Pollack

Pollack in the Celtic Seas and English Channel are overfished however there is no subject to overfishing.Landings of pollack in this area have steadily declined from over 8,000 tonnes in the 1980s to 2,144t in 2024. Pollack is caught by both commercial and recreational fishers, but there is no data on recreational catches. They could be equal to or higher than commercial catches.Stock assessments are carried out by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) the most recent assessment was published in 2025 using data up to 2025. The next assessment is expected in 2026.The assessment shows that biomass has declined steadily. It is estimated to have been above the level associated with Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) in the 1980s, although with high uncertainty. In 2025, SSB was 13,357t increasing slightly from the previous year, this is below MSY Btrigger (17,912t) and Bpa (15,401t) but is above Blim (12,890t). Therefore this stock is at an increased risk of deletion.Estimated fishing pressure has been above MSY since the 1980s. In 2024, it was 0.165, which is below FMSY (0.315). Therefore, there is no concern for fishing pressure.ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, there should beno more than 3,310 tonnes caught in 2026. The increase from zero catch advice is due to a change in assessment method and the new reference points following the 2025 benchmark. This is projected to cause biomass to decrease by 4.5% in 2027.

Management measures have not been following scientific advice. There is no precautionary recovery plan with targets or timelines to recover the stock.Commercial catches of pollack in the English Channel and Celtic Seas are mainly made by the UK, France, and Ireland. The EU has a Multiannual Plan (MAP) for its fleets, but the UK is not part of it. Instead, catch limits are agreed separately during negotiations between the UK and EU.Most catches (98%) are in area 7, which covers the Irish Sea, southwest UK and Ireland, and English Channel. A little is caught in area 6, which is the west of Scotland.Catch limits, known as Total Allowable Catches (TACs), are the main management measure. From 2019-2023, the advised maximum commercial catch was 3,360 tonnes. TACs averaged 9,850t, which is 293% of the advice. In 2024 and 2025 there was zero catch advice. However, TACs and the catch in 2024 (2,144t) were above this. Management is therefore not following the scientific advice and has not been controlling the fishery.A substantial amount is also caught by recreational fishing, but there are no figures for how much. It could be equal to or higher than commercial landings. As a result, total removals by fishing could have been above the recommended limits. There are no management measures for this sector.Stock assessments prior to 2023 were data limited, and it was unclear whether the declining trend in landings indicated a declining population. However, the management approach has not been precautionary, and monitoring of total removals has been inadequate. As a result, this stock is now heavily depleted and ICES recommended zero catch in 2024 and 2025.Discards are negligible (less than 1% of the commercial catch), likely because there are effectively no limits on how much can be landed. Pollack are mainly targeted during the first quarter of the year, which coincides with spawning. There is a minimum landing size of 30cm. Female pollack are thought to mature at 35cm or more, so this does not protect juveniles. The EU and UK both have fishery management measures, which can include catch limits, population targets, and gear restrictions. However, compliance in the EU and UK has been inconsistent, with ongoing challenges in implementing some regulations. The goal of reaching Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2020 was missed, with less than half of UK TACs in 2024 following ICES advice. In 2024, the EU and UK reaffirmed their commitment to sustainable fisheries by aligning management with scientific advice to gradually approach MSY. However, no new target date has been set for achieving MSY across all fisheries. The Landing Obligation (LO), an EU law retained by the UK post-Brexit, requires all quota fish to be landed, even if unwanted (over-quota or below minimum size). It aims to encourage more selective fishing methods, reduce bycatch, and improve catch reporting. However, compliance is poor, and accurate discard levels are hard to quantify with current monitoring programmes. The UK is in the process of replacing the LO with country-specific Catching Policies. The Marine Conservation Society views Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) with cameras is one of the most cost-effective tools for providing reliable fisheries data and aiding informed management decisions. Fully monitored fisheries enhance collaboration, data accuracy, stock recovery, and reduce impacts on marine wildlife and habitats. However, the full potential of REM may only be achieved when it tracks fishing location and documents catch and bycatch, particularly where vulnerable species and habitats are at risk. As of January 2024, the EU is introducing a Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) mandate for EU vessels, including CCTV cameras on vessels 18m or more that pose a potential risk of non-compliance, within the next 4 years. Across the UK, different approaches to REM are being taken and legislation is expected to be in place across all 4 countries within the next few years. The Fisheries Act (2020) requires the development of Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) (replacing EU Multi-Annual Plans) in the UK. 43 FMPs have been proposed and are at various stages of development and implementation, these should all be published by the end of 2028. FMPs have the potential to be very important tools for managing UK fisheries, although data limitations may delay them for some stocks. It is also essential the UK governments define and adopt a standardised approach or model across the four nations to a universally defined FMP design, to ensure the consistence, quality and coherence of all the proposal FMPs. The Marine Conservation Society is keen to see publicly available Fishery Management Plans for all commercially exploited stocks, especially where stocks are depleted, that include: An overview of the fishery including current stock status, spatial coverage, current fishing methods and impacts Targets for fishing pressure and biomass, and additional management when those targets are not being met, based on the best scientific evidence Timeframes for stock recovery Improved data collection, transparency, and accountability, supported by technologies such as Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) Consideration of wider environmental impacts of the fishery, including habitat impacts and minimising bycatch Stakeholder engagement For more information about this fishery in Cornwall, see: https://www.cornwallgoodseafoodguide.org.uk/fish-guide/pollack.php

Some pollack is caught by otter trawling. There is a potential for damage to the seabed by trawling, and bycatch of unwanted species.Some catches of pollack in the English Channel and Celtic Seas are otter trawls, responsible for around 29% of the total. Other catches are by gill nets (around 34%), and set lines (37%). Almost all of it is caught in area 7, which covers the Irish Sea, southwest UK and Ireland, and English Channel.Pollack caught by otter trawlers has usually been caught as bycatch alongside cod and haddock, rather than being directly targeted. Cod in this area is in a very poor state.Demersal otter trawls have the potential to take relatively high quantities of bycatch. In the Northeast Atlantic there are reported catches of demersal elasmobranchs and endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species (e.g. sharks, rays and marine mammals). Bycatch data is limited in many UK and EU fisheries as they are generally not well monitored. For blue and flapper skate, mitigation measures include a prohibition on landing either species, and some protection for nursery areas. It is not clear if this fishery is having an impact at population level for any of these species.Demersal trawls have contact with the seabed resulting in penetration and abrasion of habitat features. The impact of trawling on the seabed depends on the location and scale in which trawling occurs. For example, areas that are used to natural disturbance through tides and waves, are less sensitive to habitat impacts. Areas not used to mobile towed gears are typically more sensitive to trawling. Trawl gears are known to have some of the greatest impacts on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs).An estimated 52% of the Celtic Sea ecoregion, which extends from western Scotland to the English Channel, was trawled from 2018-2021. Fishing effort in the area has been decreasing since the early 2000s. This has reduced the spatial fishing footprint and the average number of times the seabed is trawled per year. Most habitats are mud and sand, which are less vulnerable to trawling. However, 95% of areas where VMEs such as cold-water corals and sponges occur or are likely were found to have been fished between 2009 and 2011. This is mostly by otter trawling targeting seabed species such as cod, anglerfish and haddock.Some MPAs in this area are designated to protect seabed features from damaging activities. This fishery overlaps with parts of these MPAs, but the proportion of the catch coming from these areas is expected to be relatively low in relation to the unit of assessment (i.e. less than 20% of the catch or effort), and so these impacts have not been assessed within the scale of this rating. Given the important role that MPAs have in recovering the health and function of our seas, MCS encourages the supply chain to identify if their specific sources are being caught from within MPAs. If sources are suspected of coming from within designated and managed MPAs, MCS advises businesses to establish if the fishing activity is operating legally inside a designated and managed MPA, and request evidence from the fishery or managing authority to demonstrate that the activity is not damaging to protected features or a threat to the conservation objectives of the site(s).To improve monitoring and reporting of fishing activity, MCS would like to see remote electronic monitoring (REM) with cameras implemented, used and enforced. ​To reduce the impacts of fishing on the marine environment we would like to see a just transition to the complete removal of bottom towed gear from offshore Marine Protected Areas designated to protect the seabed. We also want to see reduction and mitigation of environmental impacts including emissions and blue carbon habitat damage.

DEFRA, 2025. Fisheries: consultations between the UK and the EU for 2025. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fisheries-consultations-between-the-uk-and-the-eu-for-2025 [Accessed on 24.07.2025].Eigaard, O. R., Bastardie, F., Breen, M., Dinesen, G. E., Hintzen, N. T., Laffargue, P., Mortensen, L. O., Nielsen, J. R., Nilsson, H. C., O- Neill, F. G., Polet, H., Reid, D. G., Sala, A., Skold, M., Smith, C., Sorensen, T. K., Tully, O., Zengin, M. and Rijnsdorp, A. D., 2016. Estimating seabed pressure from demersal trawls, seines, and dredges based on gear design and dimensions. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73:1, pp. i27- i43. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv099.Hiddink, J., Jennings, S., Sciberras, M., Szostek, C.L., Hughes, K.M., Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A.D., McConnaughey, R.A., Mazor, T., Hilborn, R., Collie, J.S., Pitcher, C.R., Amoroso, R.O., Parma, A.M., Suuronen, P. and Kaiser, M.J. 2017. Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance. PNAS. 114:31, pp. 8301-8306. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618858114.ICES, 2024. Celtic Seas Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2024. ICES Advice 2024, Section 7.1, Available at: https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.25713033 [Accessed on 24.07.2025].ICES, 2025. Pollack (Pollachius pollachius) in subareas 6–7 (Celtic Seas and the English Channel). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2025. ICES Advice 2025, pol.27.67. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.27202803 [Accessed on 24.07.2025]ICES, 2025. Benchmark workshop on application of Stock Synthesis (SS3) on selected stocks (WKBSS3). ICES Scientific Reports. 7:25. 191 pp. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.28443992 [Accessed on 24.07.2025]ICES, 2025. Working Group for the Celtic Seas Ecoregion (WGCSE). ICES Scientific Reports. 7:52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.29401877 [Accessed on 24.07.2025].Kennelly, S. J. & Broadhurst, M. K., 2021. A review of bycatch reduction in demersal fish trawls. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 31, 289–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09644-0.Kynoch, R., Fryer, R. & Neat, F., 2015. A simple technical measure to reduce bycatch and discard of skates and sharks in mixed-species bottom-trawl fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci,72(6):1861.Silva, F., Ellis, J. & Catchpole, T., 2012. Species composition of skates (Rajidae) in commercial fisheries around the British Isles and their discarding patterns. J Fish Biol., 80:1678–1703.UK Government, 2025. Statutory guidance: Minimum Conservation Reference Sizes (MCRS) in UK waters. Updated 14 February 2025. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/minimum-conservation-reference-sizes-mcrs/minimum-conservation-reference-sizes-mcrs-in-uk-waters Accessed on 24.07.2025].van Denderen, P. Bolam, S., Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Kenny, A., Rijnsdorp, A., and van Kooten, T., 2015. Similar effects of bottom trawling and natural disturbance on composition and function of benthic communities across habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2015;541:31–43.