Scotland's future catching policy: strategic environmental assessment report 2026

Appendix B : Additional Baseline Information

D1 and D4 – Fish and D3 – Commercially exploited fish and shellfish

Demersal fish biodiversity is recovering from a history of over-exploitation, but GES has not yet been achieved in either the Greater North Sea or the Celtic Seas. A partial assessment of pelagic shelf fish status did not provide a clear result.

The UK has achieved its aim of GES for some commercially exploited fish. Most national shellfish stocks have either not yet achieved GES or their status is uncertain. The percentage of quota stocks fished below MSY and the proportion of marine fish spawning stock biomasses capable of producing MSY have increased significantly since 1990.

Fish are an important ecosystem component that contributes to overall levels of biodiversity (D1). In addition, fish of different species have a significant role in marine food webs (D4), acting as both predators and prey. Some fish species are commercially exploited, and only a proportion of these have managed quotas. Over exploitation can lead to a decline in stocks (D3) which can reduce both future commercial opportunities and have wider ecological impacts.

In order to meet Good Environmental Status, the high-level objective for fish is that ‘the abundance and demography of fish indicate healthy populations that are not significantly affected by human activities. For stocks of commercial fish, the high-level objective is that ’Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock’.

According to the Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status, neither of these objectives are currently being met, although there are signs of improvement. The baseline environmental condition with respect to fish is therefore one where recovery is required to meet GES. For more information, read, UK MS fish biodiversity assessment and UK MS commercial fish and shellfish assessment.

The 2019 assessment used a limited number of indicators. More indictors are being included in future assessments. A summary of the current status and indicators is shown in Table A4a and A4b.

Table A4a. Detail from the 2019 UK MS assessment on fish D1; D4: Fish. Taken from Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status and the UK MS Marine Online Assessment Tool.

Target

The size structure of fish communities is indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Size composition in fish communities

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESnot achieved

Target

The size structure of fish communities is indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Proportion of large fish (Large Fish Index)

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESpartially achieved

Target

The size structure of fish communities is indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Mean maximum length of fish.

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESnot achieved

Target

Incidental bycatch is below levels which threaten long-term viability and recovery of fish populations.

Indicator

Under development

North Sea

Not assessed

Celtic Seas

Not assessed

Target

The population abundance of sensitive species is not decreasing due to anthropogenic activities and long-term viability is ensured.

Indicator

Recovery in the population abundance of sensitive fish species

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESachieved

Target

For fish species in the Habitats and Birds Directive population abundance and geographic distribution meets established favourable reference values.

Indicator

UKassessments of listed fish species

North Sea

Not assessed

Celtic Seas

Not assessed

Target

For listed fish species, the area and the quality of the habitat is sufficient.

Indicator

UKassessments of listed fish species

North Sea

Not assessed

Celtic Seas

Not assessed

Table A4b. Detail from the 2019 UK MS assessment D3: commercial fish and shellfish. Taken from Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status and the UK MS Marine Online Assessment Tool.

Target

The Fishing mortality rate of populations of commercially exploited species is at or below levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.

Indicator

Commercial fishing pressure for stocks of UK interest

North Sea

GESpartially achieved

Celtic Seas

GESpartially achieved

Target

The Spawning Stock Biomass of populations of commercially exploited species are above biomass levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield.

Indicator

Reproductive capacity of commercially exploited stocks of UK interest

North Sea

GESpartially achieved

Celtic Seas

GESpartially achieved

Current impact of fisheries on the baseline condition

The status of commercial fish stocks (D3) primarily relates to exploitation rates so is predominantly influenced by fishing activities. For commercial fish some (53% of quota stocks) were being exploited at or below MSY in 2015, but this was not the case for all stocks. Out of a suite of 79 TACs which can be reported across multiple years, 32 of the 79 baseline TACs were consistent with ICES’ advice (40%) in 2023 compared to 27 TACs (34%) in 2022 (Bell et al.2023^[32]). Most non-quota stocks are unassessed, and do not have MSY or a suitable proxy in place despite being a significant proportion of UK landings. Most shellfish stocks have either not met the requirement, or their status is uncertain. For more information, read UK MS commercial fish and shellfish assessment.

Fish as part of the ecosystem (D1 and D4) encompasses a much wider range of species, including those not commercially targeted. Both the removal of targeted species and bycatch of non-targeted / non-commercial fish species is relevant. While fishing is considered the main anthropogenic activity that is relevant to this ecosystem component, other pressures such as noise from renewable infrastructure and hydrodynamic changes brought about from coastal defence are also relevant in some instances. More information on relevant pressures is provided in section 2.6.1 of the Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status.

Recovery from past over-exploitation by fisheries does appear to be occurring in some areas. Demersal fish biodiversity is recovering from a history of over-exploitation, but GES has not been achieved in either the Greater North Sea or the Celtic Sea. A partial assessment of pelagic shelf fish status did not provide a clear result. For more information, read UK MS fish biodiversity assessment.

Fish summary

The current status of fish communities in the UK is primarily shaped by historical over-exploitation by fisheries, while ongoing over-exploitation continues to be a notable contributing factor. Improved fisheries management since the 1990s has resulted in more stocks being fished at or below MSY levels so, although the target is not yet met, there is a positive trend. Improved fisheries management has also resulted in some positive trend in fish communities beyond the targeted stocks.

D1 and D4 – Cetaceans

Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) are an important marine ecosystem component that contributes to overall levels of biodiversity (D1). In addition, as top predators, the abundance of cetaceans can also provide some understanding on how the food web is functioning (D4).

To meet Good Environmental Status, the high-level objective is that ’the population abundance of cetaceans indicates healthy populations that are not significantly affected by human activities’. However, according to the 2019 updated Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status, the overall status of cetaceans in the North Sea and Celtic Seas is currently uncertain. The baseline environmental condition with respect to cetaceans is therefore one where some degree of recovery is potentially required to meet GES. For more information, read UK MS Cetaceans assessment.

A summary of the status is shown in Table A1. When considering the detailed targets and indicators used to make the assessment, the data suggests some are in line with GES in some geographic areas. But for many others, the results are either unclear or insufficient data is available to make an assessment. It should be noted that the indicators used do not always cover the entire breadth of what is set out in the target. For instance, the bycatch assessment is currently primarily driven by looking at harbour porpoise. The indicators can be developed in the future as more evidence is available.

Table A1. Detail from the 2019 UK MS assessment on descriptor D1; D4: Cetaceans. Taken from Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status and the UK MS Marine Online Assessment Tool.

Target

The long-term viability of cetacean populations is not threatened by incidental bycatch

Indicator

Harbour porpoise bycatch

North Sea

GESachieved

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Target

There should be no significant decrease in abundance caused by human activities

Indicator

Abundance and distribution of coastal bottlenose dolphins

North Sea

GESachieved

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Target

There should be no significant decrease in abundance caused by human activities

Indicator

Abundance and distribution of cetaceans other than coastal bottlenose dolphins

North Sea

GESpartially achieved

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Target

Population range is not significantly lower than the favourable reference value for the species

Indicator

Abundance and distribution of coastal bottlenose dolphins

North Sea

GESachieved

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Target

Population range is not significantly lower than the favourable reference value for the species

Indicator

Abundance and distribution of cetaceans other than coastal bottlenose dolphins

North Sea

GESpartially achieved

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Current impact of fisheries on the baseline condition

Fishing is one of several anthropogenic activities that are considered relevant to this ecosystem component. Other pressures include noise impacts from offshore infrastructure such as renewable energy and pollution from a range of sources. More information on relevant pressures is provided in section 2.6.1 of the Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status.

Cetacean bycatch

There is a specific target associated with the impact of bycatch from fisheries on the viability of cetacean populations. In the 2019 UK MS assessment, only data on the bycatch of Harbour Porpoise was used. This estimated that bycatch in the North Sea was below the precautionary threshold of 1% of the population estimate (and therefore meeting the indicator target), but above this threshold for the Celtic Seas. It was, however, below the less precautionary 1.7% of population estimate. Whether the target was being met in the Celtic Seas was therefore uncertain. For more detail on the assessment, read UK MS harbour porpoise bycatch assessment.

More recent analysis for the 2023 OSPAR quality status report (which uses the same indicator as the UK MS) shows that bycatch of harbour porpoise in the Greater North Sea and Irish & Celtic seas are exceeding the threshold. Bycatch of common dolphin is also exceeding the threshold. For more details, , read OSPAR Marine Mammal By-catch assessment. As this is a common indicator for both OSPAR and UK MS, that suggests that an updated UK MS assessment would no longer be seen as meeting this target.

Using the latest evidence from the UK Bycatch Monitoring Programme by Kingston et al (2021)^[33], it is specifically net fisheries (for example, gill nets, tangle nets etc) that are largely responsible for both harbour porpoise and common dolphin bycatch.

Cetacean abundance and range targets

For coastal bottlenose dolphins, the indicator target of ‘no statistically significant decrease in abundance’ was met in the Greater North Sea and for the largest group in the Celtic Seas (in the Coastal Wales assessment unit). No assessment has been possible for the other two smaller Celtic Seas Groups (in the West Coast assessment unit and Coastal Southwest assessment unit). For more information, read UK MS Abundance and distribution of coastal bottlenose dolphins assessment.

For species other than coastal bottlenose dolphins, the indicator target of ‘no significant decline’ was met for some species in some areas (minke whale in the Greater North Sea), but for most species and all of the Celtic Seas, there was insufficient evidence to make an assessment. For more information, read UK MS Abundance and distribution of cetaceans other than coastal bottlenose dolphins assessment.

Without this information, it is difficult to understand the potential impact fisheries could currently be having (alongside impacts from other industries or factors such as pollution) and if fisheries impacts are a scale of concern. Aside from bycatch (which is considered separately), the mechanism by which certain fisheries could theoretically be impacting on abundance and distribution would be through the removal of prey species important to cetacean species. At high levels, this could potentially lead to population-level impacts.

Cetacean summary

The status of cetaceans with both the North Sea and Celtic Sea is mixed. While there are some aspects that are in line with the achievement of GES, much of the picture is unclear. The impact of various net fisheries is leading to bycatch that, in places, might be impacting long term population viability of harbour porpoise.

Other than for a limited number of coastal bottlenose dolphin populations, it is unclear whether the abundance and range of most cetacean species can be considered in line with GES. Fisheries and the removal of prey species is one of several activities / pressures that have the potential to result in changes in cetacean abundance and distribution.

D1 and D4 – Seals

The UK has achieved its aim of GES for grey seals in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas. There was a significant increase in the abundance of harbour seals in West Scotland where most harbour seals are located, but their status in other parts of the Celtic Seas is uncertain. Harbour seals in the Greater North Sea have not yet achieved GES.

A summary of the current status is shown in Table A2. It should be noted that the current indicators used do not always cover the entire breadth of what is set out in the targets. For instance, there was no indicator developed or used as part of the 2019 assessment for bycatch.

Table A2. Detail from the 2019 UK MS assessment on descriptor D1; D4: Seals. Taken from Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status and the UK MS Marine Online Assessment Tool.

Table notes:

Note 1: For this indicator, read OSPAR Marine Mammal By-catch assessment 2023.

Target

The long-term viability of seal populations is not threatened by incidental bycatch.

Indicator

Marine mammal bycatch (OSPAR)

North Sea

Not applicable

Celtic Seas

Not applicable

Target

Population abundance and distribution are consistent with favourable conservation status.

Indicator

Grey seal abundance and distribution

North Sea

GESachieved

Celtic Seas

GESachieved

Target

Population abundance and distribution are consistent with favourable conservation status.

Indicator

Harbour seal abundance and distribution

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Target

Grey seal pup production does not decline substantially in the short or long-term.

Indicator

Grey seal pup production (OSPAR)

North Sea

GESachieved

Celtic Seas

GESachieved

Current impact of fisheries on the baseline condition

Fishing is one of several anthropogenic activities that are considered relevant to marine mammals. Other pressures include noise impacts from offshore infrastructure such as renewable energy and pollution from a range of sources. More information on relevant pressures is provided in section 2.6.1 of the Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status.

Seal bycatch

The 2019 UK MS assessment suggests a new target on bycatch mortality will be used in the future. Seal bycatch was not considered within the 2019 assessment. Grey seals are one of the three marine mammal species regularly recorded during the UK Bycatch Monitoring programme. Figures for seals (grey and harbour) are combined but the majority are thought to be greys. In the 2018 report^[34] the authors were fairly confident that all seals observed in gillnets were greys. Harbour seals (referred to as common seals in the report) are rarely caught and numbers are too low to generate a useful bycatch estimate separately. The gears that pose the most risk to grey seals appears to be tangle and trammel nets, which was estimated to account for over 90% of seal bycatch in 2019^[35].

The most recent OSPAR quality status reports assessment on marine mammal bycatch^[36] (which is likely to feed into the next round of UK MS assessments), concludes that although grey seal bycatch is high, bycatch in 2020 was below the threshold value set and therefore not thought to be demographically significant. This suggests that in an updated UK MS assessment, seal bycatch is not likely to be threatening the long-term viability of the population, and the bycatch target will be met.

Seal abundance and production

The 2019 UK MS assessment reports that grey seal numbers have continued to increase. Increases in grey seal pup production has slowed since the rapid increase following the end of culling in the 1970s, but still shows a positive trend. This is in line with GES. Harbour seal abundance has increased over both the short and long term in the English Channel and along the East Coast of England. But there have been short-term and long-term declines in parts of Scotland. The cause of the declines is not currently known. For more information, read UK MS seal biodiversity assessment.

Seals summary

Grey seals populations and productivity continues to increase, and targets are being met. Bycatch (largely in tangle and trammel nets) is occurring but not at levels that threaten population viability. For harbour seals, the status is not in line with GES where population declines have occurred in some areas. The cause is unknown. It is not thought to be linked to bycatch as occurrences are rare and there is no indication that it is linked to other pressures associated with fishing.

D1 and D4 – Birds

The UK has achieved its aim of GES for non-breeding waterbirds in the Greater North Sea but not in the Celtic Seas. Breeding seabirds have not achieved GES.

Seabirds are well monitored species that are an important marine ecosystem component that contributes to overall biodiversity (D1). In addition, as top predators, the abundance of birds can also provide some understanding and insight as to how the wider food web is functioning (D4).

To meet Good Environmental Status, the high-level objective is that ‘the abundance and demography of marine bird species indicate healthy populations that are not significantly affected by human activities. According to the Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status, GES has not been achieved for seabirds in the Greater North Sea and the Celtic Seas and the situation is declining, evidenced by increasing breeding failure rates. The baseline environmental condition with respect to birds is therefore one where some recovery is required to meet GES. For more information, read UK MS marine bird biodiversity assessment.

A summary of the current status is shown in Table A3. It should be noted that the current indicators used do not always cover the entire breadth of what is set out in the targets. For instance, although there are plans for target about bycatch, there was no indicator developed or used as part of the 2019 assessment.

Table A3. Detail from the 2019 UK MS assessment on descriptor D1; D4: Birds. Taken from Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status and the UK MS Marine Online Assessment Tool.

Table notes:

Note 1: For this indicator, read OSPAR Pilot Assessment of Marine Bird Bycatch 2023.

Target

The long-term viability of marine bird populations is not threatened by deaths caused by incidental bycatch catch in mobile and static fishing gear.

Indicator

Under development^(Note1)

North Sea

Data not available

Celtic Seas

Data not available

Target

The population size of species has not declined substantially since 1992 as a result of human activities.

Indicator

Marine bird abundance

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESnot achieved

Target

Widespread lack of breeding success in marine birds caused by human activities should occur in no more than three years in six.

Indicator

Marine bird breeding success/failure

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESpartially achieved

Target

Widespread lack of breeding success in marine birds caused by human activities should occur in no more than three years in six.

Indicator

Kittiwake breeding success^[37]

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

Not assessed

Target

There is no significant change or reduction in population distribution caused by human activities.

Indicator

Distribution of breeding and non-breeding marine birds

North Sea

Not assessed

Celtic Seas

Not assessed

Target

There is no significant change or reduction in population distribution caused by human activities.

Indicator

Invasive mammal presence on island seabird colonies

North Sea

Not assessed

Celtic Seas

Not assessed

Current impact of fisheries on the baseline condition

Fishing is one of several anthropogenic activities that are considered relevant to this ecosystem component, including incidental bycatch and competition for resources (for example, sandeel fishing). Other pressures include mortality due to renewables, disturbance from a range of activities, oil pollution, and transfer of non-indigenous species to islands from ships. More information on relevant pressures is provided in section 2.6.1 of the Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status.

Bird populations size and breeding success

In the 2019 UK MS assessment, population targets were met for non-breeding water birds in the Greater North Sea but not in the Celtic Seas. Population targets for breeding seabirds were not met for breeding seabirds in either sub-region. In both sub-regions, a quarter or more species showed frequent and widespread breeding failures. Surface-feeding species that predominantly prey on small fish are often subject to greater ecological pressures compared to others. This would suggest that the surface feeding availability of small forage fish species including lesser sandeel and sprat is limiting the breeding success of surface-feeding species such as black-legged kittiwake. Reductions in food availability could be a result of climate change or due to past and present fisheries, or a combination of both. For more information, read, UK MS marine bird biodiversity assessment.

The recent avian influenza outbreak Is likely to have had a strong negative effect on seabird population sizes for some species. It is not yet clear what the extent of the impact is, but it has the potential to move the baseline further away from meeting GES targets.

Bird bycatch

The 2019 UK MS assessment suggests a new target on bycatch mortality that will be used in the future. It is well recognised that certain fishing gears can pose a high bycatch risk to seabirds. Anderson et al^[38] (2022) identifies the UK offshore demersal longline fishery and the <10m static net fishery as the fleets that pose the highest risk to birds.

Mortality estimates are not produced routinely for birds using data available from the UK Bycatch Monitoring Programme. Preliminary estimates using the available data suggests that UK vessels in longline, gillnet and midwater trawls may account for thousands of seabird mortalities each year covering several species, with fulmar and cormorant being the most affected species in terms of possible population impacts with a further five species (great northern diver, gannet, shag, guillemot and razorbill) having an estimated bycatch mortality that exceeded 1% of total adult mortality (Northridge et al 2020^[39] and Miles et al 2020^[40]). However, these estimates have high uncertainty in part because sample sizes are low and possibly unrepresentative of the fleet. It is also worth noting that trends vary regionally due to differences in fishing practices and species distributions. For example, the majority of gillnet entanglement cases have been recorded in English waters, whereas recording of longline bycatch is more prevalent in Scottish waters.

Bird summary

Seabird populations are currently below the level that is considered to meet GES and the situation is deteriorating. Some declines in breeding success have been linked to prey availability caused by climate change and / or past and present fisheries. Invasive predatory mammals are also known to impact breeding success on island colonies. Current evidence suggests that bycatch rates in some longline and static net fisheries could be having possible population level impacts on certain species.

D4 – Food webs

Food webs (D4) are the network of predator-prey relationships that occur in the marine environment, from phytoplankton to top predators such as birds or seals. Fish communities are a key component of food webs. Knowledge of food webs allow understanding of how changes at one trophic level can impact those above and below it.

To meet Good Environmental Status, the high-level objective for food webs is that ’the health of the marine food web is not significantly affected by human activities’. According to the Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status, the extent to which good environmental status has been achieved is uncertain. Plankton communities are changing, some fish communities are recovering from past overexploitation, but others are not, breeding seabirds are in decline, and grey seal numbers are increasing. It is known that the components of the marine food webs are changing but it is not always clear how they are affecting each other. For more information, read UK MS food webs assessment.

A summary of the current status is shown in Table A6.

Table A6. Detail from the 2019 UK MS assessment on D4: food webs. Taken from Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status and the UK MS Marine Online Assessment Tool.

Target

The species composition and relative abundance of representative feeding guilds are indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Mean maximum length of fish

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESnot achieved

Target

The species composition and relative abundance of representative feeding guilds are indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Selected plankton lifeforms pairs (for example, large vs small zooplankton)

North Sea

GESstatus uncertain

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Target

The species composition and relative abundance of representative feeding guilds are indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Abundance and distribution of coastal bottlenose dolphins

North Sea

GESachieved

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Target

The species composition and relative abundance of representative feeding guilds are indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Abundance and distribution of cetaceans other than coastal bottlenose dolphins

North Sea

GESpartially achieved

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Target

The species composition and relative abundance of representative feeding guilds are indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Marine bird abundance

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESnot achieved

Target

The balance of abundance between representative feeding guilds is indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

TBC

North Sea

Not assessed

Celtic Seas

Not assessed

Target

The size structure of fish communities is indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Size composition in fish communities

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESpartially achieved

Target

Productivity of the representative feeding guilds, characterised by key species, is indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Grey seal pup production

North Sea

GESachieved

Celtic Seas

GESachieved

Target

Productivity of the representative feeding guilds, characterised by key species, is indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Marine bird breeding success/failure

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESpartially achieved

Target

Productivity of the representative feeding guilds, characterised by key species, is indicative of a healthy marine food web.

Indicator

Kittiwake breeding success^[41]

North Sea

GESachieved

Celtic Seas

Not assessed

Current impact of fisheries on the baseline condition

Anthropogenic impacts on the marine food web are multiple and complex. As fish communities are a key component of food webs, pressure from fisheries can have a significant impact. The removal of forage fish (i.e., species at a low trophic level that contribute significantly to the diets of other fish, marine mammals, or seabirds) has the potential to impact higher tropic levels. For instance, reduction in the availability of small forage fish is likely to be contributing to the breeding success of some marine birds. Climatically driven changes in plankton will also have a strong influence on the rest of the food web. More detail is given under the individual faunal group sections. For more information, read UK MS food webs assessment.

Food webs summary

Historic fishing activity has had a large impact on fish community structure which is a key component of marine food webs. With improved fisheries management focusing on stocks, some recovery is occurring. However, the management of fish stocks solely to safeguard future fisheries will not necessarily lead to all food web targets being met. Changes in plankton are likely driven by prevailing environmental conditions, but other impacts cannot be ruled out.

D10 – Marine Litter

To achieve Good Environmental Status for marine litter, the high-level objective is that ‘the amount of litter and its degradation products on coastlines and in the marine environment is reducing and levels do not pose a significant risk to the environment and marine life.’ According to the Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status, GES has not been achieved for marine litter, and it remains a significant pressure on marine ecosystems. The baseline environmental condition with respect to marine litter is therefore one where improvement is required to meet GES. For more information, read UK MS litter assessment. A summary of the current status is shown in Table A7.

Table A7. Detail from the 2019 UK MS assessment on D10 Marine Litter Taken from Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status and the UK MS Marine Online Assessment Tool.

Target

A decrease in the total amount of the most common categories of litter found on surveyed beaches.

Indicator

Presence of litter (beaches)

North Sea

GESnot achieved

Celtic Seas

GESnot achieved

Target

A decrease in the number of items of litter on the seabed.

Indicator

Presence of litter (seabed)

North Sea

GESstatus uncertain

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Target

A downward trend in the number of northern fulmars with more than 0.1g of plastic particles in their stomach.

Indicator

Presence of floating litter

North Sea

GESstatus uncertain

Celtic Seas

GESstatus uncertain

Target

Develop an appropriate indicator to measure micro-litter in the marine environment.

Indicator

In development

North Sea

Not assessed

Celtic Seas

Not assessed

Current impact of fisheries on the baseline condition

Fishing activities can contribute to marine litter through discarded or lost fishing gear, including nets, lines, and traps. This type of litter, also known as "ghost gear", can persist in the environment, entangling marine life, smothering benthic habitats, and introducing microplastics into the marine food chain. In addition, waste generated onboard fishing vessels, such as packaging materials and food waste, can also contribute to marine litter when not disposed of properly.

Marine litter summary

Marine litter, including from fishing activities, is a significant pressure on marine ecosystems and water quality. The UK has not yet achieved its aim of GES for litter. Beach litter levels in the Celtic Seas have remained largely stable since the assessment in 2012, whilst beach litter levels in the Greater North Sea have slightly increased. Waste fishing material is a component of beach litter. Both floating litter and seafloor litter remain an issue, with plastic the predominant material. Achieving GES for marine litter requires improved waste management practices, the reduction of lost or discarded fishing gear, and increased awareness and monitoring of the issue.