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 queen scallop fisheries management plan (FMP) in English waters and the associated environmental report. It also sets out the 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 queen scallop 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 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, 16 direct responses to the consultation were received: 

• 11 were submitted through the Citizen Space online survey 

• 5 by email 

The breakdown of responses consisted of: 

• 7 from the catching sector   

• 2 producer organisations 

• 1 from local government 

• 1 government agency or arm’s length body 

• 1 from the recreational sea fishing sector 

• 2 from environmental organisations 

• 1 from the EU or other coastal state 

• 1 other (groups or individuals not already covered) 

Of the 16 responses, 2 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. 

Given the location and shared interest of the main UK queen scallop fishery in the Irish Sea, an online webinar rather than in-person meetings was used to gather views on the draft FMP during consultation. This was held in December 2024, open to all those with an interest. It was attended by representatives from the scallop catching sector, fisheries managers and environmental NGOs. Views and comments from this meeting 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. 

Notes taken from online engagement were cross checked and then analysed using the same iterative process. Views from this engagement have been considered equally alongside the email and online responses.

Headline messages 

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

Strong support was expressed for the ambition of the queen scallop FMP in recognising the importance of robust evidence gathering, the utilisation of existing evidence and taking a balanced and collaborative approach to management. Taking advantage of local knowledge from industry was seen as crucial for the survival of the industry and the successful implementation of any measures to ensure stocks are fished sustainably. 

On the consultation process, views were mixed. There was general support for the policy goals and measures in the draft FMP, with an emphasis that they should be pursued with clarity, collaboration, and coordinated approaches across UK waters. Concerns were raised around the narrow scope of an England-only FMP and that a UK-wide approach was needed, as well as the risk of acting in an overly precautionary manner, and the need to keep management adaptive due to fluctuating stocks. 

Responses to the proposed minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) increase recognised and supported the benefits of such a measure to help deliver long-term sustainability. However, concerns were raised about the short-term economic impacts and narrow England-only scope. A phased increase to allow both industry and stocks time to adapt, and a 10% tolerance on undersized scallops to avoid impractical grading requirements being a burden on fishers were suggested mitigations. It came through strongly that a clear justification and evidence around the likely benefits and impacts was needed before proceeding with this measure. 

Details of changes made to this FMP in response to the consultation are set out in the government response sections of this document.

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

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

A range of views were provided. Some were satisfied with the type and extent of engagement carried out by Defra, others queried the range of stakeholder views that were sought and the burden imposed across the wider FMP programme. 

Others highlighted that fishers felt disenfranchised, calling for Defra to explore more effective strategies to ensure adequate participation and engagement in the future. Some stakeholders from the catching sector felt the FMP deviated from the co-design ethos of previous FMPs, that the engagement process undermined the positive role commercial fishers and their representatives played in the development of earlier plans. It was felt that the industry was treated as a consultee on established policies, rather than a co-designing partner. 

A local government response suggested that the FMP Evidence Statements should be made available at the start of the consultation period so that they can be reviewed alongside the FMP. Having reviewed the Evidence Statement that accompanied the queen scallop FMP, the respondent agreed that the data provided did appropriately reflect their situation, though they would have preferred that the Evidence Statement was made available earlier in the consultation period. 

A response from the environmental sector called for a greater level of engagement with environmentalists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to inform drafting of the FMP. In their view, engagement largely targeted the seafood sector, with a limited range of stakeholders, and lacked representation of conservation bodies and the general public. They want to see improved stakeholder representation across key decision-making processes for all FMPs.  

EU respondents raised similar concerns with the extent of the consultation, emphasising that draft measures should be based upon the best available scientific evidence and consulted on with all stakeholders, including fisheries professionals.  

Another EU stakeholder expressed concern that industry organisations were not consulted earlier, or more thoroughly, during the engagement process. They emphasised that certain measures such as MCRS and gear specifications should have been discussed within the Specialised Committee on Fisheries (SCF), to ensure coherent policy is being developed for shared stocks.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on the evidence used in the FMP and the proposed approach to improving it?  

Respondents from all sectors agreed with the importance of continued and improved evidence gathering, and the policy goal to improve the evidence base being central to the FMP’s success. They acknowledged the clear need for a comprehensive, UK evidence gathering program, and to building towards a regular stock assessment for UK queen scallops, to provide the scientific evidence on which to base management decisions.  

Producer organisations consider the evidence base of the FMP – and the FMP as a whole – to be incomplete as they only reflect the stock in English waters. This was not given as a reason to abandon the FMP, rather to use it as a starting point that can be built on in future. There was some feeling that the evidence used does not give an accurate picture of the importance of the queen scallop fishery, as the English waters scope and outdated data could contribute to a false impression of the condition of the fishery and its importance to the UK fleet.  

Catching sector views were that the evidence collected is insufficient to provide a complete understanding of the fishery and therefore undermines effective management decisions and the FMP’s policy goals. They consider the absence of consistent stock assessments makes management reliant on guesswork rather than robust scientific data, highlighting several areas where more evidence is needed, including fishing effort, bycatch, socioeconomic impacts, and market dynamics. 

Others commented that the evidence does not fully appreciate the rotational nature of the fishery, with stock populations and fishing effort varying between years, and therefore provides a poor representation of landings and the fishery.  

Additionally, it was suggested that an effective data collection programme should be collaborative with input from fisherman, vessel owners and processors, to ensure key insights are included.  

A fisheries authority wanted to see existing data sources interrogated and analysed more closely to strengthen the FMP evidence base, including making greater use of available data relating to the Irish Sea fishery – especially given the FMP goal to establish a comprehensive approach to data collection for English and UK-wide fisheries. Alongside the catching sector they were concerned that lack of detail or commitment on resourcing for data collection and addressing evidence gaps would compromise delivery of the goal to improve the evidence base. In particular, they flagged that the timelines for some of the FMP goals are not cognisant of the data poor status of the stocks.  

EU stakeholders questioned whether the rationale for short and medium-term measures had been appropriately linked to the best available scientific evidence, particularly regarding the MCRS increase.  

One response observed that the consultation documents cover mainly economic data, rather than scientific, and suggested the separately published Evidence Statement should be included with the main consultation documents for the completeness.

Question 3: What are your views on the proposed goals (formerly objectives) for the management of queen scallop fisheries?  

There was a strong message to ensure consistent use of terminology across all FMPs and to simplify language – in particular using terms such as goals and objectives interchangeably. We are therefore aligning this FMP with others, recently published, by referring to goals henceforth.    

Responses from the producer organisations and the catching sector stated their support for all the FMP goals. Specific comments are summarised below. Many stakeholders welcomed the goals and encouraged increased collaboration with industry, stakeholders and the SCF.

Goal 1: Develop proposals for a comprehensive data collection programme for English and UK-wide queen scallop fisheries, which supports a data-rich future and results in the establishment of a reliable time series that facilitates well-informed sustainable management 

A number of stakeholders from the catching and producer sectors were supportive in principle, this being a positive step towards developing a sustainable and adaptive management system, and stakeholder involvement helping build trust and accountability. They recognised the proposal as taking forward a strategy that aligns with modern fisheries management principles. 

Responses from the seafood sector highlighted the need for clearer timescales for data collection to produce sufficiently robust information to support management decisions, and that the programme should include socioeconomic data in addition to biological data. They feel the FMP lacks detail on funding to support delivery and would like to see evidence schemes utilising the industry in addition to scientific input. Some organisations shared similar views on funding, and the benefits of involving industry in data collection, for both independent and fishery-dependent data, insofar as the goal refers to collaboration with scientists from around the UK. 

An NGO response supported the objective, suggesting that it should look to include environmentalists and NGOs in the evidence gathering process. Additionally, they suggested that remote electronic monitoring (REM), once implemented, could serve as useful tool to gather stock data, in addition to using artificial intelligence (AI) to distinguish between king and queen scallops.

Goal 2: Seek opportunities for strengthening existing measures in English waters to increase stock protection in the short term 

Seafood sector responses stated the need for short-term measures to be worked upon cooperatively between the UK fisheries policy authorities to achieve the desired outcomes of protecting stocks. They hope that where the FMP states it will ‘build upon’ previous work it does not intend to start afresh. Other responses from the seafood sector were more sceptical of this objective. They consider that FMPs should serve as long-term roadmaps, rather than mechanisms to introduce additional management without sufficient justification. They noted that the draft FMP seeks opportunities to strengthen existing measures to protect stocks without any evidence that the stocks are in need of protecting from current activity levels.  

The basis of short-term measures envisaged by the FMP, in particular the MCRS increase, were questioned. It was suggested that no changes to management should be necessary unless data starts to show significant increases in landings. 

The perceived overuse of the precautionary approach makes industry nervous as it offers minimal certainty as to the future direction of management. 

Other industry responses raised similar concerns, in that whilst they support the objective in principle, they have reservations that rapid changes may be overly cautious. They would prefer measures are implemented across a sensible timeframe to allow for stakeholder consultation and analysis, ensuring that fishers can adapt without facing undue disruption. They consider that balancing urgency with careful planning will be key to achieving sustainable outcomes in the queen scallop fishery. 

Other seafood sector responses supported the objective in principle, whilst noting that measures must be matched by the other fisheries authorities to be worthwhile. An NGO response highlighted the same need for alignment across the UK, and in supporting the objective advocated for specific measures, such as banning bottom contacting towed gears in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and introducing additional closures for scallop brood stock.

Goal 3: Assess the interactions with the marine environment and potential impacts associated with queen scallop fisheries, and develop an action plan setting out appropriate measures to reduce damaging impacts 

Responses from the seafood sector raised concerns that this goal should not stifle gear innovation, and the need to work with the industry and stakeholders to address environmental concerns without imposing overly restrictive legislation. Seafood sector responses also stated that given the low numbers of vessels currently targeting the fishery, the simplest action plan would be to limit new entrants into the fishery whilst assessments are undertaken, ensuring the status quo is maintained. Others supported the goal looking to improve the understanding and efficiency of fishing gear currently used to target queen scallops. However, they considered the draft FMP to lack sufficient detail on how this will actually be achieved. 

Responses from both the catching and producer sectors also flagged that engaging with a broad range of stakeholders including fishers, scientists, and environmental groups would help assessments to be balanced and capture all perspectives. They advocate for utilising a collaborative approach built on transparent evidence and data to address environmental concerns. One stakeholder stated that they would prefer to see scallop dredging phased out, due to the benthic impact of the gear on the seabed. A similar view was also highlighted by an NGO response, advocating for further research on the impacts of dredging on the seabed and the removal of all bottom-contact towed gears from MPAs.

Goal 4: Explore the impacts of changes in marine spatial use on queen scallop fisheries from an environmental, economic and social perspective 

This goal was welcomed by stakeholders in the seafood sector given concerns about spatial use and the uncertainty of future access to prominent queen scallop grounds in the Irish Sea. They were surprised by a lack of focus on the spatial impacts on the fisheries themselves and favoured additional actions that consider the impact of offshore windfarms and spatial squeeze on queen scallops and their grounds.  

Other responses supported this goal given the likely increase of windfarms in the Irish Sea impacting on the queen scallop fishery, further emphasising the need to control entry into this fishery to protect the current fishing industry. With potentially less fishing ground available in the near future, every management decision will have a magnified impact if vessel numbers are not controlled. 

There is also support within the seafood sector for improving understanding of the spatial use of seas in goal 4, though catching and producer respondents suggest this is not ambitious enough to ensure the future sustainability of the fishery. It was felt that further prioritisation should be given to ensuring queen scallop fisheries are not completely displaced from the English waters of the Irish Sea due to spatial constraints. 

Catching sector responses supported the goal whilst highlighting the need to balance environmental and socioeconomic considerations, alongside engaging with stakeholders across all sectors during the assessment process.  

A fisheries authority suggested that a queen scallop fishery-specific approach to considering widespread displacement effects could be counter-productive when the issue is prevalent in almost all UK wild-capture fisheries. 

An NGO response was supportive of the goal, whilst suggesting that the actions beneath it should take into account the potential benefits of closures associated with increasing windfarm areas, resulting in increased stock protection.

Goal 5: Develop climate change mitigation and adaptation measures for shared UK queen scallop fisheries 

A producer response said it is unclear how Defra expects to achieve this, as if it is through controlling emissions then the quickest method is to ensure all fishing trips are carried out a maximum efficiency by introducing measures to increase stock biomass whilst effectively controlling effort. 

An NGO stakeholder felt that the goal presented an appropriate approach to mitigating climate change, as biodiversity and benthic biomass will increase. They suggested more research on the climate change impacts of scallop and other bottom-trawled fisheries in the medium to long-term, alongside mapping and introducing priority protection for large marine carbon sinks. Intensive fishing effort in these areas, risks releasing carbon back into the water column. 

Catching sector responses, whilst recognising the importance of the goal, felt it should be secondary to establishing foundational changes in fisheries management. The priority should be implementing other essential regulatory modifications to address challenges within the fishery. Enhancing management practices, stakeholder engagement, and accurate data collection will, in their view, provide a robust framework within which climate adaptation strategies can be formed.

Question 4: What are your views on the proposed measures to deliver the goals of the draft queen scallop FMP?  

Various responses from producer and catching sector stakeholders expressed support for the proposed measures in the draft FMP but urged a cautious, evidence based and holistic approach. They support the overarching aim of achieving sustainable management underpinned by the development of a data-rich evidence base. This must be developed with meaningful involvement of the fishing industry, to build trust and ensure that decision making is backed by high-quality data. The development of measures should be underpinned by social and economic considerations. 

A fisheries authority advocated for more specific measures to be adopted in a shorter timeframe, and for these to apply to all UK waters.  Further clarity on how measures would consider proximity or overlap with other bivalve fisheries, in which queen scallop may be caught as bycatch, would be beneficial. It is important to understand how management outputs for one species may affect the ability of fishers to target a different species with a similar gear type, and to avoid disproportionately affecting certain parts of the industry and stocks. 

The producer sector raised concerns that proposed measures will be ineffective if implemented only within English waters and could have a detrimental impact on the stock. England-only measures could have a disproportionate effect on vessels fishing in English waters, leading to potential conflict and change in fishing patterns, specifically for those operating in the Irish Sea.  

For measure 2, which will explore potential options for introducing gear specifications for queen scallop fishing, respondents stated their opposition to any consideration of stringent gear restrictions, and flagged concerns that dredge or ring size restrictions would be irrelevant given the volume of queen scallops caught in a dredge at any one time. Questions were raised regarding the feasibility of measure 5, to develop a framework for input and output controls, given the data poor status of the stocks. There are concerns that in the absence of robust data collection, implementing a precautionary approach for input and output controls would be the only available option and this would disproportionately affect vessels fishing in English waters, and be ineffective at increasing stock protection.  

An NGO voiced similar concerns with the England-only scope limiting the effectiveness of measures due to the risk of displacement into adjacent waters. They support the prioritisation of gear that minimises environmental impacts and reduces bycatch, strengthening and potentially extending existing management across the UK, developing a framework based on input/output controls and the integration of precautionary measures and broader sustainability objectives. 

EU stakeholders emphasised the need for measures to be coordinated and harmonised across the Channel – incoherent technical measures and minimum sizes obstruct fishers and can be damaging to highly impacted fleets. Others welcomed the exploration of technical gear specifications and reiterated the benefits of existing French dredging technical measures. Additionally, they opposed the potential introduction of a queen scallop fishing permit in the Channel considering this to indirectly contravene the mutual access provisions of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).

Question 5: What are your views on the proposed queen scallop MCRS increase (from 40mm to 55mm) in English waters?  

A number of responses supported the proposed increase but questioned whether it will result in any clear benefits to the UK’s main queen scallop fishery in area 7a. Some concerns were raised that without equivalent measures from the other UK fisheries policy authorities it risks creating potential enforcement and compliance challenges without significant biological benefit. Economic and market impacts, and technological challenges to compliance were also a concern. 

Catching sector stakeholders, while supportive of an increase to benefit long-term sustainability, felt the short-term economics of the fishery needed to be carefully considered. Prohibiting the fishing of a large portion of the stock would depress yields in the short-term, potentially reducing profitability, increasing price volatility, and impacting coastal communities. These impacts would be particularly damaging for smaller operators in areas in which queen scallop fishing is a major economic driver. They suggested a phased increase over multiple years to mitigate impacts, allowing time for both the stock and industry to adapt, and that any MCRS increase should be accompanied by rigorous monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess impacts on both biomass and local economies.  

Contrary to other views, some catching and processing sector stakeholders were supportive of the MCRS increase highlighting many fishers already abide by a higher MCRS for economic reasons, with vessels self-selecting queen scallops around 55mm due to the challenges in processing small scallops. Others acknowledged the need to increase time allowed for spawning to increase biomass. Given the processing efficiency and percentage yield of larger scallops, an MCRS increase should be beneficial to industry, provided a 10% tolerance of undersized catch is permitted, akin to that applied in Isle of Man waters, to aid compliance. The increase was fully supported by an NGO respondent.  

Some catching sector responses noted growth rate variability between fishing grounds, with smaller queen scallops being fished in some areas. A blanket MCRS increase will disproportionately impede those who target smaller scallops compared to those operating in grounds where larger animals are caught. They would prefer either a lower MCRS of 45mm or 50mm, or a more varied regional approach to landing sizes based on the size of the specimen in each ground. 

Many responses restated concerns with the England only focus of the FMP. Raising the MCRS in English waters may have a disproportionate effect on regional fisheries with limited operational range and displace effort into other waters, particularly the Irish Sea.  

Whilst EU stakeholders recognised the importance of the precautionary approach to fisheries management, they questioned the rationale and scientific basis of an MCRS increase. As an opportunistic species with population variation between grounds, a 55mm MCRS would make exploitation of the species in productive years overly complex, with minimal impacts on the years to follow. Responses also included concern over the UK setting a different MCRS in shared basins, in which the EU regulation size is 40mm, without consulting and coordinating with the EU through the SCF.

Question 6: Do you have any evidence such as economic or scientific, that you could provide around the likely benefits and impacts of an increased MCRS?  

Both a fisheries authority and catching sector responses highlighted that the Isle of Man raised its MCRS from 40mm to 50mm in 2010, and then further increased it to 55mm in 2013. Whilst it is likely that the majority of queen scallop at 40mm will be sexually mature, a higher MCRS of 55mm ensures that most individuals will have had the opportunity to spawn for an entire year prior to capture. They consider that increasing the potential spawning period prior to harvest could significantly raise recruitment levels. 

Some catchers and processors noted processing specimens in the 40-55mm range is not cost effective. While an increased MCRS would be beneficial to stocks from a scientific point of view, it would have negligible economic impacts whilst ensuring product uniformity for customers in addition to supporting the roe market as larger scallops tend to have a high roe content. 

An NGO response promoted the benefits of an increased MCRS for both stock sustainability and the economy, providing examples of effective MCRS increases in fisheries management. They emphasised benefits through increased spawning potential, recruitment and stability, and to the economy through higher value outputs, and longer-term job security.  

Several stakeholders from the catching and producer sector called for economic studies to assess the likely impacts of an increase and costs of modifying sorting equipment, as well as scientific studies to assess spawning, growth, and lifespan, before any decision on MCRS is made.

Question 7: Do you have any comments on the proposed approach to introducing measures in the short-term, to provide increased protection to stocks, whilst the evidence and longer-term measures are developed? 

A fisheries authority advocated strongly for Defra to work with the other UK fisheries policy authorities to implement short-term measures across UK-waters, particularly the MCRS increase, and to develop a comprehensive data collection approach.  

Those in the catching and producer sectors reiterated concerns with the England only focus of the FMP and its proposed measures. They supported bringing in appropriate management of the fishery without being overly precautionary and risking the imposition of disproportionate limits on a fishery that is relatively stable. Some supported limits on additional entrants to the fishery in the short-term, as a surge in market price could lead to more vessels targeting the fishery and increasing pressure on the stock without the necessary safeguards in place. 

Others stated that while stock sustainability is important for the future of the fishery, the practical elements of implementation need to be considered carefully, and a clear justification presented. Any short-term measures that depress catches and impact revenue could place heavy financial burdens on fishers. They support a more gradual approach with tailored measures in the short-term, that are not overly restrictive or harmful to the fleet, but which still provide increased stock protection.  

An NGO response was supportive of introducing short-term precautionary measures while longer-term measures are being developed. They reiterated their support for the closing of MPAs to bottom towed fishing gears for the benefit of species, habitats, and ecosystems. 

Various responses sought clarity of the language in the FMP on whether measures were being introduced or explored in the short-term for those deemed necessary to protect stocks while the evidence base for longer-term management is developed. 

EU stakeholders raised concerns about taking overly precautionary measures in the short-term without sufficient evidence as these can severely impact fleets in the Channel. They also consider the proposed introduction of a permit would limit EU vessels’ access to British waters, contravening the guaranteed access agreed in the TCA.

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

Catching and producer sector stakeholders sought clearer reference to the benefits of working with industry to achieve sustainable fisheries in English waters, with future management designed through effective and representative co-management. They believe this should be collaborative, involving industry, policymakers, enforcers and scientists with relevant expertise in the decision-making process. 

Furthermore, they were concerned an overly precautionary approach may be taken when developing the measures in the FMP. Their preference is an agreed approach that considers sustainability goals alongside socioeconomic impacts, setting out clearly for stakeholders the process by which precautionary measures are considered and introduced. They feel the fishery is already managed in a sufficiently precautionary manner due to the low number of participants, all of whom have a vested interest in its long-term sustainability. Others noted the importance of the precautionary principle alongside the ecosystem impacts of the queen scallop fishery, and the need to prevent new entrants joining the fishery. 

Catching sector stakeholders in particular noted that the queen scallop fishery will likely be difficult to manage due to erratic stock fluctuations, with relatively short life spans and volatile market prices. Adaptive harvesting controls underpinned by regular stock assessment are needed to remain effective. 

Various responses called for a more joined-up approach with other UK fisheries policy authorities and the EU, particularly in the Irish Sea. Additionally, there were concerns implementation of the king scallop FMP actions might be delayed, in order to be delivered in parallel with timescales for the queen scallop FMP. 

NGOs felt the draft FMP did not meet the requirements of the Fisheries Act such as the bycatch objective, and without time-bound indicators lacked ambition and sufficient information to be effectively reviewed at the end of the 6-year period. Some respondents found the structure and language of the FMP difficult to follow and sought simplified terminology. It was not always clear how proposed measures would achieve overarching goals or within what timeframe. Others wanted the evidence base to be more accessible to fishers, including plain-language summaries of data, rationale behind interventions, and anticipated impacts.  

EU respondents were not supportive of the FMP measures, considering the scientific basis insufficient, a lack of cooperation within the TCA and SCF frameworks, and the likelihood of creating access restrictions for EU vessels in UK waters. They recommended discussions be carried out within the SCF in order to achieve a harmonised approach to management.

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? 

Given the relatively small size of the fishery, catching and producer sector stakeholders flagged its environmental impacts are significantly smaller than those of other FMP fisheries. Controlling effort and limiting new entrants would be a quick win, including for environmental impacts. They felt the report did not fully capture the real-time conditions and localised nature of the fishery because the observations of fishers were overlooked in favour of generalised studies. Additionally, they proposed mitigation measures should be more specific in how they will balance environmental protection with the economic implications – fishers are concerned restrictions could be introduced without sufficient justification, disproportionately impacting their incomes. 

While positive steps regarding mitigation of the negative effects of queen scallop fisheries were noted by one NGO, they felt it lacked concrete timelines, enforceable actions, and clear metrics for success. They called for specific targets such as measurable reductions in bycatch and seabed disturbances, with clear timelines for implementation and evaluation. They also suggested the FMP explore the expansion of spatial closures, trial low-impact fishing methods beyond MPA areas to address impacts and implement mandatory REM and onboard observer programs to ensure compliance.  

EU stakeholders emphasised a need to quantify seabed disturbances to inform evidence discussions and the justification for management measures.

Government response: FMP  

Views were diverse with a range of opinions across stakeholder groups. We have considered all views provided by those responses to the consultation. This section explains the changes we have made to the FMP in response to these views and why we have taken particular decisions.

Overview 

This is the first iteration of a queen scallop FMP in English waters which 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 queen scallop fisheries. The FMP recognises the challenges in adopting an England-only approach to managing shared queen scallop fisheries but, based on the feedback received through the consultation responses and engagement, this FMP sets out appropriate foundations for improved evidence and further UK-wide collaboration.

Changes to the FMP following consultation  

There was broad support for the proposed goals and measures with no large-scale changes required to the FMP following consultation. A common theme was recognition of the importance of robust evidence gathering and utilisation of existing evidence, relating to assessing the status of the queen scallop fishery. Defra agrees that the queen scallop FMP should act as a conduit for developing and introducing a comprehensive UK evidence gathering programme which builds towards a regular stock assessment for UK queen scallops.  

In response, we have prioritised the measure related to reviewing the existing queen scallop data collection programmes. 

Defra recognises the difficulties and potential draw backs highlighted by an England-only approach to queen scallop management. As recognised in the FMP, improved understanding of queen scallop data already being collected at a UK wide level and development of a UK data collection programme is needed, to help ensure effective, evidence-based decisions around sustainable management. 

Regarding the proposed approach to introducing short-term measures, we have amended wording in the FMP to make it clearer that stakeholder views will be taken into account and further consideration taken prior to introduction. Both the potential introduction of an MCRS and gear specifications for queen scallops will be developed further before any decision is taken. In addition, the timeframe for delivery of considering gear specifications has been extended to the medium-term, ensuring sufficient time to explore suggestions such as a phased approach and tolerance for undersized catch, which would need to be factored in when considering gear specifications. It also reflects the higher priority attached to other areas such as improved data collection and evidence. 

The timeframe for developing a queen scallop management framework based on input and output controls has been moved into the long term in recognition of the fact that increased data on the fishery is needed to inform potential approaches. This also allows sufficient time to use the outputs of the king scallop FMP to inform potential next steps for queen scallops.   

The FMP has been further amended to clarify that Defra does not intend to delay delivery of the king scallop FMP to enable queen scallop measures and actions to be delivered to similar timeframes. Defra acknowledges that the UK queen scallop fishery is further behind in terms of available scientific data and evidence and that the king scallop FMP implementation is underway. 

Drafting amendments have been made throughout the FMP to clarify the language, including on how certain proposed actions will contribute to achieving the overarching FMP goals.

We have now published the final version of the queen scallop 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 for 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 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 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 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 on-going 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 learning continuously, and changes will be made to the 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 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 

• 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 its 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. 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 policies and consider the introduction of 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:  

• 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 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 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 brought 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 queen scallop FMP strategic environmental assessment (SEA), environmental report consultation. 

Stakeholder responses have been considered but do not materially change the content of the queen scallop environmental report – as such, no specific changes have been made.  

The full environmental report has been published alongside the FMP.

Annex 1: List of organisations that did not request confidentiality 

• Bass Angling Conservation 

• Blue Marine Foundation 

• Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins 

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

• French Authorities 

• Historic England 

• Joint Nature Conservation Committee 

• Isle of Man Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture 

• Manx Fish Producers Organisation 

• Natural England 

• Office for Environmental Protection 

• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation 

• Scottish White Fish Producer’s Organisation 

• South Western Fish Producers Organisation 

• Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority 

• The National Federation of Fisherman’s Organisations 

• The Open Seas Trust 

• West Coast Sea Producer’s Limited