• Latest Version, 2024 Assessment
• 2018 assessment

Condition of soft sediment invertebrate communities in coastal waters determined using Water Environment Regulations methods.

The target determining the extent of benthic invertebrate communities at an acceptable condition has been achieved in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas UK Marine Strategy (UKMS) sub-regions. Achievement of the target varies between constituent Regional Seas. There is low confidence in the assessment results. 

Background

UK Target on macrobenthic invertebrate quality 

This indicator is used to assess progress against the Water Environment Regulations (WER) ecological status boundaries and areas of unacceptable impact, which are components of the sediment habitats targets set in the UK Marine Strategy Part One. 

Key pressures and impacts   

Pressures likely to cause a water body to fail its environmental objectives for benthic invertebrates are those related to point source pollution containing substances such as metals, hydrocarbons, organic enrichment, and certain physical disturbances. 

Risk assessments were derived by the UK WER monitoring authorities to identify pressures considered likely to cause WER water bodies to fail to meet their environmental objectives. The risk assessment information used for the UKMS assessments is based on those developed to support the Cycle One River Basin Management Plan classifications. These identified 54 of the 467 coastal water bodies as ‘At risk’ or ‘Probably at risk’ of failing to meet their WER objectives as a result of these pressures. Disturbance prevalent in offshore habitats will predominantly be linked to aggregate extraction, commercial fishing, and contaminants from the oil and gas industry. 

Measures taken to address the impacts  

Measures to protect benthic habitats are set out in the UK Marine Strategy Part Three. These include those related to the Habitats Regulations (HR), WER River Basin Management Plans, Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations, Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) measures on species and habitats, Marine Spatial Planning, land management schemes, catchment sensitive farming and European Marine Site management schemes. 

Monitoring, assessment and regional cooperation 

Areas that have been assessed 

As with the 2018 UKMS assessments, progress against the UK target was assessed for the Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea UK Marine Strategy sub-regions and constituent Regional Seas defined in Charting Progress 2 (CP2). 

Monitoring and assessment methods 

Assessments use data from WER, HR, the Clean Seas Environmental Monitoring Programme, Marine Conservation Zones, industry (aggregates, offshore wind energy) and Regional Environmental Characterisation monitoring. The Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) incorporates taxonomic diversity, evenness and proportions of taxon sensitivity groups (each compared to minimally disturbed reference conditions) within macrobenthic invertebrate samples to derive an Ecological Quality Ratio. 

Assessment thresholds 

The indicator quality threshold is defined as the boundary for WER Good Ecological Status (Ecological Quality Ratio ≥ 0.64) or Good Ecological Potential (for Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWBs)). The UK Marine Strategy assessment target is met where the assessed surface area achieving the quality threshold meets the extent threshold of 75%. 

Regional cooperation 

WER Infaunal Quality Index assessments are included within OSPAR Quality Status Report benthic habitat community condition assessments. The boundary of WER Good Ecological Status has been set through Intercalibration with other Member States of the North-East Atlantic Geographical Intercalibration Group. 

Further information

The Water Environment Regulations Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) tool is a multi-metric indicator derived from the following measurements of the benthic infaunal assemblages within a sample: 

Number of taxa: This is a general measure of the richness in different types (taxa) of invertebrate and generally increases with improved ecological condition. 

AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI): The AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) is a measure of the overall pollution sensitivity of a benthic assemblage. Individuals are put into one of five ecological sensitivity groups (from disturbance sensitive to pollution tolerant or opportunistic species) and the AMBI is calculated as a weighted average of the sensitivity scores. Assemblages with high proportions of sensitive taxa are indicative of areas with low levels of disturbance, whilst sites dominated by opportunistic taxa reflect impacted areas. The AMBI was developed to indicate disturbance by organic enrichment but has since been demonstrated to respond to a range of other sources of disturbance such as smothering and hazardous substances. 

Simpson’s Evenness: This is a measure of the evenness of the abundance distribution of different taxa within an assemblage. Invertebrate assemblages where the population is dominated by few taxa or a single taxon, are generally indicative of disturbed areas, while assemblages with the population balanced more evenly over a relatively higher number of taxa are generally found in areas with low levels of disturbance. 

Values of these three metrics were calculated to determine what these would be for undisturbed waters (reference conditions). The observed results are then compared with the reference condition values and combined to calculate the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) which operates between zero and one. EQR values close to one indicate benthic infaunal communities are close to their natural state; those near to zero indicate a high level of pollution or disturbance. The EQR is used to categorise a sample (or multiple samples when aggregated to e.g. water body level) into one of the five Ecological Quality Status classes as required by the WER: 

High status: ≥ 0.75
Good status: 0.64 ≤ 0.75
Moderate status: 0.44 ≤ 0.64 
Poor status: 0.24 ≤ 0.44
Bad status: <0.24 

Further details on the WER Infaunal Quality Index are available at the WER UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) website: 

http://www.wfduk.org/resources%20/coastal-and-transitional-waters-benthic-invertebrate-fauna 

Assessment method

Baseline setting 

The approach to setting reference conditions as defined for the WER IQI is based on the characteristics of benthic infaunal assemblages from negligibly impacted sites as selected by expert judgement and modelled to estimate such characteristics for a range of sediment types and salinity. Sample specific reference condition values of species richness, Simpsons Evenness and AMBI are estimated from their modelled relationships to variations in sediment and salinity data. This is considered compliant with the approaches to setting baselines for the UK Marine Strategy as outlined by the OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on the Coordination of Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring: “a state in which the anthropogenic influences on species and habitats are considered to be negligible”. 

Quality and extent targets 

The target of Good Ecological Status or Good Ecological Potential (where mitigation measures against the modification features are considered sufficient for HMWBs) as defined for the WER is being applied as the indicator quality threshold for the UK Marine Strategy assessments. The extent target is met where ≥75% of the assessed surface area within a UK Marine Strategy sub-region or CP2 Regional Sea meets the quality threshold. This conforms to the 2023 EU agreement under Descriptor 6 in the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) “Seabed Integrity” where no more than 25% of the habitat should be adversely affected by human pressures to achieve GES for broad scale habitats (TGSeabed, 2023). The 25% threshold also aligns with the methodology implemented by the UK in 2019 Article 17 assessments, under the EU Habitats Directive (now Habitats Regulations), to determine “Unfavourable-Bad” condition for habitats (JNCC, 2019). The 2018 Marine Strategy assessments used an extent threshold of 85% (based on targets relating to the assessed surface area achieving an acceptable condition recommended by the UK Technical Advisory Group on the WER for Good Ecological Status) which was revised for the current assessment to align with the EU Descriptor 6 MSFD targets for broadscale habitats. 

The quality and extent targets may be reviewed and revised in future assessment cycles. 

Aggregation approach 

The approach to aggregating the WER water body classifications and additional offshore data for the assessment of the UK Marine Strategy sub-regions and CP2 Regional Seas is shown below. Please note: UK Marine Strategy assessments for the WER water bodies are based on the data and processes used within the Management Plan (RBMP) assessments and exclude changes to the classifications as a result of subsequent investigations. 

• Infaunal Quality Index WER classification results for coastal water bodies from the 2021 Cycle Three RBMPs were collated at the water body level from the UK WER monitoring authorities. The reference conditions for the IQI were those applied to the classifications from the RBMPs for the respective WER authorities. The assessments use data-derived WER classification results for use in the WER Cycle Three RBMP and exclude those rolled forwards from previous classifications. 

• Offshore benthic data (collected between 2013 and 2018, inclusive) were collated from multiple sources (see metadata section) from the UK nature conservation agency’s Marine Recorder database (public snapshot version 20220124) – available from https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/marine-recorder/  (accessed 13/12/2022) and the OneBenthic database (2023) - available from https://openscience.cefas.co.uk/OneBenthicExtraction/ (accessed: 23/05/2023). The reference conditions applied are those updated for the 2021 Cycle Three RBMPs, available within version 2 of the IQI workbook at the WER UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) website: https://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/IQI%20Workbook%20UKTAG%20v02%2020221214.xlsm. 

• Sample density varies between datasets from different sources (WER water bodies and non-WER (primarily) offshore locations). To reduce potential for the assessments being biased towards either inshore or offshore pressures which would depend on the sample density in the available data for each regional sea, the aggregation approach aims to reduce the effect of variations in sample densities by using the average EQR from samples within 10 km x 10 km assessment units for the non-WER data. The area of the assessment units (100 sq. km) approximately aligns with the average surface area of UK WER water bodies (113.2 sq. km).  

• The surface area of the assessment units at each WER ecological status class were calculated within each UK Marine Strategy sub-region and CP2 Regional Sea. 

• WER water bodies and non-WER assessment units classified as ‘Bad’, ‘Poor’ or ‘Moderate’ ecological status under WER were categorised as being below the indicator quality target, with those at ‘Good’ or ‘High’ ecological status categorised as being above the indicator quality target. 

• The combined surface area of the WER water bodies and non-WER assessment units assessed at above/below the indicator quality target is calculated as a percentage of the total assessed area for each UK Marine Strategy sub-region and CP2 Regional Sea. 

• The final assessment is based on the percentage of the surface area that meets the indicator quality target, measured against an extent threshold of 75%. 

Confidence assessment 

The approach to determining confidence in the UK Regional Sea assessments is based on the extent to which the indicator and associated assessments fulfil certain criteria which impact the extent to which the assessment represents the available habitat relevant to the indicator, the extent to which the indicator can identify the overall effect of the relevant pressures and the confidence in the assessment result being above/below the indicator target. The confidence assessment method was developed for the 2018 Marine Strategy assessments. Confidence thresholds were arbitrarily set based on an equal division of the range of values for each criterion. Details of the criteria are provided in Table 1. 

Table 1: Confidence assessment criteria for the CP2 Regional Sea WER infaunal quality index indicator assessments.  

UK Regional Sea confidence assessment criteria	Low	Medium	High
Spatial coverage of classification data    This criterion indicates the extent to which WER water bodies (WB) within a UK Regional Sea are classified by the indicator. High proportion of water bodies classified within a UK Regional Sea corresponds to high confidence in the UK Marine Strategy assessment.	<33.3% of CP2 Regional Sea assessed	33.3% - 66.6% of CP2 Regional Sea assessed	>66.6% of CP2 Regional Sea assessed
Spatial coverage of pressures    This criterion provides a measure of the extent to which the classified WER water bodies (WB) correspond to the presence of relevant pressures (as determined through the WER risk assessments), indicating the potential of the WER classifications to detect the associated impacts of such pressures. High coverage of the areas exposed to pressure (i.e. those considered at risk of failing to achieve GES under WER) by the WER water body classifications corresponds to high confidence within the UK Regional Sea scale Marine Strategy assessment.	<33.3% of At Risk/Probably At Risk WBs assessed	33.3% - 66.6% of At Risk/Probably At Risk WBs assessed	>66.6% of At Risk/Probably At Risk WBs assessed
Indicator level agreement (Cohen's Kappa) between assessment results and pressure from Risk Assessments    Cohen’s Kappa agreement provides an indication of the extent to which the indicator WER classifications correspond to the risk assessments at the water body level. Agreement between water bodies categorised as ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ and those at less than Good Ecological Status is calculated using all water body data. High confidence in the UK Marine Strategy assessments corresponds to high agreement between the indicator classifications and risk assessment results. Low correspondence may be indicative of either low sensitivity of the indicator to the pressure or indicative of a low correspondence between the risk assessment results and the true extent of the pressure (further investigation recommended).	<0.333	0.333 - 0.666	>0.666
Variability of assessment results    This criterion is a measure of the variability of the different WER water body classifications within a UK Regional Sea scale UK Marine Strategy assessment. Low variability in the WER classifications corresponds with high confidence in the assessment.	<66.6% of assessment units within same WER status	66.6% - 83.3% of assessment unit at same status	>83.3% of assessment units at same status
Proximity of observed extent to extent threshold    This criterion is a measure of the magnitude of the difference between the observed extent meeting the quality target and the extent threshold. Large differences between the observed extent meeting the quality target and the extent threshold corresponds to high confidence in the UK Regional Sea scale UK Marine Strategy assessment.	Broad scale habitats: assessment within 5% of threshold	Broad scale habitats: assessment within 5% - 10% of threshold	Broad scale habitats: assessment >10% of threshold

The overall confidence assessment is based on the lowest extent to which the criteria are fulfilled (one-out-all-out). 

Deviations by WER Monitoring Authorities 

The UK WER monitoring authorities applied the methods for assessment as described within the UKTAG method statement with the following exceptions: 

• The classifications undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs are based on the average EQR of a water body minus one Standard Deviation. 

• WER classifications undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and Scottish Environment Protection Agency use the taxon list and reference conditions within the UKTAG version 1 IQI workbook (2014). WER Classifications undertaken by the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales and additional non-WER data using the taxon list and reference conditions with the UKTAG version 2 IQI workbook. 

Results

Results and progress towards achieving the relevant UK target 

Latest findings 

Status assessment 

Assessments are based on aggregated coastal water body classifications derived for the UK Cycle Three River Basin Management Plans and non-WER data collected between 2013 and 2018 inclusive. The results of the aggregated Infaunal Quality Index assessment for the UK Marine Strategy sub-regions and Regional Seas are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1. 

Table 2: Extent of UK Marine Strategy sub-region and CP2 Regional Sea benthic Infaunal Quality Index assessed areas meeting the indicator quality threshold with corresponding assessment confidence. 

UK MS sub-region	Extent meeting quality threshold (EQR ≥ 0.6)	Extent threshold met (≥ 95%)	Assessment summary	Regional Sea	Extent meeting quality threshold (EQR ≥0.6)	Extent threshold met (≥ 95%)	Confidence
Greater North Sea	77.2 %	✅	Target met for the sub-region (low confidence).	1. Northern North Sea*	72.3 %	❌	Low
				2. Southern North Sea	76.6 %	✅	Low
				3. Eastern English Channel	84.5 %	✅	Low
Celtic Sea	83.8 %	✅	Target met for the sub-region (low confidence).	4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	71.5 %	❌	Low
				5. Irish Sea	80.8 %	✅	Low
				6. Minches and Western Scotland	99.1 %	✅	Low
				7. Scottish Continental Shelf	100.0 %	✅	Low
				8. Atlantic North-West Approaches, Rockall Trough and Faeroe/Shetland Channel	No data	-	-
				9. Shared waters between N Ireland and Rep of Ireland	100.0 %	✅	Low

The Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas UK Marine Strategy sub-regions have met the overall target, with the assessed surface area achieving the quality target, exceeding the extent threshold of 75%. 

Two of the three Regional Seas within the Greater North Sea sub-region met the ≥75% extent threshold with the Northern North Sea failing to achieve the target. For the Celtic Seas sub-region four of the six Regional Seas met the quality target for ≥75% of their assessed surface area. The Western Channel and Celtic Seas did not meet the quality target and there were no data to assess the Atlantic North-West Approaches, Rockall Trough and Faeroe/Shetland Channel Regional Sea. 

Low confidence has been assigned to all assessments, primarily due to the low spatial coverage of the WER assessments and low proportion of water bodies categorised as ‘At Risk’/‘Probably At Risk’ from point source pollution pressures within the WER risk assessments. Agreement between the IQI assessment results and risk assessment results is low, indicating either a low correlation between the indicator to point source pollution pressures or a discrepancy between the threshold required to trigger a water body being categorised as ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ and the quality target threshold. 

Figure 1: Charting Progress 2 (CP2) Regional Seas with corresponding assessment results and locations of coastal water bodies used for the Water Environment Regulations Infaunal Quality Index (WER WB IQI) classifications and offshore assessment grids with corresponding ecological status. 

Findings from the 2012 and 2018 UK assessments  

This indicator was not considered as part of the 2012 Initial Assessment. Within the 2018 UK assessment, the targets covering the condition of benthic invertebrate communities had likely been achieved in the Celtic Seas but may not have been achieved within the Greater North Sea, with low confidence in the assessment results. 

The 2018 assessment is available via the UK Marine Monitoring & Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS) Marine Online Assessment Tool: 

https://moat.cefas.co.uk/previous-assessments/2018-assessment/biodiversity-food-webs-and-marine-protected-areas/benthic-habitats/infaunal-quality-index/ 

Trend assessment 

The aggregated WER results were not considered as part of the 2012 Initial Assessment. 

The assessment result for the Celtic Seas Sub-region remains unchanged from the 2018 assessment. The Greater North Sea has changed from failing to achieve the target in the 2018 assessments to achieving the target in the current assessment. However, this is the result of a revised extent threshold from 85% in 2018 to 75% in the current assessment. The low confidence in the 2018 and current assessments prevents the reliable differentiation between true changes in ecological condition and those resulting from variations in the data. 

Achievement of the extent threshold remains unchanged between the 2018 and current assessment for the Eastern English Channel (100% to 84.5%), Western Channel and Celtic Seas (82.4% to 73.8%), Minches and Western Scotland (97.8% to 99.1%), Scottish Continental Shelf (remaining at 100%) and Shared waters between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (remaining at 100%) Regional Seas. The Northern North Sea (98.5% to 72.3%) achieved the extent target in 2018 but has failed to achieve the target in the current assessment. The Southern North Sea (73.2% to 76.6%) and Irish Sea (79.2% to 80.8%) Regional Seas have changed from failing to achieve the target in the 2018 assessments to achieving the target in the current assessment as a result of the revised extent threshold. 

Further information

This assessment is based on aggregated results from the classifications derived for the UK Cycle Three River Basin Management Plans (2013 – 2018 data for England, 2014 – 2019 for Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011 – 2015 data for Scotland) and additional offshore data collected between 2013 and 2018 inclusive. The method is based on intertidal and subtidal macrobenthic invertebrate assemblages and considered responsive to point source contaminants and certain physical disturbances. 

The available WER classification data availability has increased from 79 water body classifications in the 2018 Marine Strategy assessment to 88 in the current assessment. Data coverage (10 km x 10 km assessment units) from non-WER data has increased from 178 assessment units in the 2018 Marine Strategy assessment to 762 in the current assessment, with generally greater geographical coverage of the assessed Regional Seas. The WER risk assessments have not been updated between the 2018 and current assessments so variations in point source pressures influential to benthic infaunal community status cannot be evaluated. Assessments for offshore areas relating to the risk of failure in achieving indicator targets due to pressures have not been undertaken. 

The indicator determines the impact to the ecological quality of benthic macroinvertebrate communities of intertidal and subtidal habitats by combining measures of species diversity, proportions of sensitive and opportunistic taxa and taxonomic evenness. These measurements are compared to estimated minimally disturbed reference conditions with a weighted average of the three metrics used derive the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR). These are calculated for all viable samples within a WER water body throughout the six-year reporting period. The water body assessments indicate the average extent to which the water body deviates from reference conditions and relates this to the boundary between Moderate and Good Ecological Status (EQR ≥0.64 as set through WER intercalibration) to identify whether the water body has achieved the target of Good Ecological Status. The inshore water body EQR results are weighted according to water body surface area and combined with the offshore assessment grid results at the scale of UK Marine Strategy sub-region and Charting Progress 2 (CP2) Regional Seas. The extent target is met where ≥75% (broad scale habitat threshold) of the assessed surface area meets the quality target of Good or High Ecological Status. 

A summary of the data used for the assessments for each Regional Sea is provided in Table 3 with individual WER water body information and WER Cycle Three River Basin Management Plan classification results in Table 4 and a summary of the WER and non-WER indicator target results aggregated for each Regional Sea assessment being provided in Table 5. 

Table 3: Summary of the data used for the UK Marine Strategy WER Infaunal Quality Index Regional Sea assessments. WB=Water Body, HMWB = Heavily Modified Water Body 

Regional Sea	Total assessable area (sq km)	Assessed Area (% of total)	Total assessed WER WB area (sq km)	Total assessed non-WER area (sq km)	Total WER WB classifications	Assessed HMWBs	Assessed 'At Risk' WER WBs
1. Northern North Sea	181,551.6	7.7%	1,266.9	12,800	11	1	0
2. Southern North Sea	61,882.1	53.9%	2,146.4	31,200	7	6	0
3. Eastern English Channel	21,970.8	56.8%	669.2	11,800	4	2	0
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	93,959.8	13.1%	2,671.5	9,600	17	1	5
5. Irish Sea	38,647.4	33.0%	5,842.0	6,900	28	5	10
6. Minches and Western Scotland	30,548.8	38.3%	8,204.2	3,500	14	0	3
7. Scottish Continental Shelf	121,071.9	0.3%	415.7	-	4	0	1
9. Shared waters between N Ireland and Rep of Ireland	353.5	76.9%	271.7	-	3	0	0

Table 4: Summary of WER water body pressure information and WER infaunal quality index classification results aggregated within the UK Marine Strategy assessment at the Charting Progress 2 (CP2) Regional Sea scale. *Water body ecological quality ratios and associated ecological status for DAERA classifications differ to those in the below table due to a modification in the approach to calculating the reported values. Sample number and EQR data was not available for SEPA water bodies. 

Regional Sea	Agency	Water body name	HMWB	Point Source Pollution Pressure	Number of samples	Water body EQR	WFD Status
1. Northern North Sea	SEPA	Carnoustie to Fife Ness	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
1. Northern North Sea	SEPA	Don Estuary to Souter Head (Aberdeen)	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	High
1. Northern North Sea	EA	Farne Islands to Newton Haven	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	31	0.74	Good
1. Northern North Sea	SEPA	Firth of Forth Inner - Offshore	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
1. Northern North Sea	SEPA	Hilton of Cadboll to Whiteness Head	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
1. Northern North Sea	EA	Holy Island & Budle Bay	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	34	0.77	High
1. Northern North Sea	SEPA	Kinghorn to Leith Docks	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
1. Northern North Sea	EA	Northumberland North	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	12	0.73	Good
1. Northern North Sea	EA	Northumberland South	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	20	0.73	Good
1. Northern North Sea	SEPA	Souter Head to Garron Point	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	High
1. Northern North Sea	SEPA	The Keen to Isle of Noss	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	High
2. Southern North Sea	EA	Blackwater Outer	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	30	0.73	Good
2. Southern North Sea	EA	Essex	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	55	0.66	Good
2. Southern North Sea	EA	Lincolnshire	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	5	0.69	Good
2. Southern North Sea	EA	Norfolk North	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	18	0.68	Good
2. Southern North Sea	EA	Thames Coastal South	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	12	0.74	Good
2. Southern North Sea	EA	Wash Outer	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	56	0.68	Good
2. Southern North Sea	EA	Whitstable Bay	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	32	0.65	Good
3. Eastern English Channel	EA	Kent South	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	60	0.74	Good
3. Eastern English Channel	EA	Lyme Bay West	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	7	0.59	Moderate
3. Eastern English Channel	EA	Solent	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	43	0.75	High
3. Eastern English Channel	EA	Tor Bay	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	76	0.70	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Bridgwater Bay	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	19	0.46	Moderate
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Bristol Channel Inner South	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	7	0.69	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	NRW	Burry Inlet Outer	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	84	0.66	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	NRW	Carmarthen Bay	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	78	0.69	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Carrick Roads Outer	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	15	0.68	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Cornwall North	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	17	0.68	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Cornwall South	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	24	0.68	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Fal / Helford	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	13	0.69	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Lands End to Trevose Head	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	140	0.64	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	NRW	Milford Haven Outer	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	44	0.74	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	NRW	Pembrokeshire South	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	58	0.71	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Penzance	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	40	0.66	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Plymouth Coast	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	40	0.67	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Plymouth Sound	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	34	0.69	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Salcombe Harbour	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	7	0.59	Moderate
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	EA	Scilly Isles	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	56	0.67	Good
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	NRW	Swansea Bay	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	39	0.72	Good
5. Irish Sea	NRW	Anglesey North	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	47	0.72	Good
5. Irish Sea	SEPA	Balcary Point to Kirkcudbright Bay	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	High
5. Irish Sea	DAERA	Belfast Harbour	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	15	0.70	Good
5. Irish Sea	DAERA	Belfast Lough Inner	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	25	0.77	High
5. Irish Sea	DAERA	Belfast Lough Outer	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	52	0.73	Good
5. Irish Sea	NRW	Caernarfon Bay North	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	11	0.60	Moderate
5. Irish Sea	NRW	Caernarfon Bay South	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	37	0.69	Good
5. Irish Sea	NRW	Cardigan Bay Central	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	20	0.69	Good
5. Irish Sea	NRW	Cardigan Bay North	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	32	0.71	Good
5. Irish Sea	NRW	Cardigan Bay South	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	24	0.68	Good
5. Irish Sea	NRW	Conwy Bay	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	45	0.63	Moderate
5. Irish Sea	EA	Cumbria	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	27	0.67	Good
5. Irish Sea	SEPA	Firth of Clyde Inner - Dunoon and Wemyss Bay	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
5. Irish Sea	SEPA	Firth of Clyde Middle - Offshore	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	-	-	Good
5. Irish Sea	SEPA	Firth of Clyde Outer (offshore)	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
5. Irish Sea	NRW	Holyhead Bay	Yes	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	20	0.65	Good
5. Irish Sea	SEPA	Kyles of Bute	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	-	-	Good
5. Irish Sea	DAERA	Larne Lough Mid	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	30	0.80	High
5. Irish Sea	SEPA	Loch Fyne - Middle Basin	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
5. Irish Sea	SEPA	Loch Ryan	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	-	-	High
5. Irish Sea	NRW	Menai Strait	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	7	0.71	Good
5. Irish Sea	EA	Mersey Mouth	Yes	At Risk/Probably At Risk	24	0.70	Good
5. Irish Sea	EA	Morecambe Bay	Yes	At Risk/Probably At Risk	76	0.58	Moderate
5. Irish Sea	EA	Solway Outer South	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	7	0.63	Moderate
5. Irish Sea	SEPA	Sound of Bute	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	-	-	Good
5. Irish Sea	DAERA	Strangford Lough North	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	20	0.61	Moderate
5. Irish Sea	DAERA	Strangford Lough South	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	50	0.75	High
5. Irish Sea	NRW	Tremadog Bay	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	43	0.75	High
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Loch Creran	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	-	-	Good
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Loch Erisort	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	High
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Loch Ewe	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	-	-	Good
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Loch Harport	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Loch Linnhe (South)	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Loch Stocinis	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	High
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Loch Sunart	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	-	-	Good
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Loch Sween	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Loch Torridon	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
6. Minches and Western Scotland	DAERA	North Coast	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	21	0.72	Good
6. Minches and Western Scotland	DAERA	Rathlin Island	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	20	0.86	High
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Sea of the Hebrides	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	High
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	Sound of Jura South	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
6. Minches and Western Scotland	SEPA	The Minch North	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
7. Scottish Continental Shelf	SEPA	Kirkwall	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
7. Scottish Continental Shelf	SEPA	Loch Roag	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
7. Scottish Continental Shelf	SEPA	Olna Firth	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	-	-	Good
7. Scottish Continental Shelf	SEPA	Scapa Flow	No	At Risk/Probably At Risk	-	-	High
9. Shared waters between N Ireland and Rep of Ireland	DAERA	Carlingford Lough	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	23	0.72	Good
9. Shared waters between N Ireland and Rep of Ireland	DAERA	Lough Foyle	-	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	25	0.78	High
9. Shared waters between N Ireland and Rep of Ireland	DAERA	Mourne Coast	No	Not At Risk/Probably Not At Risk	5	0.69	Good

Table 5: Summary of WER water body and non-WER assessment results indicating the extent above the indicator quality threshold per Regional Sea. 

Regional Sea	Total assessed surface area WER (km2)	WER water body extent above quality target (%)	Total assessed surface area non-WER (km2)	Non-WER water body extent above quality target (%)	Total Regional Sea extent above quality target (%)
1. Northern North Sea	1266.9	100.0%	12800	69.5%	72.3%
2. Southern North Sea	2146.4	100.0%	31200	75.0%	76.6%
3. Eastern English Channel	669.2	79.6%	11800	84.7%	84.5%
4. Western Channel and Celtic Seas	2671.5	96.4%	9600	64.6%	71.5%
5. Irish Sea	5842.0	82.0%	6900	79.7%	80.8%
6. Minches and Western Scotland	8204.2	100.0%	3500	97.1%	99.1%
7. Scottish Continental Shelf	415.7	100.0%	0	-	100.0%
9. Shared waters between N Ireland and Rep of Ireland	271.7	100.0%	0	-	100.0%

The UK WER risk assessments identified a total of 11% (52 of the 467 assessed) of coastal water bodies are ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ of failing to meet their environmental objectives as a result of pressures categorised as point source pollution pressures. 

Detailed assessment results for each UK Marine Strategy sub-region are presented for each of their component CP2 Regional Sea. The UK Marine Strategy sub-regions comprise of their component CP2 Regional Seas as follows: 

Greater North Sea UK Marine Strategy sub-region: 

1. Northern North Sea
2. Southern North Sea
3. Eastern English Channel 

 

Celtic Sea UK Marine Strategy sub-region: 

4. Western Channel & Celtic Seas
5. Irish Sea
6. Minches & Western Scotland
7. Scottish Continental Shelf
8. Atlantic North-West Approaches, Rockall Trough and Faeroe/Shetland Channel
9. Shared waters between N Ireland and Rep of Ireland 

Northern North Sea 

The overall risk of the Northern North Sea failing to meet the indicator target for benthic communities can be considered as high. The majority of WER assessments within the Northern North Sea indicate that IQI communities are above the indicator quality target, with assessed area predominantly being at WER High Ecological Status (6,523 sq. km of the total assessed 14,067 sq. km) with the remainder at a combination of WER Moderate and Good Ecological Status (Figure 2). However, as a result of the quality threshold having only been achieved for 74.41% of the assessed surface area for the Northern North Sea, the 75% extent target has not been met for the Regional Sea. Failure of the Northern North Sea to achieve the indicator target is attributable to the non-WER assessed areas, where 69.5% (8,900 out of 12,800 sq. km) met the quality target therefore falling below the 75% extent threshold. WER assessments achieved the quality target for 100% of the 1266.9 sq. km total assessed surface area of the WER water bodies within the Regional Sea. 

Figure 2: Outline of the Northern North Sea Regional Sea inshore indicating IQI UKMS assessment result and location and ecological status of the corresponding WER water bodies. Note: assessment units situated on land are due to rounding of coordinates in the aggregation of non-WER sample level results. 

The corresponding risk assessments indicate that none of the 11 assessed water bodies are ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ of failing to achieve the indicator quality target as a result of point source pollution pressures, with all water bodies assessed being categorised as ‘Not At Risk’ or ‘Probably Not At Risk’ of failing. However, the Northern North Sea regional sea intersects with a total of 72 water bodies, with eight water bodies considered 'At Risk' or ‘Probably At Risk' from point source pollution pressures which have not been assessed with the IQI indicator. 

When considering indicator quality targets for HMWBs (WER Good Ecological Potential), none of the water bodies assessed as below the indicator quality target are categorised as HMWBs, so meeting a target of WER GEP is not considered. 

Overall confidence in the Northern North Sea regional sea IQI assessment is categorised as low. This is based on the low spatial coverage of the assessment data (11 out of 72 water bodies within the region), the absence of assessments for 'At Risk' or 'Probably At Risk' water bodies in terms of point source pollution pressures, the low correspondence between the IQI indicator and point source pollution pressures (Kappa agreement of 0.108), the high variability in WER water body status within the Northern North Sea regional sea and the close proximity of the assessment results to the indicator extent target. 

Southern North Sea 

The overall risk of the Southern North Sea failing to meet the indicator target for benthic communities can be considered as low. The majority of WER assessments within the Southern North Sea indicate that IQI communities are above the indicator quality target, with assessed area predominantly being at WER Good Ecological Status (20,146 sq. km of the total assessed 33,546 sq. km) with the remainder at a combination of WER Moderate and High Ecological Status (Figure 3). The quality threshold has been met for 76.6% of the assessed surface area of the Southern North Sea, therefore achieving the 75% extent target for the IQI indicator within the Regional Sea. The Southern North Sea achieves the indicator target within both the WER and non-WER assessed areas, where 100% of the 2,146.4 sq. km and 75.0% (23,400 out of 31,200 sq. km) met the quality target respectively, therefore exceeding the 75% extent threshold within the Regional Sea. 

Figure 3: Outline of the Southern North Sea Regional Sea inshore indicating IQI UKMS assessment result and location and ecological status of the corresponding WER water bodies. Note: assessment units situated on land are due to rounding of coordinates in the aggregation of non-WER sample level results. 

The corresponding water body risk assessments indicate that none of water bodies assessed are categorised as ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ of failing to achieve the indicator quality target as a result of point source pollution pressures. The remaining seven water bodies are categorised as being ‘Not At Risk’ or ‘Probably Not At Risk’ of failing. However, the Southern North Sea regional sea intersects with a total of 14 water bodies, with two water bodies categorised as 'At Risk' or ‘Probably At Risk' from point source pollution pressures having not been assessed with the IQI indicator. 

None of the water bodies assessed as below the indicator quality target are categorised as HMWBs, so meeting a target of WER GEP is not considered. 

The overall confidence in the Southern North Sea regional sea IQI assessment is categorised as low. This is primarily based on the low spatial coverage of 'At Risk' or 'Probably At Risk' water bodies in terms of point source pollution pressures (zero out of two water bodies within the region), the low correspondence between the IQI indicator and point source pollution pressures (Kappa agreement of 0.108), the high variability in WER water body status within the Southern North Sea regional sea and the close proximity of the assessment results to the indicator target. The confidence in the assessment is also reduced by the incomplete spatial coverage of the assessment data (seven out of 14 water bodies within the Southern North Sea regional sea). 

Eastern English Channel 

The overall risk of the Eastern English Channel failing to meet the indicator target for benthic communities can be considered as low. The majority of WER assessments within the Eastern English Channel indicate that IQI communities are above the indicator quality target, with the majority of the assessed area being at WER Good Ecological Status (6,773 sq. km of the total 12,469 sq. km assessed) with the remainder being predominantly at WER High Ecological Status (Figure 4). The quality threshold has been achieved for 86.87% of the assessed surface area for the Eastern English Channel, with the Regional Sea therefore meeting the 75% extent target for the indicator. Both the WER and non-WER assessed areas have met the indicator target, achieving the quality target for 79.6% (532.4 out of 669.2 sq. km) and 84.7% (10,000 out of 11,800 sq. km) for WER and non-WER assessed areas respectively within the Regional Sea. 

Figure 4: Outline of the Eastern English Channel Regional Sea inshore indicating IQI UKMS assessment result and location and ecological status of the corresponding WER water bodies. Note: assessment units situated on land are due to rounding of coordinates in the aggregation of non-WER sample level results. 

None of the assessed water bodies within the Eastern English Channel are categorised as ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ of failing to achieve the indicator quality target as a result of point source pollution pressures, with all four assessed water bodies being categorised as ‘Not At Risk’ or ‘Probably Not At Risk’ of failing. None of the 11 water bodies that intersect with the Eastern English Channel regional sea that were not assessed with the IQI indicator are considered 'At Risk' or ‘Probably At Risk' from point source pollution pressures. 

None of the water bodies assessed as below the indicator quality target are categorised as HMWBs, so meeting a target of WER GEP is not considered. 

Overall confidence in the Eastern English Channel regional sea IQI assessment is categorised as low. This is primarily based on the low correspondence between the IQI indicator and point source pollution pressures (Kappa agreement of 0.108), the high variability in WER water body status within the Eastern English Channel regional sea and the close proximity of the assessment results to the indicator target. The confidence in the assessment is also reduced by the incomplete spatial coverage of the assessment data (four out of 11 water bodies within the Eastern English Channel regional sea). 

Western Channel and Celtic Seas 

The overall risk of the Western Channel and Celtic Seas failing to meet the indicator target for benthic communities can be considered as high. The WER assessments within the Western Channel and Celtic Seas indicate that the benthic communities are predominantly above the indicator quality target, with assessed area predominantly being at WER Good Ecological Status (7,075 sq. km of the 12,272 sq. km total assessed area) (Figure 5). However, the remaining assessments have been classified as a combination of WER Moderate and High Ecological Status, but with the quality threshold having only been met for 71.5% of the assessed surface area for the Western Channel and Celtic Seas the Regional Sea has therefore failed to achieve the 75% extent target for the IQI indicator. Failure to meet the indicator target within the non-WER assessed areas drives the overall failure of the Western Channel and Celtic Seas to meet the indicator target, with 64.6% (6,200 out of 9,600 sq. km) of the non-WER data meeting the quality target, therefore falling below the 75% extent threshold. The WER water body assessments meet the 75% extent target, achieving the quality target for 96.4% (2,574.6 of the 2671.5 sq. km) of the total assessed surface area of the WER water bodies within the Regional Sea. 

Figure 5: Outline of the Western Channel and Celtic Seas Regional Sea inshore indicating IQI UKMS assessment result and location and ecological status of the corresponding WER water bodies. Note: assessment units situated on land are due to rounding of coordinates in the aggregation of non-WER sample level results.

 

The risk assessments for the assessed water bodies indicate that five are categorised as ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ of failing to achieve the indicator quality target as a result of point source pollution pressures, with the remaining 12 water bodies being ‘Not At Risk’ or ‘Probably Not At Risk’ of failing. The Western Channel and Celtic Seas regional sea intersects with a total of 25 water bodies, with only a single water body being categorised as 'At Risk' or ‘Probably At Risk' from point source pollution pressures that has not been assessed with the IQI indicator. 

None of the water bodies assessed as below the indicator quality target are categorised as HMWBs. Meeting the target of WER GEP is therefore not considered. 

The overall confidence in the Western Channel and Celtic Seas regional sea IQI assessment is categorised as low. This is based on the low correspondence between the IQI indicator and point source pollution pressures (Kappa agreement of 0.108), the high variability in WER water body status within the Western Channel and Celtic Seas regional sea and the close proximity of the assessment results to the indicator extent target. 

Irish Sea 

The overall risk of the Irish Sea failing to meet the indicator target for benthic communities can be considered as low. The majority of WER assessments within the Irish Sea are classified as being at WER Good Ecological Status (7,028 sq. km of the 12,742 sq. km total assessed area) with remaining assessed area being a combination of WER Moderate and High Ecological Status with benthic infaunal communities therefore being primarily above the indicator quality target (Figure 6). The quality threshold has been met for 80.8% of the assessed surface area for the Irish Sea, therefore achieving the 75% extent target for the Regional Sea. The Regional Sea meets the quality target within 82.0% (4,791.9 of the 5,842.0 sq. km) and 79.7% (5,500 of the 6,900 sq. km) of the assessed areas of the WER water bodies and non-WER assessment units respectively, therefore achieving the 75% extent target in both cases. 

Figure 6: Outline of the Irish Sea Regional Sea inshore indicating IQI UKMS assessment result and location and ecological status of the corresponding WER water bodies. Note: assessment units situated on land are due to rounding of coordinates in the aggregation of non-WER sample level results. 

The corresponding risk assessments for the water bodies indicate ten water bodies categorised as ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ of failing to achieve the indicator quality target as a result of point source pollution pressures, with the remaining 18 water bodies being ‘Not At Risk’ or ‘Probably Not At Risk’ of failing. However, the Irish Sea regional sea intersects with a total of 66 water bodies, with six water bodies considered ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ from point source pollution pressures which have not been assessed with the IQI indicator. 

Two of the water bodies (Conwy Bay and Morecambe Bay) failing to achieve the indicator quality target are categorised as HMWBs, requiring assessment against the alternative quality target of WER Good Ecological Potential. However, WER GEP has also not been met for either water body. 

Overall confidence in the Irish Sea regional sea IQI assessment is categorised as low. This is primarily based on the low correspondence between the IQI indicator and point source pollution pressures (Kappa agreement of 0.108), the high variability in WER water body status within the Irish Sea regional sea, the close proximity of the assessment results to the indicator target. The confidence in the assessment is also reduced by the incomplete spatial coverage of the assessment data (28 out of 66 water bodies within the Irish Sea regional sea) and the incomplete spatial coverage of ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ water bodies in terms of point source pollution pressures (ten out of 20 water bodies within the region). 

Minches and Western Scotland 

The overall risk of the Minches and Western Scotland failing to meet the indicator target for benthic communities can be considered as low. The WER assessments within the Minches and Western Scotland indicate that benthic infaunal communities are predominantly above the indicator quality target, with majority of assessed areas being at WER High Ecological Status (7,023 sq. km of the 11,704 sq. km total assessed area) with the remainder being primarily at WER Good Ecological Status (Figure 7). The quality threshold has been achieved for 99.1% of the assessed surface area for the Minches and Western Scotland with the 75% extent target therefore having been met for the Regional Sea. The Minches and Western Scotland Regional Sea achieves the indicator target within both the WER and non-WER assessed areas, where 100% of the 8,204.2 sq. km and 97.1% of the 6,900 sq. km met the quality target respectively, therefore exceeding the 75% extent threshold within the Regional Sea. 

Figure 7: Outline of the Minches and Western Scotland Regional Sea inshore indicating IQI UKMS assessment result and location and ecological status of the corresponding WER water bodies. Note: assessment units situated on land are due to rounding of coordinates in the aggregation of non-WER sample level results. 

The risk assessments for the classified water bodies within the Minches and Western Scotland regional sea indicate three as being categorised as ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ of failing to achieve the indicator quality target as a result of point source pollution pressures. The remaining 11 assessed water bodies are categorised as ‘Not At Risk’ or ‘Probably Not At Risk’ of failing. However, the Minches and Western Scotland regional sea intersects with a total of 187 water bodies, with 12 water bodies considered 'At Risk' or ‘Probably At Risk' from point source pollution pressures which have not been assessed with the IQI indicator. 

None of the water bodies assessed as below the indicator quality target are categorised as HMWBs, so meeting a target of WER GEP is not considered. 

The overall confidence in the Minches and Western Scotland regional sea IQI assessment is categorised as low. This is based on the low spatial coverage of the assessment data (14 out of 187 water bodies within the region), the low spatial coverage of 'At Risk' or 'Probably At Risk' water bodies in terms of point source pollution pressures (three out of 15 water bodies within the region), the low correspondence between the IQI indicator and point source pollution pressures (Kappa agreement of 0.108), the high variability in WER water body status within the Minches and Western Scotland regional sea and the close proximity of the assessment results to the indicator target. 

Scottish Continental Shelf 

The overall risk of the Scottish Continental Shelf failing to meet the indicator target for benthic communities can be considered as low. All WER assessments within the Scottish Continental Shelf indicate that IQI communities are above the indicator quality target, with assessed area predominantly being at WER High Ecological Status (263 sq. km of the 416 sq. km total assessed area) with the remainder at WER Good Ecological Status (Figure 8). The quality threshold has been achieved for 100% of the assessed surface area for the Scottish Continental Shelf, therefore meeting the 75% extent target for the Regional Sea. 

Figure 8: Outline of the Scottish Continental Shelf Regional Sea inshore indicating IQI UKMS assessment result and location and ecological status of the corresponding WER water bodies.  

The corresponding risk assessments for the water bodies indicate one water bodies categorised as ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ of failing to achieve the indicator quality target as a result of point source pollution pressures, with the remaining three water bodies being ‘Not At Risk’ or ‘Probably Not At Risk’ of failing. However, the Scottish Continental Shelf regional sea intersects with a total of 92 water bodies, with eight water bodies considered 'At Risk' or ‘Probably At Risk' from point source pollution pressures which have not been assessed with the IQI indicator. 

None of the water bodies assessed as below the indicator quality target are categorised as HMWBs, so meeting a target of WER GEP is not considered. 

Overall confidence in the Scottish Continental Shelf regional sea IQI assessment is categorised as low. This is based on the low spatial coverage of the assessment data (four out of 92 water bodies within the region), the low spatial coverage of 'At Risk' or 'Probably At Risk' water bodies in terms of point source pollution pressures (one out of nine water bodies within the region), the low correspondence between the IQI indicator and point source pollution pressures (Kappa agreement of 0.108), the high variability in WER water body status within the Scottish Continental Shelf regional sea and the close proximity of the assessment results to the indicator target. 

Shared waters between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland 

The overall risk of the Shared waters between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland failing to meet the indicator target for benthic communities can be considered as low. All WER assessments within the Shared waters between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland indicate that IQI communities are above the indicator quality target, with assessed area predominantly being at WER High Ecological Status (166 sq. km of the 272 sq. km total assessed area) with the remainder at WER Good Ecological Status (Figure 9). The quality threshold has been achieved for 100% of the assessed surface area for the Shared waters between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, therefore meeting the 75% extent target for the Regional Sea. 

Figure 9: Outline of the Shared waters between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland Regional Sea inshore indicating IQI UKMS assessment result and location and ecological status of the corresponding WER water bodies.  

None of the assessed water bodies within the Shared waters between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland Regional Sea are categorised as ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably At Risk’ of failing to achieve the indicator quality target as a result of point source pollution pressures from the risk assessments, with all three assessed water bodies being ‘Not At Risk’ or ‘Probably Not At Risk’ of failing. The Regional Sea does not intersect with any unassessed WER water bodies. 

None of the water bodies assessed as below the indicator quality target are categorised as HMWBs, so meeting a target of WER GEP is not considered. 

The overall confidence in the Shared waters between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland regional sea IQI assessment is categorised as low. This is based on the low correspondence between the IQI indicator and point source pollution pressures (Kappa agreement of 0.108), the high variability in WER water body status within the Shared waters between N Ireland and Rep of Ireland regional sea and the close proximity of the assessment results to the indicator target. 

Conclusions

The UK MS benthic invertebrate community target has been achieved within the Greater North Sea and Celtic Sea UK Marine Strategy sub-regions, although confidence in the assessment is low. 

The indicator target has been met for six of the eight assessed UK Charting Progress 2 Regional Seas, but not for the remaining two where elevated impacts to benthic invertebrate communities may have occurred. The effects of activities (point source and certain physical disturbances) that impact macrobenthic infaunal communities have relatively localised effects. Assessment of the indicator at the CP2 Regional Sea scale may therefore be considered of greater relevance than the scale of UK Marine Strategy sub-region. 

Failure of the Northern North Sea and Western Channel and Celtic Seas to meet the indicator target is driven by the offshore results. The Irish Sea is failing to achieve the indicator target, driven by both WER classifications and offshore results. Differences between inshore and offshore results may indicate the level to which different pressures are impacting macrobenthic infaunal communities. 

The assessment indicates a potential overall decline in condition since the 2018 assessment, although this may be attributable to variations in the distribution of the data between the two assessments. The results are unable to provide directional trends within the assessment period. 

Additional data, tool development and validation is needed to confirm the failures with detailed investigation of the benthic communities and corresponding inshore and offshore pressures being required before reasons for failures can be proposed.  

The results may inform data collection and research requirements to improve confidence and accuracy of future assessments. 

Knowledge gaps

From the current results, it is not possible to provide a full assessment of the target throughout UK waters because of the following gaps: 

• The assessments represent a small proportion of the overall UK coastline with WER assessments provided for 88 out of 467 (19%) coastal water bodies. 

• Considerable offshore areas of each UK Marine Strategy sub-region and component CP2 Regional Seas have not been assessed. 

• WER Risk Assessment data requires updating. 

• Risk Assessment data is not available for non-WER areas in the current assessments. 

• Current evidence indicates limited sensitivity of the Infaunal Quality Index to certain physical disturbance pressures (e.g. abrasion from trawling). 

• Infaunal Quality Index reference conditions do not incorporate variability relating to changes in depth or biogeographical distributions. 

• It is recommended that the results of WER investigations are considered in future assessments. 

References

JNCC (2019). The UK Approach to assessing Conservation Status for the 2019 Article 17 reporting under the EU Habitats Directive. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. October 2019. Available from JNCC: https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/6420776d-2a25-4575-8b6f-1922a6a13806/Article17-UK-Approach-2019-A.pdf 

Technical Group on Seabed Habitats and Seafloor Integrity (TG Seabed) (2023). Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) – Common Implementation Strategy: Setting of EU threshold values for extent of loss and adverse effects on seabed habitats. Recommendations from the Technical Group on Seabed Habitats and Seafloor Integrity (TG Seabed) (Deliverable under Task h of the TG Seabed work programme). European Commission, DG Environment. Seabed_D6C4_D6C5_Threshold_Values_Endorsed_2023.pdf 

Authors

Graham Phillips  

Environment Agency 

Assessment metadata

Assessment Type	UK Marine Strategy 2024
	Benthic habitats
Point of contact email	marinestrategy@defra.gov.uk
Metadata date	Tuesday, July 1, 2025
Title	Condition of soft sediment invertebrate communities in coastal waters determined using Water Environment Regulations methods.
Resource abstract
Linkage	Water Framework Directive Cycle 3 River Basin Management Plans:  England:   https://www.gov.uk/guidance/river-basin-management-plans-updated-2022  Northern Ireland:  https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/topics/water/river-basin-management  Scotland:  https://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/water/river-basin-management-planning/  Wales:  English language version: https://naturalresources.wales/evidence-and-data/research-and-reports/water-reports/river-basin-management-plans/river-basin-management-plans-published/?lang=en  Welsh language version: https://naturalresources.wales/evidence-and-data/research-and-reports/water-reports/river-basin-management-plans/river-basin-management-plans-published/?lang=cy  https://moat.cefas.co.uk/previous-assessments/2018-assessment/biodiversity-food-webs-and-marine-protected-areas/benthic-habitats/infaunal-quality-index/
Conditions applying to access and use	Open Government Licence
Assessment Lineage
Dataset metadata	Please contact marinestrategy@defra.gov.uk
Dataset DOI	Please contact marinestrategy@defra.gov.uk

The Metadata are “data about the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of data” (FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata Workbook, Ver 2.0, May 1, 2000).

Metadata definitions

Assessment Lineage - description of data sets and method used to obtain the results of the assessment

Dataset – The datasets included in the assessment should be accessible, and reflect the exact copies or versions of the data used in the assessment. This means that if extracts from existing data were modified, filtered, or otherwise altered, then the modified data should be separately accessible, and described by metadata (acknowledging the originators of the raw data).

Dataset metadata – information on the data sources and characteristics of data sets used in the assessment (MEDIN and INSPIRE compliance).

Digital Object Identifier (DOI) – a persistent identifier to provide a link to a dataset (or other resource) on digital networks. Please note that persistent identifiers can be created/minted, even if a dataset is not directly available online.

Indicator assessment metadata – data and information about the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of an indicator assessment.

MEDIN discovery metadata - a list of standardized information that accompanies a marine dataset and allows other people to find out what the dataset contains, where it was collected and how they can get hold of it.