Pouting

Pouting, or bib, is a very data limited species. There are no stock assessments, but recent studies indicate that the population may be declining. However, it is a low-value fish and is mainly caught as bycatch, so it would appear the fishing pressure is not of concern.Route 2 (data limited) scoring has been applied to this rating due to lack of reference points for biomass and fishing mortality. Pouting is considered to have a medium resilience to fishing.Pouting can be found throughout the coasts of the Northeast Atlantic, but stock structures are not well known. According to ICES catch data, 47% of pouting catches from 2006-2021 were from ICES area 7 (Celtic and Irish Seas and Bristol and English Channel). Almost all of them came from the English Channel (areas 7e and 7d). From 2006-2014 catches averaged around 5,350 tonnes, but were lower from 2015-2021, averaging around 3,700 tonnes. Between 2006 and 2021, around 30% of catches were from area 9 (Portuguese Waters), averaging 2,970 tonnes, and 20% from area 8 (Bay of Biscay), averaging 2,040 tonnes. The remaining 3% was from the North Sea, averaging 310 tonnes.A 2020 study attempted to estimate stock status of a number of data limited stocks from relative abundance (e.g. catch-per-unit-effort) and resilience (based on FishBase assessments). Based on data from 1983-2017, it was estimated that the ratio of North Sea pouting Biomass (B) to BMSY was 0.32, with estimates ranging between 0.18 and 0.58, indicating that the stock is very likely to be in a overfished state. Several studies on English Channel species indicate that pouting abundance in the English Channel has decreased since the 1990s. Abundance of the Portuguese population is also estimated to be decreasing. This indicates that there is concern for pouting abundance throughout its range.The level of fishing pressure is far more difficult to ascertain. For North Sea pouting, the ratio of Fishing Pressure (F) to FMSY has been estimated at 1.8, so this stock may be subject to overfishing, but there is a high level of uncertainty (the range of F:FMSY was 0.46 - 3.83). In the Basque demersal fishery (Bay of Biscay), pouting has been classed as a high-importance, high-risk fishery. However, in the Celtic Seas and English Channel, it is mainly caught as bycatch in the cod, haddock and saithe trawl fisheries, and there is no targeted fishery. It is therefore difficult to assess whether there is concern for fishing pressure.In the Basque fishery in the Bay of Biscay (ICES area 8), pouting is valued at 1.82 Euro/kg (approx. £1.63). In the UK, UK fleets landed on average of 700 tonnes per year between 2018 and 2022, valued at £135,000 overall, which makes the value approximately £0.26/kg. As a low-value, non-target fishery, and with landings decreasing, it seems likely that fishing pressure is not of concern. The lack of discard and recreational catch data add additional uncertainty. From 2002-2005, pouting was the 8th most discarded species in the beam trawl fleet in area 7. Discard survival rates of pouting are very low.

The management for this stock requires considerable improvement. There is no stock assessment and no monitoring of the effects of fishing on this species, and abundance is likely to be declining. Management is therefore not currently appropriate. However, this stock is mainly caught as bycatch and may also benefit from management applied to the fisheries it is caught in. ICES data indicates that catches of pouting are highest in area 7 (Celtic and Irish Seas and Bristol and English Channel). However, this is a species with low commercial importance, and mainly caught as bycatch in mixed demersal fisheries targeting cod, saithe and haddock. It appears to be more significant to fisheries further south, in the Bay of Biscay and Portuguese Waters. In the Basque fishery in the Bay of Biscay, pouting is valued at 1.82 Euro/kg (approx. £1.63). In the UK, UK fleets landed on average of 700 tonnes per year between 2018 and 2022, valued at £135,000 overall, which makes the value approximately £0.26/kg. Fishing in the EU is managed through the Western Waters Multi-Annual Management Plan (MAP). The plan outlines a process for setting catch limits. However, the UK is not signed up to the MAP. There is currently no shared management plan between the EU and UK for this stock. While there are no direct management measures, pouting may benefit from some UK and EU technical and control regulations and the MAPs that apply to other demersal species in the North Sea and Western Waters. 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). However pouting in this area is a non-quota species. The LO 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. There is no Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) for pouting in EU or UK waters, although Northumberland IFCA follows the Angling Trust's recommendation that pouting should be at least 25cm to ensure maturity. There are no catch or effort limits, and no data about recreational catches. Pouting is listed under the Channel demersal non-quota species FMP (replacing EU Multi-Annual Plan) that was published in December 2023. Establishing an MCRS for pouting has been proposed as a mid to long-term measure. Of the focal species landed in this FMP’s area, 10.4% (1,857 tonnes) was from pouting landings. The haddock and cod fisheries, in which pouting is routinely captured as bycatch, should be in included in the Celtic Sea and Western Channel demersal FMP with a timetable for preparation and publication between 2024-2025. These FMPs have the potential to be very important tools for managing UK fisheries, although data limitations may delay them for some stocks.  The Marine Conservation Society 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 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 fisheryThe Marine Conservation Society believes that Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) with cameras is one of the most cost-effective tools fisheries managers have for delivering reliable fisheries data and for making informed management decisions. Fully accountable and fully monitored fisheries can improve collaboration and data accuracy, supporting stock recovery, improved selectivity, and minimisation of impacts on marine wildlife and habitats. However, this can only be fully realised if REM is used not only for mapping locations of fishing activity, but also documenting catch and bycatch, especially where there is a risk of impacts on vulnerable species and habitats.

Pouting is mainly caught as bycatch in the demersal beam trawl fisheries for fish such as cod, haddock, and saithe. Beam trawls have significant impacts on the seabed, including damage to vulnerable marine habitats.In 2022, around 75% of the total pouting catch by UK commercial fishing vessels was from beam trawl. Pouting is a part of a mixed fishery with haddock, cod, and saithe, but is mainly bycatch for these fisheries.Beam trawls interact with and potentially disturb the seabed. Trawls can also have high bycatch, potentially of vulnerable species.Trawl gears in the Celtic Seas have been observed to have a high bycatch of elasmobranchs, including vulnerable species. Species or stocks of specific bycatch concern, due to being a sensitive species or having low population abundances, including the common blue skate, angle shark, and basking shark. There are records indicating these have by caught as bycatch in the Celtic Sea bottom trawl fisheries. However, better observer coverage is needed to better understand the specific impacts. Additionally, though these have been indicated as bycatch in Celtic Sea bottom trawl fisheries, we do not have data to directly connect the haddock fishery to this bycatch. Overall, it is difficult to fully understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species.Demersal trawls, such as beam and otter trawl, have contact with the seabed, resulting in penetration and abrasion of habitat features. The impact of trawling on the seabed depends on where trawling happens, and on what scale. For example, habitats that are used to natural disturbance through tides and waves are less sensitive to impacts. Areas not used to mobile towed gears are typically more sensitive. Beam trawls are considered to have a higher seabed impact than otter trawls because components such as shoes and tickler chains mean they penetrate the seabed further.Some vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) and species may have been affected. This could include biogenic reefs in the Celtic Sea, maerl beds along the coasts of Ireland and Britain, and cold-water corals in the deep waters on the western shelf of the region. These species would be heavily affected by trawling and have slow growth and recovery rates. Data from 2018 - 2021 indicates that trawling was happening on 52% of the seabed area in the Celtic Sea. Fishing effort has been decreasing since the early 2000’s, mainly in the trawl fisheries, which is reducing pressure on the seabed and on bycatch species. The fishing footprint in the Celtic Seas covers 88% of the 400-800m zone, and 95% of areas with known VMEs were fished in 2009-2011.Mitigation measures in the Celtic Sea include a ban on bottom trawling below 800m, and restrictions from 400-600m – the areas where most VMEs are found. There remains some uncertainty about the location of some sensitive seabed habitats, so these remain at risk.There are Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in this area, some of which are designated to protect seabed features from damaging activities. However, there is some uncertainty about the location of some sensitive seabed habitats, so MPAs may not provide enough protection. Given the important role that MPAs have in recovering the health and function of our seas, the Marine Conservation Society 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, the Marine Conservation Society 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). Some MPAs are designated to protect benthic features. If those MPAs were found to be subjected to bottom trawling, the Marine Conservation Society would consider it a default red rating unless there is evidence (e.g. environmental impact assessment) indicating the activity does not damage the integrity of the site.To improve monitoring and reporting of fishing activity, the Marine Conservation Society 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.