The Landing Obligation in the European Union

Common Fisheries Policy

Marie-Joëlle Rochet, Verena Trenkel, Laurence Fauconnet

Ifremer, France

2

Fishfight campaign 2010 – 2013:Bycatch And Discards are BAD

– Immoral– Waste of valuable resource– Adverse ecological impacts

New regulation to reduce discards by New regulation to reduce discards by incentivizing more selective fishingincentivizing more selective fishing

3

The newly launchedCommon Fisheries Policy – Dec. 2013

Objectives: Fishing activities environmentally sustainable on the long-term […] achieving economic, social and employment benefits […] supplying food to the Union market […]. Gradually eliminate discardsGradually eliminate discards […].

Provisions:– Conservation measures: capacity control,

fishing gears– More multi-annual plans– Regionalisation

4

Article 15:obligation to land all catches

Starting January 2015, gradually by fishery:– Land all catch of all species subject to catch limits

LandingLanding quotas replaced by catchcatch quotasMinimum landinglanding sizes replaced by Minimum conservationconservation reference sizes

– Fish < MCRS must be landed for purposes other than direct human consumption

Exemptions, quota flexibility

Monitoring, control and enforcement incumbent on the Member States

5

Can a regulation focused on Can a regulation focused on resource utilization address broad resource utilization address broad management objectives, such as management objectives, such as limited environmental impacts, limited environmental impacts, economic development, and food economic development, and food supply?supply?

1. Discards in the European fisheries prior to the new regulation

2. Consequences of the newly launched Common Fisheries Policy

6

EU fisheries: high levels of discards

2011 2012 2013 2014

0

100

200

300

Ca

tch

('0

00

to

ns)

Catch

Discards

Estimates of French discards

0

50

100

150

200

Landings

25% 42% 33%

Discards

France2011-14

England2002

England2008

Onboard observer programmes data

7

EU fisheries: high levels of discards

Discards account for a significant part of catch in some stocksvary across species & stocks

III - IV - Ivd Via VIIa VIIe-k

0.0

0.4

0.8

Cod

IV - Via - IIIa VIIa VIIb-k

0.0

0.4

0.8

Haddock

IIIa - IV VIId VIIfg

0.0

0.4

0.8

Plaice

IV Vid

0.0

0.4

0.8

SolePro

port

ion

of d

isca

rds

in t

otal

cat

ch,

2010

-14

8

23 x22

21 x2019

18 x1716

15 x14 *

1312 *11 *

1098

7 x65

4 x3 x

21 *

a) Dicentrarchus labrax

Discarded proportion (%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

23 x22

21 x2019

18 x1716

15 x14 *

1312 *11 *

1098

7 x65

4 x3 x

21 *

0 20 40 60 80 100

NSEC

MEDATL

LonglinesNetsMidwater trawlsBottom trawlsBeam trawlsDredges

Discards vary across areas, fisheries, and speciesDiscards vary across areas, fisheries, and species

23 x22

21 x2019

18 *17

16 *15 x14 *

1312 *11 *10 *9 x

87

6 *5 *4 x

32 *1 *

e) Merlangius merlangus

Discarded proportion (%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

23 x22

21 x2019

18 *17

16 *15 x14 *

1312 *11 *10 *9 x

87

6 *5 *4 x

32 *1 *

0 20 40 60 80 100

NSEC

MEDATL

x

xx

x

*

x**x

*x

f) Trachurus trachurus

Discarded proportion (%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

x

xx

x

*

x**x

*x

0 20 40 60 80 100

Sea bass

Whiting Horse mackerel

Discarded proportion (%)

Fre

nch

fishi

ng m

étie

rsF

renc

h fis

hing

mét

iers

Fre

nch

fishi

ng m

étie

rs

9

EU fisheries: reasons for discarding varyEU fisheries: reasons for discarding vary

10

Consequences of discards on ecosystems: limited knowledgeDiscards subsidize bird communities

– North Sea: bird populations impacted by recent decrease in discards

Water column, fish?– Suspiscion that increase of Scyliorhinus

canicula in European waters partly due to scavenging on discards

Discards subsidize benthic communities– Input <<< benthos total energy budget– Impacts local, few studies

11

The fate of discards in the Bay of Biscay

Discards

ObsmerObsmer

Birds

SurveySurvey

1/4 to the birds

3/4 to the water

12

Summary: Discards in EU fisheries prior to new regulation

2002 EU Common Fisheries Policy incentivized high levels of discardsHigh variability in amounts discarded, discard composition, and reasons for discardingReducing discards may be complex, solutions to be taylored for each gear, species, area, fleet, harbour…

13

Implementation of the Landing Obligation: 2015Pelagic: in force, fishing ~ as usualEnforcement postponed to 2017Demersal: Groups of member states &

Advisory Committees are:– Defining target species & fisheries (vessel

lists)– Awaiting quota upgrade– Negotiating

Minimum conservation reference sizes Exemptions: « high survival », de minimis Quota flexibility

14

Implementation of the Landing Obligation : 2016 – demersal fisheries

Pilot trips in Landing Obligation conditions to estimate:Increased sorting timeCosts of gears, additional work &

equipmentLoss of marketable catchDecreased catch valueUtilization of non-desired catch

Preliminary resultsImproved selectivity difficult to achieveNot all skippers and crews willing to comply

15

Expected consequences of the Landing Obligation

Expectations under two hypotheses, all other things being equal, stocks at MSYLanding Obligation is enforced

Member states take on control observers or video-surveillance with

sufficient coverage penalty systems

Landing Obligation is not enforcedDiscarding continues

16

« contribute to thecollection of scientific data »

LO enforced« Fully documented fisheries »:

– 100% coverage, all catch recorded

LO not enforcedOnboard observer

programs: increased– Deployment bias– Observer bias

Non-landed bycatch not observable– Illegal & legal discards– Birds, mammals,

protected species…Increased reliance on

– SurveysSurveys– Landings & effort

17

« achieving economic, social and employment benefits »

LO enforcedShort term:

– Costs increase– Revenues decrease– Decreased

profitability– Decreased fleets &

fishing activity

Long term:– Economic benefits– Employment losses

LO not enforcedShort term:

– Business as usual– Increased catch

(unaccounted for discards) – depending on quota upgrade

Long term:???

18

« environmental sustainability »1. Stocks

LO enforcedQuota species:

MSY

Other species:Change in fishing

pressure intensity & distribution => ???

LO not enforcedQuota species:

MSY

Other species:Change in fishing

pressure distribution => ???

19

« environmental sustainability »2. Birds

LO enforcedShort term:

– Sea birds starve– Increased bird

mortality– Decreased bird

population growth rates

Long term:– Different bird

communities

LO not enforcedShort term:

Limited change

Long term:???

20

« contributing to the availability of food supplies »

LO enforcedShort term: diversification of sea food products?

Long term:???

LO not enforcedShort term:no change

Long term???

21

Conclusion

Consequences of the Landing Obligation will depend on the ability of Member States to enforce the regulationIn an ideal world, Landing Obligation contributes to address

– economic benefits (but not employment)

In the real world, Landing Obligation may complicate achievement of other management objectives