Common ling

Ling in the northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean are data limited. There is no concern for the biomass, but there is concern for fishing pressure.Route 2 scoring has been applied to this rating owing to the lack of reference points for fishing pressure and biomass. Ling is considered to have medium resilience to fishing pressure.Stock assessments are carried out by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The most recent assessment was published in 2023 using data up to 2022. The next assessment is expected in 2025.In general, 90% of ling landings are from the North Sea and west of the UK (areas 4 and 6), although in 2022 this increased to around 95%. Biomass in these areas appears to have been increasing since the early 2000s. It is measured using catch per unit effort (CPUE), which is the abundance of ling caught (in kg) for every 1,000 hooks put out by the longline fleet. From 2016-2018 this averaged 153kg, and increased to 156kg for 2019-2020, remaining stable at 155kg for 2022. This increase, in addition to the relative biomass being well above the reference point for biomass (Itrigger), indicates that there is no concern for the biomass.ICES notes that since 2008 the total catch (except for 2020) has been higher than advice. From 2018-2022 catches were on average 22% higher than the advice. Additionally, fishing pressure is above FMSY proxy. In the absence of any other information about fishing mortality, this indicates that there could be concern for the fishing pressure.ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, catches should be no more than 13,317 tonnes for 2024 and 2025. This is an 12% decrease on the previous year.Advice based only on catch data, such as the CPUE data used here, can be misleading. This has happened with other stocks, e.g. when Newfoundland cod was incorrectly thought to be increasing. Therefore, there is some uncertainty with this assessment. Usually, around 10% of landings are from the Celtic Seas (area 7), although in 2022 this decreased to just over to 3%. Surveys in this area and in the Bay of Biscay (area 8), suggest that biomass is declining. This might indicate that there are 2 stocks in the different areas, or that warming seas in the south of the ling's range are unfavourable for this species. ICES indicates that the data from areas 7 and 8 is not representative of the stock as a whole and therefore this has not affected the stock assessment.

Few appropriate management measures are in place. Catch limits for ling in the northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean have been set significantly higher than the scientific advice in recent years. Management is therefore not following scientific advice.The main management measures for northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean ling relate to catch limits. Most catches are by Norwegian vessels, but there are also catches by EU countries and the UK. There is no joint management plan, but annual catch limits (Total Allowable Catches, TACs) are set and shared between the different countries. However, TACs have been set significantly higher than the recommended limit in recent years. On average from 2018-2020 TACs had been set 43% higher than the scientific advice. From 2016-2019 catches were on average 33% higher than the advice. From 2021-2022 TACs were on average 24% higher than scientific advice, and 2023 TACs were only 3% higher than advice.Management is therefore not following scientific recommendations. This is particularly concerning when the stock is data limited. Data indicates that parts of the stock (in the south and west of the range) could be in decline.There is a minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) of 63cm for ling caught within UK waters. Below this size, ling can't be sold for human consumption and have a lower value. However, there is no MCRS for the Norwegian EEZ. Ling will mature at 60-75cm, so this does not prevent juveniles from being caught, but there is not thought to be any concern for the juvenile population.The EU and UK both have fishery management measures, which can include catch limits, population targets, and gear restrictions. However, compliance in the EU and UK has been inconsistent, with ongoing challenges in implementing some regulations. The goal of reaching Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2020 was missed, with less than half of UK TACs in 2024 following ICES advice. In 2024, the EU and UK reaffirmed their commitment to sustainable fisheries by aligning management with scientific advice to gradually approach MSY. However, no new target date has been set for achieving MSY across all fisheries. The Landing Obligation (LO), an EU law retained by the UK post-Brexit, requires all quota fish to be landed, even if unwanted (over-quota or below minimum size). It aims to encourage more selective fishing methods, reduce bycatch, and improve catch reporting. However, compliance is poor, and accurate discard levels are hard to quantify with current monitoring programmes. The UK is in the process of replacing the LO with country-specific Catching Policies.The Marine Conservation Society views Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) with cameras is one of the most cost-effective tools for providing reliable fisheries data and aiding informed management decisions. Fully monitored fisheries enhance collaboration, data accuracy, stock recovery, and reduce impacts on marine wildlife and habitats. However, the full potential of REM may only be achieved when it tracks fishing location and documents catch and bycatch, particularly where vulnerable species and habitats are at risk. As of January 2024, the EU is introducing a Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) mandate for EU vessels, including CCTV cameras on vessels 18m or more that pose a potential risk of non-compliance, within the next 4 years. Across the UK, different approaches to REM are being taken and legislation is expected to be in place across all 4 countries within the next few years.The Fisheries Act (2020) requires the development of Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) (replacing EU Multi-Annual Plans) in the UK. 43 FMPs have been proposed and are at various stages of development and implementation, these should all be published by the end of 2028. FMPs have the potential to be very important tools for managing UK fisheries, although data limitations may delay them for some stocks. It is also essential the UK governments define and adopt a standardised approach or model across the four nations to a universally defined FMP design, to ensure the consistence, quality and coherence of all the proposal FMPs.The Marine Conservation Society is keen to see publicly available Fishery Management Plans for all commercially exploited stocks, especially where stocks are depleted, that include:An overview of the fishery including current stock status, spatial coverage, current fishing methods and impactsTargets for fishing pressure and biomass, and additional management when those targets are not being met, based on the best 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, including habitat impacts and minimising bycatchStakeholder engagementA Northern Shelf Ling FMP has been proposed, coordinated by Marine Scotland that incorporates this stock. At the time of writing, it is too soon to know whether proposed management measures will be effective in managing the stock. For more information about this FMP and expected progress and timelines, see [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fisheries-management-plans#published-fmps].

Over half of Northeast Atlantic and Artic Ocean ling are caught by longlining. This method can have a bycatch of vulnerable and endangered seabird and shark species, but the impacts of this are not fully understood.Around 53% of Northeast Atlantic and Artic Ocean ling catches are by longline, 36% by trawl which are primarily bycatch, and 8% by gillnets. Most longline catches are by Norwegian vessels. The majority of ling longline catch for these regions is within subareas 4 and 6. The major ling targeted fishery is Area 4.a, which have Norwegian longliners fishing around Shetland and in the Norwegian Deep. Additionally, in subarea 6 the major ling fisheries are the Norwegian longline fishery, ling catch from the UK is primarily from trawl bycatch.Longlining uses baited hooks set along a long fishing line to attract the target fish. This bait, and the fish that have been hooked, attract other animals such as seabirds and sharks, which are also then caught on the lines.Longlining in demersal species, such as ling, have a lower risk of habitat impacts than towed gear such as bottom trawling. The accidental bycatch of species such as seabirds and sharks are of greater concern. In the North Atlantic monitoring of bycatch is poor and better data is needed. There is limited information about bycatches in the ling longline fishery.Longline fisheries within the Northeast Atlantic and Artic Ocean are thought to have low levels of bycatch, but there are records of bycatch of endangered, threatened and protected species. This includes the common guillemot, northern fulmer, and black-legged kittiwake. Common guillemot is at high risk of extinction as a breeding species along the Norwegian coast. While northern fulmars are abundant in some areas but endangered in others, this species is listed as endangered in Europe. Additionally, bycatch levels may have had a negative impact on the black-legged kittiwake which has experienced severe decline in areas 4 and 6 as well as in Norway. Overall, pelagically feeding seabirds breeding along the Norwegian coast have declined substantially since the start of monitoring in 1980.A better understanding is needed of the impacts of this fishery on these species. Norwegian regulations require bird scarers on longliners, which reduces interactions. However, this does not meet best practice recommendations. For example, the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) states that the most effective measures are line weighting to sink baited hooks and reduce their availability to seabirds, bird scaring lines, and setting longlines at night.There may also be bycatch of skates, rays, and sharks. More data is needed to understand the level of catch and impact that this is having. Where the fishery overlaps with the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission management area, longlining deeper than 200m is prohibited to protect deep water sharks.Longline fisheries have a much lower impact on habitats than bottom-towed gear such as trawls. However, they can get entangled on habitat features and mooring weights/anchors can cause abrasion and penetration of the seabed. Therefore, if they dragged across the seabed during fishing and hauling they can negatively impact on vulnerable species such as corals and sponges, which can be slow to recover.There are designated MPAs in Norwegian waters, within which all fishing is prohibited. It is an offence for any fishing vessel to fish on or near known areas of coral reef or coral garden. Norwegian vessels report the presence of cold-water corals or sponges in a catch and then move 2-5 miles away to continue fishing - this is monitored through Vessel Monitoring Systems.Longlining uses bait to attract the target species. Bait use is well understood in the Norwegian fishery but appears to be less understood elsewhere. Monitoring of bait use is important to ensure that the fishery is not having a negative impact on bait species such as squid, herring and mackerel.

ACAP, 2021. ACAP Review of mitigation measures and Best Practice Advice for Reducing the Impact of Pelagic Longline Fisheries on Seabirds. Reviewed at the Twelfth Meeting of the Advisory Committee Virtual meeting, 31 August – 2 September 2021. Available at https://www.acap.aq/resources/bycatch-mitigation/mitigation-advice/3956-acap-2021-pelagic-longlines-mitigation-review-bpa/file [Accessed on 06.06.2024]. Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Croxall, J.P., Dunn, E.K., Sullivan, B.J., Yates, O. and Black, A., 2011. Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries, Endang Species Res 14. p 91-106. Available at https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00347.  [Accessed on 06.06.2024].Clark, M., Althaus, F., Schlacher, T., Williams, A., Bowden, D., Rowden, A., 2016. The impacts of deep-sea fisheries on benthic communities: a review. ICES Journal of Marine Science 73: suppl_1. P. i51–i69. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv123. [Accessed on 06.06.2024].Froese, R. and Pauly D. (Editors), 2024. FishBase. Molva molva, Ling. Available at: https://fishbase.mnhn.fr/summary/Molva-molva.html [Accessed on 31.05.2024].Gilman, E., Chaloupka, M., Benaka, L.R., Bowlby, H., Fitchett, M., Kaiser, M. and Michael Musyl, M., 2022. Phylogeny explains capture mortality of sharks and rays in pelagic longline fisheries: a global meta-analytic synthesis. Sci Rep 12: 18164. Available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21976-w. [Accessed on 06.06.2024].ICES, 2024a. Greater North Sea ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2024. ICES Advice 2024, Section 7.1, Available at https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.25714239. [Accessed on 06.06.2024]ICES, 2024b. Celtic Seas Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2024. ICES Advice 2024, Section 7.1, Available at https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.25713033 [Accessed on 06.06.2024].ICES, 2023a. Ling (Molva molva) in subareas 3,4, 6-9, 12, and 14 (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2023. ICES Advice 2023, lin.27.346-91214. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21828360 [Accessed on 31.05.2024].ICES, 2023b. Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-sea Fisheries Resources (WGDEEP). ICES Scientific Reports. 5:43. 1362 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.22691596 [Accessed on 31.05.2024].Pham, C., Diogo, H., Menezes, G., Porteiro, F., Braga-Henriques, A., Vandeperre F. and Morato, T., 2014. Deep-water longline fishing has reduced impact on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. Sci Rep 4, 4837. Available at https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04837.  [Accessed on 06.06.2024].