Draft Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- (P.18/2026): comments

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

Background

The  Draft  Sea  Fisheries  (Trawling,  Netting  and  Dredging)  (Jersey)  Amendment Regulations 202- [P.18/2026] (hereafter "the draft Regulations") were lodged by the Minister for the Environment on 28th January 2026.

The draft Regulations are intended to overhaul and update the Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Jersey) Regulations 2001 (hereafter the "2001 Regulations") to create a "modern standard of management for mobile fishing and static netting".1

The draft Regulations also tidy elements of the Sea Fisheries (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 1998  and the  Sea  Fisheries (Minimum Size  Limits) (Jersey) Regulations 2001.2

Introduction

The key aim of the draft Regulations is to deliver the Marine Protected Area network3 ("MPAs") as committed to in the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan ("JMSP") which was lodged by the Minister for the Environment on 19th July 2024.

The JSMP set out four core purposes:4

1. providing a framework for organising human and marine activities within Jersey's territorial waters;
2. developing a network of Marine Protected Areas;
3. informing policy development for the next Island Plan; and
4. supporting coordinated decisionmaking for the marine environment.

The Panel undertook a review of the JMSP and published its Scrutiny Report on 17th October 2024. The Report made nine Findings and six Recommendations specifically in relation to the MPAs, of which five were accepted by the Minister, 5 as follows:

• Recommendation 3: "The Minister should give clear timeline on the delivery of the  full economic  impact assessment and ensure that there is  meaningful engagement with those directly impacted."

1 Draft Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202-  2 Draft Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- 3 Marine Protected Areas are defined as "an area of the ocean that is designated in law to protect species, habitats, historical or cultural features" – Marine Conservation Society – An introduction to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

4 https://statesassembly.je/getmedia/b0cd7eba-0941-45c1-a84d-785e8765ae36/P-44- 2024.pdf?ext=.pdf  

5 https://statesassembly.je/getmedia/939f5238-f8f5-4902-98ae-f06d4db43475/S-R-6-2024- Res.pdf?ext=.pdf

• Recommendation 5: "The Minister should provide a timeframe for designation of confirmed new MPAs, and future work on areas for further survey for future MPA designation should be made publicly available as a matter of urgency".

• Recommendation  6:  "As  a  matter  of  priority,  the  Minister  and  Marine Resources should provide clarity on the development of fisheries management planning and must support industry to explore sustainable fishing methods".

• Recommendation 7: "Marine Resources should continue to seek ways to work with fishers to ensure that their data is included in planning and development".

• Recommendation 8: "The Minister for the Environment should reaffirm his commitment to the "30 by 30" initiative agreed at COP15 and to the aims of the

OSPAR Convention".

As a result of the review, the Panel also lodged two amendments to the JMSP ahead of the States Assembly debate, which took place during the sitting commencing on 22nd October 2024.[6]

During the debate, the proposed extent of MPA coverage proved to be the most contentious issue. The Panel raised concern that the Minister's decision to reduce the originally proposed 27% MPA coverage to 23.3%, following consultation with the fishing industry and other stakeholders, risked the loss of sensitive marine habitats and conflicted with the environmental aims of the JSMP.[7] This reduction occurred because the Minister decided that several areas originally proposed for protection would instead be  subject  to  further  research  or  phased  protection,  rather  than  being  included immediately within the MPA network to ensure that the sensitivity of the habitats and their environmental value necessitated protection.

While the Panel agreed with the Minister's commitment to protecting high quality habitats, the Panel lodged an amendment [P.44/2024 Amd.(1)] seeking to restore the full  27%  for  immediate  protection  within  the  MPA  network  to  reinclude  the ecologically valuable sites that had been downgraded or deferred in the final plan. However, this was defeated by the Assembly.

The JMSP was adopted unanimously, as amended by the Panel's Second Amendment [P.44/2024  Amd.(2)],  which  required  that  actions  and  outcomes  from  the  JMSP, including further research into MPAs, must have "a clear and specific timeline and that a framework is put in place to make sure that responsibility and remit are clearly defined".[8]

Both during the debate[9] and in his Ministerial Response to the Panel's Scrutiny Report, the Minister affirmed his commitment to achieving a total MPA designation of 30% by 2030 ("30 by 30"), in line with the objectives agreed at COP15 and the aims of the Oslo and Paris Conventions ("OSPAR") Convention.

Although the Assembly ultimately approved an immediate baseline MPA coverage of 23%, it also recognised that the additional areas would require detailed ecological research before any decision on their potential designation could be made.

Further Research

The 3.7% of additional waters were then subject to governmentled seabed surveys in 2025 to provide the scientific evidence necessary to refine boundaries and determine whether expanded protection would be warranted. In parallel, the Government also commissioned an Economic Impact Assessment ("EIA"), prepared by the Economy Department,  to  quantify  the  likely  economic  implications  of  the  proposed  MPA network, particularly the impacts on mobilegear fishing fleets.

The Government subsequently published the Jersey Marine Spatial Plan Economic Impact Assessment' along with a report entitled Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (JMSP) Marine Protected Area Further Research Report' on 18th December 2025.

Scrutiny

On 9th January 2026, the Panel received Government Officers for a private briefing on the EIA and the Further Research Report.

The Panel were provided with background information on the development of the EIA that included marine-related EIA expertise provided by economists from the Scott ish Government. The Panel was informed about the methodology used to develop the EIA, that included the use of high quality, precise data on fishing fleet activity, a conservative approach to the development of the EIA that assumes the cessation of fishing activity within the MPAs and a quantitative and qualitative costs and benefits analysis.10

The Panel was concerned to learn that the EIA had been informed by only a single year of activity data, despite the fact that it was publicly known during that period that the relevant areas were being assessed for potential MPA designation. In the Panel's view, this limits the robustness of the dataset, as fishing patterns may have been altered in anticipation of future restrictions. Moreover, such assessments would ordinarily be expected to draw on a minimum of three years of data to ensure that the evidence is representative of longterm activity rather than shortterm behavioural change.

In addition, the Panel noted that the EIA did not include any monetised estimates of the environmental or eco-system-service benefits that could arise from enhanced marine protection. No valuation was made of long-term gains occuring from habitat-recovery, increased biodiversity, improved ecosystemfunctioning or potential increases in fish and shellfish stock. Instead, the assessment focused almost entirely on the immediate economic impact on the mobile-gear fishing fleet, including the projected losses based on the value of scallops landed in a single year in those specific areas. As a result, the Panel is concerned that the EIA presents a one-sided economic picture, capturing the short-term financial costs to fishers but failing to account for the longterm ecological value of the proposed MPA network as outlined in the JMSP.11

In relation to the  Further Research Report, the Panel were informed that, of the additional  territorial  waters  assessed,  the  Ecrehous  East'  and  Minquiers  North- East'areas had been excluded from designation as MPAs, and the Minquiers North- West' area was partially excluded from designation. This was because the surveys showed that these locations did not contain sufficient quantities or quality of sensitive

10 Jersey Marine Spatial Plan – Economic Impact Assessment 11 JMSP Priorities and Actions Plan.pdf, pg. 106

habitat or exhibited low sessile species diversity, or in some cases contained only patchy or mostly dead Maerl, meaning they did not meet the ecological criteria for protection. In addition, these areas were found to have high levels of mobilegear fishing activity, and where habitat quality was low, the report concluded that the environmental benefit of protection would not outweigh the significant economic impact on the dredging fleet.[10]

Moreover, a section of the southeast MPA which accounts for 0.86% of territorial waters will be phased in on 1st January 2030 instead of being protected on 1st September 2026. This is despite the Further Research Report finding that medium to high density of Mearl was found in those areas. The Panel understands that current fishing patterns mean that there are challenges protecting these habitats, however it is a shame that the area will not begin to be protected until 2030.[11]

The Panel therefore expects the next Minister, when bringing these phasedin areas forward for final designation, to do so based on the current research scientific findings that  align  with  the  UK  Government's  Joint  Nature  Conservation  Committee classification methodology to determine the protection status of OSPAR habitats and protected species and to apply a precautionary principle in determining the appropriate level of protection.

Following the lodging of the draft Regulations on 28th January 2026, the Panel received a briefing on the proposals, wherein it was noted additional engagement between the Jersey, Normandy and Brittany fishing committees had informed the final designation.

Conclusion

The Panel is disappointed that, although the States Assembly approved immediate protection of 23% coverage in 2024, the Minister did not proceed to designate these areas with urgency. This was despite the agreed Recommendation 5 of the Panel's Marine Spatial Plan Review, which requested the Minister to "provide a timeframe for designation of confirmed new MPAs, and [ensure that] future work on areas for further survey for future MPA designation should be made publicly available as a matter of urgency."14 The Panel had expected that the confirmed areas already approved by the Assembly,  would  be  designated  promptly,  with  only  the  furtherresearch  areas remaining subject to delay. That expectation was not met.

The Panel also understands that the commitment made by the JMSP was to ensure adequate protections for essential marine habitats. However, the original commitment was to achieve 27% MPA coverage by 2030 with the addition of phased areas and areas subject to further research.

The Panel understands that the MPA designation set out within the draft Regulations will instead be phased in by increasing current MPA designation of 6.5% to 21.7% taking effect from 1st September 2026, until 23.5% is achieved by 2030.

The Panel reiterates its strong support for Jersey's commitment to achieving 30% Marine Protected Area coverage by 2030, consistent with Recommendation 8 of the

Panel's Scrutiny Review and accepted in full by the Minister during the debate and in his Ministerial Response. The Panel regards the "30 by 30" target as an essential component of Jersey's obligations under its international obligations and an important benchmark for Jersey's longterm environmental position.

While the Panel agrees with the Minister's assertion that quality must come before quantity in determining MPA boundaries, however it remains concerned that several highquality  areas,  identified  through  the  Further  Research  Report  as  containing sensitive habitats or high sessile species diversity, have nonetheless been scheduled for phased or seasonal protection or deferred entirely. In the Panel's view, a qualityfirst approach should mean that once highvalue habitats are evidenced, they are designated without delay.

Notwithstanding these concerns, the Panel acknowledges that increasing the level of MPA coverage represents good practice in relation to the protection of marine habitats and welcomes the Minister's decision to bring forward the present draft Regulations before the end of the political term.  

The draft Regulations will ensure that the first phase of MPA designation can be implemented, aligning with the Panel's earlier call for designation to occur within the current term of office.

The Panel also expresses its support that the process of developing the draft Regulations accounted for a wide range of stakeholder interests, with engagement between the Government and the Jersey fishing community ongoing and wishes to highlight the importance of a "strong participatory approach to future development of the MPAs and MSP".15

Looking ahead, the Panel emphasises that achieving highquality protection must take precedence over simply expanding the total area designated. The forthcoming Minister has a responsibility to ensure that the next phase of work is driven by the existing research and evidence base, applying a precautionary principle to identify additional areas appropriate for designation.

In doing so, the Panel also reiterates the importance of Recommendation 6, which requires that "as a matter of priority, the Minister and Marine Resources should provide clarity on the development of fisheries management planning and must support industry to  explore  sustainable  fishing  methods."  Effective  marine  protection  requires  the parallel development of sustainable fisheries management, and the Panel expects this to remain a central priority for the next Government.

15 Finding 23 – Review of the Marine Spatial Plan – Ministerial Response

[6] States Assembly | Official Report - 22nd October 2024

[7] States Assembly | Official Report - 22nd October 2024

[8] Jersey Marine Spatial Plan (P.44/2024): Second Amendment

[9] States Assembly | Official Report - 22nd October 2024

[10] JMSP MPA research report.pdf

[11] JMSP MPA research report.pdf

14 2024-10-17-S-R-6-2024-Review-of-the-Marine-Spatial-Plan.pdf