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

5. Assessment of Environmental Effects

The environmental baseline information (section 3) shows that the marine environment is subject to a range of pressures from human activities. Fishing-related activities form only part of the contribution of these pressures to the current state of our marine environment.

The present assessment acknowledges the evidence that shows those pressures that are largely derived from fishing activity and can impact the marine environment directly. Fishing can also contribute to other environmental effects when considered in-combination with other processes and activities.

Section 5 assesses the environmental effects of the policies and actions of the draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs in relation to the environmental issues screened into this SEA, and where applicable their associated UK MS descriptors (Table 4).

Overview of the Potential Positive and Negative Environmental Effects of the Goals and Actions of the Whitefish/Demersal FMPs

The potential positive and negative environmental effects of implementing the policies and actions set out in section 5 and 11 of the draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs have been identified in Table 5 (Annex 1).

Overview of Potential Positive Environmental Effects of the FMPs

Biodiversity, Flora, Fauna, Geology and Sediments (soil), Water quality

The draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs seek to effectively manage the harvesting of target species stocks within sustainable limits while focussing on improving the sustainability of the fisheries over the long-term.

The Whitefish/Demersal FMPs cover the cod, whiting, haddock, saithe, hake, monk, megrim and ling stocks which are shared with Coastal State partners. Fishing opportunities are managed by total allowable catches (TACs). These, and other joint management measures, are set through international negotiations guided by the best available scientific advice, balancing environmental, social, and economic factors.

There is sufficient available scientific evidence for the relevant fisheries policy authorities to make annual maximum sustainable yield (MSY) assessments for cod, whiting, haddock, saithe, hake, monk and megrim stocks covered by these FMPs in UK waters. The cod, whiting, haddock, saithe, hake, monk and megrim stocks relevant to these FMPs are currently being fished within an MSY approach. Therefore, these FMPs describe a vision with policies and proposed actions which set out how management can continue to maintain an MSY approach for the fisheries and highlight research areas that could lead to refinements to management approaches in the future.

The relevant fisheries policy authorities do not have sufficient evidence to estimate MSY reference points for the Northern Shelf ling or Atlantic (Rockall) cod covered by their respective FMPs, although the advice and management approach follows the ICES MSY approach under their framework for Category 3 stocks. Therefore, these FMPs set out a path to improve the overall management approach by considering how the evidence base can be strengthened, with any subsequent action focussed on restoring (if required) and then maintaining the stock at sustainable levels.

The vision for the Whitefish/Demersal FMPs is that fisheries covered in the FMPs in UK waters will continue to be managed sustainably, or in the case of Northern Shelf Ling and Atlantic (Rockall) Cod have sufficient evidence in place, to help ensure that stocks are maintained above levels capable of producing Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).

The policies and actions set out in the FMPs suggest how this could be achieved in a way that is consistent with, and supportive of, the wider achievement of the fisheries objectives set out in the 2020 Act and the policies contained within the JFS.

Policy 1(a & b) and associated actions relate to sustainable stock management with regard to maintaining stocks at levels that can consistently produce Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). These actions are expected to contribute towards the sustainability of targeted stocks, with possible indirect benefits for the wider environment, for example food webs and biodiversity. Improving data gaps and ensuring the availability of high-quality data for stock assessments will allow for more informed management decisions in the future that could result in improvements across a range of receptors and ultimately contribute to the sustainable management of targeted stocks. This may have indirect benefits for wider environment, for example food webs and biodiversity.

As well as improving the status of the stocks themselves and contributing to improvements against UK MS commercial fish descriptor targets (D3), these actions may also benefit wider fish biodiversity and food webs, therefore contributing to improvements in UK MS targets under D1 and D4

Actions under policy 2a are related to the use of best available scientific evidence and monitoring. The actions under policy 2b improve the evidence base underpinning the stock. These actions, while important, will not by itself have a positive effect on the environment. However, they will allow for more informed management decisions in the future that could result in improvements across a range of receptors. The Atlantic (Rockall) Cod stock-specific actions are expected to contribute towards the sustainability of the stock. These actions may also have indirect benefits for the wider environment, for example food webs and biodiversity.

Policy 4 and associated actions address benthic impacts and bycatch of sensitive marine species in the fisheries. Improving understanding of benthic disturbance and bycatch will allow for appropriate mitigation measures to be designed where required. If then implemented, this is expected to have a positive effect on sea floor integrity and biodiversity.

Using a portion of the quota for incentivising low impact fishing is expected to deliver broader environmental benefits, for example for food webs and biodiversity. Expanding the use of low-impact fishing techniques is expected contribute to a range of positive environmental outcomes, increasing the proportion of the fishery adopting sustainable practices.

Supporting management measures with regard to the MPA network and PMFs in Scottish inshore waters is likely to have a wider positive effect on biodiversity, food webs and seabed integrity. The proposed support for “collaboration across the UK to implement the UK Marine Strategy Programme of Measures (POM)” is expected to allow for appropriate mitigation measures to be designed where required. If then implemented, these will have a positive effect on sea floor integrity and biodiversity.

The FMPs “support actions under the UK Bycatch Mitigation Initiative to reduce the risk, frequency and impact of fisheries on sensitive marine species” which is expected to deliver broader environmental benefits, for example for food webs and biodiversity. Implementing appropriate bycatch mitigation measures in the fishery is expected to contribute to the recruitment of sensitive marine species. If then implemented, this will have a positive effect on biodiversity and, in some cases, MPA condition.

A better understanding of the effectiveness of short-term measures alongside cumulative impacts with regards to benthic disturbance will allow for better management in the future. This will allow for appropriate mitigation measures to be designed where required. If then implemented, this will have a positive effect on sea floor integrity and biodiversity.

The draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs do not include specific actions on water quality issues such as marine litter at this time. The draft FMPs acknowledge the ongoing work with regard to the OSPAR convention to implement the second Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter. This includes action to tackle marine litter from land and sea-based sources, including fishing.

Climatic factors

The draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs acknowledge that the UK seafood sector will need to consider how it will reduce emissions to contribute to meeting the Net Zero target. The draft FMPs have not proposed any actions to reduce emissions at this stage. However, where applicable the FMPs will support actions to transition to low carbon fishing.

Policy 6 (Policy 5 in the Atlantic (Rockall) Cod FMP) and associated actions relating to supporting research and collaboration to assess climate change impacts, ecosystem connections, and environmental effects of fisheries, including CO₂ emissions, are not expected to have immediate positive effects on the environment or contributing to the net zero target. However, the increased understanding and enhanced collaboration can lead to more coordinated efforts and foster the development and implementation of innovative solutions which will help achieve sustainability goals.

The draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs acknowledge that the UK continues to build the evidence base on blue carbon habitats, including marine sediments. The Blue Carbon Evidence Partnership is looking to progress the evidence base to address some of the uncertainties in this area. This evidence could be used in future FMP iterations.

Cultural Heritage

While the FMPs are not intended to focus on mitigating the impacts of fishing on marine heritage assets, fisheries management could contribute to safeguarding these assets and their locations.

Policy 5 (excluding Atlantic (Rockall) cod) and associated actions are intended to support fishing businesses to deliver socio-economic and cultural benefits. Fisheries management that applies the ecosystem-based fisheries management approach to reduce adverse effects on the environment, for example through gear design, spatial management or reducing fishing related marine litter, could indirectly help to conserve both known and unknown marine heritage assets. Managing stocks so they are harvested in a sustainable way can have environmental, social, and economic benefits. Ensuring a fishery is environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable over the long term could help promote the cultural importance of fishing and preserve the cultural heritage of fishing itself including wrecks of fishing vessels, historic harbours and infrastructure, and fishing communities.

The SEA process will highlight to fisheries policy authorities how fisheries management policies and measures could support measures that protect the historic marine environment and improve early reporting of previously unknown sites.

Landscapes and Seascapes

While the FMPs are not intended to focus on mitigating the impacts of fishing on submerged prehistoric landscapes or seascapes, fisheries management could contribute to safeguarding these assets and their locations.

Fisheries management that reduces adverse effects on habitats and seabed features, for example through gear design and spatial closures, could indirectly help to conserve submerged prehistoric landscapes or seascapes. However, further consideration of mitigating any impacts on these features may need to be considered.

The SEA process will highlight to fisheries policy authorities how fisheries management policies and measures could support measures that protect submerged prehistoric landscapes or seascapes.

Overview of Potential Negative Environmental Effects of the FMPs

Biodiversity, Flora, Fauna, Geology and Sediments, Water quality, Climatic factors, Cultural heritage

Acknowledging that the proposed policies and actions are at the beginning stages of their development, the assessment of likely negative effects identified a low risk of significant adverse effects on the environment from implementing individual actions. However, we do not yet know the potential environmental effects of implementing the combination of policies and actions set out in the draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs.

Nevertheless, the fisheries objectives which will guide our actions should deliver improved environmental protection, so although it is difficult at this stage to anticipate all the potential significant negative effects on the environment in the short term, the overall ambition is to have a positive effect on the environment over the long term through the implementation of the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. From an MPA perspective, any changes in management will be subject to MPA assessments which will ensure MPA features are protected inside and outside sites.

There is the potential for factors such as the spatial footprint, intensity, type of gear and fishing methods of the demersal fisheries to alter through publishing the Whitefish/Demersal FMPs and implementing their policies and actions. We recognise that management interventions brought in through FMPs may solve one issue, but unintended and unpredictable issues could arise because of the measures being implemented. For example, it is acknowledged that some of the proposed actions to support the FMPs’ policies may, through interventions intended to have a positive effect, lead to displacement of fishing activities to other locations or into fisheries. This may result in negative environmental effects that fall outside the scope (area or species) of these FMPs. Where an FMP cannot solve an issue, it may be appropriate for other FMPs to consider this issue. Or, if areas beyond UK waters are affected, it may be appropriate for this issue to be considered through wider UK or international fisheries management fora.

This section has identified potential negative effects that could arise from the implementation of the FMPs’ policies and actions. Due to the policies and actions being at an early stage of development it is difficult to systematically set out their magnitude and significance, without further detail on the nature, timing, duration, scale or location of the proposed actions. Changes to fishing activity resulting from the implementation of the FMP policies and actions should be monitored as part of the process of evaluating the effectiveness of FMPs. Tools such as inshore Vessel Monitoring Systems (iVMS), VMS and REM greatly improve, or could improve, our ability to monitor spatial and temporal changes in fishing effort. Such monitoring would help identify any unintended consequences on the environment and indicate whether the implementation of these measures could lead to any significant environmental effects if unmanaged. Mitigating action could then be considered where any significant negative effects are identified, that are related to those issues scoped into this assessment.

In-combination Effects

The draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs could potentially have positive (or negative) in-combination effects with other programmes to deliver sustainable fisheries (see section 4). Whilst these other programmes focus on different topics, there are common themes that positively link them together. For example, FMPs and the Marine Plans share the common principles of managing marine resources sustainably and reducing the impact of anthropogenic pressure on the marine environment. Having due regard to the Biodiversity Strategy (for Scotland), the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 (and the Guiding principles on the environment: draft statutory guidance), the Environmental Principles (for England), Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy and the Nature Recovery Action Plan (for Wales) during the development of policy will further ensure that the environment will be appropriately considered throughout the FMP process. More broadly, we anticipate the cumulative positive effect of these programmes will result in helping to meet sustainability objectives and achieving long-term improvements to the marine environment.

Conducting the in-combination assessment at this stage of the FMP production cycle was challenging due to the high-level nature of the policies and actions, as well as their early stage of development. From the analysis of the potential environmental effects (section 5) of the policies and actions set out in the draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs, the potential negative effects are not considered significant enough at this stage to require the policies and actions to be amended. When considering other potential policies, we are not aware at this stage that any other regimes/activities are going to change that position.

The FMPs could facilitate the in-combination assessment with Marine Plans by providing more specific detail on how the FMPs could positively or negatively interact with them. However, a Marine Plan assessment will be undertaken on the finalised FMPs’ policies prior to publication, to assess how they will interact with Marine Plan policies. The assessment will identify whether an FMP policy will be compliant, potentially conflict, or not be compliant with Marine Plan policies. The interaction between FMPs and Marine Plans will be further considered when monitoring the effectiveness of plans. Any necessary adaptations, to ensure FMPs and Marine Plans interact positively, would be built into the plan’s ongoing implementation and adjusted in future revisions of the FMPs as required.

Before there are any changes to fisheries management as a result of the draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs, where necessary, new measures will be subject to Habitats Regulations Assessments and/orMarine Conservation Zone assessments. Such assessments will consider the potential in-combination effects with other plans and projects that are occurring or will occur within in an MPA. These assessments will also identify where any specific interactions exist.

The combined effect of implementing the polices and measures of all FMPs will be considered through the mandatory FMP monitoring process once the plan is published and could form part of the longer-term JFS or FMP review cycles (section 8).

Conclusions

Fishing for cod, whiting, haddock, saithe, hake, monk, megrim and ling is an ongoing activity that poses some risks to the quality status of the marine environment. The draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs focus on setting out how management can continue to maintain an MSY approach and highlight research areas that could lead to refinements to management approaches in the future. The Northern Shelf Ling FMP and Atlantic (Rockall) Cod FMP set out a path to improve the overall management approach by considering how the evidence base can be strengthened, with any subsequent action focussed on restoring (if required) and then maintaining the stock at sustainable levels. Therefore, the Whitefish/Demersal FMPs are expected to reduce the risks to the future status of stocks in the long term thus giving positive benefit to the environment.

Together, these actions will have the positive benefit of ensuring stock sustainability and contributing to improving the status of UK MS commercial fish stocks (D3) in the UK. In doing this there may also be improvements in overall fish biodiversity (D1) and the marine food webs (D4).

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that fishing for demersal/whitefish species covered by these plans within sustainable limits may not remove all the associated negative effects of that fishing on the wider marine environment.

The Fisheries Objectives (in the Fisheries Act 2020) require FMPs to integrate environmental, social, and economic aspects of a fishery when introducing interventions to control fishing activity within sustainable levels. Achieving the balance between these three elements will be a central component of making a contribution to the sustainability objective.

The draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs may result in positive and negative effects on the environment in the short term, with the overall ambition to have a positive effect on the environment over the long term through the implementation of the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.

As well as impacting the commercial fish stocks themselves, the fisheries are likely to be impacting the wider environment. Bycatch of certain species, and the impact mobile demersal gear is having on seafloor integrity, have been highlighted as a risk.

Actions have been proposed to investigate the impact of both unwanted / protected species bycatch and demersal gear and seafloor interactions. While these will not result in immediate positive environmental benefits or environmental improvements, they should help determine what mitigation may be required. The FMP recommends using additional evidence to develop robust mitigation strategies and be used to support the national bycatch strategies.

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

The draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs do not specifically consider the impacts of fishing on marine heritage assets. However, any future fisheries management aimed at reducing wider environmental effects could indirectly help to conserve both known and unknown marine heritage assets. This iteration of FMPs focuses on setting out measures to maintain or achieve sustainable harvesting of targeted stocks but there is scope for future iterations of the FMPs to address this wider issue.

The draft Whitefish/Demersal FMPs do not specifically consider the impacts of fishing on submerged prehistoric landscapes or seascapes. However, fisheries management aimed at reducing the impact on seabed integrity could indirectly help to conserve submerged prehistoric landscapes or seascapes. This iteration of FMPs focuses on setting out measures to maintain or achieve sustainable harvesting of demersal stocks but there is scope for future iterations of the FMPs to address this wider issue.