European squid

Stock Status Score: 0.75

There is concern for both fishing pressure and biomass of European squid in the English Channel.

Route 2 scoring has been applied due to the absence of biomass reference points. European squid is generally considered to have high resilience to fishing pressure.

Squid landed in northern Europe may include European squid (Loligo vulgaris), veined squid (L. forbesii), little squid (Alloteuthis media), and European common squid (A. subulata). Landings are often reported at the family or genus level rather than by species. As a result, species-specific catch and biomass data are often unavailable, and reported trends may relate to a mixture of squid species that cannot currently be separated due to data limitations. Consequently, reported trends may reflect the broader loliginid squid assemblage rather than L. vulgaris specifically.

Historically, the English Channel has accounted for the largest share of loliginid squid landings. In 2023, however, it was surpassed by the North Sea, with the Channel contributing 35% of total landings and the North Sea 39%. Since 2000, landings in the Channel have ranged between 2,000 and 6,000 tonnes, peaking at 5,311 tonnes in 2017. After falling to around 2,000 tonnes in 2020, landings rose sharply to 4,628 tonnes in 2022, followed by a slight decline to 4,257 tonnes in 2023, which remains above the long‑term average (3,595 tonnes). The French fleet is the main harvester in this area (around 2,500 tonnes in 2023), while English landings remain stable at under 1,000 tonnes. As the 2023 landings exceed the long‑term average, there is concern regarding fishing pressure.

There are no formal stock assessments for European squid in this region, and the species’ sensitivity to environmental conditions results in substantial natural inter‑annual variability in abundance. Consequently, biomass estimates rely on survey data and trends in catch per unit effort (CPUE). Survey data previously indicated an increasing trend in loliginid squid abundance between 2018–2020 and 2021–2023, particularly in the western Channel. However, in the eastern Channel, both Loligo species declined between 2022 and 2023, with European squid CPUE falling from 350 to under 150 kg/km². In the western Channel, CPUE remains low but stable. Current CPUE datasets (whether species‑specific or grouped) require improvement to strengthen stock understanding. Given the decline in CPUE and the absence of a formal biomass assessment, there is concern for the biomass of European squid in this region.

Management of the Target Stock Score: 1

Alignment with Scientific Advice Score: 1

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Score: 0.25

There are no appropriate management measures in place for European squid in the English Channel. There are no catch limits or minimum sizes, and the limited scientific advice available is not being effectively integrated. However, the fishery has a well‑developed and effective Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance (MCS) system with reliable enforcement and low levels of IUU activity.

Management of squid in the English Channel remains limited, with no stock assessment available to inform management decisions. The absence of catch limits and minimum landing size regulations leaves the stock vulnerable to overexploitation. This concern is amplified by the semelparous lifecycle of squid, as individuals reproduce only once before dying. Protecting squid until they reach maturity and have the opportunity to spawn is therefore essential for maintaining spawning biomass and ensuring long-term stock stability.

Fishing pressure is highest during autumn and winter, when a targeted fishery develops just as recruitment peaks. This means the fishery concentrates effort on immature individuals that have not yet spawned, increasing the risk of recruitment overfishing. Discards are extremely low, averaging 2% of total catches across Europe in 2023, and effectively 0% in the English Channel from 2019–2023. As such, almost all squid caught in the English Channel are landed. Studies indicate that females mature at around 17 cm and males at around 12 cm, suggesting that management should prioritise protecting smaller, immature squid or reducing fishing pressure during peak recruitment.

A major barrier to improved management is the lack of reliable data. Squid populations are highly variable, and traditional survey methods are poorly suited to cephalopods. As a short‑lived species, most assessments for squid are retrospective, offering little support for proactive management. Real‑time assessment would require intensive and costly monitoring, paired with responsive in‑season measures. As a result, forecasting currently offers the most realistic pathway for informing management, especially as anthropogenic pressures increase. A dedicated survey programme could also improve understanding of squid and other cephalopod populations in UK waters, including their poorly quantified importance to the recreational sector.

Currently, the only other management measures applicable to squid are general technical measures for towed gears, including regional minimum mesh size requirements. In English waters, the previous 40 mm mesh size derogation for directed squid fisheries was removed in 2023, effectively requiring larger mesh sizes (≥80 mm) for vessels targeting squid with towed gears. More recently, the EU increased the minimum mesh size for directed squid fisheries from 40 mm to 80 mm throughout most North-Western Waters. Additional measures include the use of square-mesh panels to improve escapement and landing obligation rules for quota species. While larger mesh sizes may improve selectivity and reduce catches of juvenile squid and other non-target species, there remains a need for species-specific management measures such as catch limits, minimum landing sizes linked to size at maturity, gear restrictions, seasonal closures, and spatial management.

Monitoring, control and surveillance of UK fisheries are delivered through licensing, vessel tracking, statutory reporting, observer coverage, inspections and other monitoring systems. All commercial fishing vessels must hold a valid UK fishing licence to operate in UK waters, although exemptions may apply to some unpowered vessels under 10 metres. Depending on the area, target species and activity, additional permits or authorisations may also be required.

Vessel tracking requirements vary by vessel size, area and administration through Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and, where applicable, inshore VMS (iVMS).

• Vessels 12 m and over must report their position every two hours via VMS.
• Vessels under 12 m report their position continuously where iVMS applies, or may operate full VMS where required by licence conditions or when fishing offshore.

Reporting of fishing activity, catches, landings, discards and port movements is mandatory, with logbooks supporting traceability:

• Vessels 12 m and over submit electronic logbooks under Council Regulation 1224/2009.
• Vessels 10–12 m (and under 10 m Producer Organisation vessels) use paper logbooks, updated daily and submitted within 48 hours of landing.
• Non-PO vessels under 10 m are generally exempt unless required by licence conditions.

UK vessels must also carry fishery observers when directed, providing independent verification of activity and catch. Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM), using cameras, sensors and positional data, is being increasingly deployed to improve data quality and support enforcement. Its rollout is supported by the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Joint Fisheries Statement.

Together, these measures help prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing through vessel licensing, catch documentation, positional monitoring, statutory reporting and compliance checks. Enforcement action may include financial penalties, prosecution, licence suspension or other sanctions. The UK has committed to reducing IUU fishing and maintains a blacklist of vessels involved in such activities. This rating reflects full compliance with UK monitoring, control and surveillance requirements.

Similar monitoring, control and surveillance requirements apply to EU vessels under the EU Fisheries Control Regulation, including vessel tracking, electronic catch reporting, landing declarations, inspections and traceability requirements. The revised Regulation entered into force in January 2024 and introduces a phased requirement for REM with onboard cameras on EU vessels over 18 m identified as high risk for Landing Obligation non-compliance, alongside wider increases in digital reporting and traceability. Implementation and enforcement are undertaken by individual Member States, so observer coverage, inspection activity, enforcement effort and REM deployment can vary between countries and fisheries.

The Marine Conservation Society views Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) with cameras as 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. 

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 

A Channel non-quota demersal FMP has been proposed, coordinated by Defra that incorporates this stock. At the time of writing, it is too soon to know whether proposed management measures will be effective in managing the stock. For more information about this FMP and expected progress and timelines, see [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fisheries-management-plans#published-fmps]. 

Capture Method Score: 0.5

Habitat Impacts: 0.5

Bycatch Impacts: 0.25

Vulnerable and ETP Species: 0.5

Ecosystems and Trophic Webs: 0.25

Otter trawls are likely to cause some damage to the seabed, including damage to benthic communities and vulnerable marine habitats. Although information on bycatch is limited, the squid fishery is likely to overlap with vulnerable zero-catch gadoids in the area, meaning impacts on these species cannot be considered negligible. This gear type can also interact with ETP species. While squid landings have increased in recent years, current levels of removal are unlikely to have significant effects on ecosystem functioning or trophic-web dynamics. However, bottom trawling remains capable of causing broader ecosystem impacts.

From 2021 to 2023, trawls accounted for around 70% of loliginid landings by UK vessels, with trawls being the most common gear type by landing weight across the majority of participating countries. In the English Channel, trawling accounts for 57% of landings, with the remainder mostly by seine nets.

Otter trawls make direct contact with the seabed, causing penetration and abrasion of habitat features. The extent of seabed impact depends on gear type, sediment composition, and the area's natural resilience. For instance, regions that are used to tidal and wave disturbances are less sensitive, whereas areas untrawled areas may be more vulnerable.

In the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas ecoregions, impacts from bottom trawling are variable. Most fishing grounds consist of mud and sand, which are less susceptible to damage than habitats like reefs and seagrass beds. In 2022, it was estimated that 66% of the Greater North Sea and 61% of the Celtic Seas seabed shallower than 800m was trawled.

There are many Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) around the UK, with some designated to protect sensitive benthic habitats and species that may be vulnerable to bottom-towed fishing gears. Restrictions on bottom-towed gears are already in place in some areas, including the Wight-Barfleur Reef MPA, Offshore Brighton MPA, and South Dorset Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ). However, protection across the MPA network remains incomplete, with several sites only recently being considered through the MMO's Stage 3 byelaw process. As such, some designated features may remain exposed to disturbance from bottom trawling, potentially limiting habitat recovery and the achievement of conservation objectives. Given the critical role MPAs play in recovering marine health and supporting ecosystem function, the Marine Conservation Society urges supply chain actors to verify whether their sources originate from within MPAs. If so, businesses should confirm that fishing operations are legally conducted and request evidence from the fishery or managing authority to ensure activities do not harm protected features or compromise conservation objectives.

Demersal otter trawls have the potential to take relatively high quantities of bycatch, including those of conservation concern. Bycatch data is limited in many UK and EU fisheries as they are generally not well monitored. In the Celtic Sea, trawl fisheries are known to interact with several elasmobranch species of conservation concern, including the prohibited common skate complex, an endangered, threatened, or protected (ETP) species. Otter trawls are also associated with some of the highest bycatch rates of common dolphins in the region. Although the squid fishery is likely responsible for only a small proportion of these interactions, they demonstrate that otter trawl gear can affect vulnerable and protected species, and therefore its impacts cannot be considered negligible.

Squid may be targeted seasonally, particularly in autumn and winter, but are otherwise caught within mixed demersal otter trawl fisheries. As such, overlap with economically important demersal species is likely. In the Celtic Sea, cod, haddock and whiting are notable choke species that are currently subject to zero-catch advice. Although catches are declining, otter trawls continue to account for the majority of landings (54-78%). While information on catch composition and bycatch interactions within the squid fishery is limited, the use of demersal otter trawls creates potential for interactions with non-target species. A precautionary approach is therefore warranted, and impacts on non-target species cannot be considered negligible.

European squid are mid-trophic-level predators and an important prey item for larger fish, marine mammals and seabirds in UK marine ecosystems. The English Channel ecosystem has undergone substantial change over the past century, consistent with a pattern of "fishing down marine food webs", whereby declines in higher-trophic-level species such as gadoids and elasmobranchs have been accompanied by an increasing prominence of lower-trophic-level invertebrates in commercial landings. The depletion of top predators can lead to cascading effects on food-web structure and ecosystem functioning.

Despite these broader ecosystem changes, squid landings from the English Channel have remained relatively stable since 2000, generally fluctuating between 3,000 and 5,000 tonnes. This suggests that the current level of squid removals is unlikely to be exerting a significant direct effect on trophic dynamics, ecosystem structure or ecosystem functioning. However, where squid are harvested using bottom-towed gears, the fishery may contribute to wider ecosystem impacts through benthic disturbance and multi-species bycatch. Consequently, any ecosystem impacts associated with the English Channel squid fishery are more likely to arise from the effects of the fishing method, rather than from the direct removal of squid itself at current harvest levels.