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 North Sea and Channel sprat fisheries management plan (FMP) and the associated environmental report. It also sets out the government’s response.

Consultation 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 North Sea and Channel sprat FMP was held between 10 October 2024 and 19 January 2025. 

The consultation was conducted:

• 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 of these channels.

Overview of responses

In total, 23 direct responses to the consultation were received: 

• 18 were submitted through the Citizen Space online survey 

• 5 by email 

The breakdown of responses consisted of: 

• 3 from the catching sector (individual) 

• 4 from the catching sector (non-individual) 

• 2 from the processing sector 

• 3 from producer organisations 

• 2 from local government 

• 2 from recreational sea fishing 

• 5 from environmental organisations 

• 2 from other (groups or individuals not already covered)

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

We held 2 in-person meetings where stakeholders were given the opportunity to discuss the draft FMP. 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. 

A list of engagement meetings is included in Annex 2. 

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 alongside 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. A wide range of diverse and informative views were presented for which we have provided detailed summaries in the sections below.

Overall, there was broad support from stakeholders for the sprat FMP. The majority of respondents were supportive of the proposed goals and actions, with many noting that current evidence gaps are limiting effective management. Respondents recognised that sprat fishing in the UK has undergone a decline in recent years and there is now very minimal fishing activity.

Many stakeholders welcomed the commitment to consider factors which may be influencing the economic viability of the sprat fishery in UK waters. Respondents also recognised that sprat is currently being exploited at levels capable of achieving maximum sustainable yield (MSY) but some eNGO stakeholders suggested we should take additional more precautionary steps, in order to further protect sprat.

Summary of responses to FMP questions

As part of the consultation, stakeholders were asked 6 questions via Citizen Space, which allowed them to express their views on the content of the proposed North Sea and Channel Sprat FMP. Summaries of the responses to these 6 questions are detailed below. Email responses and views from coastal meetings have also been summarised in this section. 

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

Stakeholder views were mixed. A number of industry stakeholders acknowledged the efforts to engage when developing the FMP and suggested a stakeholder group similar to other FMPs, be set up as part of implementation. In contrast, other respondents had concerns about the cost implications of attending consultation meetings. Further engagement with markets, buyers and processors to understand evidence gaps around economic viability of the sprat fishery was proposed.

While Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) felt engagement captured key issues, they suggested industry involvement in data gathering should be explored to facilitate a co-development approach. They also noted that fishers from The Wash had not been specifically consulted and noted the important historical sprat fishery in that area. ENGO stakeholders highlighted the importance of co-management when developing FMPs but did not feel they were engaged sufficiently on the sprat FMP compared with other stakeholder groups.

They suggested the FMP should include an engagement plan covering implementation. Another suggestion was for FMP consultations to be staggered in future to give more time to fully engage, as well as clarity on whether a framework exists for stakeholder engagement around FMP development.

EU respondents noted generally low confidence in the engagement process among the European catching and processing sector and felt Defra does not take account of the science put forward in consultation responses. They recommended earlier engagement with the FMP process and suggested that the Specialised Committee on Fisheries (SCF) be used as a forum to discuss specific measures.

They recommended earlier engagement with the FMP process and suggested that the SCF be used as a forum to discuss specific measures.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on the evidence used in the FMP? 

Views across stakeholder groups acknowledged the current evidence gaps identified in the FMP for the sprat fishery, which may limit effective management.

Industry noted both sprat stocks are being fished sustainably but raised concerns about the lack of EU fleet data, given they account for the majority of catches. It was suggested this absence may limit the success of goal 1. Others recommended the use of remote electronic monitoring (REM) to improve gaps in data.

Industry also queried the evidence presented, calling for a qualitative analytical approach to the stock assessment for 7de sprat. Greater clarity on the schooling habits of adult and juvenile sprat (year-round or during spawning) and growth rate accuracy was sought, as well as evidence for declining growth rates.

Others recommended the use of fisheries and science partnerships to address evidence gaps.

Some eNGOs suggested more recent data was available, noting additional sources including academic reports to consider. They also suggested including more detail on the unpredictability of the stock as a result of climate change and to prioritise predator-specific data in stock assessments, to gain better ecosystem understanding and ensure long term sustainability.

They supported using International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) evidence and recommended ICES are requested to elevate the stock assessment to Category 1. They also called for the inclusion of harvest control rules (HCRs) as a mechanism to ensure biomass levels are maintained. Others suggested that gathering data on marine protected area (MPA) impacts beyond site boundaries should be a focus of the FMP. 

IFCAs noted they do not collect data specific to sprat. It was also suggested that fishing effort is likely to be underestimated due to the lack of sales notes and that low activity in the region means there is a smaller evidence base for risks to cetaceans and seabirds.

EU stakeholders were generally supportive of the evidence presented in the draft FMP but did raise concerns about the delay in publication of the evidence statement.

Question 3: Do you have any comments on the goals in the draft FMP?

Respondents were generally supportive of the goals but suggested they could be strengthened. Industry stakeholders highlighted that currently there is no sprat fishery in the Channel, and the FMP should focus on understanding the changes to the fishery with a view to re-establishing it.

The inshore sector was supportive of the general approach, with a particular interest in goal 4. ENGO concerns centred on the goals being vague and unmeasurable, suggesting that the goals should be time-bound with indicators to enable monitoring of progress.

EU respondents generally considered the FMP goals to be comprehensive and balanced. They reiterated the importance of using robust scientific evidence and ICES methodologies, emphasising the importance of compliance with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). They suggested utilising the SCF for discussions on technical measures.

A further suggestion was for Defra to consider habitat changes due to climate change to safeguard nursery or spawning grounds. 

Goal 1: Harvest sprat stocks sustainably, with biomasses maintained above the level capable of producing MSY 

Some stakeholders suggested that setting fishing opportunities at MSY does not go far enough to maximise social and economic benefits. To ensure stock resilience, biomass must be significantly above a level that enables the fish stock to deliver a maximum sustainable yield.

They were concerned that ICES’ MSY advice does not consider rebuilding the stock and suggested using alternative harvesting strategies such as maximum sustainable economic yield and ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Most eNGOs were supportive but raised concerns about the status of the stock, suggesting a more precautionary approach. Others suggested greater ecosystem consideration is undertaken. They sought commitment to determine fishing opportunities on the basis of ecosystem-based and recovery-focused advice and, in the absence of this advice, setting precautionary limits well below ICES headline advice.

Achieving this goal without time-bound recovery targets and HCRs was a concern. It was suggested ICES be requested to assess HCRs. Others raised concerns about implementation given that total allowable catches (TACs) may be set above advice in international negotiations. They suggested the FMP should incorporate comprehensive bycatch strategies to reduce sensitive species bycatch and align with discards reform and REM policy.

Industry reiterated concerns about the lack of EU activity data potentially affecting the ability to achieve this goal. Some commented it will be difficult to achieve without an active fishery and work should be done to establish why only smaller fish are being caught. 

Goal 2: Identify and address evidence gaps required for improved stock assessments 

While supportive of the goal, industry stakeholders noted a lack of detail on the funding required to address evidence gaps for improved stock assessments. ENGOs were similarly supportive but wanted to see greater ambition and noted concerns about evidence gaps being used as justification for delaying delivery.

EU stakeholders welcomed suggestions to improve stock assessments.

Goal 3: Identify ecosystem-based fisheries management approaches appropriate to sprat fisheries 

Industry stakeholders were supportive of this goal but raised concerns that its achievement requires a thriving industry which means addressing the root causes of low activity in the Channel and North Sea.

ENGOs were strongly supportive of this goal, noting the importance of sprat as a prey species. Individual views varied, with suggestions that there is scope for more concrete ecosystem-based actions. How the plan helps achieve Good Environmental Status was also queried.

EU stakeholders suggested that ecosystem approaches should be complementary to single stock management principles. They also felt that deviating from ICES-advised sustainable exploitation rates could undermine TCA commitments. One stakeholder noted that progress has already been made towards this goal with the commissioning of ecosystem modelling to consider the ecosystem role of sprat.

Goal 4: Deliver a framework to support the role of the FMP in realising sustainable marine economies 

While industry stakeholders were strongly supportive of this goal, they want to see re-establishment of the fishery included, noting the importance of understanding market drivers and supply chain issues.

Contrary to the draft FMP, it was suggested that there is market demand for Channel sprat, and the fishery is inactive due to difficulties locating shoals large enough to exploit. Others believe the fishery is unlikely to survive without a reduction in drift net minimum size to around 25mm, suggesting the current mesh size requirements ‘killed’ the inshore small vessel sprat fishery. 

EU stakeholders generally welcomed this goal, noting technical measures should be discussed in the SCF. 

The inshore sector also supported this goal, noting its importance to the South East region. One respondent suggested more quota could be given to inshore boats to help support inshore fishers.

ENGOs were generally supportive, although one cautioned against undue weight being given to commercial or economic considerations. They also highlighted the importance of a healthy marine environment for sustainable marine economies, with an ecosystem-based approach supporting this goal.

Goal 5: Develop strategies to adapt to the impact of climate change on sprat fisheries 

One respondent suggested this goal should focus on the effect climate change is having on the sprat stock, rather than on the fishery, as there is not currently a sprat fishery.

ENGOs welcomed consideration of the impacts of climate change on sprat but suggested the goal should be more ambitious and timebound. Another suggested consideration of climate change mitigations to address impacts may not be feasible.

Question 4: Do you have any comments on the possible actions in the draft FMP?

Stakeholders had mixed views on the proposed actions, with many suggesting they are vague and should be more ambitious, measurable and timebound.

There were strong views on the importance of REM to better understand bycatch and fill evidence gaps.

ENGOs called for REM implementation to be accelerated in the short-term, and to be mandatory. Industry stakeholders questioned the level of resource allocated to FMP delivery, favouring prioritisation of plans covering more economically important stocks.

EU stakeholders were generally supportive, highlighting the importance of TCA compliance, using the best available advice and considering the impacts of climate change. There was a desire to see the cumulative impacts of measures fully considered alongside other management such as MPAs.

Goal 1: Harvest sprat stocks sustainably, with biomasses maintained above the level capable of producing MSY 

EU stakeholders agreed with the action of determining fishing opportunities using the best available advice. They suggested that the precautionary approach is appropriate as long as it is guided by ICES methodologies.

The inshore sector suggested the approach to goal 1 should be adaptive to increased evidence and data collaboration with industry in the event a fishery develops. One eNGO stakeholder suggested including a provision for scenarios where a TAC is agreed internationally for sprat above MSY.

Goal 2: Identify and address evidence gaps required for improved stock assessments 

There was a suggestion from industry that the exploration of ecosystem dynamics should include predator dynamics, in the Channel and their impact on sprat.

Goal 3: Identify ecosystem-based fisheries management approaches appropriate to sprat fisheries 

Industry stakeholders were supportive of fisheries-science partnership schemes to develop a scientific fishery, to retain expertise and build data, suggesting there is no incentive to collect data without a scientific fishery.

Another suggestion was to close the fishery if there is little economic benefit, to provide prey for other species. 

There was consensus among eNGOs that the short-term actions for goal 3 lack detail on implementation. It was recommended that the degree to which predators are dependent on sprat is considered in the short-term.

They also suggested there is scope for more concrete ecosystem-based actions, such as: 

• nursery area protection 

• development of predator-oriented or ecological reference points such as F-eco that account for wider ecosystem considerations 

• the use of Management Strategy Evaluations 

Requesting ICES to conduct an assessment of non-target species, environmental impacts, and ecosystem services was another suggestion.

The use of REM to inform a comprehensive understanding of sensitive species bycatch and to fill evidence gaps was raised while noting unambitious wording of the FMP and slow roll-out.

Goal 4: Deliver a framework to support the role of the FMP in realising sustainable marine economies 

Industry suggested more work is needed to understand the economics of the fishery, and the actions should be strengthened under goal 4 to emphasise their importance. The FMP should focus on understanding why there is no fishery. Stakeholders emphasised that any future data collection programmes should include biological, ecological, social, economic data. 

The inshore sector also recommended the benefits of fishing and tourism be considered as part of a natural capital approach and suggested the FMP considers including a distinction between the small-scale inshore fisheries and larger offshore fisheries when assessing economic opportunity. 

There was a suggestion that drift netting is more sustainable, and recommendation of a mesh size reduction for static or drift gear to align with towed gear (16mm). It was also noted that vessels have 20mm to 25mm nets but are unable to use them, due to the current mesh size restrictions.

ENGOs emphasised that catch of smaller fish is a result of fishing pressure, stock dynamics and environmental changes which must be considered alongside this goal.

EU stakeholders generally support the actions under goal 4, as they highlight the importance of balancing the ecological and economic objectives.

Goal 5: Develop strategies to adapt to the impact of climate change on sprat fisheries 

ENGOs suggested a climate buffer (20%) to catch limits as part of ecosystem-based fisheries management for commercially valuable species like sprat to account for changes in stock outside of control. They also suggested more detail is required to understand and assess the actions presented in the FMP.

EU stakeholders suggested short term goals should consider short terms habitat changes due to anthropogenic activities such as coastal development, pollution and marine resource extraction, to safeguard spawning grounds.

Question 5: Do you have any additional comments on the draft FMP?

Industry expressed a need for greater support for the UK fleet and concerns that the FMP does not consider how to create opportunities for the sector. They noted concerns that the ban on sandeel fishing may increase EU fishing pressure on sprat. They also welcome mention of the benefits of working with industry within the FMP and reiterated industry’s interest in co-management approaches.

Some industry stakeholders also suggested that the FMP should focus on why there is no directed fishery and how the drift-net fishery could be rebuilt.

ENGOs suggested that ICES’ uncertainties about stock boundaries should be addressed as a priority. ENGOs raised concerns about how the sprat FMP aligns with the legal obligations of the Fisheries Act and suggested it should include more thorough references. They noted the plan is ambitious but will need to be implemented properly. 

Another stakeholder raised a concern about the welfare of fish stocks in relation to bycatch and discards, noting that drift nets present a significant bycatch risk. Many eNGOs reiterated concerns that the goals and actions could be more ambitious, with timebound actions and measurable indicators. Another was concerned that while the fishery is currently contracted, safeguards should be put in place in case this changes in future. One stakeholder raised concerns about the lack of reference to cultural heritage within the FMP.

ENGOs also shared concerns about managing the stock as part of international sharing arrangements, suggesting that the FMP should form the basis of the UK’s opening position in international TAC negotiations.

EU stakeholders reiterated the importance of upholding the TCA principles of proportionality, best available scientific advice and non-discrimination, given that sprat is a jointly managed stock. They also suggested that any technical measures should be discussed within the SCF.

EU stakeholders also suggested that the UK should continue to engage with ICES annual stakeholder consultations and benchmarking processes.

Question 6: Do you have any comments on the assessment of the environmental effects of the draft FMP, as set out in the environmental report?

Respondents were generally positive about the assessment of the environmental effects of the FMP.

ENGOs were generally supportive of the assessment and analysis presented. They suggested more recent data should be included on seabirds and that the impacts of drift and fixed nets should also consider the target species as well as bycatch, for example to consider the length of time before release to minimise post-release mortality.

Industry commented that the ER focuses on marine plans, and suggested other impacts should be considered such as the overlap of other FMPs on businesses. Another question raised about the bias in harbour porpoise bycatch data in p66.

Respondents from the EU noted the report provides a detailed assessment of impacts, and suggested environmental findings should be strengthened by stakeholder collaboration.

Stakeholders also suggested using a quantitative management strategy evaluation (MSE) to evaluate the consequences of the FMP.

Many stakeholders suggested that the environmental assessment should reflect the ICES 2023 technical service on forage fisheries, which conclude that while there are knowledge gaps and process improvements needed, the existing stock assessment models adequately account for prey availability for predators.

Respondents also reiterated that climate change analyses should use standardised methodologies.

Government response: FMP

Overview

The sprat FMP will provide a plan for how to manage our sprat stocks in English and Scottish waters in order to maintain the stock at sustainable levels. It will also highlight research areas which can be considered for future management to further support stock sustainability.

We will improve our science and evidence to better understand the sprat fisheries. We will continue working collaboratively with stakeholders to identify how we can close the main evidence gaps to improve stock assessments.

As the sprat is currently fished sustainably, the FMP will focus on maintaining the stock above levels capable of producing MSY.

Overall, there was broad support for an evidence-based approach to any potential management measures, the FMP will maintain this current approach to focus on evidence gathering to both inform the suitability of any future management measure.

It should be noted that actions reliant on any evidence being gathered have been given a medium to long-term timeframe for delivery, due to the extensive evidence requirements across all FMPs.

In the short term, Defra will collate and prioritise all evidence gaps across the FMP programme, to look to deliver evidence to support in addressing some of the most pressing and key questions identified within the FMPs. If some of the evidence gaps identified in this FMP are prioritised, timeframes may be able to be brought forwards.

However, all evidence gaps identified across the FMP programme will not be able to be funded by Defra alone. If all evidence gaps are unable to be addressed in a timely manner, the precautionary approach may be applied.

In the longer term, to support the phased approach of FMPs and progress towards meeting the Fisheries Act Objectives, Defra are developing an evidence pathway that promotes collaboration between industry, academia and fisheries managers to address these identified evidence gaps for FMPs

In the short term (within 2 years) the FMP will focus on:

• enhancing understanding of the current stock assessment 

• bringing together existing information into a report on the ecosystem role of sprat 

• supporting participation in fishery-science partnership schemes to address evidence and knowledge gaps 

• undertaking an economic assessment of the fisheries 

• reviewing current technical measures affecting sprat fisheries and consider the impact of potential modifications to these measures 

• ensuring sprat is considered within wider research on impacts of climate change on fisheries 

• exploring how best to collaborate across sectors in initiatives to reduce environmental impacts of sprat fisheries 

In the medium to long-term, the FMP will focus on filling data and evidence gaps that have been identified, exploring options for moving away from a single-species model and researching how an ecosystem-based approach could be incorporated into future iterations of this FMP.

This section sets out the government’s response to the North Sea and Channel sprat FMP consultation. It first explains 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. We explain why we have taken decisions. Given the volume, breadth and detail of the responses, we cannot provide detailed explanations on all points raised.

We are very grateful for the time that all stakeholders have taken to provide constructive input to help improve and finalise this FMP. We have considered all the concerns raised by those affected by the proposed changes. Views were diverse, with a wide range of opinions within and between all groups. This section focusses on where we have identified a higher level of disagreement or significant concerns raised.

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

The FMP also outlines the commitment to take a holistic view and joined-up approach to environmental considerations when implementing new measures across the FMPs.

While FMPs set out specific policies, measures and actions that will contribute to more sustainable management of the relevant fisheries or 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 MPAs, work to introduce greater use of REM, reform of discards policy, and ongoing work to reduce bycatch.

Changes to the FMP following consultation

Since consultation, we have added one additional short-term action under goal 4 to consider whether a pilot drift net fishery using a small mesh size could be developed as a way to assess the impact of amending technical measures for sprat fisheries. This reflects feedback from respondents in the consultation.

Strengthening the actions and goals of the FMP

We recognise feedback from stakeholders, primarily eNGOs, about the language used to describe the actions and goals in the FMP, particularly the use of ‘consider’. We have included this language to allow for flexibility in our approach to implementation, as we establish how resources will be prioritised and allocated across FMPs.

However, post-consultation we have been able to progress some commitments. We have reflected this progress by removing the references to ‘consider’ for several actions in the FMP. The actions we have strengthened include:

• all actions under goal 2 relating to identifying and addressing evidence gaps for sprat 

• 3 of the actions under goal 3 in relation to the ecosystem role of sprat 

• the short-term actions under goal 4 in relation to realising sustainable marine economies 

• one of the actions under goal 5, relating to the impact of climate change on sprat fisheries

Precautionary approach

Stakeholders from within and outside the fishing sector raised the importance of the precautionary approach in fisheries management. Some stakeholders raised concerns that the FMP was not being precautionary enough and wanted to see precautionary limits put in place in the absence of ecosystem-based advice. The Fisheries Act recognises both:

• the need for fisheries to be managed to achieve economic, social and employment benefits

• 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

• how we work with the fishing sector and wider stakeholders to help inform management of those fisheries

There were a range of comments from stakeholders suggesting specific priorities under each of the goals. While we welcome and take on board these suggestions, as this is the first iteration of the sprat FMP, our focus remains on building an evidence base to inform the direction of any future management decisions.

We have also made minor technical and language changes to the FMP:

• in response to stakeholder input

• where we consider the information improves the FMP in terms of accuracy 

The final version of the North Sea and Channel sprat FMP is now published.

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.

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 brought 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 are encouraged to find common ground and form representative organisations within or across sectors, 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 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. This issue was raised in earlier FMP consultations, and we adjusted 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.

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 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 goals 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. 

The importance and value of close working with other coastal States on fisheries management, particularly for shared stocks, continues. We are working with the EU to pilot new ways of working on FMPs at earlier stages of development and on implementation of published plans. This will strengthen cooperation and our collaborative relationship.

EU stakeholders were keen for measures to be developed through the 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 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. FMPs have been designed to comply with the UK’s obligations under the TCA and will continue to be compliant during their implementation. 

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 measures in order 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 the government’s ability to address

• 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 including improving data collection and stock assessment methods, exploring sustainable fishing practises and management tools and 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 the 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 2025, 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 North Sea and Channel sprat FMP strategic environmental assessment (SEA), environmental report (ER) consultation.

Stakeholder responses have been considered, and the North Sea and Channel sprat FMP ER 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 about evidence used within the ER relating to harbour porpoise bycatch. We note these concerns and acknowledge that there may be discrepancies in the data used by the underlying studies referenced. This is why we have proposed to gather more data on bycatch to better our understanding.

Annex 1: List of organisations that did not request confidentiality 

• Angling Trust
• Bass Angling Conservation
• Blue Marine Foundation
• ClientEarth
• Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Élevages Marins
• Comité Régionale des Pêche Maritime et des Élevages Marins - Hauts-de-France
• Danish Fishers Produce Organisation
• Danish Pelagic Producers Organisation
• Eastern England Fish Producers Organisation
• Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority European fishmeal and fish oil producers
• Historic England
• Joint Nature Conservation Committee
• Marine Ingredients Denmark
• National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
• Natural England
• Office for Environmental Protection
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
• Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
• Southwestern Fish Producer Organisation
• The Open Seas Trust
• Western Fish Producers Organisation
• Whale and Dolphin Conservation
• Wild Animal Welfare Committee

Annex 2: List of FMP consultation engagement meetings 

• South West: Brixham 26 November 2024
• Online webinar: 4 December 2024