Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Pelagic Fisheries Management Plans

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 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 Pelagic FMPs in relation to the environmental issues screened into this SEA, and where applicable their associated UK MS descriptors (Annex 1: Table 4).

Overview of the Potential Positive and Negative Environmental Effects of the Policies and Actions of the draft Pelagic FMPs

The potential positive and negative environmental effects of implementing the policies and actions set out in the five draft Pelagic FMPs have been identified in Table 5 (Annex 1).

Overview of Potential Positive Environmental Effects of the FMPs

Biodiversity, Flora, Fauna, and Water quality

The draft Pelagic FMPs seek to effectively manage the harvesting of the relevant Pelagic stocks within sustainable limits while focussing on improving the sustainability of the fisheries over the long-term, ensure that stocks are maintained above biomass levels capable of producing MSY.

The five draft Pelagic FMPs cover the mackerel, herring and blue whiting stocks which are shared with Coastal State partners. Fishing opportunities are managed by total allowable catches (TACs). These, and other joint management actions, 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 MSY assessments for most Pelagic stocks covered by these FMPs in UK waters, and these stocks are currently being fished within an MSY approach. Therefore, the draft Pelagic FMPs describe a vision with policies and proposed actions which set out how management can continue to maintain an MSY approach for the relevant pelagic fisheries and highlight research areas that could lead to refinements to management approaches in the future. In particular, there is potential to refine and adapt the long-term management strategies for these stocks through the benchmarking process, with an action to progress this under policy 1.

The relevant fisheries policy authorities do not have sufficient evidence to estimate MSY reference points for the West Coast of Scotland and Clyde herring fisheries covered by the West Coast of Scotland and Clyde Herring FMP. While the advice and management approach for the West Coast stock follows the ICES MSY approach under their framework for Category 3 stocks, there is no analytical assessment of the Clyde herring stock. Therefore, this FMP sets 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 overall vision for the draft Pelagic FMPs is that these fisheries are managed to ensure long-term sustainability, which includes supporting the economic profitability of dependent fisheries, minimising environmental impact, and maintaining the social and cultural value this important resource contributes to the UK.

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.

Policies 1 and 2, and associated actions, relate to sustainable stock management with regard to maintaining stocks at levels that can consistently produce Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). Continuation of current data collection and analysis and where necessary, improving data gaps to ensure 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), the benefits of these actions to fish biodiversity and food webs will contribute to improvements in UK MS targets under D1 and D4.

Similarly, policy 3 outlines a suite of actions to address discarding, proposing actions to continue and enhance current monitoring efforts. Improved understanding and accounting of discards will support management and the development of appropriate technical measures to reduce unwanted catch. Such actions are likely to have a positive effect on biodiversity and food webs, contributing to improvements in UK MS targets under D1 and D4.

Actions under policy 4 address bycatch of sensitive marine species in the fisheries and the role of these pelagic stocks in wider food webs. Improved understanding of bycatch will allow for appropriate mitigation measures to be designed where required. Actions under these policies also champion best practice and support existing programmes of work to reduce and mitigate impacts of sensitive species bycatch. If implemented, mitigation measures would be expected to have a positive effect on biodiversity. Actions for further research to support delivery of an ecosystem-based approach to management of these stocks would also address current knowledge gaps around the importance of these FMP stocks in wider food webs.

Implementing appropriate bycatch mitigation measures in the fishery is expected to contribute to the recruitment of sensitive marine species. Continued and improved monitoring through REM will build the evidence base on bycatch of sensitive species, allowing for more refined assessments of risk and development of appropriate mitigations which, if adopted, should deliver benefits with respect to foodwebs and biodiversity.

The draft Pelagic FMPs do not include specific actions on water quality issues such as marine litter at this time. In Scotland a range of actions are underway to address issues with marine litter, as set out in the Marine Litter Strategy for Scotland^[23] and these actions will continue to be delivered as part of a separate programme of work.

Climatic Factors

The draft Pelagic 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 and associated actions relating to supporting research and collaboration to assess climate change impacts and environmental effects of Pelagic 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 actions.

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.

Actions 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.

Policy 5 and associated actions are intended to support fishing businesses to deliver socio-economic and cultural benefits. 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 actions could support measures that protect the historic marine environment and improve early reporting of previously unknown sites.

Overview of Potential Negative Environmental Effects of the FMPs

Biodiversity, Flora, Fauna, 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 policies and actions. However, we do not yet know the potential environmental effects of implementing the actions set out in the draft Pelagic FMPs.

Nevertheless, the policies and 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 Pelagic fisheries to alter through publishing the Pelagic 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 actions 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 other 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 FMP’s 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. 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 REM, inshore Vessel Monitoring Systems (iVMS) and VMS 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 actions 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 Pelagic 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 Environmental Principles and Biodiversity Strategy (for Scotland), the Environmental Principles (for England) and the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy 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 in the production cycle of the FMPs proved difficult due to the high-level nature of the policies and actions at this early stage of development. From the analysis of the potential environmental effects (section 5) of the policies and actions set out in the draft Pelagic 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 FMP could positively or negatively interact with them. However, a Marine Plan assessment will be undertaken on the finalised FMPs’ policies and actions 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 Pelagic FMPs, where necessary, all new actions will be subject to Habitats Regulations Assessments, Marine Conservation Zone assessments, National Marine Plan assessments and MPAs impact assessments. Such assessments will consider the potential in-combination effects with other plans and projects that are occurring or will occur within an MPA. These assessments will also identify where any specific interactions exist.

The combined effect of implementing the polices and actions 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 mackerel, herring and blue whiting is an ongoing activity that poses some risks to the quality status of the marine environment. The draft Pelagic FMPs focus on achieving the sustainable harvesting of stocks and therefore will 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 these pelagic stocks 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 Pelagic FMPs takes a precautionary approach to fisheries management and adopts a balanced and proportionate approach towards delivering the fisheries objectives. The policies and actions set out in the draft Pelagic 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 fishery is likely to be impacting the wider environment. Bycatch of certain species, and reduction in prey availability, have been highlighted as a risk.

Actions have been proposed to investigate the impact of both unwanted / protected species bycatch. 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 Pelagic FMPs, where necessary, all new actions 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 Pelagic 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 the FMP focuses on setting out measures to achieve sustainable harvesting of targeted stocks but there is scope for future iterations of the FMP to address this wider issue.