Transparency data

3 July 2026: King Scallop Implementation Group (KSIG) meeting minutes

Updated 21 August 2026

This meeting was held online via Microsoft Teams on Friday 3 July 2026 (10:30am to 11:30am).

Attendees 

• Ed Moseley - Defra, Acting Chair
• Annabel Stockwin - Defra
• Katie Haldenby - Defra
• Helen Hunter - Defra
• Foster Gault - Seafood Ecosse, Scottish White Fish Producers Association
• Robert Enever - Fishtek Marine
• Alice Chamberlain - WWF-UK
• Andrew Brown - Clearwater
• Fiona Nimmo - Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) representative
• Callum Williams - Marine Management Organisation (MMO)
• Juliette Hatchman- South West Fish Producers Organisation (SWFPO), Scallop Industry Consultation Group (SICG)
• Harry Owen - Western Fish Producers Organisation
• Mark Duffy - Natural England
• Samantha Davis - Cornwall Inshore Fishery and Conservation Authority

Apologies 

• David Beard - Manx Fish Producers Organisation
• Stuart King - West Coast Sea Products
• Bill Brock - Leach Fishing
• Lewis Tattersall - Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
• David McCandless - North Eastern Inshore Fishery and Conservation Authority (NEIFCA) 

Agenda 

• Welcome, apologies and meeting objectives
• Ways of working – KSIG and wider stakeholders
• Governance and roles
• Stakeholder engagement and transparency
• Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) Implementation 
• AOB
• Review of final actions and close

1. Welcome, apologies and meeting objectives

Ed Moseley chaired the meeting, welcomed members and noted apologies from Stuart King, David Beard, Bill Brock and Lewis Tattersall. He welcomed Lewis Tattersall from the Marine Stewardship Council as KSIG’s new environmental non-governmental organisation (eNGO) representative. He also expressed thanks to all organisations that had expressed an interest in the role.  

Ed explained that the meeting had been arranged to discuss how KSIG will continue to support delivery of the King Scallop FMP. He also outlined the link between this work and the development of the Multi-Year Strategy (MYSt) with the EU. 

He reiterated Defra’s commitment to collaborative working and stakeholder engagement. Defra remains committed to progressing the FMP while also pursuing opportunities to improve management of shared scallop stocks through the MYSt. 

Ed acknowledged the time and effort stakeholders have invested in developing management proposals. He also recognised concerns about the pace of progress. He stressed that Defra wants to continue moving work forward and remains committed to ensuring that stakeholder views inform future decisions. 

He said future management measures must be practical, evidence-based and proportionate. He recognised that stakeholders hold different views and said these would be considered as work progresses. 

Ed said the meeting would focus on roles, responsibilities and how KSIG can support FMP delivery and MYSt discussions. He highlighted the importance of continuing to work together through existing co-management structures and ensuring that the group’s time and expertise are used effectively. 

He reiterated that: 

• FMP delivery remains a priority
• Work on the FMP and MYSt will continue in parallel
• Defra remains committed to co-management and stakeholder engagement
• Stakeholder views will continue to inform future management decisions

2. Ways of working – KSIG and wider stakeholders

Governance and roles

Annabel Stockwin provided an update on the MYSt. She also outlined how KSIG could support both MYSt discussions and FMP delivery. 

She acknowledged concerns raised by stakeholders in recent months. She noted that members wanted reassurance that MYSt development would not slow progress on FMP delivery. 

Annabel noted that managing a stock that is both commercially important and shared with the EU is complex. Decisions need to take account of scientific evidence, operational considerations and policy requirements. She said the recent Fisheries Improvement Project (FIP) workshop highlighted both the challenges involved and the amount of work still needed to develop long-term management arrangements. 

Annabel noted that some future decisions will ultimately rest with ministers and may require agreement with the EU. She stressed that Defra wants those decisions to be informed by both evidence and stakeholder views. Defra wants to maintain regular communication with stakeholders, seek views at key stages and understand practical concerns before proposals are developed further. 

Annabel also sought to reassure members that discussions with the EU remain at an early stage. Current discussions focus on shared science, data, ways of working and a small number of technical measures. Discussions have not yet progressed to detailed negotiations on larger management questions such as catch limits, effort management or wider harvest control approaches. 

Annabel said the MYSt would be developed in stages. The first version is expected to focus on shared objectives, common approaches and future joint work. Longer-term management measures will require further evidence, discussion and development. 

Annabel highlighted the joint UK-EU request for advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) on biological reference points as an important milestone. She explained that this work will support future discussions on harvest strategies and provide an important scientific foundation for long-term stock management. 

In setting out the future role of KSIG, Annabel said existing co-management arrangements will remain central to Defra’s approach. KSIG and SICG will remain the main forums for stakeholder input into policy development and implementation. Defra will use these groups to refine proposals, test ideas and ensure management discussions reflect operational realities. 

She also noted that engagement may need to take place more flexibly than in the past. As discussions with the EU evolve, Defra may need to seek stakeholder input at specific points and within relatively short timescales. While Defra will continue to provide updates wherever possible, there may be occasions when detailed information cannot be shared due to the nature of live negotiations. 

Annabel further highlighted the importance of broader stakeholder engagement beyond KSIG membership. While KSIG brings together a wide range of expertise and interests, it cannot represent every part of the sector. She suggested that KSIG could play a stronger role in identifying gaps in engagement. The group could also help gather wider views through existing networks, local fisheries groups and other stakeholder forums. 

Annabel reaffirmed that FMP delivery will continue alongside MYSt development. She stressed that KSIG remains central to FMP delivery. Defra will continue to develop management options, gather evidence and work with stakeholders to identify practical and proportionate measures. 

Discussion 

Members discussed the relationship between MYSt discussions and ongoing FMP delivery. 

Juliette Hatchman emphasised the importance of developing a harvest strategy framework before progressing harvest control measures. She reiterated that the FMP was intended to establish an overarching management framework, with harvest control measures developed beneath it. 

Defra recognised this position but noted that the FMP also identifies opportunities for shorter-term management measures that could provide additional protection while longer-term work continues. 

Questions were raised about future management approaches under the TCA. 

Defra confirmed that: 

• The UK remains bound by the TCA
• The TCA allows unilateral action based on the best available science
• No management options are currently ruled out

Questions were also raised about the timescale for ICES advice. Defra confirmed that both the UK and EU are treating this work as a priority. 

Andrew Brown questioned whether additional technical measures should be introduced solely to secure agreement with the EU. He suggested this could create inefficiencies and lead to measures being reversed once a longer-term management framework is established. 

Katie noted that discussions at the Newcastle workshop had already identified some measures as potential early actions. These had been considered as possible FMP measures regardless of MYSt discussions. 

Foster referred to a request made at the previous meeting for greater visibility of information shared during the early stages of MYSt discussions with the EU. He asked whether any of this information could now be shared with stakeholders. Defra confirmed that it was not yet in a position to do so. 

Juliette Hatchman said stakeholder concerns about consultation were mainly about timing. Stakeholders had expected wider engagement during spring 2026 and had hoped to have greater clarity on future management approaches by the end of the year. 

Andrew Brown asked whether the UK could introduce quota management for scallops without EU agreement. 

Annabel clarified that the UK remains bound by the TCA. However, the TCA also allows unilateral action based on the best available science and no management options are currently out of scope. 

Callum Williams suggested it was important to distinguish between quota management and other approaches that may restrict catch or fishing effort. 

Mark Duffy highlighted the sandeel fishery as an example of unilateral action based on scientific evidence. 

Alice Chamberlain asked whether wider engagement would include eNGOs as well as industry stakeholders. Defra confirmed this would be considered as engagement plans develop. 

Mark Duffy also asked whether future FMP work could include environmental impacts and emerging EU requirements under the Nature Restoration Regulation. 

Katie confirmed that environmental impacts are one of the workstreams currently being mapped as part of future FMP delivery. 

Stakeholder engagement and transparency 

Helen Hunter introduced a proposal to establish a small, trusted stakeholder group to support Defra during future discussions with the EU. 

Helen explained that the proposal was to create a small group of 3 or 4 stakeholders to act as a confidential sounding board for officials. This would allow Defra to obtain stakeholder input without delay when discussions move quickly. It would also help officials assess the practical implications of proposals before engaging further with the EU. Helen stressed that this would be separate from KSIG’s wider role. KSIG would remain the main forum for discussing management measures. It would also continue to gather evidence and shape future policy. The trusted group would instead support officials on specific issues where access to more sensitive information may be required. 

Members of such a group would not participate directly in negotiations. However, they may be given access to information that could not be shared more widely. Any discussions within the group would therefore need to remain confidential. 

Helen noted that similar arrangements have been used in quota negotiations. Industry representatives provided technical advice and practical expertise as negotiations progressed. The purpose would be to ensure Defra can quickly access informed stakeholder views when required.  

Discussion 

Stakeholders were broadly supportive of the proposal and recognised the value of maintaining a direct route for practical industry input as discussions with the EU develop. 

Juliette Hatchman said similar arrangements had not always worked well in the past. In some cases, industry representatives had little warning of the issues being discussed and limited opportunity to gather wider views. She felt this proposal could work better. Stakeholders have been discussing scallop management for some time and already understand many of the issues likely to arise. 

Members recognised the value of ensuring Defra can access stakeholder expertise quickly if discussions with the EU begin to move at pace. 

There was extensive discussion about representation and trust. Foster emphasised that the success of any trusted group would depend on confidence in its membership. He noted that representatives would need to be trusted by both Defra and the wider industry. He stated that they should also be able to reflect the wider interests of the sector rather than the interests of a particular group. 

A similar point was raised by Juliette, who noted that industry must be comfortable with, and have confidence in, those selected to represent them. Members agreed that the credibility of the group would depend on stakeholders having confidence in those selected to represent them. 

Andrew Brown noted that trusted stakeholder groups have generally worked best when supporting negotiations over a defined and concentrated period. He cautioned that a longer-term arrangement may be more difficult to manage. 

Members discussed the balance between transparency and confidentiality. They recognised that some information must remain confidential. However, stakeholders should continue to receive updates where possible. 

Members highlighted the importance of maintaining clear communication and ensuring stakeholders understand how their views are represented. 

The discussion also linked to wider engagement beyond KSIG membership. Members highlighted the importance of gathering views from sectors and geographic areas not represented directly within the group. There was support for using existing groups to help maintain broader stakeholder engagement as FMP development and MYSt discussions progress. 

Defra welcomed the positive feedback and agreed to continue developing the proposal, taking account of the views raised during the discussion.

3. Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) implementation

Katie Haldenby provided a brief update on plans for the next phase of FMP delivery. 

Katie explained that work is underway to map the remaining FMP actions and develop a clearer delivery plan. This will help show how different parts of the FMP will be delivered and where KSIG can contribute. 

The work currently being mapped includes the review of the Scallop Order and wider FMP priorities. These include environmental impacts, gear innovation, spatial management and fleet efficiency. This builds on discussions at the KSIG workshop in Newcastle and on work that is already underway. 

Katie noted that this work would help identify where KSIG members can support delivery of FMP objectives and wider collaborative work across the sector.

Katie noted that work on longer-term management options will continue, including further work on input and output controls. 

Katie stated that KSIG’s role extends beyond discussing management measures. The group has an important role in testing and shaping how management measures could work in practice. She noted that the next phase of work will focus on identifying where KSIG members can support delivery of FMP objectives and key FMP priorities. 

Katie asked members to review the FMP and consider where they, or the organisations they represent, could make the greatest contribution to delivery. 

Defra will continue developing the workplan and bring proposals back to a future KSIG meeting to help coordinate effort across the group’s priorities.

4. AOB

Foster asked whether future KSIG meetings could be scheduled in advance to support forward planning. Defra agreed to establish a regular meeting schedule. 

Juliette advised that SICG members are developing proposals on management literacy and wider stakeholder engagement. These will be shared with Defra. 

Alice Chamberlain asked whether future FMP action plans could include timescales and progress updates. Katie agreed to consider this.

5. Review of final actions and close

Actions

Action: Defra to share the ICES advice request once internal clearance has been completed. 

Action: Defra to re-circulate material from the Newcastle workshop. 

Action: Defra to develop proposals for a trusted stakeholder group. 

Action: Defra to complete and share the draft FMP workplan. 

Action: All members to review the FMP and identify areas where they can support delivery. 

Action: Juliette to share SICG proposals on management literacy and stakeholder engagement. 

Action: Defra to establish regular KSIG meetings in advance where possible.