Brill

Brill in this area is sustainably fished and harvested sustainably.This stock was benchmarked in 2023, leading to a change in assessment method. The relative exploitable biomass (B/BMSY) has declined in recent years but has remained above MSY Btrigger (0.5) since the start of the time series. In 2023, relative exploitable biomass is 1.02. Relative fishing pressure (F/FMSY) declined in 2022. It is now 0.49, the lowest since 1975, and remains below FMSY (1).ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, catches in 2024 should be no more than 2,456 tonnes. This is an increase of 87% from the advice for 2023 due to the change of assessment method.

There is no management plan for brill in the North Sea and English Channel. However, there are some measures in place.Brill in the North Sea and English Channel is managed under a combined total allowable catch (TAC) together with turbot. ICES have indicated that management of brill and turbot under a combined species TAC prevents effective control of the single-species exploitation rates which can result in high-grading and discarding of the lesser value species, in this case, brill. Despite this, the total catches of brill have been within scientifically recommended levels. Since 1 January 2019, brill is entirely under the landing obligation. Dutch producer organisations still cap weekly landings for brill and turbot (e.g. at 3000kg), but the maximum conservation reference size (MCRS) of e.g. 27cm is no longer valid for brill.Brill in the North Sea is caught in fisheries for plaice and sole and is classed as a bycatch species under the EU North Sea Multiannual Management Plan (NSMAP) for demersal stocks which came into effect in 2018. The NSMAP aims to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and that the precautionary approach to fisheries management is applied. Bycatch stocks do not have specific targets under the NSMAP but are supposed to be managed in accordance with the best available scientific advice. However, MCS has concerns that the NSMAP is not being adhered to for all bycatch stocks, especially where adequate scientific advice is available.Both the EU and UK have fishery management measures in place, which can include catch limits, targets for population sizes and fishing mortality, and controls on what fishing gear can be used and where. In the EU, compliance with regulations has been variable, and there are ongoing challenges with implementing some of them. There was a target for fishing to be at Maximum Sustainable Yield by 2020, but this was not achieved. The Landing Obligation (LO), an EU law that the UK has kept after Brexit, requires all quota fish to be landed, even if they are unwanted (over-quota or below minimum size). It aims to promote more selective fishing methods, reduce bycatch, and improve recording of everything that is caught, not just what is wanted. Compliance with the LO is generally poor and actual levels of discards are difficult to quantify using the current fisheries observer programme. UK administrations are in the process of replacing the landing obligation with country-specific Catching Policies.In the UK, it is too early to tell how effective management is, as the Fisheries Act only came into force in January 2021. At the time of writing (August 2023), a Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel mixed flatfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) is in development. It is led by Defra and covers the English waters within ICES divisions 4b, 4c and 7d. The FMP covers the following flatfish species (quota and non-quota): sole, dab, plaice, flounder, halibut, lemon sole, witch, turbot, brill. The FMP should be consulted on during 2023, so the details of the plan are not yet known. Until it is in force, it will not affect the rating for this fishery. MCS is keen to see publicly available FMPs for all commercially exploited stocks, especially where stocks are depleted, that include:Targets for fishing pressure and biomass, and additional management when those targets are not being met, based on the best available scientific evidenceTimeframes for stock recoveryImproved data collection, transparency and accountability, supported by technologies such as Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM)Consideration of wider environmental impacts of the fishery

Beam trawls have significant impacts on the seabed, including damage to benthic communities and vulnerable marine habitats. They can also have high bycatch, potentially of vulnerable species.Brill is mainly taken as a bycatch species in Dutch and Belgium beam trawl fisheries for plaice and sole in the North Sea. In 2022, 50% of the catch was taken in beam trawl fisheries, 28% was taken in otter trawl fisheries and 19% was taken in trammel and gill net fisheries.Beam trawls have the potential to take relatively high quantities of bycatch (more than 50% of catch weight), including those of conservation concern. In the North East Atlantic there are reported catches of demersal elasmobranchs and endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species, such as sharks, rays and marine mammals. Bycatch data is limited in many UK and EU fisheries as they are generally not well monitored. However, a proportion of the trawl fisheries in the North Sea are Marine Stewardship Council-certified and record bycatch. MCS assumes these records will be indicative of bycatch in the uncertified component. Bycatch includes the vulnerable North Sea cod, which is below safe reproductive levels. Endangered, threatened or protected species included the Critically Endangered common skate complex (blue skate and flapper skate), porbeagle, and other skates and rays.Some mitigation measures are in place in some areas. There is a UK North Sea cod avoidance plan, requiring a minimum 120mm mesh size in the Scottish North Sea, seasonal closures to protect spawning stocks, and a requirement to move away from areas where large numbers of cod are observed in catches. As brill itself is considered a bycatch species of other targeted fisheries (often for Dover sole and plaice), this component has not been assessed in this rating.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. Given that bycatch is ongoing, MCS considers it possible that the bycatch level is contributing to population decline and/or preventing recovery.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.Beam trawling, especially using chain-mat gear, is a high impact method of fishing and can have a significant impact on benthic communities. Heavy gear tends to have a higher seabed impact than otter trawling and seabed penetration can vary between 1cm and 8cm, depending on the sediment.In the North Sea area, impacts from bottom trawling are variable. Fishing grounds vary, but the habitat is generally mud and sand, which are less vulnerable to trawling than features such as reefs and seagrass. Data from 2018 indicates that trawling was happening on 73% of the seabed area. Fishing effort in the region has halved since 2002, mainly in the trawl fisheries, which is reducing pressure on the seabed and on bycatch species. However, fishing in the North Sea in general has reduced the number of large fish in the ecosystem (mostly cod, saithe, ling, sturgeon, and some elasmobranchs). There are concerns about the impact of North Sea trawling on sea pens.There are Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in this area, some of which 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.