Demersal Fisheries Management Plans proposals: strategic environmental assessment - environmental report

Appendix F: Statutory Consultee Consultation Responses

As required by the 2004 Act, we have sought the views of our statutory consultees on this SEA and associated ER and their responses are detailed below.

Cadw Response (Wales)

Good afternoon

Please see Cadw’s comments on the above.

This advice is given in response to a Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Report of Pelagic Fisheries Management Plans coordinated by the Marine Directorate of the Scottish Government and a Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Report of Whitefish/Demersal Fisheries Management Plans coordinated by the Marine Directorate of the Scottish Government.

Both plans have identified that Cultural Heritage will need to be considered but only interactions between fishing gear and marine heritage assets. This is appropriate but should consider not only fishing gear becoming entangled in marine heritage assets, but also the impact of trawling on paleo landscapes

Kind regards

Jenna

[redacted]

Cangen Amgylchedd Hanesyddol / Historic Environment Branch Llywodraeth Cymru / Welsh Government

How the consultation response was considered

Point #

1. Both plans have identified that Cultural Heritage will need to be considered but only interactions between fishing gear and marine heritage assets. This is appropriate but should consider not only fishing gear becoming entangled in marine heritage assets, but also the impact of trawling on paleo landscapes.

How point was considered

Point noted. Environmental Reports (ER) will provide recommendations on how FMPs could consider fishing, cultural heritage and landscape/seascape.

How the consultation response was considered

Point #

How point was considered

Point #

1. DAERA notes from the Scoping report no Zone of Influence has been included, DAERA recommends that this should be included within the Environmental report. Further, the scoping report does not mention any form of transboundary engagement, DAERA recommends that if the plans Zone of Influence extends into any other jurisdiction, then consultation with said jurisdiction should be considered.

How point was considered

Point noted. The FMPs cover stocks in UK waters only and include actions specifically related to engagement with Coastal State partners.

Point #

2. DAERA notes that no SEA objectives have been provided, in addition no targets or indicators have also been provided. Alongside SEA objectives, targets and indicators should also be provided within the Environmental Report.

How point was considered

The Environmental Report will examine how the policies and actions in the FMPs may result in both significant positive and negative environmental effects. Further details will be outlined in Section 2, Approach to Strategic Environmental Assessment. Additionally, the report will provide information on relevant indicators for the SEA.

Point #

3. NED notes from Section 3 that the Environmental Report will provide an overview description of the environmental baseline. NED would recommend that environmental data under each topic area includes maps were appropriate including areas where activities should not go. Details on existing environmental problems relevant to the plan should be identified in the context of relevant environmental objectives standards and thresholds. NED also recommend that a section on how the existing environment without the implementation of the plan should be included within each topic area in the Environmental Report. NED recommend that within the Environmental Report that any significant gaps in baseline data should be provided and if any alternative / proxy data sources are used where baseline data is unavailable. Any technical deficiencies or lack of know how should also be detailed. NED also note that that no section on interrelationships appear to have been included, this should be included in the Environmental Report.

How point was considered

Some recommendations will be included as part of the development process of the Environmental Report. The environmental baseline and the impacts on UK MS, MPA features, and PMFs will be informed by advice from SNCBs. Due to the high-level nature of FMP policies and actions, as well as their early stage of development, assessing the impact of area-specific management measures is unlikely to be possible at this stage.

Before any changes to fisheries management are made as a result of the draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs, new measures, where necessary, will undergo Habitats Regulations Assessments and Marine Conservation Zone assessments. These assessments will consider potential in-combination effects with other plans and projects within an MPA and will identify any specific interactions.

Point #

4. NED notes that Section 4 contains a list of Relevant Plans and Programs and Environmental Protection Objectives. NED advises that section would benefit from the inclusion of a number of additional plans and programs. These are provided at the end of the NED response. NED advise that details on any relevant conflicts and/or synergies between this plan’s objectives and the objectives of other plans and programs should be identified and described within the Environmental Report. Please note this should include transboundary plans or programs should they require consultation.

How point was considered

Point noted. Additional plans/programmes will be considered as appropriate in the Environmental Report.

Point #

5. NED notes from section 5.1 that it is not possible to rule out actions arising from the FMP having a likely significant impact on European sites or European offshore marine sites. NED note that no AA (Appropriate Assessment) screening appears to have been carried out at present. NED would recommend that an AA screening is carried out and dependent on the outcome of this a full AA. This would also be the case for a Marine Conservation Zone assessment for MCZs. NED would welcome the opportunity to review the completed AA screening and full AA should it be required and any Marine Conservation Zone Assessment when they have been completed.

How point was considered

Point noted. Before any changes to fisheries management are made as a result of the draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs, new measures, where necessary, will undergo Habitats Regulations Assessments and Marine Conservation Zone assessments.

Point #

6. NED notes from Section 5.3 that the level of detail possible for the environmental assessment will depend upon the stage of development of the policies and measures of the FMP and that these are subject to evolution. NED advise that the SEA is therefore likely to require periodic reviews. NED would therefore like to see within the Environmental Report details of triggers which might be in place to ensure that the SEA remains up to date throughout the FMP process.

How point was considered

The Environmental Report will include more detailed information in Section 8, "Monitoring and Review."

Point #

7. NED also notes from Section 5.2 that Biodiversity, Fauna, Flora, Geology and Sediments, Water Climatic factors, Cultural Heritage, and Landscape/Seascape have been scoped into the SEA assessment.

NEDalso note that within Table 4 a justification has been provided. NED welcome this.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

8. NED note from Section 6 that alternatives will be detailed in the Environmental Report. NED looks forward to reviewing these as part of the Environmental Report.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

9. Please note following the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, the collective term of “Natura 2000” sites the network of European protected sites are now known as “National Site Network” sites within the United Kingdom, and is including Northern Ireland.

How point was considered

Point noted and wording updated.

Point #

10. Landscape and Visual Team Comment

The Landscape and Visual team welcome that Landscape and Seascape have been considered, with seascape being identified as a potential impact within the report. Further information on the Northern Ireland Regional Seascape Character Assessment can be located using the following link (https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/seascape-character-areas). It is unlikely the proposal will have impact on the Northern Ireland terrestrial landscape.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

11. Climate Change Team Comments

The CCC’s third independent risk assessment has specific climate change risks identified for Scotland for Marine species, habitats and fisheries, but there is no mention of climate risks in the context and background section 1.2, nor in section 3, 3.1 or 3.2 which deal with the Environmental Baseline, existing and potential effects.

How point was considered

Point noted. Climatic factors have been scoped into the Environmental Report.

Point #

12. Marine Plan Team

Consideration should be given to including the draft Marine Plan for Northern Ireland in the list of relevant Plans, Programmes and Environmental Protection Objectives. Subject to agreement by the Northern Ireland Executive and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs it is intended to deliver a finalised Marine Plan by the end of 2024.

How point was considered

Marine Plans will be included in the Environmental Report, specifically in Section 4 ("Relevant Plans, Programmes, and Environmental Protection Objectives") and Appendix D.

Point #

13. Marine Conservation Branch response

Marine Conservation Branch welcomes the opportunity to comment on the SEA Scoping Report for the Demersal Fisheries Management Plans, and in general is content with the topics covered. We do have some additional comments as follows:

• We agree that marine cultural heritage should be scoped into the SEA.
• Sustainability at the heart of a living, working, active landscape valued by everyone.
• With regards to the application of the precautionary principle, the rationale and mechanisms must be clearly laid out for stakeholders as concern has been previously raised that the precautionary principle has been used to force through management measures.
• In Section 3.1, we advise also listing other existing environmental effects relating to fishing activities such as the potential for introduction and/or spread of invasive non-native species (INNS).
• In Section 4.2, we advise also considering the following plans, policies and legislation:
  • Draft Marine Plan for Northern Ireland
  • Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
  • Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995
  • Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011
  • An Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy for Northern Ireland 2006-2026
  • Northern Ireland Regional Seascape Character Assessment 2014
• In Table 4, Climatic Factors, we advise including the potential impact to Blue carbon habitats in this section.
• We advise use of the DAERA Marine Map Viewer

How point was considered

Points noted. Some recommendations will be incorporated into the report as part of the SEA process. Blue carbon is included as a sub-section under climatic factors.

How the consultation response was considered

Point #

1. HED have reviewed the scoping report and agree with the scoping in of cultural heritage in assessment. Although we consider the transboundary risk to cultural heritage to be low, we nonetheless provide linkage to our Historic Environment Digital Datasets | Department for Communities (communities-ni.gov.uk) which will help in characterisation of the cultural heritage resource and understanding the potential for transboundary effects. Datasets on Northern Ireland’s marine historic environment can be availed of via contacting colin.dunlop@daera-ni.gov.uk . We also attach a link to our historic environment map viewer Historic Environment Map Viewer | Department for Communities (communities-ni.gov.uk).

How point was considered

Point noted.

How the consultation response was considered

Point #

1. We understand from the provided scoping report that the assessment will give high level consideration of the potential pathways for effects on the historic environment as a result of the activities covered by the management plans. In particular the potential impacts of the management plan on the issue of the interaction between fishing gear and marine heritage assets is identified as an area that will be considered. We therefore note that cultural heritage has been scoped into the assessment and we agree with this decision. We also welcome the recognition of the role that fisheries management plan can potentially play in the safeguarding of cultural heritage features.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

2. As the scoping report notes, the UK MS assessment process does not cover cultural heritage. Information on heritage designations in the marine environment is available from Historic Environment Scotland’s website at the Historic Environment Scotland Portal. There are currently 8 historic Marine Protected Areas in Scottish waters. Further sources of evidence for the marine historic environment in Scottish waters include the Canmore database which contains known maritime records for the entire Scottish Marine Area to 200 miles offshore with these sites on Pastmap under Canmore Maritime. Canmore Maritime presents searchable online access to the national collection of material relating to the marine historic environment in Scottish Waters. Furthermore, Wrecksite provides access to the UKHO worldwide wreck database. Information on sites and vessels designated under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is also available here.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Historic England Response (England)

Hi [redacted]

Many thanks for your email of 30^th April. I’m sure you will have anticipated many of the points below, but I certainly appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As previously, Historic England is pleased to offer its comments in response to Defra seeking views on the Scoping Reports, all dated April 2024, for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of three draft Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) coordinated by Scottish Government:

• The Whitefish/Demersal FMP, which covers six stocks in English waters
• The Nethrops FMP, which covers one stock in English Waters; and
• The Pelagic FMP, which covers five stocks in English waters.

Historic England (HE) is the Government’s advisor on all aspects of the historic environment in England. HE’s general powers under section 33 of the National Heritage Act 1983 were extended via the National Heritage Act 2002 to modify our functions to include securing the preservation of monuments in, on, or under the seabed within the seaward limits of the UK Territorial Sea adjacent to England. HE also provides advice in relation to English marine plan areas (inshore and offshore) as defined by the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) 2009.

HE is pleased to see that cultural heritage is regarded as being within the scope of all three SEAs.

We agree that fishing activities that target a) whitefish/demersal stocks and b) nethrops stocks have the potential to cause physical disturbance to the seabed and, therefore, to heritage assets in and on the seabed. We agree that interaction between fishing gear and marine heritage assets is the most relevant impact under this heading.

We acknowledge that interaction between fishing gear and marine heritage assets is limited in the case of fishing activities targeting pelagic stocks, and that this interaction is effectively scoped out of the Pelagic FMP SEA.

We also agree that fishing activities that target all three sets of stocks – whitefish/demersal, nephrops, and pelagic – have the potential to cause input of litter. As we have flagged in previous responses, Abandoned, Lost or Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) can snag and accumulate on historic wrecks, adding to the stress on their structures, obscuring them, and creating a risk to visiting divers (including archaeologists, volunteers, and recreational divers). Historic England has funded the removal of ALDFG from several designated heritage assets, underscoring the impact of litter derived from fishing activities on heritage.

HE is also pleased to see that landscape/seascape is regarded as being within scope of the SEAs for the Whitefish/Demersal FMP and the Nethrops FMP. As above, fisheries activities that target these stocks have the potential to cause physical disturbance to the seabed: interaction between fishing gear and seabed formations will impact now-submerged prehistoric landsurfaces that often comprise organic deposits (such as peat) and other former terrestrial fine-grained deposits (muds and silts) containing organic material. We further concur that fishing activity targeting these stocks has the potential to disturb blue carbon habitats and affect seabed carbon dynamics. Archaeological records and approaches are attuned to identifying organic and other fine-grained deposits, hence there may be scope for heritage to contribute to the assessment of fishing impacts on these key seabed formations and blue carbon. We think that this aspect of the impact of fisheries on landscapes should receive particular attention in the SEAs.

Correspondingly, we acknowledge that interaction between fishing gear and seabed formations is limited in the case of fishing activities targeting pelagic stocks, and that landscape/seascape has been scoped out of the Pelagic FMP.

We have underlined previously the positive interactions that arise between fishing and cultural heritage, including the importance of the cultural heritage of fishing acknowledged in the opening sentence of the Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS). We note also that section 1.2 of all three Scoping Reports states that fisheries management decisions should recognise the cultural importance of fishing through maintaining and strengthening coastal communities alongside sustainable levels of fish stocks. With these requirements in mind, we have previously suggested that FMPs be given an express role in developing the cultural heritage of the fisheries to which they refer: the scope of these three FMPs should be extended accordingly.

We look forward to all three Environmental Reports evaluating the potential effects, both negative and positive, of fishing for these stocks on cultural heritage and landscape/seascape as scoped here. In light of comments above, we would expect the Environmental Reports to address:

Cultural Heritage	Whitefish /Demersal FMP	Nephrops FMP	Pelagic FMP
Interactions between fishing gear and marine heritage assets on the seabed	X	X
Impacts on heritage from the input of litter (ALDFG)	X	X	X
The cultural importance of fishing through maintaining and strengthening coastal communities	X	X	X
Landscape/seascape
Interactions between fishing gear and prehistoric seabed formations, blue carbon habitats, and seabed carbon dynamics	X	X

Based on the detail set out in the three Scoping Reports, our expectation is that each Environmental Report will cover the following with respect to cultural heritage and landscape/seascape:

• Review existing evidence on the current state of the marine environment.
• Assess the nature and extent of likely effects of each draft FMP.
• Acknowledge the potential significant effects associated with fishing activity being managed through each draft FMP.
• Set out in broad terms how each FMP will seek to avoid, reduce, or at least mitigate significant negative effects.
• Acknowledge pressures not currently being managed and propose new interventions to contribute to mitigating negative environmental effects where necessary.
• Consider how each draft FMP will support existing mitigation, and how they will propose new measures (if necessary) to further mitigate negative environmental effects.
• Consider proposals for future monitoring of the effects of each FMP.

We are pleased to see again the acknowledgement that cultural heritage and landscape/seascape are not considered in the UK Marine Strategy (UK MS). As a result, the UK MS does not set out an environmental baseline for cultural heritage and landscape/seascape upon which each Environmental Report can base an overview description; nor does the UK MS provide descriptors, indicators or monitoring measures for cultural heritage and landscape/seascape.

We would be very pleased to discuss with Defra how cultural heritage and landscape/seascape might be brought within UK MS, and/or how suitable mechanisms to support each FMPs can be developed for cultural heritage and landscape/seascape alongside the UK MS. In the meantime, we look forward to discussing with Defra what appropriate other sources of evidence will be used to cover cultural heritage and landscape/seascape in the Environmental Reports.

We are not aware that any assessments of the risks and impacts of fishing activities on cultural heritage and landscape/seascape have been conducted or are ongoing as part of the UK’s obligations under legislation relating to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) etc. Accordingly, we also look forward to discussing with Defra what additional measures are being introduced to address this gap.

We also note that advice on the impacts of fishing activity was not sought from Historic England during the development of the draft FMPs alongside the advice sought from Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs). Again, we look forward to discussing with Defra what additional measures are being taken to address this lack of advice and to prevent similar occurrences in future.

Thank you again for seeking HE’s views on these Scoping Reports. HE would be very pleased to continue conversations with Defra about how cultural heritage can best strengthen the effectiveness of FMPs in contributing to sustainable and well managed fisheries.

Any queries regarding this response or further dialogue can be addressed to me via the contact details below. We are happy for this response to be made public.

All the best

[redacted]

Head of Marine & Coastal Heritage Historic England

Environment Cluster | Policy Development | Policy and Evidence Group

How the consultation response was considered

Point #

1. HE is pleased to see that cultural heritage is regarded as being within the scope of all three SEAs.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

2. We agree that fishing activities that target a) whitefish/demersal stocks and b) nethrops stocks have the potential to cause physical disturbance to the seabed and, therefore, to heritage assets in and on the seabed. We agree that interaction between fishing gear and marine heritage assets is the most relevant impact under this heading.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

3. We also agree that fishing activities that target all three sets of stocks – whitefish/demersal, nephrops, and pelagic – have the potential to cause input of litter. As we have flagged in previous responses, Abandoned, Lost or Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) can snag and accumulate on historic wrecks, adding to the stress on their structures, obscuring them, and creating a risk to visiting divers (including archaeologists, volunteers, and recreational divers). Historic England has funded the removal of ALDFG from several designated heritage assets, underscoring the impact of litter derived from fishing activities on heritage.

How point was considered

Point noted. The impact of litter will be considered through UK MS descriptor D10.

Point #

4. HE is also pleased to see that landscape/seascape is regarded as being within scope of the SEAs for the Whitefish/Demersal FMP and the Nethrops FMP. As above, fisheries activities that target these stocks have the potential to cause physical disturbance to the seabed: interaction between fishing gear and seabed formations will impact now-submerged prehistoric landsurfaces that often comprise organic deposits (such as peat) and other former terrestrial fine-grained deposits (muds and silts) containing organic material. We further concur that fishing activity targeting these stocks has the potential to disturb blue carbon habitats and affect seabed carbon dynamics. Archaeological records and approaches are attuned to identifying organic and other fine-grained deposits, hence there may be scope for heritage to contribute to the assessment of fishing impacts on these key seabed formations and blue carbon. We think that this aspect of the impact of fisheries on landscapes should receive particular attention in the SEAs.

How point was considered

Point noted. Blue carbon will be included as a sub-section under climatic factors.

Point #

5. We have underlined previously the positive interactions that arise between fishing and cultural heritage, including the importance of the cultural heritage of fishing acknowledged in the opening sentence of the Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS). We note also that section 1.2 of all three Scoping Reports states that fisheries management decisions should recognise the cultural importance of fishing through maintaining and strengthening coastal communities alongside sustainable levels of fish stocks. With these requirements in mind, we have previously suggested that FMPs be given an express role in developing the cultural heritage of the fisheries to which they refer: the scope of these three FMPs should be extended accordingly.

How point was considered

Point noted. The policies and actions related to cultural heritage will be addressed in the Environmental Reports.

Point #

6. We look forward to all three Environmental Reports evaluating the potential effects, both negative and positive, of fishing for these stocks on cultural heritage and landscape/seascape as scoped here. In light of comments above, we would expect the Environmental Reports to address these.

How point was considered

The Environmental Reports focuses on how the policies and actions in the FMPs could give rise to both significant positive and negative environmental effects. However, the Environmental Reports also acknowledge existing environmental effects of fishing activity and set out policies and actions to address them, where appropriate.

Point #

7. Based on the detail set out in the three Scoping Reports, our expectation is that each Environmental Report will cover the following with respect to cultural heritage and landscape/seascape:

• Review existing evidence on the current state of the marine environment.
• Assess the nature and extent of likely effects of each draft FMP.
• Acknowledge the potential significant effects associated with fishing activity being managed through each draft FMP.
• Set out in broad terms how each FMP will seek to avoid, reduce, or at least mitigate significant negative effects.
• Acknowledge pressures not currently being managed and propose new interventions to contribute to mitigating negative environmental effects where necessary.
• Consider how each draft FMP will support existing mitigation, and how they will propose new measures (if necessary) to further mitigate negative environmental effects.
• Consider proposals for future monitoring of the effects of each FMP.

How point was considered

Point noted. Environmental Reports (ER) will provide recommendations on how FMPs could consider fishing, cultural heritage and landscape/seascape

Point #

8. We are pleased to see again the acknowledgement that cultural heritage and landscape/seascape are not considered in the UK Marine Strategy (UK MS). As a result, the UK MS does not set out an environmental baseline for cultural heritage and landscape/seascape upon which each Environmental Report can base an overview description; nor does the UK MS provide descriptors, indicators or monitoring measures for cultural heritage and landscape/seascape.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

9. We would be very pleased to discuss with Defra how cultural heritage and landscape/seascape might be brought within UK MS, and/or how suitable mechanisms to support each FMPs can be developed for cultural heritage and landscape/seascape alongside the UK MS. In the meantime, we look forward to discussing with Defra what appropriate other sources of evidence will be used to cover cultural heritage and landscape/seascape in the Environmental Reports.

How point was considered

Point noted. Defra would welcome further discussions with HE to consider this point.

Point #

10. We are not aware that any assessments of the risks and impacts of fishing activities on cultural heritage and landscape/seascape have been conducted or are ongoing as part of the UK’s obligations under legislation relating to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) etc. Accordingly, we also look forward to discussing with Defra what additional measures are being introduced to address this gap.

How point was considered

Point noted. Defra would welcome further discussions with HE to consider this point.

Point #

11. We also note that advice on the impacts of fishing activity was not sought from Historic England during the development of the draft FMPs alongside the advice sought from Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs). Again, we look forward to discussing with Defra what additional measures are being taken to address this lack of advice and to prevent similar occurrences in future.

How point was considered

Point noted.

How the consultation response was considered

Point #

1. We agree with the decision to undertake a full environmental assessment, in compliance with the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

2. The detailed screening and scoping processes are appropriate. Focusing on significant issues such as biodiversity and climatic factors is justified. The geographic scope and species focus are appropriate and clearly defined, with the key environmental issues likely to be affected by the FMPs scoped into the assessment.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

3. The description of the environmental baseline, including the contribution of UK fishing fleets on carbon emissions, is appropriate and thorough.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

4. The proposed methodology, focusing on an assessment of potential significant environmental effects and using existing evidence, is appropriate.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

5. Considering reasonable alternatives is well-addressed, and we welcome the intention to consider how the FMPs can support and enhance existing mitigation measures, as well as proposing new mitigation where required. The Environmental Report should provide clear, evidence-based recommendations on appropriate mitigation strategies to be incorporated into the final FMPs.

How point was considered

Point noted. Recommendations will be included in the Environmental Report.

Point #

6. We appreciate the clear plan for consultation, including timelines and integration of feedback.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

7. JNCC finds the scoping report for the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the draft demersal species Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) to be thorough and well-structured. We look forward to continued collaboration and are available to provide further support and advice as needed.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

8. We eagerly anticipate reviewing the Environmental Report when it becomes available and providing additional input. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have any questions or require any further information.

How point was considered

Point noted.

How the consultation response was considered

Point #

1. We have reviewed the scoping report provided. Natural England agrees with the outcome of the screening exercise and welcomes the commitment to an environmental assessment which covers the activities managed by the above FMPs, in line with The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. NE also agree that the scoping report has correctly identified the issues to be taken forward for further consideration in an Environment Report. Whilst very high-level, we also agree with the suggested assessment methodology.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

2. Given the very high-level nature of the information in the scoping report, Natural England would welcome proactive early engagement between the Marine Directorate and all relevant SNCBs in the development of the Environment Report to ensure a streamlined process.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Image here

How the consultation response was considered

Point #

1. Section 3 Environmental Baseline We agree with the proposed content and the level of detail to be included in the environmental baseline.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

2. Section 4 Relevant Plans, Programmes and Environmental Protection Objectives Section 4.2. Domestic The scoping report refers to the ‘Biodiversity Strategy – Scotland’, with a link to the former draft strategy. Please note that the Strategy has now been published (September 2023) and the correct link to the published Strategy is https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045-tackling-nature-emergency-scotland-2/

How point was considered

Point noted. Updated link will be used.

Point #

3. Section 5.2: Scoping With respect to the Scottish Government’s proposals, we agree with the issues to be addressed in the Environmental Report, and with the justifications for the SEA topics as summarised in Table 4.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

4. Section 5.3 Assessment Methodology Bullet 7 refers to advice from the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies. Please note that JNCC and NatureScot provided corresponding advice for the Scottish waters covered by the plan.

How point was considered

Point noted. Advice commissioned by the Marine Directorate will be included.

Point #

5. Section 8 Consultation We would consider a minimum 6 week period for consultation on the draft Fishery Management Plans and the SEA environment report to be appropriate.

How point was considered

Point noted.

How the consultation response was considered

The fisheries policy authorities have consulted with statutory nature conservation advisors, including Natural Resources Wales (NRW), regarding the scope and level of detail for the Whitefish/Demersal SEA Environmental Report (ER). The Welsh Government acts as a joint authority for the Northern Shelf hake FMP of the Whitefish/Demersal FMPs. The authorities have agreed to combine the Whitefish/Demersal FMPs into a single environmental report, the Whitefish/Demersal SEA.

Some comments from NRW, provided during the consultation process for the ER, have already been addressed, taking into account the updated version of Annex A of the Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS), published in December 2024. Outstanding comments and advice, including those related to the timing of Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRA), are discussed below.

The FMPs follow a high-level strategic assessment framework, using UK MS indicators as benchmarks for environmental assessment. The policies and actions of the FMPs are outlined in Tables 3 and 4. Some actions may lead to recommendations for subsequent management measures, which could change fisheries characteristics. A summary of potential positive and negative effects is provided, noting that these changes could be spatial, temporal, or effort based.

However, it is important to distinguish between the potential effects of meeting high-level strategic policies and any resulting management measures that may be adopted. Conducting an in-combination assessment at this stage of the FMPs’ development cycle is challenging due to the high-level nature of the policies and actions and their stage of development.

Before any changes to fisheries management are made as a result of the draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs, new measures will, where necessary, undergo Habitats Regulations Assessments and Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) assessments. Any new management interventions proposed in the draft FMPs will be screened for potential significant effects on European sites or European offshore marine sites within the measure’s geographical scope. If necessary, a further appropriate assessment will be carried out in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 or the Conservation of Offshore Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. In accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MaCAA), an MCZ Assessment will also be conducted before any new management measures are implemented that could significantly affect the conservation objectives of an MCZ. Additionally, Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (NCMPAs), designated under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, will be assessed as needed to ensure that any proposed actions or measures do not adversely affect their integrity.

Until suitable management actions are identified, it is not possible to assess the type or scale of potential impacts on relevant MPAs and their associated protected habitats and species. Any recommended management changes would require legislative amendments to fisheries regulations, providing the opportunity for a full assessment of potential impacts in line with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This would also address any outstanding advice from NRW.

Until such legislative changes are made, no real-world changes—such as those that could trigger an HRA for protected Welsh MPAs, habitats, or species—can be implemented, as the FMPs themselves do not propose any management changes or new measures.

How the consultation response was considered

Point #

1. It is noted that population, human health, air and material assets will be scoped out, we agree with the proposed scope of the assessment.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

2. It is understood that it is the draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs, as plans of management that will be assessed rather than the activities themselves. We are satisfied with this approach; however, it would have been useful to have had an example of how the results of the assessment will be set out. The assessment results should provide enough information to clearly justify the reasons for each of the assessments presented. It is also helpful if the assessment matrix directly links the assessment result with proposed mitigation measures.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

3. We note that alternatives are still being considered. Any reasonable alternatives identified during the preparation of the plan should be assessed as part of the SEA process and the findings of the assessment should inform the choice of the preferred option. This should be documented in the Environmental Report.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

4. The Scottish Government SEA Guidance provides guidance to Responsible Authorities about the type of information that is expected to be provided at each SEA stage; we have also produced SEA topic guidance for those issues which fall within our remit.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

5. On completion, the Environmental Report and the plan to which it relates should be submitted to the Scottish Government SEA Gateway (SEA_Gateway@gov.scot) which will forward it to the Consultation Authorities.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

6. We note that the Environmental Report will be published for consultation in summer 2024. Typical consultation periods range from 6-12 weeks depending on the content and nature of the plan.

How point was considered

Point noted.

Point #

7. In this case we will not be providing a detailed assessment of the Environmental Report.

How point was considered

Point noted.