Table 2: Action Plan details Standard requirement Actions Resources required Action lead Action partners Timescale / milestones 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 1: Engagement with WG Scallop and other stakeholders Yr 2: Proposals for stock units developed and put out for consultation. Yr 3.Stock units agreed Yr 4: Stock units incorporated into management planning. 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 Yr 2: Develop proposals for stock / fisheries harvest strategies, based on stock units identified in Action #1 above. Yr 3: Proposals put out for consultation and finalised. Yr 4: Preliminary harvest strategies embedded in management processes. Yr 5. Review and finalisation of harvest strategies.
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 2: Constitute expert and conduct SICA analysis of main ecosystems impacted by scallop dredgers. Yr 3: 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 Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, 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 Industry WG Scallop Marine Scotland Overall timescale 2 years Yr 2: Develop management agreements for the fisheries / units (as identified in Action #1 above) and proposals put out for consultation and finalised. Yr 3: Finalisation of UoA management arrangements.
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 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 2: Engage with WG Scallop and others to initiate development of scallop fisheries management plan(s). Yr 3: Develop draft fisheries management plan(s) and put out for consultation. Yr 4. Finalise and formalise fisheries management plan(s) 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 these scallop fisheries. Expertise in the evaluation of fisheries management regimes. Yr 0: MSC & Poseidon Passing to FIP Steering Group after clarification Industry Defra WG Scallop Overall timescale 2 year Yr 1: To seek clarification on whether the steering group meetings and annual consultant reviews are sufficient. Yr 3: ToR developed and contractor identified. Yr 4: 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 Yr 1: Engagement with WG Scallop & other stakeholders.
1.1.1 Stock status Action #1: Stock unit identification and providing basis for management Yr 2: Proposals for stock units developed & put out for consultation. Yr 3.Stock units agreed Yr 4: Stock units incorporated into management planning. 1.2.1 Harvest strategy Action #2: Develop formal harvest strategies Yr 2: Develop proposals for stock / fisheries harvest strategies, based on stock units identified in Action #1 above. Yr 3: Proposals put out for consultation and finalised. Yr 4: Preliminary harvest strategies embedded in management processes. Yr 5. Review and finalisation of harvest strategies 1.2.2 HCRs & tools Action #3: Development of formal harvest control rules Yr 2: Develop outline Channel scallop management plan, inc. proposals for stock / fisheries harvest control rules, based on the strategies identified in Action #2 above. Yr 3: Proposals put out for consultation and finalised. Yr 4: Preliminary harvest control rules embedded in management processes. Yr 5. 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 1: Identify information gaps for Action #1, #2 & #3. Yr 2: Conduct necessary research / information gathering as required, on Yr 1 gaps analysis. Yr 3: Final report made available, inc. on-going information / monitoring needs. 2.1.3 & 2.2.3 Information (primary & Action #5: Gather additional information on primary & secondary species. 6 months: Review of existing observer data. Yr 1: Design and resourcing of observer program, with initial trials, if required. Yr 2: One full year’s data collection
secondary species) Yr 3. 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 1: GIS-based risk assessment. Listing of potential ETPs interacting with UoAs, and then mapping of ETP distribution overlap with UoA dredging effort. Yr 2: Development of possible management approaches for reducing ETP interactions and impacts, if necessary. Yr 3. Implementation of projects for ETP management approaches Yr 4: 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 1: 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 at Yr 1. They could look like the following but will be agreed after Yr 1: Yr 2: Development of possible management approaches for reducing habitat interactions and impacts Yr 3. Implementation of pilot projects for habitat management approaches Yr 4: Mainstreaming of habitat management approaches and introduce of the risk-monitoring system. 2.5.1 Ecosystem: Outcome status Action #8: Conduct a Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) analysis of scallop dredging in the UoA. Yr 2: Constitute expert group and conduct SICA analysis of main ecosystems impacted by scallop dredgers. Yr3: Based on the SICA results, identify and recommend further research and management actions that reduce ecosystem disruption to acceptable levels. 3.1.2 Consultation & responsibilities Action # 9: Management jurisdictions agreed based on stock boundary definition. Yr 2: Develop management agreements for the fisheries / stock units (as identified in Action #1 above) and proposals put out for consultation and finalised. Yr 3: Finalisation of UoA management arrangements.
Appendix : Pre-assessment scores From: Acoura (2016). MSC Pre-Assessment for English and Western Scallops (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, 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