Consultation on Three Joint UK Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) for Pelagic Stocks

Status of the stocks covered by the three remaining pelagic FMPs

The health of sea fish stocks can change over time, and ICES provides new advice on an annual basis for most stocks. The fisheries policy authorities review stocks annually and, as these three stocks are jointly managed, the approach to setting overall fishing opportunities are determined through international negotiation and through the sustainability objective in the Act.

Different pelagic stocks are subject to different management measures in different areas of the sea by individual coastal States, so we will endeavour to work in cooperation to jointly deliver sustainable management and catching opportunities for these stocks.

ICES advice is organised into assessment categories ranging from Category 1 (the highest level of information available) to Category 6 (the lowest). Additionally, benchmark exercises are used by ICES to evaluate existing and new scientific evidence and methods and, where relevant, apply them in the stock assessment process. They are part of the continuous improvement process which ensures that ICES advice is based on the best available scientific evidence.

The summary below reflects the ICES assessment framework in place at the time the draft FMPs were prepared.

1. North Sea horse mackerel

   1. the Western horse mackerel stock is classed as a Category 1* stock;
   2. horse mackerel in the Southern and Central North Sea (SCNS) and eastern English Channel was upgraded to a category 1**** stock following ICES benchmarking exercise in 2024 although at the time of writing the FMP this is currently under review.
2. North Sea GSS is classed as a Category 2* stock based on most recent ICES advice^[14].
3. West of Scotland GSS is classed as a Category 1* stock at the time of writing this FMP.

(*) The stock has a high level of data available and there is sufficient available scientific evidence for the relevant fisheries policy authorities to make MSY assessments for this stock. This includes stocks with quantitative (Category 1) or qualitative (Category 2) assessments.

(****) Although the SCNS and eastern English Channel horse mackerel stock has been upgraded to Category 1, the evidence base remains insufficient to establish robust MSY reference points. The latest scientific assessment indicates that spawning stock biomass is below Blim and that catch advice is therefore currently set at zero. Strengthening the evidence base remains a priority, particularly because the stock is managed as a bycatch-only stock, limiting the quantity of fishery-dependent data available to inform scientific assessments. While acknowledging these evidence limitations, the stock is currently classed as a Category 1 stock by ICES, therefore, the policies and actions for the SCNS and eastern English Channel horse mackerel stock have been drafted to meet the requirements of section 6(3)(a) of the Fisheries Act 2020.

It is important to note that these FMPs are produced with the available evidence at the time. As far as possible, the management approach set out in the draft FMPs provides flexibility for fisheries managers to adapt to changing circumstances. Should ICES advice significantly change, or other material circumstances change, following the publication of the draft FMPs within this consultation, steps will be taken as needed to adjust the FMPs prior to final publication.

Under section 8(1) of the Act, as well as the six-year (or sooner if required) review of FMPs, an FMP can also be replaced or amended at any time following a consultation allowing the plan to be kept up to date. The decision to review earlier will be taken by the fisheries policy authorities.

Policies and actions for the management of horse mackerel and greater silver smelt fisheries in UK

The proposed FMPs, including their policies and actions which are subject to the consideration of this consultation will be prioritised appropriately following publication to ensure realistic and measurable outputs. They were drafted to meet the requirements of policies set out in the JFS and section 6(3)(a) of the Fisheries Act 2020.

For each policy, the FMP sets out:

• a rationale;
• ongoing, short and longer-term actions; and
• how the actions support delivery of the fisheries objectives.

Each policy describes the outcome that is being worked towards, and the actions are intended to support the delivery of those outcomes.

Where there is sufficient available evidence to assess MSY for the pelagic stocks covered by the FMPs, the FMPs must contain policies which will at least contribute to restoring or maintaining the stock at MSY. In addition, in accordance with section 5.4 of the JFS, the design and structure of FMPs directly relate to the fisheries objectives identified in section 5.4.2 and may also address wider issues in fisheries management depending upon the specific goals or targets of each plan and may contribute to one or more of the remaining fisheries objectives.

In developing the policies and actions for these FMPs, the relevant fisheries policy authorities have considered the current policy landscape including applicable international agreements and declarations, conservation advice and wider policy development underway, in addition to considering what additional evidence, measures or policies may be needed to support both the vision of the FMPs and delivery of the fisheries objectives.

FMPs are one of the tools that support the achievement of the fisheries objectives, although they are not the only policy vehicle available to do this. The fisheries policy authorities have also considered the conservation advice received from the SNCBs and included the outputs from that work in considering where policy action may be needed.

The FMPs will be monitored and assessed against a set of indicators to ensure the overarching outcomes and actions are effective in achieving the FMP policy goals and the requirements of the Act.

There is significant overlap in policies for these three FMPs, apart from policies 1 and 2 in the North Sea horse mackerel FMP which are different to account for the complexities around the two stocks covered by that plan. The similarities are intentional to ensure that there is harmonisation in management approaches and delivery as far as practicable. Area specific considerations, which do not span all three FMPs, are denoted in the individual FMPs.

For the proposed North Sea horse mackerel FMP the policies are:

• Policy 1a: Harvest the Western horse mackerel stock in ICES division 4.a sustainably, contributing to maintaining the biomass above the level capable of producing MSY.
• Policy 1b: Harvest the SCNS and Eastern Channel horse mackerel stock sustainably, contributing to restoring the biomass above the level capable of producing MSY
• Policy 2a: Use the best-available scientific evidence to support management decisions relating to the setting of sustainable fishing opportunities for the Western horse mackerel stock in ICES division 4.a
• Policy 2b: Use the best available science, including emerging evidence from ongoing research, to strengthen the management and support the recovery of horse mackerel in the southern and central North Sea and Eastern Channel
• Policy 3: Monitor catches of horse mackerel and ensure that where possible all catches are counted against quotas
• Policy 4: Deliver wider sustainable management by minimising the impact of the horse mackerel fishery on the marine ecosystem
• Policy 5: Support fishing businesses to deliver socio-economic and cultural benefits for communities
• Policy 6: Reduce the impact of fishing on climate change and support the fishing industry to adapt to the impacts of climate change

For the proposed North Sea greater silver smelt FMP and the proposed West of Scotland greater silver smelt, the policies are:

• Policy 1: Harvest the (relevant) GSS stock sustainably, contributing to maintaining or restoring the biomass above the level capable of producing MSY
• Policy 2: Use the best-available scientific evidence to support management decisions relating to the setting of sustainable fishing opportunities
• Policy 3: Monitor catches of (relevant) GSS and ensure that where possible all catches are counted against quotas
• Policy 4: Deliver wider sustainable management by minimising the impact of the GSS fishery on the marine ecosystem
• Policy 5: Reduce the impact of fishing on climate change and support the fishing industry to adapt to the impacts of climate change

North Sea horse mackerel FMP

This FMP covers two separate horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) stocks: horse mackerel in UK waters of ICES Division 4.a, which forms part of the Western horse mackerel stock, and horse mackerel in UK waters of ICES Divisions 4.b–c and 7.d, which form part of the Southern and Central North Sea (SCNS) and Eastern Channel horse mackerel stock. These stocks reflect two genetically distinct populations, which are known to mix in the Channel and in the central North Sea. However, the extent of this genetic mixing is uncertain.

Western horse mackerel is caught as part of a directed pelagic fishery and is also featured as part of the Celtic Sea and Western Channel (CSWC) FMP and the two FMPs should therefore be read in conjunction.

The SCNS horse mackerel is caught as part of a bycatch fishery in the Southern and Central North Sea and Eastern Channel. The target fishery for horse mackerel in these areas has been closed since 2025 due to the poor state of the stock and is currently only landed as bycatch.

Horse mackerel is of relatively low economic importance to the UK fishing sector compared with other pelagic species such as mackerel and herring. Despite its limited economic importance, the continued presence of horse mackerel in UK waters and its role within the wider marine ecosystem highlight the importance of maintaining effective and adaptive management measures.

Both the Western horse mackerel and SCNS and Eastern Channel horse mackerel stocks are jointly managed, shared with the EU, and therefore overall fishing opportunities are determined through international negotiation.

The first two policies largely relate to management measures to achieve long-term sustainability of the horse mackerel stocks, and the remaining policies set out actions in relation to wider sustainable management. Policies 1 and 2 have been separated to reflect the differing health and evidence base underpinning the Western horse mackerel and SCNS and Eastern Channel horse mackerel stocks.

Q. 1 For the North Sea horse mackerel FMP, do you agree with the proposed policies?

Q. 2 What are your views on the proposed actions for each policy in the North Sea horse mackerel FMP?

North Sea greater silver smelt FMP

This FMP focuses on greater silver smelt (Argentina silus), also known as greater Argentine. It covers the North Sea greater silver smelt (GSS) fishery in UK waters of ICES Subarea 4 and Division 2.a (North Sea).

GSS is a deep-water schooling species that is caught by semi-pelagic and demersal fishing vessels. It is therefore more accurately described as a semi-pelagic, benthopelagic or bathypelagic species.

Historically, greater silver smelt was harvested for its high oil content and used in fishmeal production. Today, in the North Sea, the species is caught both in targeted fisheries and as bycatch in fisheries targeting other species. The targeted fishery is mainly carried out by licensed Norwegian midwater and bottom trawlers in ICES Division 2.a. Greater silver smelt is also caught as bycatch in trawl fisheries operating along the Norwegian Deep in Division 4.a (the northern North Sea), where catches can vary from year to year. Available data indicate that, since 2006, most catches have been taken by Norwegian vessels fishing in Norwegian waters.

The stock is jointly managed by the UK and the EU. While there is currently little direct commercial interest in greater silver smelt from the UK fishing industry, the UK has an interest in the stock because it is caught as bycatch in other fisheries and plays an important role in the North Sea ecosystem.

The first two policies in this FMP focus on management measures to support the long-term sustainability of the North Sea greater silver smelt stock. The remaining policies set out actions to support its wider sustainable management.

Q. 3 For the North Sea greater silver smelt FMP, do you agree with the proposed policies?

Q. 4: What are your views on the proposed actions for each policy in the North Sea greater silver smelt FMP?

West of Scotland greater silver smelt FMP

This FMP focuses on greater silver smelt (Argentina silus), also known as greater Argentine which consists of the West of Scotland GSS fishery in UK waters of ICES Division 6.a (West Coast of Scotland) and Division 5.b (Faroes Grounds).

Similar to the North Sea GSS, the West of Scotland GSS is caught by both semi-pelagic and demersal fishing fleets and is more accurately classified as a semi-pelagic, benthopelagic, or bathypelagic species. Historically, the stock was also targeted for its high oil content, making it valuable for fishmeal production.

The fishery for West of Scotland GSS is largely undertaken by non-UK vessels and is based in ICES Division 5.b and 6.a, where the species is caught as part of an industrial targeted fishery by EU vessels. Whilst the direct interest for UK vessels in GSS landings is currently negligible, this FMPs sets out actions that support the continued sustainable exploitation of West of Scotland GSS.

West of Scotland GSS is jointly managed by the UK and EU. Although this is not a fishery of direct commercial interest to the UK currently, the UK has a wider interest in the stock as a bycatch in other fisheries, and as a part of the marine ecosystem.

The first two policies set out below largely relate to management measures to achieve long-term sustainability of the West of Scotland GSS stock, and the remaining policies set out actions in relation to wider sustainable management.

Implementation of this FMP will take account of relevant international obligations and relationships, including where stocks are shared with, or exploited by, other coastal States.

Q. 5 For the West of Scotland GSS FMP, do you agree with the proposed policies?

Q. 6 What are your views on the proposed actions for each policy in the West of Scotland GSS FMP?