Fisheries Improvement Action Plan

Table 1: Action Plan overview

Fishery name: English and Western Channel Scallop (Pecten maximus) Fishery / Start date: 01 January 2017
Fishery location:
Western Channel (VIIe) and Eastern Channel (VIId) / Fishing method:
Scallop dredge / End date (anticipated):
31 December 2021 (5 years)
Project leaders:
Project UK Fisheries Improvements (PUKFI) / Improvements recommended by:
Poseidon
Overview of the Action Plan:
The Channel scallop fisheries are of significant economic importance on both sides of areas VIId and VIIe. One of the main barriers to effective management has been the poor definition of stock managementunits, which has led to insufficient stock assessment and the lack of targeted harvest strategies and control rules. Under P1, this Action plan seeks to identify if this is being addressed by other work and if not, to address this through an initial identification of stock management areas, followed by the development of fisheries-stock specific harvest strategies, control rules and where appropriate, adaptive management systems.
In P2, the Action Plan addresses the need for determining the catch (as opposed to the landings) of primary and secondary species caught in these fisheries. This will cover shellfish / finfish species, as well as out of scope organisms such as seabirds and marine mammals, as well as for ETPs. The Action Plan also looks at reducing the impact of these fisheries on habitats, especially VMEs. The plan also calls for a Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) analysis of the impact of scallop dredging on the ecosystem.
Under P3, following the identification and agreement of stock / fisheries management units, the plan seeks the development of a fisheries-specific management plan that that includes explicit short and long-term objectives, together with an allocation of the roles and responsibilities for their precautionary and adaptive management. It also calls for external evaluation of the management of scallop fisheries, possibly though a final pre-assessment before the FIP is concluded when the fisheries might be considering entering into full MSC assessment process.
Colour code in tables below: / Principle 1 / Principle 2 / Principle 3

Table 2: Action Plan details

Standard requirement / Actions / Resources required / Actionlead / Action partners / Stake-holders / Timescale / milestones
  1. 1.1.1 Stock status
It is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI and is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. / 1. UK stock units (likely West & East Channel) need to be identified and agreed by scientists, managers and industry, and then used as the basis for on-going fisheries-specific management planning. / Scientific expertise
(this work is ongoing elsewhere with a large amount of input from steering group members) / CEFAS (to ensure the requirements of this action is met within the other project) / Defra / Industry
MMO
Marine Scotland / Overall timescale 3 years
Yr 0: Engagement with WG Scallop and other stakeholders
Yr 1: Proposals for stock units developed and put out for consultation.
Yr2.Stock units agreed
Yr 3: Stock units incorporated into management planning.
  1. 1.2.1 Harvest strategy
The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1. There should also be a review of alternative measures. / Based on the proposed scallop stock units developed in Action #1, development of a formal harvest strategy for each stock / fishery unit that is both precautionary and adaptive. / Fisheries management expertise / English Waters Scallop Group represented by Juliette Hatchman & Jim Portus / CEFAS
ICES WG Scallop
IFCAs
Industry
Defra / Marine Scotland / Overall timescale 4 years
Yr 1: Develop proposals for stock / fisheries harvest strategies, based on stock units identified in Action #1 above.
Yr 2: Proposals put out for consultation and finalised.
Yr 3: Preliminary harvest strategies embedded in management processes.
Yr4. Review and finalisation of harvest strategies.
  1. 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools
Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. / Based on the harvest strategies developed in Action #2, development of a formal harvest control rules for each stock / fishery unit that are both precautionary and adaptive. / Fisheries management expertise / English Waters Scallop Group represented by Juliette Hatchman & Jim Portus. TBD
Redefine in Yr 1 based on Action 2 / CEFAS
ICES WG Scallop
IFCAs
Defra / Industry
Marine Scotland / Overall timescale 4 years
This action is to assess the UK scallop project because the group thinks that the other project will deliver the milestones identified below.
Yr 1: Develop outline Channel scallop management plan, inc. proposals for stock / fisheries harvest control rules, based on the strategies identified in Action #2 above.
Yr 2: Proposals put out for consultation and finalised.
Yr 3: Preliminary harvest control rules embedded in management processes.
Yr4. Review and finalisation of harvest control rules.
  1. 1.2.3Information and monitoring
The range, monitoring and comprehensiveness of information supports the harvest strategy. / Some additional information e.g. on stock structure and productivity may be required to support Actions #1, #2 and #3. Mechanisms to collect such information should be enabled, especially over the first 2 years of the FIP. / Scientific and fisheries management expertise / CEFAS / CEFAS
ICES WG Scallop
IFCAs
Defra / Industry
Marine Scotland / Overall timescale 3 years
Yr 0: Identify information gaps for fulfilling Action #1, #2 & #3.
Yr 1: Conduct necessary research / information gathering as required, based on Yr 1 gaps analysis.
Yr 2: Final report made available, inc. on-going information / monitoring needs.
  1. 2.1.3 & 2.2.3 Information (primary & secondary species)
Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main and minor primary and secondary species, and for a management strategy. / Information available on primary and secondary species (inc. out of scope animals) caught by the fisheries quantified and made available to managers. / Review of past observer programme data.
Observer program design. / CEFAS (subject to funding)
MSC to develop funding bid / Industry
IFCAs
Defra / Marine Scotland / Overall timescale 3 years
6 months: Review of existing observer data.
Yr 0: Design and resourcing of observer program, with initial trials, if required.
Yr 1: One full year’s data collection
Yr2. Formal report published.
  1. 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 ETP species outcome, management and information
Effects of the UoA on populations within national / international limits.
Management strategy in place.
Information is adequate for the assessment of impacts and their management. / Information on the nature and scale of impacts on ETPs by these fisheries needs to be assessed. Based on this, appropriate management measures need to be developed. This needs to be embedded in an on-going, risk-based ETP impact monitoring system. / Expertise to assess fisheries-related impacts on ETP populations, and to develop both alternative management measures to combat these and a long-term risk-monitoring program. / Overall:
Seafish Science Advisory Group (SAG)
MSC to progress risk assessment with JNCC & MMO / CEFAS
Industry
IFCAs
JNCC
MMO
Defra / Marine Scotland / Overall timescale 4 years
Yr 0: GIS-based risk assessment. Listing of potential ETPs interacting with UoAs, and then mapping of ETP distribution overlap with UoA dredging effort.
Yr 1: Development of possible management approaches for reducing ETP interactions and impacts, if necessary.
Yr2. Implementation of pilot projects for ETP management approaches
Yr 3: Mainstreaming of ETP management approaches and introduce of the risk-monitoring system.
  1. 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3Habitat outcome, management and information
The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Management strategy in place.
Information is adequate for the assessment of impacts and their management. / The spatial scale, intensity and impact on commonly encountered and in particular, VMEs, needs to be quantified within the UoA. Based on this, appropriate management approaches need to be developed. This needs to be embedded in an on-going, risk-based habitat impact monitoring system. / Expertise to assess fishers-related impacts on habitats, and to develop both alternative management measures to combat these and a long-term risk-monitoring program. / Seafish SAG / CEFAS
Industry
IFCAs
JNCC
Defra
MMO / Marine Scotland / Overall timescale 4 years
Yr 0: Review of existing information. Fishery foot print analysis and habitat mapping. Further actions following on from this to be determined by mapping. These will be re-assessed at Yr 1. They could look like the following but will be agreed after Yr 1:
Yr 1: Development of possible management approaches for reducing habitat interactions and impacts
Yr 2. Implementation of pilot projects for habitat management approaches
Yr 3: Mainstreaming of habitat management approaches and introduce of the risk-monitoring system.
  1. 2.5.1 Ecosystem: Outcome status
The UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. / Based on Actions #6 and #7, conduct a Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) analysis of scallop dredging in the UoA. / Expense in ecosystem analysis and use of the RBF and SICA tools. / Seafish SAG with MSC support on use of SICA / CEFAS
Industry
IFCAs
JNCC
Defra / Marine Scotland / Overall timescale 2 years
Yr 1: Constitute expert group and conduct SICA analysis of main ecosystems impacted by scallop dredgers.
Yr 2: Based on the SICA results, identify and recommend further research and management actions that reduce ecosystem disruption to acceptable levels.
  1. 3.1.2 Consultation roles & responsibilities
Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. / With the finalisation and agreement of stock boundaries (see Action #1), management jurisdictions can be allocated and agreed. Other responsibilities e.g. for stock assessment and research can also be better detailed. / Facilitation of cross-institutional discussions and agreements / Defra / IFCAs
Industry / WG Scallop
Marine Scotland / Overall timescale 2 years
Yr 1: Develop management agreements for the fisheries / stock units (as identified in Action #1 above) and proposals put out for consultation and finalised.
Yr 2: Finalisation of UoA management arrangements.
  1. 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives and 3.2.2 Decision-making processes
Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system.
There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. / Drawing from Actions #1, #2 & #3, development of a fisheries-specific management plan(s) for scallops that includes explicit short and long-term objectives, at stock levels if necessary.
With Action #9, this should assist formalise decision-making processes, including the need for adaptive management where necessary. / Expertise in developing fisheries management plans / harvest strategies / Action to be revisited in year 1. Lead to be decided then / WG Scallop
Defra
Industry
IFCAs / Marine Scotland / Overall timescale 3 years
Yr 1: Engage with WG Scallop and others to initiate development of scallop fisheries management plan(s).
Yr 2: Develop draft fisheries management plan(s) and put out for consultation.
Yr3. Finalise and formalise fisheries management plan(s)
  1. 3.2.4 Monitoring Evaluation
There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system, inc. the occasional external review. / External evaluation of the management of thesescallop fisheries. / Expertise in the evaluation of fisheries management regimes. / Yr 0: MSC & Poseidon
Passing to FIP Steering Group after clarification / CEFAS
Industry
Defra / WG Scallop / Overall timescale 2 year
Yr 0: To seek clarification on whether the steering group meetings and annual consultant reviews are sufficient.
Yr 2: ToR developed and contractor identified.
Yr 3: External review report completed and recommendations made available to FIP.

Table 3: Evaluation against Action Plan milestones

Standard requirement / Actions / Timescale / milestones / Progress / outcome / Revised milestone
1.1.1 Stock status
/ Action #1: Stock unit identification and providing basis for management / Yr 0: Engagement with WG Scallop & other stakeholders.
Yr 1: Proposals for stock units developed & put out for consultation.
Yr 2.Stock units agreed
Yr 3: Stock units incorporated into management planning.
1.2.1 Harvest strategy
/ Action #2: Develop formal harvest strategies / Yr 1: Develop proposals for stock / fisheries harvest strategies, based on stock units identified in Action #1 above.
Yr 2: Proposals put out for consultation and finalised.
Yr 3: Preliminary harvest strategies embedded in management processes.
Yr 4. Review and finalisation of harvest strategies
1.2.2 HCRs & tools / Action #3: Development of formal harvest control rules / Yr 1: Develop outline Channel scallop management plan, inc. proposals for stock / fisheries harvest control rules, based on the strategies identified in Action #2 above.
Yr 2: Proposals put out for consultation and finalised.
Yr 3: Preliminary harvest control rules embedded in management processes.
Yr 4. Review and finalisation of harvest control rules.
1.2.3 Information & Monitoring / Action #4: Gather additional stock information to support Actions #1, #2 & #3. / Yr 0: Identify information gaps for Action #1, #2 & #3.
Yr 1: Conduct necessary research / information gathering as required, based on Yr 1 gaps analysis.
Yr 2: Final report made available, inc. on-going information / monitoring needs.
2.1.3 & 2.2.3 Information (primary & secondary species) / Action #5: Gather additional information on primary & secondary species. / 6 months: Review of existing observer data.
Yr 0: Design and resourcing of observer program, with initial trials, if required.
Yr 1: One full year’s data collection
Yr 2. Formal report published.
2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 ETP species outcome, management & information / Action #6: Gather additional information on nature & scale of ETP interactions and impacts. / Yr 0: GIS-based risk assessment. Listing of potential ETPs interacting with UoAs, and then mapping of ETP distribution overlap with UoA dredging effort.
Yr 1: Development of possible management approaches for reducing ETP interactions and impacts, if necessary.
Yr 2. Implementation of pilot projects for ETP management approaches
Yr 3: Mainstreaming of ETP management approaches and introduce of the risk-monitoring system.
2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3 Habitat outcome, management and information / Action #7: Spatial scale, intensity and impact of the fishery on habitats assessed and management measures developed where appropriate. / Yr 0: Review of existing information. Fishery foot print analysis and habitat mapping. Further actions following on from this to be determined by mapping. These will be re-assessed at Yr 1. They could look like the following but will be agreed after Yr 1:
Yr 1: Development of possible management approaches for reducing habitat interactions and impacts
Yr 2. Implementation of pilot projects for habitat management approaches
Yr 3: Mainstreaming of habitat management approaches and introduce of the risk-monitoring system.
2.5.1 Ecosystem: Outcome status / Action #8: Conduct a Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) analysis of scallop dredging in the UoA. / Yr 1: Constitute expert group and conduct SICA analysis of main ecosystems impacted by scallop dredgers.
Yr 2: Based on the SICA results, identify and recommend further research and management actions that reduce ecosystem disruption to acceptable levels.
3.1.2 Consultation roles & responsibilities / Action # 9: Management jurisdictions agreed based on stock boundary definition. / Yr 1: Develop management agreements for the fisheries / stock units (as identified in Action #1 above) and proposals put out for consultation and finalised.
Yr 2: Finalisation of UoA management arrangements.

Page 1 of 9

Fisheries Improvement Action Plan

Appendix A: Pre-assessment scores

From: Acoura (2016). MSC Pre-Assessment for English and WesternScallops (dredge fishery). Project UK Fisheries Improvements. DRAFT REPORT. December 2016. Prepared for Project UK Fisheries Improvements by Tristan Southall.

Principle / Component / PI / Performance Indicator / Scallop Dredge
1 / Outcome / 1.1.1 / Stock status / <60
1.1.2 / Stock rebuilding
Management / 1.2.1 / Harvest Strategy / <60
1.2.2 / Harvest control rules and tools / <60
1.2.3 / Information and monitoring / 60-79
1.2.4 / Assessment of stock status / ≥80
2 / Primary Species / 2.1.1 / Outcome / ≥80
2.1.2 / Management / ≥80
2.1.3 / Information / 60-79
Secondary species / 2.2.1 / Outcome / ≥80
2.2.2 / Management / ≥80
2.2.3 / Information / 60-79
ETP species / 2.3.1 / Outcome / 60-79
2.3.2 / Management / 60-79
2.3.3 / Information / 60-79
Habitats / 2.4.1 / Outcome / <60
2.4.2 / Management / 60-79
2.4.3 / Information / 60-79
Ecosystem / 2.5.1 / Outcome / 60-79
2.5.2 / Management / ≥80
2.5.3 / Information / ≥80
3 / Governance & policy / 3.1.1 / Legal and customary framework / ≥80
3.1.2 / Consultation, roles responsibilities / 60-79
3.1.3 / Long term objectives / ≥80
Fishery specific management system / 3.2.1 / Fishery specific objectives / 60-79
3.2.2 / Decision making processes / 60-79
3.2.3 / Compliance and enforcement / ≥80
3.2.4 / Mgt performance evaluation / 60-79

Page 1 of 9