Climate change is already affecting fish and fisheries, with warming seas influencing fish abundance, distribution, and ecosystem dynamics, resulting in varied implications for fleets, fishing opportunities, and marine environments. Current fisheries legislation and management frameworks in the UK, as in many other countries, however, are often too rigid to respond effectively to these changing conditions.
At our “Climate Smart Fisheries Management” event on Wednesday, 3 June we heard from a range of subject experts on this topic. During the meeting, panellists offered insights into the impacts of climate change on UK fisheries and outlined measures needed to build a more responsive and adaptive fisheries management system. As part of the session we also heard of practical examples and already existing tools for ecosystem-based adaptive management that could help inform future policy and decision-making.
Attendees heard from:
John Pinnegar, Principal Scientist and Lead Advisor (Climate Change), Cefas
Paul Fernandes, Professor of Fisheries Science and Technology, Bicentennial Research Leader, The Lyell Centre, Heriot-Watt University
Mark Dickey-Collas, Consulting Marine Scientist, DickeyCollas Marine
Robert Clark, Chief Officer, Association of Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authorities (AIFCA)
Bryce Stewart, Senior Research Fellow, Marine Biological Association
A full recording of the online event can be found here:
Following the presentations, Parliamentarians and attendees put their questions to the panel. Questions were also collated ahead of the meeting. Written summaries of all comments, questions and answers are provided below.
Please note that these reflect the views of the panellists and speakers, rather than the APPG Secretariat or its Members.
Comments and Questions from MPs and Attendees
How much has water temperature increased off Aberdeenshire and the west coast of Scotland, and will climate change bring octopus this far north? (Raised on behalf of Seamus Logan MP)
Bryce Stewart noted that water temperature is highly variable in both the short- and long-term, and that while an exact figure is difficult to give, the North Sea is considered one of the global warming hotspots, warming faster than most other areas worldwide. On octopus, he explained that sightings, previously confined to a specific area, are now far more widespread, including off the coast of Wales and, tentatively, Ayrshire in Scotland. Unlike past blooms, which were typically short-lived and confined to the south-west of England, this episode appears more sustained, and he described it as the biggest octopus bloom seen in the UK, with a commercial fishery now developing rapidly.
What impact is octopus having on Scottish shellfisheries, such as scallop, crab and lobster? (Raised on behalf of Seamus Logan MP)
Referencing a recent talk to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Bryce Stewart said there had been an effect, noting the Scottish scallop fleet had left the area last year due to low catches.
Is trust between the catching sector and the scientific community improving, and could crowd-sourced data help build trust more broadly? (Melanie Onn MP)
Paul Fernandes said industry-science trust is improving, citing the growing presence of scientists embedded within fishing organisations and the development of joint scientific programmes with industry, such as a 2005 monkfish survey using industry vessels. He highlighted also the work of Fishing into the Future, as a body working on facilitating science-industry liaison.
Mark Dickey-Collas, referencing the APPG's December 2025 meeting on trust, agreed it is generally improving, though it fluctuates. He stressed that when scientific advice proves wrong, the key is to listen, be transparent about methods, and never defend the advice itself – but rather explain where it came from. He emphasised also the importance of working closely with the fishing communities that help generate the underlying information.
Bryce Stewart agreed, noting his own research shows scientists and fishermen who collaborate directly build greater mutual trust. He further pointed to the growing role of social science in fisheries as a positive factor here, referencing the work of the Newcastle University led Small-Scale Fisheries Consortium, as an example.
What do management solutions in Australia and the United States look like in practice? (Melanie Onn MP)
Mark Dickey-Collas highlighted that the crucial factor is risk assessment. Australia is seeking to use risk assessment to make much of its fisheries management more climate-ready and resilient. Here the work of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and an expected publication outlining Australia's approach was signposted. On the American side, he noted that similar work is mostly taking place in the North Pacific, while also highlighting work in the North-East Atlantic, where the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is working with coastal communities on ecosystem change.
When are reports expected from the Horizon-funded Measures for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in European Fisheries (MeCCAM) project? (Melanie Onn MP)
Paul Fernandes explained that the four-year project is now in its second year, with many elements still under development, including climate-informed advice. Some of the solutions being developed, such as decision-support tools and real-time monitoring apps, remain at an early stage. Reporting will take place at various points throughout the project, he said, with a final report due at the end of the project in three years' time. He encouraged attendees to visit the project's website for further information.
Comments and Questions from Online Attendees
Should attitudes toward non-native species become more discerning in the context of climate change, given examples such as the Manila clam and Pacific oyster?
Robert Clark highlighted that when distributions shift and new or emerging fisheries appear, there is effectively a choice: eradicate the species, or ignore it and hope it goes away, both of which carry the risk of illegal activity by opportunistic operators from outside fishing communities. Alternatively, the opportunity such species present to fishing communities can be recognised, even while acknowledging they are non-native. He pointed to Poole, where the Manila clam fishery holds Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification, which has supported market access through demonstrated environmental credentials. Certification builds trust, and today around 45 fishermen depend on the management of that fishery for their livelihoods. He concluded that such changes are happening, and adaptive systems need to be in place to respond to them if the aim is to sustain small-scale fisheries.
Mark Dickey-Collas added two further examples: the developing fishery for round goby in the Baltic, now widely distributed in the eastern Baltic, where management measures for this invasive species are still being worked out; and, in the Mediterranean, blue crab, where the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), the region's main management body, has introduced specific measures that have shifted the approach from eradication toward management of a targeted fishery. He also referenced the Global Biodiversity Framework, which calls for species and ecosystems to be managed holistically, rather than in isolation.
Bryce Stewart noted that octopus, while behaving in some ways like an invasive species, is in fact native to UK waters. With no management framework in place, effectively the current situation represents a free-for-all. He argued that decision-makers need to be able to act more quickly, noting the significant risk posed to shellfisheries. This required clarity on overall vision and objectives, he said – which he noted was part of the APPG's Action Plan.
Are fisheries surveys adapting quickly enough to keep pace with climate-driven change?
John Pinnegar noted this has been a recognised issue with surveys covering mackerel stocks, which have expanded northward and westward, requiring survey domains to be extended to ensure full coverage.
Mark Dickey-Collas added the example of an unexpected North Sea anchovy bloom in the North Sea which was not detected by scientists but picked up by industry, and suggested the solution lies in multiple channels for knowledge to flow into the system, not necessarily through quantitative modelling, but potentially through approaches such as a traffic-light style warning system.
John Pinnegar pointed to a whelk die-off in the Thames Estuary, identified by fishermen and the local Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (IFCA) following a heatwave, noting that fishermen are often the first to notice such changes, with scientists frequently playing catch-up.
Paul Fernandes highlighted that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) planning process does adapt over time, as shown by the expanded mackerel survey, and suggested the bigger challenge may lie not in geographic coverage itself, but in changes occurring within survey areas, with development of offshore windfarms and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
How effective are UK Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs), and how might they be improved?
John Pinnegar noted that FMPs were currently quite variable in their treatment of climate change with some, such as the South West Demersal and South West Pelagic FMPs, including meaningful detail on climate projections and carbon emissions, while most currently said little. Bryce Stewart noted that climate change was an explicit objective of the 2020 Fisheries Act, and on that basis, should be reflected across all FMPs.
How should fisheries management and assessment best account for range shifts?
Paul Fernandes emphasised the importance of tracking stocks and how they are defined, noting that ICES designations are regularly reviewed and adjusted in light of new evidence. He offered the example of North Sea cod, which was previously combined with the West of Scotland stock before later being separated into three sub-stocks, illustrating that assessment units can adapt to reflect the best available evidence.
Mark Dickey-Collas highlighted that the challenge here was as much about governance as science, with management decisions often still based on a presumption of static stock distribution and productivity. He explained that under the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, countries exploiting a shared stock commit to doing so sustainably and in cooperation with others who share that stock, and that range shifts have, in some cases, resulted in countries being excluded from negotiations or remaining tied to outdated mechanisms. A positive step, he suggested, would be to build adaptability into agreements before a crisis occurs, using agreed indicators, review points and interim arrangements to adjust participation, allocations and management measures as stock distribution shifts.
When are changes attributed to climate rather than fisheries management, and how should this be reflected in TAC-setting, particularly in mixed-fishery contexts?
Paul Fernandes explained that fisheries management can only control fishing activity, not the environment itself. Climate-informed advice means understanding how climate affects recruitment, growth and distribution, allowing more precise assessments and forecasts, and Total Allowable Catches (TACs) to be set accordingly, he said. He noted that progress here depends on adequately resourced research, which is increasingly stretched as it competes with other priorities in the blue economy, such as offshore energy and MPA-related monitoring.
Mark Dickey-Collas added that climate-smart TAC-setting is about ensuring management rules remain effective as stock behaviour changes, not about replacing fisheries management with climate models. He noted that attribution between climate and fishing impacts is rarely clear-cut, and that the priority should be adapting management, through time-varying parameters, scenario testing and review points, rather than waiting for certainty. In mixed-fishery contexts, this requires treating fisheries as an interconnected system, since a TAC for one stock can constrain others.
Should the FMP approach be extended to new species using co-management and vessels as data platforms?
Bryce Stewart said this was absolutely sensible, describing the formation of the South West Science Board as a very positive development, helping both to identify emerging industry needs and to fill scientific evidence gaps quickly through direct involvement of fishing vessels in data collection.
Robert Clark agreed, pointing to the Cornish Fish Producers' Organisation (CFPO), the wider South West Science Board, and the work of IFCAs as examples of vessels serving as valuable data platforms. He added that FMPs should explicitly address how climate-related changes are likely to affect their implementation, with evidence gaps clearly identified to support more strategic data collection, and stressed that robust governance is essential to allow new evidence to be incorporated quickly, particularly for emerging species or sudden shifts such as the octopus bloom.
What communication barriers exist between marine stakeholders, and how is this affecting fisheries management in a changing climate?
Bryce Stewart said there is generally substantial common ground between marine stakeholders, but it is only realised through open, direct engagement, citing the octopus bloom as an example where media narratives have oversimplified a more mixed reality on the ground.
Robert Clark identified four key barriers from an IFCA perspective. First, differing communication styles and timescales between fishers, scientists, policymakers and environmental NGOs (eNGOs), each of whom rely on different forms of evidence and operate within different frameworks. Second, trust deficits, where fishers feel consulted only after decisions are effectively made, while regulators may view local knowledge as hard to verify, creating a cycle of incomplete information. Third, structural fragmentation, with overlapping responsibilities across IFCAs, Defra, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and others, compounded by consultation fatigue among those repeatedly asked to engage without seeing clear outcomes. Fourth, the particular urgency these barriers create in a changing climate, where fishers' early observations of shifting species, habitats or fishing patterns may not reach decision-makers quickly enough, risking delayed adaptation, reduced compliance and weakened confidence in regulation.
He argued the solution lies in better engagement and co-management rather than more consultation, with IFCAs well placed to convene stakeholders locally, improve feedback loops so contributors can see how their input has shaped decisions, and use fishing vessels as data platforms to help bridge local and scientific knowledge. He concluded that effective management in a changing climate will depend on trusted relationships, clear governance and genuine co-management, with IFCAs well placed to support this at the local level.
How can UK climate-smart fisheries measures be adapted to support Small Island Developing States (SIDS), such as Mauritius and Rodrigues, and which measures are most transferable?
Mark Dickey-Collas cautioned against assuming UK approaches are directly transferable, pointing instead to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) Climate Resilient Fisheries Planning Tool as more directly relevant.
Bryce Stewart noted that UK fisheries management is itself still adapting, but that science-industry collaboration, such as through Fishing Industry Science Partnership (FISP) projects, has helped close evidence gaps quickly, provided strong communication is established from the outset and adequately funded. He also highlighted the recent development of FMPs as a potential model, given their focus on tailoring management to local, regional and species-specific contexts.
Robert Clark agreed the principle of locally accountable, co-managed governance is highly transferable, though any model would need adapting to local capacity and legal frameworks. He offered IFCA support in further discussions, and suggested an IFCA-style model could help strengthen fishers' voice and improve compliance in SIDS contexts if designed appropriately.