Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Pelagic Fisheries Management Plans

3. Environmental Baseline

Summary of the Current State of the UK Marine Environment

Section 3 provides a summary of the current state of the UK marine environment for each of the environmental issues screened into this SEA, and where applicable their associated UK MS descriptors (Table 4; Annex 1). The SEA has been conducted against the environmental baseline set out in these sources of existing information. We acknowledge that there are some uncertainties and evidence gaps in the environmental baseline. However, we consider that this environmental baseline provides a comprehensive level of information to undertake an effective assessment and provide informed evidence-based recommendations. Where required, further detailed assessments using additional evidence will be completed ahead of the implementation of FMP actions.

It is likely that without the proposed FMPs, those issues which are contributing to the current state of the marine environment will likely continue to have an influence. The proposed FMPs seek to promote the management of the fisheries in a more coherent and coordinated manner that considers wider environmental issues. The FMPs therefore have the potential to improve the current state of the environment set out below, both where no improvement has been observed, and where positive trends have been identified. Section 6 and 7 considers how the implementation of the FMPs’ proposed policies and actions could change the baseline.

Biodiversity, Flora, and Fauna

The primary source of information on the current state of the UK marine environment came from the UK MS descriptor status assessments: The updated UK Marine Strategy Part 1, published in 2019. The impact of fishing has been considered as part of the assessment on the UK MS descriptors, therefore information on the impact of fishing activity on the marine environment has been included in the sections below as part of the baseline. For further information on the baseline related to UK MS descriptors see Appendix B.

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).

The current status of cetaceans for 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.

Seals are an important marine ecosystem component that contributes to overall levels of biodiversity (D1). In addition, as top predators, seal productivity can also provide some understanding and insight as to how the food web is functioning (D4).

Grey seal populations and productivity continues to increase, and targets are being met. Bycatch (largely in tangle / 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.

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).

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. The impact of bycatch will be included in future assessments and current evidence suggests that some longline and static net fisheries could be having possible population level impacts on certain species.

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.

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 trends in fish communities beyond the targeted stocks.

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.

Historic fishing activity which has contributed to the current environmental baseline has had a large impact on fish community structure - 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.

Water Quality

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.

Underwater noise from fisheries, while not the primary source, can still contribute to the overall noise pollution in the marine environment. Fishing vessels will contribute to underwater noise through sonar, engine noise, gear interacting with seabed and deploying and retrieving gear.

The achievement of GES for underwater noise in the UK is uncertain. Research and monitoring programmes established since 2012 have provided an improved understanding of the impacts of sound on marine ecosystems. However, achieving GES for underwater noise will require better understanding and monitoring of the issue, as well as the development and implementation of strategies to manage noise pollution from various sources.

Climatic Factors

Climate change impacts are not part of the UK MS, therefore evidence from other sources were used to provide baseline information in relation to this issue. Statistics from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) (formally known as Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), Department for Transport (DFT) and Engelhard et al (2022) report on Carbon emissions in UK fisheries, were used to identify the contribution UK fishing fleets have to the total carbon emissions at sea each year.

Vessel Emissions

The fishing sector contributes to carbon emissions mainly through vessel emissions and use of refrigerants with additional impacts in the processing and wholesale sectors relating to transport of exports (Engelhard et al., 2022^[5]). A study of the Scottish pelagic fishing fleet showed 96% of emissions come from fuel use during fishing operations (Sandison et al., 2021^[6]). The UK pelagic fleet is comprised of large, modern (and often highly efficient) vessels. Scottish pelagic vessels are significantly larger and more technologically advanced than the rest of the Scottish vessels with an average length of 72 metres and an average engine power of 5800 kW, compared to an average length of fewer than 12 meters and an average engine power of 200 kW for the rest of the Scottish fleet (Metz et al., 2022^[7]).

In Scotland, the pelagic fleet was made up of 21 vessels in 2024^[8] which represent only 1% of the Scottish fleet, but account for just over 50% of landings by value of all landings—highlighting their disproportionate contribution to total catch. They target primarily North East Atlantic mackerel, North Sea herring, Atlantic herring (or ASH) and Blue Whiting in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean. At UK level, fuel use from all fishing activity contributed an estimated 467 kt CO₂e in 2024—representing around 0.12% of total UK territorial emissions (378 Mt CO₂e) and 0.43% of domestic transport emissions (109 Mt CO₂e), and equivalent to about 1.1% of agricultural emissions (41.0 Mt CO₂e). The pelagic fleet has a high daily fuel demand with an annual fuel use of over 35,000 litres. This accounts to around 102 kt CO2e or around 17% of total emissions per fleet segment (Metz et al., 2022). Despite the relatively high fuel use of pelagic vessels, when emissions are assessed per unit of landed output (e.g. edible protein), pelagic species have high catch volumes relative to fuel use and, generally, have comparatively lower emissions than most other seafood (Sandison et al., 2021).

Climate change impacts on Pelagic FMP stocks and fisheries

Pelagic fish stocks (including mackerel, herring and blue whiting) are among the most economically valuable and climatically sensitive fisheries in UK waters and the wider Northeast Atlantic (ICES, 2023^[9]; Garrett et al., 2024^[10]). The existing evidence shows that climate change is already reshaping pelagic fish distributions, productivity and ecosystem interactions, creating significant challenges for fisheries management systems which are largely based on historical conditions (Baudron et al., 2020^[11]; Townhill et al., 2023^[12]).

Pelagic species respond to warming seas faster and over greater distances than most demersal fish because they closely track temperature and plankton availability (Baudron et al., 2020; Montero Serra et al., 2015^[13]).

Key observed patterns include:

• Strong poleward shifts of both warm affinity and temperate pelagic species (Baudron et al., 2020; Townhill et al., 2023)
• Extreme mobility of Northeast Atlantic mackerel, whose centre of distribution shifted ~1,650 km west and ~400 km north between 2007–2016 (Garrett et al., 2024; Ólafsdóttir et al., 2019^[14])
• Northward re-centring of boreal pelagic stocks (e.g. herring, blue whiting) into Norwegian, Icelandic and Barents Sea waters (Pinnegar et al., 2023^[15]; Garrett et al., 2024)
• Altered pelagic fish productivity with sea temperature impacting on spawning and larval survival (Petitgas et al., 2013^[16]; Pinnegar et al., 2023)
• Increasing presence of warm water pelagics (e.g. sardine and anchovy like species) in and around the North Sea (Montero Serra et al., 2015; Townhill et al., 2023).

Recent warm years have produced strong year classes for some pelagic species (e.g. mackerel, blue whiting, sprat), but responses are highly variable across species and regions (Garrett et al., 2024).

Pelagic fish play a crucial role by linking lower and upper trophic levels in Northeast Atlantic food webs with fewer species at middle trophic levels compared to lower and upper trophic levels (Bakun, 2006^[17]; Engelhard et al., 2014^[18]; Lynam et al., 2017^[19]). Climate driven changes are already causing ecosystem effects, including shifts in predator–prey dynamics such as increased mackerel predation on herring larvae, alterations in plankton communities that influence migration and feeding behaviour, and growing interactions with expanding pelagic cephalopod populations (Baudron et al., 2020; Garrett et al., 2024).

Single species management risks overlooking climate driven ecosystem feedback. Pelagic fisheries increasingly require ecosystem-based management, particularly for forage species such as herring and sprat (ICES, 2023).

Marine heatwaves and temperature anomalies add short term shocks on top of long-term warming and while these heatwaves may not permanently reduce pelagic biomass, they increase ecological volatility and uncertainty (Smale et al., 2019).

Cultural Heritage

The definition of the ‘marine and aquatic environment’ in the Fisheries Act 2020 (section 52) includes features of ‘archaeological or historic interest in marine or coastal areas’. These features should be regarded as part of the wider marine environment.

Cultural heritage impacts are not part of the UK MS, therefore evidence from other sources were used to provide baseline information in relation to this issue.

The Fishing and the Historic Environment report produced by Historic England was used as the primary source of information on the interactions between commercial fishing and the marine historic environment.

The report identifies several potential and evidenced interactions between commercial fishing and marine heritage assets. Both positive and negative interactions can arise when archaeological material present on the foreshore and seabed is encountered during commercial fishing. Of relevance to the Pelagic FMP fisheries, the report finds that pelagic towed gear, mid‐water trawls and purse seines are unlikely to encounter marine heritage assets and therefore interactions are not anticipated, except for incidental gear loss, and it is anticipated that interactions with cultural heritage assets are not likely to be a significant issue for the Pelagic FMPs. Given the anecdotal nature of many of these interactions a comprehensive assessment of the extent of interactions and their impacts, is currently not available in UK waters.

In Scotland Historic Marine Protected Areas (HMPAs) are marine historic assets of national importance which survive in Scottish territorial waters (out to 12 miles offshore) that are protected by law. Further information and datasets on Scotland’s Marine historic environment and cultural heritage can be found at Historic environment and cultural heritage | Scotland's Marine Assessment 2020.

The historic environment map viewer for Northern Ireland provides an overview of historic sites and landscapes.

Existing Environmental Effects of Pelagic Species Fishing

The draft Pelagic FMPs focus on achieving the sustainable harvesting of stocks. This focus seeks to reduce the environmental risks linked to over-fishing these stocks, thereby giving positive benefit to environmental status.

Nevertheless, fishing within sustainable limits for the target stocks (MSY) may reduce but will not eliminate some of the negative impacts of that fishing activity on the wider marine environment. These impacts are identified in the sections below.

As described in Section 2, this Environmental Report focuses on assessing how the policies and actions in the draft Pelagic FMPs are likely to give rise to both significant positive and negative environmental effects. More detailed fisheries assessments which consider current activity are already in progress or have been completed. These assessments may be used to inform the FMPs’ actions as they are delivered, and include:

• The Marine Directorate’s offshore MPA fisheries assessments programme and ongoing inshore MPA and PMF fisheries assessment programmes.
• Defra’s Revised Approach to fisheries management programme (inside twelve nautical miles) in England.
• The Marine Management Organisation’s (MMO) ongoing Fishery Assessment programme (outside twelve nautical miles) in England.
• Assessments required to prepare the Marine Protected Areas (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022 which came into operation on 1 January 2023. Further fisheries measures are currently being consulted on for 3 offshore MPAs and the outcome of the consultation will be published later this year.
• The Assessing Welsh Fishing Activities Programme is in place in Wales. This work assesses likely impacts to habitats and features from specific gears - it does not assess impacts from current activity, but the generic assessments are used to inform management.
• The annual Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (CHSR) assessing demersal fishing.
• The wider marine environment (UK MS) assessments

Nevertheless, this ER acknowledges the likely significant effects associated with fishing activity being managed through the draft Pelagic FMPs and sets out in broad terms how the FMP will seek to avoid, reduce, or at least mitigate significant negative effects.

Environmental Effects Associated with MPAs

Advice provided to fisheries policy authorities by Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) gives more detail on the risks associated with fishing for species covered by the Pelagic FMPs in relation to the designated features of MPAs, Priority Marine Features (PMFs) for Scotland and UK Marine Strategy Descriptors (UK MS). Joint advice from JNCC and NatureScot, commissioned by the Scottish Government's Marine Directorate and covering Scottish waters, was received for Pelagic FMPs in Scottish waters as part of a single assessment. Additional joint advice from Natural England and JNCC, commissioned by Defra and covering English waters, was received for the draft Northern Shelf Blue Whiting FMP, Northern Shelf Mackerel FMP and North Sea Herring FMP, and advice for Welsh waters, developed by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) in collaboration with JNCC, was also received for the draft Northern Shelf Blue Whiting FMP and the draft Northern Shelf Mackerel FMP.

Advice for Welsh waters was reviewed by JNCC and applies to both inshore and offshore waters, with no further advice recommended. This advice takes a different approach to attributing the risk ratings resulting in some apparent divergence across the SNCB advice. However, this divergence is due to this difference in approach rather than a difference in risks across the region. Readers should therefore note that differences in risk ratings between NRW and other administrations predominantly reflect differences in assessment approach rather than substantive differences in the underlying ecological risk; the recommendations across the advice remain consistent

Inside the boundaries of Scottish MPAs, the Marine Directorate assess human activities that could interact with the designated features of MPAs, seek the advice of SNCBs and introduce management where required. Stakeholders have worked closely with regulators to help develop measures to mitigate impacts within inshore and offshore MPAs. Therefore, appropriate management is either in place already (for offshore MPAs) or will be introduced soon to ensure any fishing within MPAs is compatible with the MPA’s conservation objectives. Current management measures already in place related to the use of bottom towed gear is detailed at MPA monitoring strategy - Marine environment.

In England the assessments of the impact of fishing activities inside MPAs are undertaken by the IFCAs within 6nm and the MMO outside 6nm. Stakeholders have worked/will work closely with regulators to help develop measures to mitigate impacts within inshore and offshore MPAs. Appropriate management is or will be in place to ensure any fishing within MPAs is compatible with the MPA’s conservation objectives. Current management measures already in place are detailed on the MMO and Association of IFCAs websites.

In Northern Ireland, current fisheries management measures exist for nine inshore MPAs through The Marine Protected Areas (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022. Further fisheries measures are being drafted for three offshore MPAs (South Rigg MCZ, Queenie Corner MCZ and Pisces Reef SAC) and will be consulted on later this year.

In Wales, the assessments of the impact of fishing activities for blue whiting and mackerel inside MPAs are undertaken in-house and reviewed by Natural Resources Wales.

Whilst MPA site management considers fishing activity that occurs within the site’s boundaries, there remains the potential for fishing activity occurring outside an MPA to still have impacts on the features protected within the MPA. These impacts can happen when either the pressure exerted by the fishery impacts protected features beyond the spatial footprint of a particular fishing activity (e.g. noise) or when the feature of an MPA is mobile and travels outside the site.

The key risks of fisheries contained within the Pelagic FMPs relating to the designated features of MPAs in Scottish, English and Welsh Waters are summarised below.

Environmental effects associated with designated features of MPAs (Scottish waters)

Fisheries contained in the Pelagic FMPs have the potential to impact the designated features of MPAs in 2 primary ways;

(i) through the bycatch of designated features of MPAs, and

(ii) the direct (targeted) and indirect (bycatch) removal of prey species on which designated species depend.

Evidence suggests that pelagic trawl and purse seine fisheries pose a relatively low risk to MPA designated marine mammal and fish species features in terms of bycatch, with limited records of bycatch of harbour porpoise, grey seals, basking shark and ‘common’ skate. However, due to low sampling effort, improved evidence is needed to support a low-risk rating for these species. Several MPA designated bird species features are considered sensitive to bycatch in these fisheries; guillemot, razorbill and cormorant have all been recorded as bycatch in pelagic trawls.

While mobile species are typically considered sensitive to bycatch in static and drift net fisheries, there is insufficient resolution to determine the impact of pelagic drift net fisheries specifically. Although the use of pelagic drift nets in the regions covered by the Pelagic FMPs is limited, based on the potential sensitivity to bycatch, expert advice suggests the risk ought to be classed as moderate. This aligns with the assessment from French et al. (2022).

Owing to significant gaps in the available evidence, the risk rating for bycatch in pelagic fisheries is considered moderate. Addressing evidence gaps through ongoing monitoring and research or, where necessary, through enhanced data collection will improve confidence in the assessment of bycatch risks.

All the fish species managed through the pelagic FMPs are considered prey species for a broad range of predators and as such, are an important part of the marine ecosystem around Scotland. There is good evidence to demonstrate that many of the pelagic species covered in the pelagic FMPs are key prey for many of the designated fish, marine mammal, and seabird features in Scottish MPAs. However, the extent to which features rely on specific pelagic prey species is less clear. As such, the risk rating for pelagic fisheries in Scottish waters regarding removal of important prey species that designated species depend on is considered moderate. Work done by the Pelagic FMPs to ensure fisheries meet the precautionary and stock sustainability objectives of the Fisheries Act will help to ensure that exploited stocks are fished sustainably, but additional consideration of predator needs is recommended.

Risks relating to the designated features of MPAs (English waters)

The main impacts of the fisheries incorporated in the relevant Pelagic FMPs on the designated features of MPAs arising from fishing activity outside MPA site boundaries, with an indication of their risk level, are summarised below:

• There is a moderaterisk of bycatch of mobile species that are designated features of MPAs in pelagic trawls, demersal trawls, ringnets, and purse seines.
• There is a low risk to the designated features of MPAs through of bycatch of mobile species in handline fisheries.
• There is a moderate risk to the designated species of MPAs from reductions in their prey through the targeted herring, mackerel and blue whiting fisheries.

Risks relating to the designated features of MPAs (Welsh waters)

The risk ratings presented in this advice for Welsh waters reflect NRW’s pressure-feature screening methodology. Risk ratings are assigned where a direct or indirect impact pathway exists between a fishing activity and a protected feature. They are based on the potential for a pressure caused by an activity to be a material consideration for a feature within an HRA when permitting an activity. Natural Resource’s Wales (NRW) approach disaggregates risks by gear type, pressure, and feature group, and by whether the activity occurs inside or outside sites. As a consequence, some pressures may be assigned a High or Medium rating to reflect the sensitivity of the feature; the likelihood of the activity/pressure occurring; and the available evidence to assess impact.

NRW’s approach differs from other published SNCB advice for Scottish, English and Northern Irish waters of the Northern Shelf Mackerel and Northern Shelf Blue Whiting FMPs which incorporate additional considerations such as scale of the fishery, and existing management measures which may mitigate impacts when determining overall risk. Any variation in risk ratings between NRW advice and other administrations is principally a consequence of differing assessment approaches rather than substantive differences in underlying ecological risk.

Summary of NRW’s risk-based nature conservation advice for MPAs in Welsh waters of the Northern Shelf Mackerel and Northern Shelf Blue Whiting FMP areas:

• There is a medium risk inside and outside MPAs from harbour porpoise bycatch in pelagic trawls.
• There is a high risk inside and outside MPAs from harbour porpoise bycatch in pelagic drift nets.
• There is a high risk inside and outside MPAs from harbour porpoise bycatch in pelagic fixed nets.
• There is a high risk inside MPAs from abrasion and penetration to high MarESA sensitivity habitats (e.g. maerl, seagrass beds, modiolus reefs and sea pens) in pelagic fixed nets.
• There is a high risk inside and outside MPAs from the bycatch of herring affecting harbour porpoise prey availability from pelagic fishing.
• There is a high risk inside and outside MPAs from bycatch of Annex II fish species from pelagic fishing.
• There is a medium risk inside the Carmarthen Bay, Northern Cardigan Bay and Liverpool Bay SPAs for the common scoter and red-throated diver features from visual and above water noise disturbance from fishing vessels from pelagic fishing.
• There is a medium risk inside and outside MPAs from diving seabird bycatch from pelagic fishing.
• There is a medium risk inside and outside the Severn Estuary SAC from the bycatch of herring, part of the fish community assemblage of the Severn Estuary SAC estuaries habitat features from pelagic fishing.

NRW advice surrounding the potential risks to sensitive Welsh MPA features from pelagic fisheries and fishing methods in Welsh waters was not provided in the context of feature vulnerability to the low levels of fishing activity associated with Welsh vessels. Any Welsh management measures which may be considered for implementation beyond the publication of this FMP will also consider the very limited type, scale, frequency and duration of recorded Welsh pelagic fishing activity in determining the risks of fishery related impacts.

Environmental effects associated with UK MS Descriptors (Scottish waters)

Advice provided to fisheries policy authorities by the SNCBs gives more detail on the key risks to UK MS descriptors arising from mackerel, herring and blue whiting fishing and their likely impact on achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) (Appendix A). The following potential issues and their associated risk level have been identified for mackerel, herring and blue whiting fishing on UK MS descriptors:

There is a moderate risk to achieving GES for the biological diversity of cetaceans, seals, and birds, due to impacts from Pelagic fishing activities. Bycatch is likely to impact some species populations to the extent that it is contributing to the failure to achieve GES. However, though mobile species are typically considered sensitive to bycatch in static and drift net fisheries, there is insufficient resolution to determine the impact of pelagic drift net fisheries specifically. Although use of pelagic drift nets in the regions covered by the Pelagic FMPs is likely to be limited, the lack of evidence to provide a confident assessment of bycatch risk suggests the risk is likely to be moderate. It is thought that pelagic gears are contributing relatively little to the failure of this indicator in relation to bycatch. However, owing to the importance of pelagic stocks within the Scottish marine ecosystem, the potential to impact prey availability needs further consideration for pelagic fisheries. The Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) process presents an opportunity to further strengthen the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. This can help deliver the Ecosystem and Sustainability Objectives, maintaining target fish populations in a favourable condition while also contributing to the achievement of Good Environmental Status.

There is a moderate risk to marine litter. More robust estimates of abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear from pelagic fisheries are required.

Risks relating to UK Marine Strategy descriptors (English waters)

Previous work by Natural England investigating the impact of the pressures associated with the fishing industry across all 11 descriptors of Good Environmental Status (GES)^[20] in the UK marine environment has highlighted 6 key issues^[21]. Of these issues, only a subset will be relevant to any particular fishery / sector.

The main interactions between the draft Pelagic FMPs and UK MS Descriptors that have been identified are summarised below. The high-level assessments flag the potential risk based on the predominant gear types used across a range of fisheries.

• There is a moderate risk to D1, D4 cetaceans, D1, D4 seals, D1, D4 seabirds through bycatch in pelagic trawls, purse seines, and ringnets.
• There is a low risk to D1, D4 cetaceans, D1, D4 seals, D1, D4 seabirds through bycatch in handline fisheries.
• There is a moderate risk to D1, D4 cetaceans, D1, D4 seals and D1, D4 seabirds through targeted removal of herring, mackerel and blue whiting, as important prey species.
• There is a moderate risk to D10 marine litter from pelagic trawls, purse seines, and ringnets.

Risks relating to UK Marine Strategy descriptors (Welsh waters)

To develop our GES advice for Welsh waters, we have considered the 31 January 2024 advice produced by Natural England and JNCC for the Northern Shelf Mackerel and the Northern Shelf Blue Whiting FMPs. While the Natural England and JNCC GES advice for both FMPs applies to English waters, the analysis and assessment are also applicable to Welsh waters.

Some of the risk ratings for GES may be different than those summarised above in our advice for the designated features of Welsh MPAs or to the GES risk ratings produced by Natural England and JNCC for English waters due to the status of the descriptors in Wales or the likelihood of the pressure occurring. GES assessments often consider activities that cause pressures across a larger geographic scale than MPAs and FMPs, can include fishing activities not occurring in Wales, comprise additional activities other than fishing, and include additional receptors within groupings e.g. all cetaceans and not just bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.

Summary of NRW’s risk-based nature conservation advice for GES in Welsh waters of the Northern Shelf Mackerel and Northern Shelf Blue Whiting FMPs

• There is a moderate risk to achieving GES for cetaceans, seals, and seabirds (D1 & D4) through bycatch in pelagic trawls;
• There is a high risk to achieving GES for harbour porpoise (D1 & D4) and a moderate risk to achieving GES for all other cetaceans (D1 & D4) through bycatch in fixed nets and drift nets;
• There is a moderate risk to achieving GES for seals and seabirds (D1 & D4) through bycatch in fixed nets and drift nets;
• There is a moderate risk to achieving GES for fish (D1 & D4) through bycatch in pelagic trawls, fixed nets, and drift nets;
• There is a high risk to achieving GES for harbour porpoise (D1 & D4) through bycatch of herring, an important prey species, in pelagic trawls, fixed nets, and drift nets; and
• There is a moderate risk of achieving GES for marine litter (D10) from pelagic trawls, fixed nets, and drift nets.

Environmental effects associated with Scottish Priority Marine Features (Scottish waters only)

Priority Marine Features (PMFs) in Scotland represent a selection of habitats and species identified for their conservation importance. These eighty-one features are acknowledged for their national significance and the role they play in supporting marine biodiversity. The list includes highly mobile marine mammals and fish (but not seabirds), as well as habitats and benthic species of conservation interest. The purpose behind identifying PMFs is to focus conservation efforts, guide management actions, and ensure the protection and enhancement of marine biodiversity within Scottish waters.

The primary impact pathways for PMFs are the same as those listed above for MPA features: (i) bycatch, and (ii) prey reduction. As with the MPA risk assessment, physical impacts have been screened out as pelagic gears are considered low risk with respect to this impact pathway.

There is a moderate risk of bycatch for PMFs (marine mammal and fish) from pelagic fisheries in Scottish waters. As discussed above for MPA features, pelagic fisheries are not expected to pose a substantial risk of bycatch; however, evidence gaps remain resulting in a precautionary rating. Addressing evidence gaps through ongoing monitoring and research or, where necessary, through enhanced data collection will improve confidence in the assessment of bycatch risks.

Several marine mammal and fish PMFs, in addition to those species designated as MPA features, are likely to utilise pelagic species at various life stages as a prey resource. Though they exhibit a variety of foraging strategies, many killer whale groups, including those that visit Scottish waters, are fish-eating specialists, feeding almost exclusively on schooling pelagic fish species such as herring and mackerel. Fin whale feed on small schooling fish species such as herring and sprat. Herring and mackerel are also important prey species for adult porbeagle. Though substantial evidence gaps exist, many of the species targeted by fisheries listed under the Pelagic FMPs are important prey species for a variety of cetaceans and fishes, including species of conservation interest which are not listed as PMFs, such as the humpback whale; thus, a moderate risk to PMFs (fish, marine mammals) through removal of key prey species in pelagic fisheries is concluded.

Work done by the FMP to ensure fisheries eventually meet the precautionary and sustainability objectives of the Fisheries Act will help to ensure the stocks are fished sustainably, but additional consideration of predator needs is recommended. For forage fish stocks, additional steps should be considered so that stocks are managed in such a way as to enable them to perform their key role in marine food webs and ecosystems. This would be an important step in implementing an Ecosystem Based Approach to Fisheries Management.

Climatic Factors

Vessels fishing for mackerel, herring and blue whiting contribute to the total carbon emissions at sea each year by the UK’s fishing fleets. While the estimated emissions by the UK fishing fleet represents a small proportion of the overall emissions in the UK, decarbonising the fleet and moving towards net zero will help reduce the contribution of fisheries activities to climate change.

No conclusive evidence is currently available on the impact of fishing activity for mackerel, herring and blue whiting fishing on organic carbon stocks and the impacts will depend on the gears used to target these pelagic stocks now and in the future.

Cultural Heritage

Fishing activity can have both positive and negative effects on marine heritage assets. The positive effects relate to the discovery of marine heritage assets during fishing activity, with both past and future discoveries or findspots often reliant on fishing gear interactions. Negative effects can be caused by physical disturbance to cultural heritage on and within the seabed. Specific effects include: impeded access and interpretation of assets by fishing gear (for example nets, lines and ropes) collecting around physical structures; direct damage of assets by gear, usually towed gear, causing irreparable alteration to physical structures; burial of archaeological material by sediment during fishing practices; removal of the archaeological material from the seabed during fishing practices; and transferal of archaeological material from its original place on the seabed during fishing practices. Avoiding negative interactions with marine heritage assets will help conserve them for their enjoyment by future generations.

The marine historic environment also plays an important role in providing ecosystem services in relation to nature conservation, sea angling, recreational diving and commercial fishing. Marine heritage assets, particularly ship and plane wrecks can provide habitats for marine life, with fish often aggregating around them for refuge or to feed. Avoiding negative interactions with marine heritage assets that act as habitats can positively contribute to the conservation of the wider marine environment.