Smalleyed ray

Smalleyed ray in the English Channel are data limited. There is concern for biomass and no concern for fishing pressure. Route 2 (data limited) scoring has been applied to this rating owing to the lack of reference points for biomass and fishing pressure. Smalleyed ray is considered to have a low resilience to fishing pressure. There are thought to be localised concentrations of small-eyed ray in the English Channel. Very little is known about the abundance and therefore, there is concern for biomass.There is no information to determine trends in fishing mortality. Landings have fluctuated but have largely been in line with advice set by ICES. Therefore, there is no concern for fishing pressure.ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, landings should be no more than 32 tonnes in each of the years 2023 and 2024.

There is no management plan for skates and rays and the joint TAC has been deemed an unsuitable method for protecting individual species.There is no direct management plan for skates and rays in these waters. They are usually caught as bycatch in otter and beam trawl fisheries, which target finfish (including flatfish and gadoids).Skates and rays are managed under five regional quotas (called TACs) which are applied to a group of species, rather than individual skate and ray species. This includes cuckoo ray, thornback ray, blonde ray, spotted ray, and small-eyed ray (undulate ray has a separate TAC). This has been deemed as an unsuitable method for protecting individual species, but species-specific quotas may increase discarding. Alternatives to the current TAC system are being explored, which may include the possible introduction of individual TACs for key stocks. Since 2016, it has been prohibited to retain smalleyed ray in division 7e. However, landings are still allowed in division 7d.A high-survivability exemption to the Landings Obligation was provided for skates and rays in the Celtic Seas ecoregion. Any skates and rays that are discarded are required to be released immediately and below the sea surface.Other management methods being considered are fishing gear modifications, education, conservation measures (such as closed seasons during spawning times). Some protected areas have been designated in these waters but offshore areas are not sufficiently managed. There are no official minimum landing sizes except for some IFCAs, which, mandate a minimum landing size (40-45 cm disc width) in inshore waters in England and Wales. Southern IFCA employs a minimum conservation reference size of 40cm for whole skate or rays and a 20cm MCRS for skate and ray wings.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. The Act requires the development of Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) (replacing EU Multi-Annual Plans). FMPs are currently in development, but the scope of them remains unclear. They have the potential to be very important tools for managing UK fisheries, although data limitations may delay them for some stocks. 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

Gillnets can be very size selective for the target fish but can be unselective at the species level for both non-target fish and for mammals, birds and turtles.Skate and rays are normally caught as bycatch. Smalleyed rays in this area are mostly caught in bottom trawls or fixed nets.Discard rates of skates and rays vary dramatically (30-70%), depending on the marketability and management measures in place. For example, nearly all skates below 30 cm LT are discarded by English vessels. Bycatch can include juvenile skate as they can hatch from their egg cases at sizes of 10-20 cm LT and therefore, may be able to escape through the nets. Their survival rates upon discarding is extremely variable, depending on the fishing and handling methods used to capture them. Elasmobranchs have the potential for relatively high survival rates because they do not have swim bladders (and thereby are not as impacted by pressure changes), they can have thick and abrasive skins and thorns (which protect them) and some have spiracles and a buccal-pump respiratory which excrete a mucus, which allows the skate or ray to ventilate and acquire oxygen when out of the water. Inshore and coastal fisheries using trawls, longlines, gillnets and tangle nets generally show low at-vessel mortality. There are a lack of studies available on long-term skate and ray survival when they are released into the wild.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 does not cover the Western English Channel, and harbour porpoise bycatch is not considered to be a problem in the Eastern English Channel.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. Fish caught in trammel nets are often very good quality as they are not damaged by the capture process.

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 17.11.2022].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 17.11.2022].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 17.11.2022].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 17.11.2022].Clean Catch UK. Joint Action To Reduce Wildlife Bycatch. Available at https://www.cleancatchuk.com/ [Accessed on 17.11.2022].Cook, R., Gaudian, G., des Clers, S. and Seip- Markensteijn, C.M., 2022. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Public Certification Report: Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group (SFSAG) Northern Demersal Stocks. Prepared by Control Union (UK) Limited on behalf of Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group (SFSAG). May 2022. Available at https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=BdxOJoY7Sf4DmNJEB/m47M6xx0rRfgP/niGx3vj5Ud8hadYI3XCNrnlSFL/jlTgK [Accessed on 13.07.2022].Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2022. FishBase. Smalleyed ray. Available at https://www.fishbase.se/summary/5492 [Accessed on 16.01.2023].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 17.11.2022].ICES. 2022. Small-eyed ray (Raja microocellata) in Divisions 7.d and 7.e (English Channel). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, rje.27.7de. Available at https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19754437 [Accessed on 10.01.2023].ICES. 2022. Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). ICES Scientific Reports, 4:74. Available at http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.21089833 [Accessed on 10.01.2023].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 17.11.2022].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 17.11.2022].MMO. 2022. Small-eyed ray in the English Channel: Synthesis of available data. A report produced for the Marine Management Organisation, MMO Project No: 1297, November 2022, 61pp.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 17.11.2022].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 17.11.2022].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 17.11.2022].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 17.11.2022].Silva, F., Ellis, J. & Catchpole, T., 2012. Species composition of skates (Rajidae) in commercial fisheries around the British Isles and their discarding patterns. J Fish Biol., 80:1678–1703.