum was not necessary in light of existing working groups and IFCA fora for industry members and fishers. As a minimum these stakeholders want to be updated on developments or changes to the cockle fishery, with a preference for online meetings.  

One respondent also proposed that EU stakeholders should be considered as part of the forum’s membership.

Question 6: Do you have any information about private fisheries in your region? 

A number of stakeholders provided names and details of private fisheries. Natural England’s close working relationship with some private fisheries was noted, emphasising the importance of a productive management partnership, especially helpful within the context of concurrent MPAs.

Question 7: Are you aware of any cockle fishing activity outside the 6 nautical mile zone? 

Stakeholders did not provide evidence that cockle fishing is taking place in offshore waters.  

Cockles reaching the marketplace from unregulated fishing grounds was mentioned as presenting a risk to the viability of the industry and to public health. It was unclear from the responses if such unregulated fishing grounds are found in inshore or offshore areas.

Question 8: Do you have any additional comments on the draft FMP? 

A number of positive comments were made on the draft FMP with suggestions on how certain aspects could be improved. The FMP summary provided in the consultation document was considered helpful in understanding the FMP although the length of the FMP itself was a concern.

Some stakeholders felt the scope of the FMP was limited. They were keen for other bivalve species such as manila and razor clams to be included. Some expressed concern about the risk of cockle fishers being overwhelmed by increasing local management. There were also calls for government to improve the export certification process to facilitate the export of live cockles.

Concerns were also raised regarding the impact on the viability of cockle fisheries of:  

• offshore wind farm construction  

• new MPAs 

• climate change 

• increasing water temperature 

• storms and other natural events  

In addition, sediment issues and sewage outflows specifically impacting the Poole cockle fishery were mentioned.

Question 9: Do you have any comments on the assessment of the environmental effects of the draft FMP, as set out in the environmental report?  

Stakeholders acknowledged the comprehensive information used to inform the environmental report, and the proportionate approach to managing impacts of the cockle fishery on MPAs. The evidence base was considered sufficient to support the outcomes of the report, although more specific information on certain issues could have been used to support conclusions.

The positive and negative effects of the cockle fishery on its immediate environment were considered very high level by some stakeholders. 

It was noted that in terms of scope, the current assessment focuses on understanding environmental impacts from fishing activities. However, it could usefully consider how environmental factors such as changes in water quality and impacts from non-fishing activities may affect the cockle fishery.

Further suggestions were to:  

• consider the interactions with other bivalve species, such as clams and mussels

• address other environmental pressures on these bivalve stocks, such as sedimentation or sewage outflows 

The IFCAs also highlighted the cockle fishery’s interaction with MPAs.

Government response: FMP 

Stakeholder views were diverse, with a wide range of differing opinions across all groups. We have considered all views provided, using these to:

• develop our understanding of the important issues that affect stakeholders

• make changes to the FMP where appropriate 

Some changes will be more appropriately made during the implementation stages.  

In this section, we explain why we have taken certain decisions. Given the volume, breadth and detail of stakeholder input, we cannot provide detailed explanations on all points raised.

Overview 

This is the first iteration of the cockle FMP. It sets out the first steps and long-term vision for the sustainable management of the fishery. The plan will take time to implement and is intended to be reviewed and improved over time as we collaborate with various regulators, the fishing sector and wider interests on the sustainable management of the cockle fisheries.

The FMP also outlines the commitment of fisheries policy authorities to take a holistic view and joined-up approach to considering environmental issues when implementing new measures across FMPs.

Based on the consultation responses, we are reassured that the cockle FMP sets out the foundations for an appropriate national framework that continues to support local management practices, helping to achieve economically viable cockle fisheries over the long-term.

At consultation we tested the following key proposals: 

• consider creation of a national cockle forum 

• develop understanding of emerging fisheries, either inshore or offshore 

• develop understanding of private fisheries 

Following the constructive steer from stakeholders, we will consider the introduction of a national cockle forum to develop a programme of work based on the FMP’s actions and activities to:

• address our science and evidence needs to understand better the stocks and the fisheries that depend on them and improve our data-collection programmes 

• continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders and regulators to improve how we manage the cockle fisheries 

• continue to develop our understanding of emerging and unregulated fisheries, either inshore or offshore and of private fisheries where wild cockle fisheries are found

We recognise the concerns raised about a ‘one-national-size-fits-all’ approach to cockle management. We agree that such an approach is not appropriate for a fishery characterised by local stocks predominantly in inshore waters and harvested with various fishing methods.

We also listened to concerns raised around:  

• specific local management approaches 

• additional bureaucratic burden 

• market and export obstacles  

• unresolved water quality issues  

We agree that such issues are best addressed:  

• with local regulators and appropriate government departments  

• building on the knowledge and support of local fishers and other relevant stakeholders  

• with the additional support and coordination from the national cockle forum, once established

We agree that any outputs from work undertaken to support the cockle FMP goals, actions and activities should seek to complement existing local practices.

Changes to the FMP following consultation  

Minor drafting changes have been made in response to stakeholder feedback, including clarification of the language in certain parts of the FMP.

In response to questions on what is meant by ecosystem-based management, we have clarified in the FMP that this approach is based on the definition set out in the Fisheries Act 2020.  

Other comments made related to recently observed impacts on cockle fisheries as a direct result of rising sea temperatures. We have therefore included under action 1 an additional evidence need on gathering information relating to climate change impacts to cockle fisheries. This will better inform an ecosystem-based approach to cockle management.

Policy goal 1 has been redrafted in recognition of stakeholder views that current management approaches should continue to be at the heart of local cockle fisheries management. We also wanted to reflect that our policy is to maintain long term environmentally sustainable stock levels and support current management approaches that safeguard cockle fisheries from overexploitation, while allowing scope for further management intervention, as appropriate.

Lastly, we have addressed a concern that a third-party sustainability assessment methodology used in the FMP does not fully reflect the objectives of the Fisheries Act. We have added further explanatory text and removed current rating links which are subject to change.

Proposed changes we are not making 

In this iteration of the cockle FMP, we are not proposing management measures. We have explained in the FMP that the IFCAs have a legislative framework with adaptive management approaches at the scale relevant to their local cockle fisheries. Such management approaches consider stock status, fishing opportunities and wider environmental obligations. We have not changed the FMP.

This FMP sets out cockle-specific goals and actions that propose to address the need for a national framework to provide clarity about the expectations the government has for the management of cockle fisheries in English waters.

We accept stakeholder comments around the need for a coherent plan with reassessed and defined timescales and roles and responsibilities detailing how specific actions and activities will be implemented. We maintain that this is an action for the national cockle forum to consider and take forward, once it is established. We therefore have not changed the FMP.

There are suggestions of: 

• precautionary management for future cockle fisheries beyond IFCA districts where there is sufficient data on the stocks  

• a national prohibition of commercial harvesting where there is no data 

We maintain that we do not have any data on cockle fishing activities beyond IFCA districts that would allow us to assess the needs of the fishery and consider introducing management intervention. The consultation responses have not given us sufficient evidence, nor have they specified any areas where such fishing activity may occur.

We agree that we need to gather more data on offshore cockle fishing activities, and we have identified this as an evidence need which the national cockle forum can explore. Until such data begins to emerge, we maintain that introducing a national prohibition to a fishery that does not appear to exist, based on our current data and industry intelligence, will only complicate the legislative landscape of the cockle fishery and that of other collocated bivalve fisheries.  

We also maintain that a precautionary approach for a stock that has a short-lived natural cycle and is highly vulnerable to environmental factors and weather events needs to be proportionate to the needs of the fishery and the sector. We therefore have not changed the FMP.

A comment was made on the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) approach in the cockle FMP. We have made it clear in the FMP that we are not seeking to establish MSY for cockle stocks. Assessing cockle stocks through MSY is not considered suitable for this species due to the:

• very high natural mortality 

• extremely variable recruitment 

• spatial characteristics of cockle populations 

We have also explained in the FMP that those IFCAs with cockle fisheries have developed other management approaches to ensure stock sustainability. For example, the rule of thirds aims to allow:  

• one-third of the biomass for harvesting  

• one-third as food for birds and other marine species 

• one-third to restock the cockle population 

There is also the catch-per-unit-effort approach.  

These management approaches take into account interactions with collocated bivalve fisheries. They also ensure management is consistent with environmental obligations, particularly in relation to migratory, overwintering birds which rely on cockles for food.  

It was suggested that action 3 could be further broadened to consider visual disturbance pressures to designated bird species. We maintain that this is an issue for the national cockle forum to consider and have not changed the FMP.

Consistent wording of FMP actions and firmer commitment beyond mere consideration was called for. However, this wording was intentional to enable further policy development and consideration with relevant stakeholders once the national cockle forum is established.

A concern was expressed that implementation of the FMP’s long-term actions could be delayed relative to short-term actions in other FMPs. It was suggested that they should be reclassified as medium to long-term. We accept this comment but maintain that the delivery timescales of the actions will be revisited by the national cockle forum, when it is established. We therefore have not changed the FMP.  

In summary, in this iteration of the cockle FMP and based on views from the consultation process, we will consider the introduction of a national cockle forum. The ambition is for the forum to develop a programme of work based on the FMP’s actions to deliver the wider goals of the cockle FMP .

In considering the introduction of the national cockle forum, we will engage with regulators and relevant stakeholders to develop the policy thinking. This will include discussions of:  

• what the forum will bring to cockle fisheries  

• how it could support delivery of the objectives in the cockle FMP  

We also need to consider carefully who will support the forum to deliver its programme of work. As there are various working groups and other stakeholder fora already in existence, we need to understand how a national cockle forum will interact with these existing groups.

It is important to ensure the FMP will be delivered as planned while avoiding duplication of work and resources.

Various views were provided on a possible host organisation. We will consider carefully which host organisation is best placed to take this work forward. 

We have now published the final version of the cockle fisheries management plan (FMP).

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

We are grateful to the fishing sector and wider stakeholders for engaging with our process to develop the FMPs.  

While stakeholder views on the engagement process for developing the FMPs varied, many recognised the significant efforts that went into engaging stakeholders, However, it was generally felt that it could have been better. Notably, the UK General Election in 2024 necessitated a hiatus in development and engagement.

The collaborative approach taken was valued by most respondents. There was some criticism that the process prioritised the fishing sector in some instances, leading to inherent bias in the FMPs.  

There was little common ground between or within interests or sectors on the preferred engagement method. Some favoured tailored engagement while others sought a fully collaborative approach. While we aim to find a balance across sectors with frequently variable views, we recognise there is scope to bring some sectors into the process at an earlier stage, ensuring genuine collaboration.

A clear message from many respondents was recognising the importance of enabling those with a stake in fisheries to participate in the management of those fisheries. We are committed to working with the fishing sector and wider interests to co-design FMP policies and measures. We acknowledge that a greater role in decision making carries shared responsibility for ensuring we are abiding by our legal and international commitments, and are balancing environmental, social and economic sustainability along with the other objectives.

Additionally, as part of ongoing work to explore how we continue to develop and implement a collaborative approach to FMPs and fisheries management more widely, we held an engagement pilot in Cornwall in October 2024. This bought together commercial fishers, regulators and government to discuss key fisheries issues, including FMPs. We are considering future opportunities to engage a broader range of stakeholders and different areas of the country.

Some stakeholders cited ‘FMP fatigue’ as an issue and sought more streamlined communication across plans. We welcome continued engagement with the FMP development process by all interested stakeholders. It is impractical for government and regulators to engage individually with all those with an interest. It is also impractical for all individuals to engage with us. In recognition of the resource constraints highlighted by most respondents, we encourage sectors to consider how to organise themselves into representative groups to feed views into the wider FMP programme, thereby reducing the associated burden of engagement.

We continue to review our engagement. Building on work initiated last year, we have improved communication across the FMP programme. We launched an FMP blog in May 2024, bringing the latest FMP developments and engagement information together on a single accessible platform with regular updates.

Many respondents called for continued participation through to the implementation phase of the FMPs. Stakeholder involvement and ongoing collaboration underpins successful delivery of the FMPs and will continue into the implementation phase.

Consultation process and documentation 

Many respondents criticised the number of FMP consultations. Combined with other policies relevant to the fisheries sector, they create an overwhelming engagement burden, leading to calls for a coordinated approach across government.

While we recognise the resource impacts for industry and wider stakeholders, the formal consultation process gives all interested parties the opportunity to give their views and help shape the developing FMPs. This is in line with the co-design principle supported by most stakeholders, while also recognising the guidelines for public consultations and our statutory requirements.

As mentioned above, efforts to find common ground and form representative organisations within or across sectors is encouraged to help minimise the resource burden. Moreover, we would be interested to understand from stakeholders their views on streamlining engagement on fisheries management issues more generally.

Some respondents felt the consultations lacked sufficient scientific evidence to support the main consultation documents. Our consultation approach is designed to be transparent and provide evidence and supporting material to help stakeholders provide informed responses. It follows extensive engagement and informal consultation prior to the draft FMPs being developed.

We learned valuable lessons from the consultation process on the first set of FMPs in 2023. In response to stakeholder feedback, we adopted a different approach, aiming to strike a better balance between:  

• the volume of consultation documentation  

• ensuring stakeholders have sufficient information to engage meaningfully with the consultation process

We reduced the overall volume of material and the number of consultation questions. We incorporated evidence directly supporting the proposed goals or measures into each plan. We published the more detailed evidence statement during the consultation period, so those who want further background information can read it.  

We acknowledge doing this in parallel with launching the consultation would have been more beneficial for some respondents and will make this happen in future consultations.

Inconsistent language across FMP documentation was raised as an issue by some stakeholders, making it difficult to understand the rationale for proposed measures or timescales for delivery. We acknowledge that FMP terminology has been variable and are working to simplify where possible, as well as ensure greater consistency across the FMPs and all future plans.

Consultation is an ongoing process. Our aim is to strike a balance between formal and informal consultation activity that allows those impacted by the policies to meaningfully engage in the process. We will continue to consider different approaches in future, as well as how much information is published at various stages.

Implementation and pace of change  

In December 2024, following public consultation, there had been changes to scientific advice and a pause in work resulting from the 2024 UK General Election. As a result, we took the decision to amend the timescales for FMP production and publication contained in annex A of the JFS.

Some respondents expressed a strong desire for clearer commitments, as well as more specific and faster timescales for delivery of actions. This issue was raised in earlier FMP consultations and changes made accordingly to deliver some key changes more quickly. However, this has led to fresh concerns about the impacts of delivering change too quickly on the fishing industry. Those concerns include a need for continued stakeholder involvement in designing FMP measures. We have therefore:  

• balanced views against resources  

• recognised that too much change would not be deliverable or could create unreasonable burdens on the fishing sector 

Many of the actions in the FMPs are to gather more data and consider options. This is because most of the plans cover non quota stocks which have little management and are data poor. This requires new evidence to ensure appropriate measures are introduced that are based on the best available scientific advice. We are learning continuously, and changes will be made to fisheries management by implementing the FMP actions. The FMPs will be reviewed at least every 6 years.  

We are working collaboratively with sector representatives to define how best to deliver the goals of published FMPs. This approach will continue during the implementation phase of these plans.  

Some stakeholders raised the issue of remote electronic monitoring (REM) and were keen for it to be mandatory to help with monitoring and compliance of FMPs. We are considering collaborative and innovative ways of gathering and using data, including technologies such as REM.

Cumulative impacts 

There were questions raised about:  

• the cumulative impacts of FMP measures, both within and across the plans  

• overlap with other policies and activities in the marine environment, contributing to spatial pressures on the fishing sector  

FMPs are designed to appropriately balance impacts, being mindful of maintaining economic viability without jeopardising the sustainable long-term recovery of stocks or delivery of a healthy marine environment for all sectors. Impacts are considered as plans are developed, ensuring they are deliverable.

As those plans are implemented further, we will consider the cumulative impacts of measures. Our collaborative approach to delivering FMPs will help the fishing sector contribute information on activities and impacts to be used in co-designing management actions. 

We have heard very clearly the concerns about increasing spatial pressures. We continue to talk to the fishing industry and wider government about these issues. The cross-government Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme continues to engage with various sectors to discuss potential barriers and solutions to co-location.
. Our FMPs recognise that displacement of fishing effort can result from the introduction of spatial, and other, restrictions. To address this, we have included actions to monitor and, where applicable, mitigate displacement and its social, economic and environmental impacts. FMPs allow for adaptive management and so can take changes in evidence or wider use of the seas into account in their implementation.

Application of the precautionary approach

Respondent views on the application of the precautionary approach varied between and within sectors. Some called for management measures of data poor stocks to be prioritised. Others were concerned about the risk of potential social and economic impacts in its application. Questions were raised about the process for developing precautionary management measures, particularly within mixed fisheries, and how stakeholders would be involved.

In line with the Fisheries Act, FMPs set out policies and measures to manage stocks sustainably. These are based on the best available scientific advice and using a precautionary approach where there is insufficient data. Lack of data is not a reason to not act or postpone the implementation of effective management measures that will conserve a stock or its environment. Decisions on precautionary management measures must be balanced and proportionate alongside the other fisheries objectives. This approach will also take account of wider responsibilities, including international agreements.  

In response to feedback, we have strengthened the language in the FMPs, making clearer the factors used to determine precautionary measures. Our aim is to work with the fishing sector and wider stakeholders to develop and agree the right precautionary measures to proportionately manage the risks and ensure fish stocks are sustainable into the future.

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

A number of EU respondents raised the importance of ensuring sufficient engagement opportunities in the FMP development process, and at an early stage. While membership of working groups established to develop the draft FMPs appropriately consisted of UK stakeholders, plans are required to go through a public consultation giving all interested parties the opportunity to provide their views.

It is still important and valuable to work closely with other coastal states on fisheries management, particularly for shared stocks. We are working with the EU to pilot: 

• new ways of working FMPs at earlier stages of development  

• implementation of published plans 

This will strengthen cooperation and our collaborative relationship. 

EU stakeholders were keen for measures to be developed through the Specialised Committee on Fisheries (SCF), to harmonise fisheries management and make implementation more effective. Some of our domestic stakeholders encouraged us to recognise the transboundary nature of fisheries and work collaboratively with coastal states.

While it is not a requirement to discuss FMPs at the SCF (or for the EU to discuss their policies), we will continue to cooperate with the EU on the management of shared stocks. For example, the UK and EU will discuss a multi-year strategy for king scallops, and we will continue to engage with the EU during the development and implementation of FMPs which will affect EU vessels. 

EU stakeholders were also concerned that proposed measures might affect access arrangements agreed under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), strongly emphasising the principles of:  

• cooperation 

• proportionality 

• non-discrimination  

• using best available scientific evidence to manage stocks sustainably 

The TCA preserves the regulatory autonomy of the UK to manage our fisheries while ensuring that the interests of the EU and vessels of member states are properly considered. FMPs have been developed to ensure the UK complies with its obligations under the TCA, including during the implementation phase, when proposed measures may be taken forward.  

A few respondents disputed our application of the precautionary principle, and the interpretation of best available scientific advice under the TCA. It is right to pursue policies and consider the introduction of measures to protect stocks. The FMPs have been designed to balance the requirements of the Fisheries Act along with the UK’s international obligations, including those in the TCA. This includes basing measures on the best available scientific advice and adopting the precautionary approach where appropriate.

Additionally, FMPs allow us to introduce bespoke, evidence based and adaptive management.

FMP evidence and data  

Most respondents were positive about the approach to developing an evidence pathway that promotes collaboration between industry, academia and fisheries managers to address evidence gaps. We will continue with this approach.

We acknowledge the substantial amount of evidence that needs to be collected to fill existing gaps. We also acknowledge the questions raised about:  

• government’s ability to address those evidence gaps 

• timelines for delivery  

• making FMP evidence more accessible to the fishing industry 

We are starting to address some of the highest priority gaps through Defra funded research projects. This includes:  

• improving data collection and stock assessment methods 

• exploring sustainable fishing practises and management tools  

• improving the social and economic evidence base of FMPs  

FMPs are a priority for fisheries funding. The Fisheries and Seafood Scheme (FaSS), provides financial assistance for projects that support the development of the catching, processing and aquaculture sectors, and for projects that enhance the marine environment. The latest round of funding announced on 9 June will support projects in the 2025 to 2026 financial year, covering science fisheries partnerships. Projects will be required to collect data to address evidence gaps identified in FMPs.

However, it will not be possible or appropriate for government to fund all the evidence gaps identified across the FMP programme. Prioritisation of FMP evidence gaps continues alongside looking at innovative ways to fill those gaps, including for example remote electronic monitoring. Where evidence gaps identified in these FMPs are prioritised, timeframes may be bought forwards.

We continue working with the fishing sector and wider stakeholders to support the delivery of evidence requirements. An event held in March explored the future direction of collaborative science for FMPs. It included a call subsequently issued to industry and wider stakeholders, seeking their help to provide the evidence required to support the phased approach of FMP delivery and implementation.

Some stakeholders were keen for the scientific advice used to inform the development of management measures to be more clearly evidenced in the FMPs. Others emphasised the importance of adhering to the TCA principle of using the best available scientific advice and collaboration with EU scientific bodies. 

There were also a few comments about FMPs not contributing to the ICES scientific advice benchmarking process which appear to have been misunderstood. UK scientists make a significant contribution at all levels of its advisory process, including on the science and advisory committees and through participation in expert groups. We continue to determine FMP policies and management measures informed by the best available scientific advice, including that from ICES.

A number of respondents felt the FMPs could be strengthened by the addition of harvest control rules (HCRs) or harvest strategies based on alternative biomass reference points. In line with the Fisheries Act, the overarching harvest strategy for all FMPs is for fisheries to be managed sustainably. FMP harvest strategies can include appropriate HCRs which will require a sufficient level of data and understanding of a stock to be developed and implemented.

Government response: environmental report 

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

Stakeholder responses have been considered, and the cockle FMP environmental report has been updated. These updates have been considered in the revised FMP. The full environmental report has been published alongside the FMP.

Changes to the environmental report following consultation 

A concern was raised that the cockle FMP environmental report had no mention of the potential negative impacts on the stock and environment that could occur due to:  

• the lack of a precautionary approach 

• the long timeframe before data collection is finalised 

• lack of any short-term management measures for unassessed fisheries or areas 

We acknowledge the evidence gap of cockle fishing activity outside of MPAs and have developed a goal (goal 2) to gather evidence to better understand cockle fishing activity in these areas. This will mean a precautionary approach to future measures can be taken. That will ensure potential impacts on stocks and the environment are identified, monitored and managed appropriately.

Other comments were that the report lacked reference to:  

• the annual Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) undertaken with regards to impacts on MPAs  

• the atypical mortality affecting cockle stocks in The Wash, which is itself the subject of investigation with Cefas 

We accept the point related to HRA reference and have added in the environmental report that The Wash cockle fishery is subject to an annual HRA to assess the impact of the fishery on MPA features. 

With regards to the point raised on the cockle atypical mortality in The Wash, we acknowledge that this is not included in the environmental report. We maintain the view that The Wash atypical mortality is outside of the scope of the report as it explores issues that are not related to fishing activity impacts.

Annex 1: List of organisations that did not request confidentiality 

• Blue Marine Foundation  

• Comité régional des pêche maritime et des élevages marins Hauts-de-France  

• Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority 

• Kent and Essex IFCA  

• Marine Stewardship Council 

• National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations 

• North Wales Fresh Fish  

• Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority  

• SY Shellfish Ltd 

Annex 2: List of FMP consultation engagement meetings 

• Carnforth: 31 October 2024 

• Sutton Bridge: 4 November 2024 

• Leigh-on-Sea: 18 November 2024  

• Online webinar: 21 November 2024  

• Poole: 2 December 2024