Sandeel fishing - proposed closure: consultation analysis

About the respondents and responses

The consultation received a total of 10,309 submissions, comprising of:

494 responses to the consultation via Citizen Space or email, as well as

9,815 campaign emails associated with the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds)

Of the 494 valid responses (i.e. those responses that were not blank or duplicate responses) that were received to the consultation, a majority were submitted by individuals (90%) (see Table 1).

As noted above, 9,815 campaign emails, where respondents add their name to text produced by a campaign organiser, were received in response to the consultation which appeared to be with the RSPB. These responses are analysed and considered alongside the direct responses to the consultation questionnaire.

The campaign response highlighted the importance of bringing an end to industrial sandeel fishing for a number of reasons, including: building resilience in, and protecting, seabird populations; ensuring a critical source of food for marine wildlife and many seabirds; preventing overfishing of sandeel; boosting resilience of seabirds that depend on sandeel; and boosting numbers of commercially targeted fish who feed on sandeel.

Of the responses where the respondent identified as responding on behalf of an organisation (51), there were nineteen responses from organisations in the environmental/conservation sector, thirteen in the fishing sector, seven in the energy sector, five in the community sector, one in the recreational sector and six other organisations (see Table 2).^[12]

Diffley Partnership exported responses from Citizen Space into Microsoft Excel and manually added non-Citizen Space responses for data cleaning, review, and analysis.

It should be noted that many respondents simply answered the first question on their general support for proposals and did not provide answers to the remaining questions to expand on this support.

Section A: Support for the preferred option to close fishing for sandeel throughout all of Scottish waters (Q1)

Context

The Scottish Government has committed to considering what measures could be introduced to better manage fishing for sandeel in Scottish waters, with an aim to benefit both sandeel stocks and the wider ecosystem.

The proposals to close fishing for sandeel throughout all Scottish waters have been informed by the current state of understanding of the role of sandeel in the ecosystem and the potential impacts that management measures could have. The proposals were produced to be read alongside the ‘Review of Scientific Evidence on the Potential Effects of Sandeel Fisheries Management on the Marine Environment’.

It is anticipated that any proposed closure would be effective year-round and, would be introduced through the implementation of a Scottish Statutory Instrument applicable to all vessels that would otherwise fish within Scottish waters.

This proposal seeks to contribute to the ‘Environment’ element of the six Scottish Government Blue Economy Outcomes, whereby Scotland’s marine ecosystems are healthy and functioning, with nature protected and activities managed using an ecosystem-based approach to ensure negative impacts on marine ecosystems are minimised and, where possible, reversed^[13].

This proposal also seeks to contribute to the following National Outcomes^[14]:

• Environment: We value, enjoy, protect and enhance our environment.
• Economy: We have a globally competitive, entrepreneurial, inclusive and sustainable economy

Sandeel is a jointly managed stock between the UK and the EU (European Union). Under the UK/EU trade and cooperation agreement (TCA)^[15], the UK has a 2.97% share and the EU a 97.03% share of the parties’ combined sandeel quota in 2023.

Sandeel fishing in UK waters is currently assessed and managed in the North Sea, where it supports one of the largest single-species industrial fisheries. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK, and Germany historically participated in the sandeel fishery.

However, it remains an over-arching and long-held Scottish Government position not to support fishing for sandeel in Scottish waters, which is reflected in Scotland’s Future Fisheries Management Strategy. As such, since 2021 sandeel quota has not been allocated to UK vessels.

Response to the consultation

Question 1 received 494 valid responses – 51 from organisations and 443 from individuals. Overall, 97% of closed responses indicated support for the preferred option to close fishing for sandeel throughout all of Scottish waters. The remaining 3% opposed. The level of support was lower among organisational responses (82% Yes) and higher among individuals (99% Yes).

Among organisational responses, 18% do not support the preferred option to close fishing for sandeel throughout all of Scottish waters (see Table 3).

Among organisational responses, views were most divided among organisations categorised as ‘Other’ with half supporting and half opposing the preferred option. Views were also more mixed in the fishing sector with 54% supporting the proposal of the Scottish Government and 46% not supporting the proposal .

In addition to these responses to the direct question in the consultation, 9,815 letters were received indicating their support for the proposal, see Annex 1 for a summary of the contents of the campaign responses.

Therefore, there was overwhelming support among consultation respondents for the proposal set out in the consultation to close fishing for sandeel in all Scottish waters.

Support for the preferred option

Many of those who indicated their support for the preferred option discussed a need to protect depleting fish stocks, which rely on sandeel and other species lower down the food chain. Respondents mentioned how sandeel are an important species whose abundance affects the health and reproductivity of predatory fish, seabirds – including puffins and kittiwakes – and marine mammals:

“Commercial harvesting of sandeels limits the amount of prey available to a range of threatened and declining seabirds, such as guillemot, razorbill, puffin, arctic tern and kittiwake. These species are all struggling immensely with the compounding problems of climate change and avian influenza, to take away part of their food source is wrong.

Threatened fish populations such as Atlantic salmon, cod and bass all need good populations of sandeel to feed on, harvesting sandeel restricts the growth and resilience of these ecologically and economically important species” – [Individual].

In keeping with the sentiment of the above quote, many respondents – particularly those who submitted campaign responses – described how seabirds face significant challenges from climate change, unsustainable fishing practices, avian flu outbreaks, and upcoming offshore energy developments.

They noted that sandeel are crucial sustenance for seabirds who are struggling to find an adequate supply, and stressed Scotland's status as home to over 70% of the UK's seabirds and 60% of the UK's seas. The proposals to close fishing for sandeel throughout all of Scottish waters were therefore seen a crucial step in building resilience and protecting these birds from mounting threats.

There was also support for the preferred option where this would contribute towards the achievement of related targets and strategies, such as Scottish Government’s legally binding target to reach net zero by 2045 and the binding interim targets for 2030 and 2040. Others felt that the ‘30 by 30 target’ - the target of legally protecting 30% of Scottish Waters by 2030 – will only be achievable if there is a limit and/or ban on the most unsustainable fishing practices, which they considered included sandeel fishing:

“Protecting 30% of waters will be pointless and likely irrelevant if the waters surrounding these oases of life are stripped bare of fish and damaged by excessive fishing pressure” – [Individual].

Others discussed climate change as a primary threat to sandeel, and welcomed the consultation as a means to address the additional pressure from industrial-scale overfishing. It was noted how such overfishing exacerbates the pressure on sandeel populations, compounding the challenges posed by climate change and other issues like pollution:

“Industrial fishing is a significant contributor to the growing problem of marine plastic pollution, continuing with Sandeel fishing risks further adding to the problem of marine plastic pollution through the loss of fishing gear at sea” – [Individual].

Moreover, those in support of the proposals also felt that the preferred option would have minimal impact on the Scottish fishing fleet, while commercially targeted fish dependent on sandeel could potentially benefit from increased numbers.

Several respondents offered their support with the caveat that this was only if this closure, together with any other relevant fisheries management measures which may subsequently be considered by the Scottish Government, qualify as suitable compensation measures under the Habitats Regulations and the Marine Acts where project level derogations are required to facilitate the consenting and deployment of offshore wind projects at pace and scale.

Opposition to the preferred option

Looking to the 3% who were opposed to the preferred option, their reasoning was that they were unconvinced of the need to introduce any additional measures to protect sandeel in Scottish waters, and felt there to be an absence of direct scientific evidence to justify the proposal:

“While there is plenty of evidence that sandeels are important to seabirds (and other predators) and that variations in sandeel abundance can affect seabird breeding success, there is little or no direct scientific evidence that fishing affects the abundance of sandeels or the animals that prey on them. That is despite a number of significant long-term sandeel fishery closures around Scotland” – [Organisation].

Some believed that the proposals appear contradictory to achieving other outcomes, such as the Scottish Government Blue Economy Outcomes. A few respondents mentioned recommendations put forward by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), whereby implementing a complete ban on sandeel fishing across all Scottish waters could result in adverse economic consequences:

“These proposals are expected to have wide-ranging consequences, affecting both the economic and ecological aspects that impact European and Scottish salmon producers. Sandeel is a short-lived species that is not directly consumed by humans, but it contains vital proteins and fats essential as feed ingredients in aqua feed production. By producing fishmeal and fish oil from sandeels, we are supporting the aquaculture production, thereby helping to address the food requirements of the world's growing population” – [Organisation].

A few respondents saw the closure of Scottish waters for sandeel fishing as unnecessary, and they felt that the present management of the sandeel fishery is precautionary and aligned with ecosystem requirements. Others put forward further arguments, for example, that pelagic trawling has little to no impact on seabed habitats and wildlife as the doors and nets are designed to be fished in the water column and target sandeel at times when they form mid-water schools.

A respondent from Denmark – a country whose fleets currently make up a large proportion of sandeel catch in Scottish waters - said they found the measures suggested in the consultation to be disproportionate and not scientifically justified, with concerns around the impact of the closure on the Danish fisheries sector and economy:

“The fishing for sandeel in Scottish waters is of great significance to the Danish fishers, and a possible ban will affect not only the Danish fisheries sector, but also the entire value chain with significant economic consequences to follow. In a 6-year period from 2018-2022 the average amount of Danish sandeel catches in Scottish waters is 111 million DKK (£13 million)” – [Organisation].

Similarly, another EU-based respondent felt that EU fleets would be unfairly affected by the preferred option to close fishing for sandeel throughout all of Scottish waters, impacting fisheries as well as the onshore processing industry. They also expressed concerns about a high predicted Net Present Cost to EU fleets, and felt that the closure may have implications for compliance with certain Articles of the TCA.

Section B: Alternative or complementary measures that could be considered in the longer-term for the protection of sandeel in Scottish waters (Q2)

A total of 43 respondents answered question 2 of the consultation. The question was phrased to be for those who answered no or unsure to question 1. However, it was displayed to those who answered yes. The analysis below presents an analysis of all comments given in relation to this question.

These responses were from 16 individuals and 27 organisations. Many of the respondents who expressed their support for the proposal to close fishing for sandeel throughout all of Scottish waters did not have any views on alternative or complementary measures that could be considered in the longer-term for the protection of sandeel (See Table 4).

Indeed, there was some discussion that any alternative should be rejected as being incompatible with achieving the desired aim of increasing the resilience of sandeel stocks.

Views on alternative or complementary measures

Of those who did have views on possible alternative or complementary measures, some suggested initiatives to capitalise on the opportunity to implement ecosystem-based fisheries management. These were considered additional, rather than alternative, measures, geared towards maximising the effectiveness of the closure.

A holistic approach to forage fisheries management, involving a concerted closure of UK waters to sandeel fishing was seen as particularly important in minimising displacement issues, as was continued engagement between national and international administrations:

“In addition to spatial management in the UK EEZ [Exclusive Economic Zone] for sandeels, there must also be continued engagement across the UK’s devolved administrations and with the EU to move towards truly ecosystem-based fisheries management that takes full account of ecosystem (such as predator) needs and dynamics” – [Organisation].

It was felt that alternative technical measures, like increased mesh sizes, may make fisheries less efficient and be less effective than a full closure, particularly where fish (sandeel or others) become damaged by these. Similarly, there were concerns that a temporal closure not covering the full fishing season might result in displacement, making the potential benefits of such a measure redundant.

Some respondents considered the agreement of zero Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for the relevant sandeel stocks as another option, though felt this seems politically unlikely due to continued EU interest in the fishery. Moreover, they noted that any closures must be factored into the way TACs are set for any areas that remain open to fishing, to minimise the risk of displacement and local depletion caused by renewed concentration of fishing effort in such areas.

Others saw a need for an adequate, non-invasive monitoring scheme to enable the robust assessment of the health of sandeel stocks and the overall progress of the closure towards achieving the envisaged ecosystem benefits, as well as reliable control and enforcement of the closure.

Meanwhile, a few respondents believed that none of the alternative measures outlined in the SEA – discussed later – will provide longer-term protection for sandeel in Scottish waters.

Some respondents commented that the proposals – as well as any alternative or complementary measures – could have limited benefits and, instead, risk negative impacts.^[16] These respondents noted that the current management practices in place are already sufficient to protect the ecosystem and that any additional benefits were unlikely:

“[Organisation] appeals the Scottish government to thoroughly consider the dual ramifications, encompassing both economic and ecological aspects, that will impact the island communities. There is a limited or negligible likelihood of any direct positive outcomes or improvements in the ecosystem or other aspects resulting from the full closure of industrial sandeel fishing in Scottish waters within the North Sea. This is primarily due to the fact that the existing management practices already adhere to the ICES ecosystem-based advice, which takes into account the ecosystem's needs and ensures sustainable fishing practices. Therefore, implementing a complete closure would not yield any additional benefits beyond what is already being achieved through the current management approach. We refer to your own quote from the consultations evidence “'Therefore, predicting the effect of further fishery closures on Sandeel abundance and their availability to marine top-predators is difficult, as the effect of the closure could be concealed by other sources of mortality” - [Organisation]