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 Southern North Sea and Channel skates and rays fisheries management plan (FMP) 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 Southern North Sea and Channel skates and rays 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 channels. 

Overview of responses 

In total, we received 39 direct responses to the consultation: 

• 33 were submitted through the Citizen Space online survey 

• 6 by email 

The breakdown of responses consisted of: 

• 10 from the catching sector 

• 4 from producer organisations 

• 1 from local government 

• 6 from the recreational sea fishing sector 

• 5 from environmental organisations 

• 2 from the EU and other coastal states 

• 1 from science and research 

• 10 others (groups or individuals not already covered) 

Of the 39 responses, 3 were from individuals, and the remaining were on behalf of organisations. A list of organisations who responded to the consultation is set out in annex 1. 

We held 7 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 

• eNGOs 

• scientists 

• academia 

• the EU Commission and EU attachés to the UK 

• others interested in fisheries management 

These engagement events were used as an additional method to seek and record views on the FMP. Views and comments from these meetings were treated as part of the consultation and are summarised alongside online and email responses.

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. 

We noted comments and views at in-person and online meetings. These notes were cross checked and then analysed using the same iterative process. We have included views from these engagement events in the summary below and considered them 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 has helped us improve and finalise the FMPs. A wide range of diverse and informative views were presented for which we have provided detailed summaries in the sections below.

Overall, there was broad support for this FMP as an approach to improve the sustainability of skates and ray stocks in the Southern North Sea and English Channel, as well as the underlying evidence base. Given there is sufficient available data for the majority of FMP stocks to assess maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or MSY proxy and ICES assessments indicate healthy population levels (most are above the proxy reference points), stakeholders queried the basis for some of the proposed measures. All sectors supported continued engagement and establishment of a skates and rays management group to build on partnership working. 

Most respondents supported the evidence-based approach to inform potential management measures. However, environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs) felt a more precautionary approach should be adopted, with management measures introduced in the short-term whilst evidence is gathered. In contrast, catching sector and EU respondents queried the need for a precautionary approach for most FMP stocks which are assessed to maximum sustainable yield or MSY proxy.

There was broad support for the sentinel fishery for small-eyed ray in area 7e and exploring alternative approaches to the current group TAC management. Views were mixed on the proposal to explore a minimum conservation reference size (MCRS). While largely supportive of this as a measure to protect juveniles, there was no harmonised opinion on the size or approach with risks to both universal and species-specific sizes highlighted. Respondents from the catching sector were largely unsupportive of exploring a maximum conservation reference size (MaxCRS) or spatial and temporal closures. There was strong support from all sectors for voluntary guidelines to improve identification and handling of skates and rays. 

The FMP goals were supported by most respondents, in particular improving the evidence base for the skates and rays fisheries, including improving the data for the 3 data-limited stocks. There were several requests to clarify and condense the goals as well as to include clearer timescales.

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 7 questions in Citizen Space, which allowed them to express their views on the content of the proposed skates and rays FMP. Summaries of the responses to these questions are detailed below. Email responses and views from in-person meetings have also been summarised in this section.

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

Most respondents supported the working group and appreciated the variety of online and in-person events. Some, however, felt that the FMP was not developed using a true co-management approach. Additionally, there was some criticism including a view that proposed management had already been decided without clear rationale and evidence.

A common request from the catching sector was to advertise in-person events early and widely to improve attendance, as well as clearer location details. Some noted fishers have difficulty accessing online information and sought quayside visits for a more face-to-face engagement. eNGO stakeholders highlighted:

• the importance of all sectors being represented at engagement events 

• the difficulties they face

• their feelings that commercial interests were prioritised 

The catching sector suggested engagement on FMPs should be incorporated into regular fisheries engagement to avoid stakeholder fatigue, given the number and overlap between FMP consultations. Others suggested the views of those with a professional interest in these stocks should have increased weight. 

Views of recreational sea fishing stakeholders varied. Some noted the importance of holding evening events, and others proposed individual sector meetings to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

While most respondents sought continued participation in FMP development, views varied on which stakeholders should be involved.

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

There were mixed views on the status of skates and rays and the need for an FMP. All sectors agreed with the need to improve the evidence base for skates and rays, in particular for the 3 data-limited stocks, and welcomed their involvement going forward. Most respondents welcomed an improved evidence base to inform the implementation of potential management measures, including a suggestion to use data spanning both English and Scottish waters to boost the available evidence. 

Some in the catching sector questioned the need for an overall precautionary approach, given the evidence supports an MSY approach for 8 out of 11 stocks in the FMP. Others queried the robustness of ICES data and raised the importance of using fishers’ knowledge. Some respondents raised concerns about the use of some recreational evidence, in particular its applicability and relevance to commercial fishing.

Further evidence regarding MCRS was offered by the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities (IFCAs), and a suggestion this should be implemented in the short-term for data-limited stocks. In contrast, many from the catching sector queried why management measures such as MCRS were required when commercially important skates and ray populations are increasing, also questioning the evidence to support this measure. 

Other respondents focused on the need for further evidence gathering on the recreational value of skates and rays. There was a suggestion for a relevant university project to be considered as an additional source of recreational catch data. Several recreational responses offered anecdotal evidence on annual catches in 7e and 7d. Concerns were also raised, mainly by the recreational sector, about the sustainability of:

• thornback ray in 4c 

• undulate ray in 7d and 7e 

• small-eyed ray in 7e

• spotted ray in 7d and 7e 

Those concerns were queried by others. 

While eNGOs supported the use of ICES assessments and agreed on the data gaps identified, they raised concerns that the FMP does not set out tangible management measures to address these gaps. In addition, they recommended remote electronic monitoring (REM) be considered for data collection to help fill evidence gaps. 

Some respondents sought clarity on the additional evidence required to inform stock assessments for thornback ray and blonde ray in 7e, given that there are high landings for both these stocks. 

Others felt that additional non-fishing pressures on FMP stocks including wind farms and seals should be better evidenced. Stakeholders also sought more information on the planned approach for assessing and mitigating the sustainability issues associated with some of the FMP stocks.

A number of EU and coastal state respondents called for the value and impact of EU vessel catches to be included in the impact assessment. They questioned the anecdotal sustainability concerns raised by UK stakeholders, noting this is inconsistent with ICES advice. More information on the evidence to support recent measures for undulate ray, as well as on possible future inclusion of other ray species if found to exist within the FMP area, was requested. Whether the social and cultural benefits included recreational divers was also raised.

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

There was general support for the protection of stocks and the critical role that scientific evidence plays in determining the FMP goals. Further engagement to explain the goals to the wider public following publication was suggested.

The majority of respondents support enhanced and dedicated data collection for specific species to ensure stocks remain on an upward trend, and welcome participation in any associated data collection projects. 

Several stakeholders called for the goals to be shorter and clearer, reflecting how they feed into each other. While eNGOs were pleased that effective management and increasing stock size were included in the goals, they requested more detail on those responsible for implementing proposed actions. 

Recreational stakeholders emphasised the need to protect skates and rays, in particular breeding numbers and size. Others felt priority should be given to the sustainability aspect of goal setting. 

EU stakeholders requested clarification on what benchmark would be used to evaluate the restoration of a ray stock, and clarification on what is meant by the wider impacts of skate and ray fishing. Respondents also emphasised the importance of balancing environmental and socioeconomic goals.

Goal 1: deliver effective management 

There was eNGO s support for producing a methods paper on the precautionary approach, noting strong implementation will be needed. While recognising the difficulties of group TAC management, it was suggested these should be set below ICES advice to achieve catches below MSY and worked into the skate and ray methodology through the Specialised Committee on Fisheries (SCF). 

Goal 2: contribute to restoring, increasing or maintaining skate and ray stocks 

Some respondents sought clarification of the pressures that could undermine stock sustainability especially on human non-fishing pressures. Others in the catching sector recommended approaching this holistically, by considering the impact of any spatial closures. 

Goal 3: improving biological and environmental sustainability 

Catching sector stakeholders welcomed actions to improve knowledge of the risk of sensitive species bycatch. There was strong support amongst eNGOs, who highlighted the need for a robust bycatch strategy, including the priority use of REM. Another collaboration with the Bycatch Reduction Advisory Panel (BRAP) was also suggested. 

Goal 4 and 5: social and economic goals 

There was stakeholder consensus on the need for a dedicated working group and continued engagement on the FMP. EU stakeholders were also interested in being involved in a potential working or management group.

The catching sector would like to see consideration of a possible UK-EU industry working group, in addition to greater alignment with other FMPs covering skates and rays such as the Celtic Sea and Western Channel demersal FMP currently in development. It was noted by eNGOs for action 1 of goal 4, which seeks to optimise fisheries benefits, that some management measures could potentially reduce the economic benefits for fishers. 

Goals 6 and 7: evidence goals 

There was overall support for the evidence goals which aim to address socioeconomic as well as sustainability impacts.

For goal 6, the catching sector highlighted the importance of improving existing data and utilising the bycatch monitoring project and clean catch UK. Less emphasis on the concept of good environmental status (GES) was an additional suggestion. Inshore stakeholders suggested utilising evidence from IFCAs and devolved governments to fill data gaps, and proposed that management is focused on the status of each species.

For goal 7, eNGOs requested more information on the evidence strategy, including how further data will be collected. They emphasised the need to consider how data gaps will be filled, noting that if data collection shifts to academia and industry a robust framework will be required.

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

While stakeholders broadly agreed with the evidence-based approach, some felt that measures should be introduced in the short-term while evidence is being gathered. The need for management measures had mixed views. Some wanted quicker action, while others felt management measures were not justified.

The catching sector expressed concern on varying species distribution across areas and management measures they believe were unsuccessful in the past. They had views on using the precautionary approach when there is sufficient understanding for evidence-based management across the majority of FMP stocks. They felt that these should be proportionate to the level of risk.

Some others suggested that no further management is needed due to the overall positive state of the skate and ray stocks. The potential impact of additional management measures on the industry was also a concern. Support for smaller vessels that depend on skate and ray fisheries and better data on their economic importance was welcomed.

IFCAs noted stock distribution, mortality and fishing practices vary across area and require consideration in potential management measure. They support short-term actions to gather evidence and improve information on how the FMP objectives will shape international discussions.

Firmer commitment to implement measures and better alignment with the precautionary approach were raised by eNGOs. Additional measures to mitigate the impact of damaging fishing methods and to protect ecosystems were also suggested. Some responses highlighted the need for a harvest control strategy and rules for each species, noting that minimising the impact on fishers should not be a barrier to implementing effective conservation measures.

There was also a suggestion to better communicate the importance of skates and rays to fishers and the wider public, and integrate social and cultural values into marine planning.

Some in the catching sector were concerned by an MCRS, but the majority felt a higher MCRS would be preferable to a MaxCRS, due to low survivability for larger rays, impacts on fish in the local area and displacement of skates and rays. One suggestion was for a tag and release programme to determine survivability. They also felt the higher value of larger rays merit a full economic assessment. Moreover, measures should be based on scientific evidence and require further data collection ahead of implementation.

There were also calls for species-specific and geographical difference in maturity sizes to be considered, alongside wing size and whole animal size as part of a MCRS approach. Some inshore stakeholders supported an evidence based MaxCRS, suggesting 80cm, while others sought trials prior to implementation. 

Recreational and eNGO stakeholders were broadly supportive of an MCRS that is universal in the short-term, with species-specific MCRS to follow once more data is available. Some noted the importance of an MCRS in preventing landings of misidentified skates and rays, immature but belonging to a larger species. EU stakeholders were generally concerned with recently implemented measures for undulate ray, that these were imposed prior to the end of the consultation which undermines the collaborative process. They suggested measures should be reconsidered and determined based on the best available scientific knowledge. 

Recreational and eNGO stakeholders largely supported this measure, whilst some requested more information on how the MaxCRS, in combination with the MCRS, would interact with the landing obligation. Concerns were raised on the lack of enforcement and proposed that the focus should be on the economic benefits of increased landing size and the incentivisation of less damaging gears.

Some eNGOs also noted that MaxCRS would avoid shifting fishing pressure onto larger individuals because of an MCRS. They propose that putting both measures into place (also known as a “slot size”) is likely the best way to ensure population sustainability, mentioning the case of undulate ray, which already has a maximum and minimum conservation reference size. A response from the catching sector noted that this same harvest slot theory, as implemented for undulate ray, should be reconsidered, due to the risk of dead discards.

Overall, EU stakeholders did not support a MaxCRS given the lack of supporting evidence. They noted a MaxCRS is impractical given that larger skates and rays are more valuable, and that deselecting larger individuals can be difficult for fishers.

Voluntary guidelines 

Stakeholders largely supported voluntary guidelines to help address misidentification, improve the quality of data collected and improve handling practices and associated survivability. Both the catching sector and eNGOs noted existing ID cards and systems that could be utilised and ensuring applicability to the recreational sector. In contrast, some questioned the viability of voluntary measures noting fish would have to be easily released for the guidelines to work.

Sentinel fishery for small-eyed ray in 7e 

The catching sector felt the quota offered for taking part in the sentinel fishery for small-eyed ray in 7e is limited but generally supported this measure. Recreational stakeholders noted that small-eyed ray may be more valuable than estimated and suggested a further socio-economic evaluation as well as a population size assessment. They were keen to participate in data collection and believe recreational fisheries can have higher survival rates for small-eyed rays than commercial fisheries.

Should a sentinel fishery produce enough evidence to support the opening of a larger fishery, eNGOs believe restrictions should be implemented to prevent a boom-and-bust scenario.

Alternatives to the group TAC 

Catching sector responses were generally supportive of gathering evidence to inform alternatives to the group TAC for skates and rays, with some interest in working with the EU on species specific TACs. Recreational stakeholders were also supportive of this. Both sectors noted that flexibility and further evidence are needed to avoid chokes. Some stakeholders flagged that implementing individual TACs could lead to higher levels of discards and emphasized the importance of better understanding their potential impact. Others considered the development of alternatives to the group TAC as essential for future management and supported exploring options through the SCF. The eNGOs highlighted that setting TAC levels below MSY would help keep catches at a sustainable level and population levels healthy. 

EU respondents felt management is complicated for data-limited stocks and non-targeted stocks with a small biomass, proposing alternatives such as bycatch stocks, not subject to a TAC but protected with a higher MCRS than other species. They supported continued collaboration through the SCF.

Spatial or temporal closures 

The catching sector largely did not support spatial or temporal closures and commented that strong evidence would be needed to support any closures. They noted that skates and rays breed all year round and spatial closures would be too restrictive and could create compliance issues for the fleet already facing marine spatial challenges. Given skates and rays sensitivity, it was suggested the impact of other marine industries such as cables and offshore wind farms should be considered, with the existence of MPAs that already provide protection noted. Another recommendation was to use a similar approach to the spurdog avoidance programme, to help fishers communicate where the smaller individuals are found so they can be avoided.

Others noted that seasonal closures on a local basis could protect the skates and rays numbers. Some in the recreational sector supported seasonal and spatial closures but recommended these are assessed on a case-by-case basis. While eNGO stakeholders felt closures can be effective if based on accurate data, to establish where, when and for which species these closures would be most effective. 

EU stakeholders broadly did not support seasonal and spatial closures, noting greater evidence is needed on distribution and migration patterns. They flagged that the impact of potential closures should be assessed cumulatively with offshore wind farms and MPAs.

Question 5: Would you support the introduction of an MCRS for some or all of the stocks covered in the FMP? 

Most stakeholders supported the concept of this measure to protect juveniles.

Catching sector stakeholders suggested exercising caution, basing measures on scientific advice and collecting more data before implementation. Some suggested that species-specific quotas could be coupled with an MCRS to improve the welfare and sustainability of the stock.

Given the size differences between species, some felt MCRS should be species-specific. Others supported grouped MCRS’s, being more appropriate than a universal size for all species, questioning the effectiveness of a species-specific MCRS due to difficulties identifying species. Recreational respondents similarly raised the issue of misidentification, proposing a higher MCRS to protect juveniles of bigger species.

Further work was recommended, including modelling by Cefas to determine the appropriate size, as well as building on work conducted by North Devon Fishermen’s Association on voluntary measures for minimum landing size for skates and rays. Other suggestions included trials to review any gear modifications to improve selectivity and for additional measures on mesh size of nets used in these fisheries.

IFCA views included an initial MCRS of 40cm for the whole animal and 19cm to 20cm for a wing, as well as the importance of using both sizes to avoid confusion. Some were only supportive of MCRS for the 3 data poor stocks, given remaining stocks are at sustainable levels based on ICES advice. Others noted an MCRS had been introduced in parts of Wales and Guernsey and should be considered. Both IFCA and recreational stakeholders supported the short-term implementation of MCRS, starting with a generic approach and data gathering to allow for a species-specific approach in the long term.

Views both within and between sectors were variable. Some felt MCRS would not have a significant economic impact on fishers and would help reduce bycatch, while others sought greater consideration of the impact on the trawling industry. Some suggested a regional approach instead of national, but with alignment across the Scottish and English border as much as possible. A phased approach to allow fishers to adapt was also suggested.

Anecdotal evidence suggested an abundance of common skate (a closed fishery) with a call for a scientific study to collect data to develop an MCRS. Views from eNGOs included support for MCRS and MaxCRS for recreational fisheries, however they queried how this would work for stocks with the landing obligation and highlighted the importance of scientific evidence when developing technical measures, and the consideration of additional research regarding blonde ray, spotted ray, and thornback ray changing diets at 55cm. Others highlighted that the minimum size at maturity should be considered for both male and female individuals. 

EU respondents were broadly supportive of the concept of this measure and noted the existing minimum size for undulate ray, flagging that total length should be the distance from the tip of the snout to end of the tail. Some emphasised that MCRS should be based on scientific studies to assess its effectiveness, while others suggested it should be as uniform as possible across species and country waters, and based on parameters that consider current catches for sustainable management. Some noted that a universal MCRS is not relevant, given the anatomy variations between species. A regional approach regarding the catch area composition and a gradual increase in MCRS was further suggested.

It was noted some EU member states have introduced a different MCRS (45cm in France, except for undulate ray) and that there should be alignment with existing MCRS in other EU fisheries. The potential complexity of a species-specific MCRS was flagged, as well as the need for a socio-economic assessment of increased handling costs associated with identifying species. Most EU respondents called for this measure to be discussed further through the SCF.

Question 6: Do you have any additional comments on the draft FMP? 

The catching sector highlighted that other FMPs, MPA management measures, regional marine plans and spatial planning decisions will likely impact this FMP and should be considered through to implementation. The lack of inclusion of the Bristol Channel and Celtic Sea in this FMP was queried, especially given many small-eyed rays can be found in the Bristol Channel. Some noted an overlap between this FMP and the Celtic Sea and Western Channel Demersal FMP in area 7e for:

• thornback ray 

• blonde ray 

• cuckoo ray

• small-eyed ray 

• spotted ray

They sought more information on how this will be managed. Others suggested that it would be useful to identify common research objectives across multiple FMPs and align efforts. 

Early engagement with fishers on the detail of potential actions was encouraged to ensure they fully understand the scope and implications of what is being developed for implementation. Some flagged that the economic significance of these stocks and the socio-economic impacts of management measures should be more considered. Others sought a clear roadmap in line with the Fisheries Act. Respondents acknowledged the challenges of the skates and rays fishery and their support for a co-management approach with industry. 

Responses from IFCA and eNGOs suggested the use of REM for data collection to help address the data gaps mentioned throughout the FMP. ENGO responses also noted that the possibility of increased fishing pressure if the stocks were to become more valuable should be considered. 

Recreational stakeholders suggested the FMP should include details of fish tagged in each area, amongst other things. Skates and rays were cited as their most common catch-and-release species, with observed decline in both size and abundance. They would like to see these designated as recreationally important species, particularly:

• undulate ray 

• blonde ray

• spotted ray

• cuckoo ray

• thornback ray 

They also recommended the UK government request ICES to conduct a review of alternative harvest strategies such as max economic yield or ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Concerns the plan does not meet Fisheries Act requirements were raised by eNGOs, lacking measures designed to restore or maintain stocks. They advocate for the use of REM as a priority, noting catch limits should be based on scientific advice rather than industry needs. More general points were to make clear the protections afforded by regulations and international commitments, consideration of the dynamic between non-target endangered fish and commercial fish in marine management and the welfare of caught fish including bycatch.

EU stakeholders sought discussion of the FMP at the SCF or a dedicated working group with their inclusion to ensure all those impacted shape potential management measures. They welcome harmonisation across the EU and UK to ensure ease of implementation and effectiveness, noting overly complex measures increase the risk of non-compliance. Some want greater consideration of the socio-economic impacts of implementing new measures, balanced with the environmental aspects.

Question 7: Do you have any comments on the assessment of the environmental effects of the draft FMP, as set out in the environmental report? 

The catching sector noted discussion of in-combination effects, but that these largely focus on marine plans, which are a spatial planning tool, and queried their relevance. They want in-combination effects to include other relevant policy areas as well as other FMPs.

Views across sectors varied. Some felt the report largely ignored the practicalities of managing stocks in a mixed fishery, and that too much quota was made available too quickly. Recreational stakeholders commented that all commercial fishing permanently damages the localised marine ecosystem. Other suggestions included the assessment of habitat impacts of fishing practices, the definition of specific MPAs to protect nursery grounds. On gear types, others noted that the static gear fishing fleet has limited environmental impact in contrast to bottom trawling. Some respondents sought more information on the impact of windfarms and associated cabling. Some also queried mortality estimates for harbour porpoises in the Greater North Sea and their geographical limits. 

A key point raised by eNGOs centres on the significant bycatch risk identified for drift and fixed nets, in relation to mobile MPA species contributing to the UK not meeting GES targets. They contend that welfare impacts on non-target species should also consider how the caught animals are handled and the length of time before their release, and improvements in this area would minimise post-release mortality. Some suggested that the bycatch of seals, cetaceans and protected elasmobranchs in gill net fisheries should be prioritised with use of closed-circuit television (CCTV) and REM.

Comments from EU stakeholders emphasised all human activities impact the environment and acknowledged the risk of seabed disturbance (by mobile demersal gear), and bycatch of unwanted or protected species (by drift nets and fixed nets) for this FMP. They noted the sustainability of these fishing practices (social, economic and environmental) should be evaluated, including the historical impact of fishing activity on the marine environment. It was suggested the impact of fishing gear on the seabed and capture of protected species should be studied based on a local approach, given the impact will be influenced by the nature of the seabed, currents, hydrography and tidal range (particularly in the Channel), and that the interaction with protected species should be integrated. Others noted that more research is needed on the impacts of towed gears, depending on the type of sediments to avoid generalising.

Government response: FMP 

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

Overview 

The FMP will build on the existing national and regional management measures already in place, so skate and ray stocks are fished sustainably.

Overall, there was broad support for an evidence-based approach to any potential management measures. The FMP will maintain its current approach of focussing on evidence gathering to inform the suitability of future management measures, working collaboratively with stakeholders to address gaps. 

Actions and measures reliant on further evidence gathering have been given a medium to long term delivery timeframe. In the short term, Defra will collate and prioritise all evidence gaps across the FMP programme, including those for skates and rays. Where relevant gaps are prioritised, timeframes may be brought forward.

Changes to the FMP following consultation

To improve the length and clarity of the FMP, policy goals and actions have been streamlined and condensed where appropriate. These have also been restructured to clarify how certain actions will contribute to achieving the FMP goals and align with the fisheries objectives in the Act. Minor technical and language changes have been made in response to stakeholder feedback, with additional information added to improve accuracy and ensure consistency across all FMPs.

While we recognise the desire for firmer commitment in the language of the FMP goals and measures, it is necessary to retain some flexibility in our implementation approach - allowing further evidence gathering to inform the best way forward, and flexibility in the delivery timeframe aligning with the need to prioritise across all FMPs within available resources.

Several of the goals and actions in the FMP rely on further evidence gathering in order to determine the most appropriate and effective approach. In recognition of the extensive evidence requirements across all FMPs, these have been given a medium to long-term timeframe for delivery. In line with the collation and prioritisation of all evidence gaps across the FMP programme, some of these timeframes may be made earlier during the implementation stage.

To address differing stakeholder views, language on the precautionary approach has been further clarified in the FMP. 

We acknowledge stakeholder feedback regarding precautionary management measures for the 3 data limited stocks. Although the stocks are data-limited, and there is insufficient available evidence to assess MSY, the ICES advice indicates the current level of exploitation is appropriate for the stocks, however, should this change, further action will be considered. As such, the FMP sets out to continue current management and, should further action be required and supported by evidence, management measures will be put in place. These measures are dependent on further research to determine the most suitable approach and to understand demographic impacts, efficacy and unintended consequences.

There was no consensus in the consultation responses as to the appropriate approach to management measures on the appropriate size for an MCRS or if this should be species-specific, or brigaded, requiring more evidence to be gathered. As such the final FMP recognises that further evidence gathering is required to inform decisions on potential management measures, and ahead of any implementation. This will help to avoid unintended consequences such as displacement of effort or increased discarding. The FMP therefore sets out possible management measures that could be implemented in the future, with a focus on the data limited stocks, if the evidence gathered as part of the FMP process supports their effectiveness. 

The issue of misidentification was frequently raised, noting this impacts survivability, data reliability and impact of any species-specific management. In response to feedback, the final FMP will continue to progress the voluntary guidelines measure in the short-term, bringing forward identification workshops where beneficial to further support education and distribution of those guidelines. The issue of misidentification of the species underpins the deliverability and effectiveness of the majority of FMP measures, as well as the issues around data limitations. 

The final version of the Southern North Sea and Channel skate and ray fisheries management plan (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 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 the support of 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, although 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, acknowledging that a greater role in decision making carries shared responsibility for ensuring we are abiding by our legal and international commitments and are balancing environmental, social and economic sustainability along with the other objectives.

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

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, in the same way it is 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 launching 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, we encourage efforts 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 and 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, and 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 management 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, changes to scientific advice and a pause in work resulting from the 2024 UK General Election, 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, and more specific and faster timescales for delivery of actions. This issue was raised in earlier FMP consultations and changes made accordingly to deliver some key changes more quickly. However, it has led to fresh concerns about the impacts of delivering change too quickly on the fishing industry. It includes a need for continued stakeholder involvement in designing FMP measures. We have therefore balanced views against resources and a recognition that too much change would not be deliverable or could create unreasonable burdens on the fishing sector. 

Many of the actions in the FMPs are to gather more data and consider options. This is because most of the plans cover non quota stocks which have little management and are data poor. This requires new evidence to ensure appropriate measures are introduced that are based on the best available scientific advice. We are learning continuously and changes will be made to fisheries management through implementation of 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, an approach which will continue during the implementation phase of these plans.

Some stakeholders raised the issue of remote electronic monitoring (REM) and were keen for it to be mandatory, to facilitate 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, as well as 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, consideration of the cumulative impacts of measures will be made. Our collaborative approach to delivering FMPs will enable the fishing sector to contribute its information on activities and impacts to help co-design management actions. 

We have heard very clearly the concerns about increasing spatial pressures and 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, actions to monitor and where applicable mitigate displacement and its social, economic and environmental impacts have been included. 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, with some calling for management measures of data poor stocks to be prioritised while 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 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, thereby strengthening 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. Recognising the transboundary nature of fisheries and working collaboratively with coastal states was also encouraged by some of our domestic stakeholders. While it is not a requirement to discuss FMPs at the SCF (or for the EU to discuss their policies), cooperation with the EU on the management of shared stocks will continue. For example, the UK and EU will discuss a multi-year strategy for King scallops, and we will continue to engage with the EU during the development and implementation of FMPs which will affect EU vessels. 

EU stakeholders were also concerned that proposed measures might affect access arrangements agreed under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), strongly emphasising the principles of cooperation, proportionality, non-discrimination and 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.

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, which will continue. We acknowledge the substantial amount of evidence that needs to be collected to fill existing gaps, as well as the questions raised about government’s ability to address those evidence gaps, timelines for delivery and 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 bought forwards.

We continue working with the fishing sector and wider stakeholders to support the delivery of evidence requirements. An event held in March explored the future direction of collaborative science for FMPs, with a call subsequently issued to industry and wider stakeholders seeking their support 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 Southern North Sea and English Channel skates and rays FMP strategic environmental assessment (SEA), environmental report consultation. 

Stakeholder responses have been considered, and the skates and rays FMP environmental report has been updated with additional recommendations. 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 

We acknowledge the need for the environmental report to better consider the environmental effects of mixed fishery issues and have included further detail within the assessment of action 2 to address this. The FMP already recognises the importance of mixed and multispecies management in relation to skates and rays, as set out in policy goal 1, action 2. 

Further information has been added to the report to improve understanding of the impact of skates and rays as a bycatch from other fisheries. In relation to nursery grounds, the FMP does recognise that skates and rays use distinct areas for crucial parts of their life stages, however more evidence is needed to better understand this, as set out in goal 2, action 6. Improved evidence will be used to inform potential temporal and spatial closures, if determined appropriate.

While we support the wider points raised in relation to balancing social and economic impacts with environmental impacts for FMP fisheries, both the impact of bottom trawling and bycatch of unwanted or protected species are already considered within the environmental report and within the sustainability goal 3 action 4 in the FMP. No changes have therefore been made. 

In response to a request for more information on the impact of windfarms and associated cabling, we would highlight that the environmental report acknowledges the existence of non-fishing pressures within the FMP area and includes an action under goal 3 to better understand the impact of anthropogenic non-fishing pressures on skate and ray stocks. No changes have therefore been made. 

We acknowledge feedback on the need to quantify the benthic impacts of fishing gear, in particular in relation to sediment type. This is a cross-cutting issue relevant to all FMPs where seabed impacts are a risk, requiring a strategic approach to help contribute towards achieving GES. This work could be taken forward by the proposed benthic impact working group to find specific solutions related to the seabed impacts from fishing activity. 

We acknowledge the importance of considering the welfare of both the target and non-target species to minimising post-release mortality and have added this consideration to the environmental report. However, it is worth noting the FMP already sets out to address this issue through the handling guidelines management measure.

Regarding feedback that closed-circuit television CCTV and REM should be used to address bycatch of seals, cetaceans and protected elasmobranchs in gill net fisheries, we would reiterate associated actions within the sustainability goals in the FMP that focus on the bycatch of protected and unwanted species caught in FMP fisheries. Where appropriate, such measures could be explored.

We note concerns about evidence used within the environmental report related to harbour porpoise bycatch and acknowledge there may be discrepancies in the data used by the underlying studies. We therefore propose to gather more data on bycatch to improve our understanding. 

Another comment was that the environmental report focused largely on the Marine Plans and questioned the relevance of this for in-combination effects of this FMP. In response to this, we have added some additional detail in the environmental report that better explains why we have focused on marine plans and their relevance. They are helpful tools that set out priorities and directions for future development within the plan area, inform sustainable use of marine resources and help marine users understand the best locations for their activities.

Marine plans consider all marine activities, resources and ecosystems and therefore assessing FMP policies against Marine Plan policies represents the most efficient way of determining how FMP policies will broadly interact with other marine activities. It also ensures compliance with section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

Annex 1: List of organisations that did not request confidentiality 

• Angling Trust 

• Bass Angling Conservation 

• Blue Marine Foundation 

• Cachalot Charters 

• Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins

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

• Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation (CFPO) 

• Cornwall Wildlife Trust 

• D&S IFCA 

• Eastern England Fish Producers Organisation 

• Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (EIFCA) 

• Essex sea fishing 

• French authorities 

• Institute of Fisheries Management 

• Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority IFCA 

• Leach Fishing 

• National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) 

• Northern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (NIFCA) 

• North Sea Advisory Council 

• North Thames professional charter skippers association 

• North Western Waters AC 

• OP Cobrenord 

• Permanent Representation of Belgium to the EU 

• Plymouth fishing and seafood association 

• RM Seafish.Com 

• Shark Trust 

• Silver Spray Maritime Ltd 

• South Western Fish Producer Organisation (SWFPO) 

• Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (SIFCA) 

• The Open Seas Trust 

• Trident sea anglers / Angling trust 

• University of Portsmouth 

• Western Fish Producers’ Organisation Ltd 

• Whale and Dolphin Conservation 

• Wild Animal Welfare Committee