Suchergebnisse

The EU Landings Obligation: An ambitious Policy, that may impact the fishing industry in the short-term… Q: How can Science help mitigate such impacts, and so support the successful implementation of the policy? A: Science cannot force changes, but Science GATHERS and SHARES USEFUL KNOWLEDGE to inform changes!!!

Discards are defined as the part of the catch that is brought on deck only to be returned to the sea. This Deliverable is the result of an extensive litterature review on the state of knowledge regarding the biological, ecological and technical aspects of the discard issue. Additionally, factsheets have been collated for the various DiscardLess case studies regarding the more specific knowledge available for the various regions. The main findings are summarized as follows: Discarding occurs for a number of reasons including low or no commercial values, undersized fish, or the absence of quota. Discards are driven by a variety of factors (sociological, technical, legislative, environmental and biological) which form a complex network of often interwoven causes and effects, and are highly species, fisheries, and areas specific. However, the root cause is the lack of selectivity of fishing gears or operations, notably in trawl fisheries. Methods for reducing discards are often fishery, fleet, or area specific. They can be grouped into two categories: - Improvements to gear selectivity. For trawls, most of the selection happens in the codend, and modifying mesh size and/or shape is the simplest and most commonly used measure to improve size selection. Additional techniques aiming at sorting the catch in the codend according to morphology include selective grids and square mesh panels (or escape windows). Alterations of other parts of the trawls are also explored, as are the use of deterrent such as physical, acoustic, and electronic modifications. In the case of multi-species fisheries, the range of minimum landing sizes (implemented to protect smaller immature individuals) cannot be all harmonised with the selectivity of fishing gears. Short-term economic losses due to reduced marketable catch are identified as the main reason discouraging the uptake of more selective gears. - Temporal and spatial closures. The main objectives are to avoid areas of high juvenile abundance or high by-catch species abundance. While ...

This open access book provides a comprehensive examination of the European Landing Obligation policy from many relevant perspectives. It includes evaluations of its impacts at economical, socio-cultural, ecological and institutional levels. It also discusses the feasibility and benefits of several potential mitigation strategies. The book was timely published, exactly at the time where the Landing Obligation was planned to be fully implemented. This book is of significant interest to all stakeholders involved, but also to the general public of Europe and to other jurisdictions throughout the world that are also searching for ways to deal with by-catch and discard issues.

Electronic Monitoring (EM) with video is a tool often mentioned to ensure compliance with fishing regulations while vessels are at sea. Since 2008, several trials have been conducted in the European Union on the use of EM. One of the largest and longest running European trials was the 2010–2016 Cod Catch Quota Management trial (CCQM) in Denmark. This paper reviews the methods and experiences gained from this trial, with focus on the last two years where criteria for video audits were expanded and major technical developments took place. The cost-effectiveness and potential of EM for compliance, management and scientific purposes is discussed. The present study demonstrates that EM is capable of high precision detection of non-compliance with a discard ban and that developments in the transmission of EM data allowed for a smoother and more reliable Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) system. Although further developments are needed, especially within the field of automated image analysis, we conclude that EM is one of the few feasible tools where fisheries information and compliance can be ensured under a Landing Obligation.

In 2011, European policymakers initiated a major reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) to improve the Union's fisheries management system, a challenge that proved necessary given the state of fish stocks in European waters. Balancing environmental and socio-economic objectives in fisheries management was imperative. The main objective of the reform was therefore to ensure the preservation of marine resources while increasing the competitiveness of European fishing fleets. These two aspects are not antagonistic but complementary, because the preservation of fisheries resources constitutes a prerequisite for a successful fishing sector. This principle has been assimilated by fishers, who also understood that an overhaul was necessary to ensure the sustainability of their activities. There is no need to remind the reader that the task incumbent on the European Parliament and the Council was far-reaching. After months of intense institutional negotiations, the revised CFP was introduced in 2013, articulated as two flagship measures: (i) reach the objective of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in 2020 and (ii) introduce the Landing Obligation. Whether or not we consider the Landing Obligation as being adapted to the overall objectives of the CFP will not be the subject of my remarks. Whilst it is crucial that the Union's fisheries management system should improve selectivity of catches and so contribute to the sustainability of fisheries, I have personally been a long-time opponent to the obligation to land. But only time will tell whether this measure will prove successful. If the means of action might be controversial and open to debate, the overall sustainability objective is undeniable. For the past 5 years, we have gradually introduced the measures necessary for the implementation of the CFP. In 2015, I was acting as the rapporteur for the implementation of the Landing Obligation (omnibus regulation) where my objective was to ensure a smooth transition for the fisheries sector while respecting the principle ...

The European Common Fisheries Policy recognizes the importance of accounting for heterogeneity in fishing practices, and métier-based sampling is now at the core of the EU Data Collection Framework. The implementation of such an approach would require Member States to agree on the standard regional métier definitions and on practical rules to categorize logbook records into métiers. Several alternative approaches have been used in the past to categorize landings profiles, but no consensus has yet emerged. A generic open-source workflow is developed to test and compare a selection of methods, including principal components analysis (PCA), hierarchical agglomerative clustering (HAC), K-means, and Clustering LARge Applications (CLARA), and to provide simple allocation rules. This workflow is applied to a unique regional dataset consisting of bottom-trawl logbooks of five North Sea countries. No method proved to be infallible, but combining PCA with either CLARA or HAC performed best. For 2008, a hierarchical classification with 14 species assemblages is proposed. Discriminant analysis proved more robust than simple ordination methods for allocating a new logbook record into an existing métier. The whole approach is directly operational and could contribute to defining more objective and consistent métiers across European fisheries

The 2013 Common Fisheries Policy introduced a landing obligation on a range of species. This is changing the fundamental principles on which EU fisheries management is based, with more focus on the full accountability of all catches (a move towards catch quota management) and less accountability on the means used to obtain these catches (a move towards results-based management). To investigate the potentials and challenges that these paradigm shifts give rise to, a 6-months 'unrestricted gear' trial was performed in Denmark in 2015,. Twelve trawlers of different size, rigging, fishing area and target species were challenged to test their own solutions to reduce unwanted bycatch and/or choke species, while maintaining their profitability. Fully documented fishery (FDF) was required, including electronic monitoring, self-estimation of discards and haul-by-haul catch documentation. Fishers' participation in the trial was partly incentivized through the allocation of additional quota. Fishers used twinned standard and test gears whenever possible, or switched gear sequentially otherwise. The participating fishers tested different options depending on their fishery and the type of issues they faced individually, and adjusted their test fishery over time through incremental small steps. A total of 1497 hauls were analysed for landings, discards and discard-ratio (discard to catch ratio), along with species composition and temporal trends. Nine vessels reduced discard ratio in the test fishery, one showed no difference between test and control fishery, while two vessels displayed an increase in discard ratio. The catch compositions were also significantly different, with fewer predicted "choke species" occurring in the test fisheries and a more valuable size composition. Ultimately, despite smaller landings in multiple vessels, no vessel showed reduction in value-per-unit-effort (VPUE) and one Baltic vessel significantly increased the VPUE. No temporal trends in discard ratio were noted. This trial showed that relaxing ...

The 2013 Common Fisheries Policy introduced a landing obligation on a range of species. This is changing the fundamental principles on which EU fisheries management is based, with more focus on the full accountability of all catches (a move towards catch quota management) and less accountability on the means used to obtain these catches (a move towards results-based management). To investigate the potentials and challenges that these paradigm shifts give rise to, a 6-months 'unrestricted gear' trial was performed in Denmark in 2015,. Twelve trawlers of different size, rigging, fishing area and target species were challenged to test their own solutions to reduce unwanted bycatch and/or choke species, while maintaining their profitability. Fully documented fishery (FDF) was required, including electronic monitoring, self-estimation of discards and haul-by-haul catch documentation. Fishers' participation in the trial was partly incentivized through the allocation of additional quota. Fishers used twinned standard and test gears whenever possible, or switched gear sequentially otherwise. The participating fishers tested different options depending on their fishery and the type of issues they faced individually, and adjusted their test fishery over time through incremental small steps. A total of 1497 hauls were analysed for landings, discards and discard-ratio (discard to catch ratio), along with species composition and temporal trends. Nine vessels reduced discard ratio in the test fishery, one showed no difference between test and control fishery, while two vessels displayed an increase in discard ratio. The catch compositions were also significantly different, with fewer predicted "choke species" occurring in the test fisheries and a more valuable size composition. Ultimately, despite smaller landings in multiple vessels, no vessel showed reduction in value-per-unit-effort (VPUE) and one Baltic vessel significantly increased the VPUE. No temporal trends in discard ratio were noted. This trial showed that relaxing technical regulations has a potential to provide some flexibility to cope with the landing obligation, where unwanted catches could be reduced to some extent without negative effects on economic viability. Some practical implementation challenges were nevertheless encountered, which are discussed in the perspective of implementing results-based management at full scale.

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 51st plenary on 11-15 April 2016 in Brussels (Belgium).

Reforms of EU Common Fisheries Policy will make fundamental changes to European fisheries management, including a discard ban with catch quotas for regulated species and management to achieve MSY. We evaluate the impact of these changes on revenue of North Sea demersal finfish fleets and fish stocks. With no change in behaviour, revenue is reduced by a mean of 31% compared to current management in the first year, but partly recovers by year 3, as fishing mortality is reduced and stocks increase. There are large differences in revenue changes between fleets, varying from -99% to +36%, depending on whether the stock with the most limiting catch quota is a primary target and the rate at which it is caught relative to other stocks. Impacts will be greatest if catch quotas are set at current landings quotas, and reduce with an uplift to reflect current discarding levels. Large reductions in revenue create a strong incentive to avoid catching the limiting species, particularly if it is not a primary target. Selectivity changes that avoid 30% cod catch reduced the economic impact for some fleets in moving to catch quotas. Increased flexibility will therefore be important in maintaining the profitability of the fisheries.

There are numerous examples from across Europe where collaborative science-industry initiatives, which provide a bottom-up approach to trawl gear development, have been successful in developing selective gears. For fishers, the collaborative approach creates a sense of ownership and control over the gears developed and often a greater desire for them to achieve their objectives. Despite the many benefits of collaborative initiatives, a lack of clarity and transparency, incorrect incentives, unclear communication, and distrust or diverging perceptions can inhibit their performance. The present review examines the different collaborative approaches to fishing gear development that have been established within Europe, highlighting their salient features, comparing their objectives, and discussing the types and effectiveness of the incentives offered. Also examined is how the reform of the European Union's (EU) Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), together with the proposed reform of the technical measures framework, can potentially improve the flexibility in the technical regulations and allow for such initiatives to be a central part in improving the state of fish stocks throughout the EU. Finally, a framework is proposed on how initiatives pertaining to industry-led fishing gear development might look like under the reformed CFP.