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landings for brill and turbot (e.g. at 3000kg), but the maximum conservation reference size (MCRS) of e.g. 27cm is no longer valid for brill.Brill in the North Sea is caught in fisheries for plaice and sole and is classed as a bycatch species under the EU North Sea Multiannual Management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

Gill net fisheries can be very selective with regards to targeted fish species. However, they can encounter bycatch of vulnerable species including porpoise, sharks and seabirds.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.Gillnets and fixed nets can be very size selective, but can bycatch species such as sharks, cetaceans and other marine mammals. Reports indicate that there is concern regarding the bycatch of cetaceans, particularly harbour porpoise, by gillnets. The IUCN lists harbour porpoise as being of least concern globally, but vulnerable in Europe. They are also classified as a priority species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework and are protected under the European Union (EU) Habitats Directive and Habitats Regulations as transposed into UK law, under which there are explicit bycatch requirements. To comply with the Habitats Directive, the UK has recently designated five Special Areas for Conservation for harbour porpoises, however, there is currently no management in place for these.One of the areas of most concern is off the South West of England, where areas of higher gillnet fishing effort coincide with areas of larger harbour porpoise populations. While cetacean bycatch has been a long-term problem around Cornwall, the occurrence of stranded cetaceans has increased over the last two decades. In 2019, 24% of stranded cetaceans exhibited features consistent with bycatch or entanglement in fishing gear, a further 19% were assessed as being possible bycatch, and 52% had an unknown cause of death.However, this stock covers the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, and the English Channel and only 26% (550 tonnes in 2020) takes place in the English Channel. Harbour porpoise bycatch is not considered to be a problem in the North Sea where the majority of catches take place (1183 tonnes, 56% of total catch).Because of gillnets' durability (they are made of nylon), if lost, they can continue to fish for several weeks before becoming tangled and bundled up, a phenomenon known as 'ghost fishing'. However, static nets, as with all gear, represent an investment by fishermen, and therefore there are incentives to avoid losing or damaging gear.

ASCOBANS, 2009. Conservation Plan for Harbour Porpoises in the North Sea as adopted at the 6th Meeting of the Parties to ASCOBANS, Bonn, Germany. 16 - 18 September 2009. Available at https://www.ascobans.org/sites/default/files/document/ASCOBANS_NorthSeaPlan_MOP6.pdf [Accessed on 06.07.2023].Calderan, S. and Leaper, R., 2019. Review of harbour porpoise bycatch in UK waters and recommendations for management. January 2019, WWF. Available at https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-04/Review_of_harbour_porpoise_in_UK_waters_2019.pdf [Accessed on 06.07.2023].Carlén, I., Nunny, L. and Simmonds, M. P. 2021. Out of Sight, Out of Mind: How Conservation Is Failing European Porpoises. Frontiers in Marine Science. Available at https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.617478/full [Accessed on 06.07.2023].Chadwick, H., Clear, N., Crosby, A., Hawtrey-Collier, A. and Williams, R. 2019 Annual Report. Marine Strandings in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Available at https://www.cornwallwildlifetrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/2019%20Summary%20Report%20-%20Marine%20Strandings%20in%20Cornwall%20and%20the%20Isles%20of%20Scilly.pdf [Accessed on 06.07.2023].Clean Catch UK. Joint Action To Reduce Wildlife Bycatch. Available at https://www.cleancatchuk.com/ [Accessed on 06.07.2023].Froese R. and Pauly D. (Editors), 2019. Scopthalmus rhombus, Brill. Available at: https://www.fishbase.de/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=529&AT=brill [Accessed on 06.07.2023].ICES, 2018. ICES Advice: Bycatch of small cetaceans and other marine animals - review of national reports under Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 and other information. Published 11 September 2018. Available at https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2018/2018/byc.eu.pdf [Accessed on 06.07.2023].ICES. 2021. Greater North Sea Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2021. ICES Advice 2021, Section 9.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.9434 [Accessed on 19.07.2022].ICES. 2022. EU/UK request to ICES on lemon sole, witch, turbot, and brill: Review of ICES advice provided in 2018 on the contribution of TACs to fisheries management and stock conservation. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, sr.2022.19. Available at https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21739322 [Accessed on 06.07.2023].ICES. 2023. Brill (Scophthalmus rhombus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a and 7.d–e (North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, English Channel). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2023. ICES Advice 2023, bll.27.3a47de. Available at https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21840735 [Accessed on 06.07.2023].Leeney, R. H., Amies, R., Broderick, A.C., Witt, M. J., Loveridge, J., Doyle, J. and Godley, B. J. 2008. Spatio-temporal analysis of cetacean strandings and bycatch in a UK fisheries hotspot. Biodiversity and Conservation. 17, 2323. Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-008-9377-5#citeas [Accessed on 06.07.2023].Leeney, R. H., Witt, M. J., Broderick, A. C., Buchanan, J., Jarvis, D. S., Richardson, P. B. and Godley, B. J. 2011. Marine megavertebrates of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly: relative abundance and distribution. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 92(8), 1823-1833. Available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-marine-biological-association-of-the-united-kingdom/article/marine-megavertebrates-of-cornwall-and-the-isles-of-scilly-relative-abundance-and-distribution/7981AA197C2320B6A9E2C01BD7A1F7B7 [Accessed on 06.07.2023].Moan, A., Skern-Mauritzen, M., Vølstad, J. H., Bjørge, A. 2020. Assessing the impact of fisheries-related mortality of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) caused by incidental bycatch in the dynamic Norwegian gillnet fisheries, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 77, Issue 7-8, Pages 3039–3049. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa186 [Accessed on 06.07.2023].North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission and the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research. 2019. Report of Joint IMR/NAMMCO International Workshop on the Status of Harbour Porpoises in the North Atlantic. Tromsø, Norway. Available at https://www.ascobans.org/sites/default/files/document/ascobans_ac25_inf.4.3a_joint-imr-nammco-ws-harbour-porpoise.pdf [Accessed on 06.07.2023].Omeyer, L. C. M., Doherty, P. D., Dolman, S., Enever, R., Reese, A., Tregenza, N., Williams, R. and Godley, B. J. 2020. Assessing the Effects of Banana Pingers as a Bycatch Mitigation Device for Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Frontiers in Marine Science. Available at https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.00285/full [Accessed on 06.07.2023].OSPAR, 2017. Intermediate Assessment 2017: Harbour Porpoise Bycatch. Available at https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-mammals/harbour-porpoise-bycatch/ [Accessed on 06.07.2023].