Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2018-19 (1. samling), Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2018-19 (1. samling), Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2018-19 (1. samling)
L 220 Bilag 1, L 220 A Bilag 1, L 220 B Bilag 1
Offentligt
2037068_0001.png
Ms Sara Colliander
Deputy Director-General
Division for Fisheries, Game Management and
Reindeer Husbandry
Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation
SE-103 33 Stockholm
SWEDEN
Pelagic AC
Louis Braillelaan 80
2719 EK Zoetermeer
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)63 375 6324
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.pelagic-ac.org
Date:
Our reference:
Subject:
29 February 2016
1516/PAC 16
Recommendations on control of the landing obligation
Dear Ms Colliander,
I a pleased to su it to ou the Pelagi AC s
comments and recommendations
o the
report on
evaluation of different control methods for monitoring compliance with the pelagic landing
o ligatio su itted the S he e i ge Co t ol E pe ts G oup to the High Le el G oup i August
2014 (enclosed in annex I). Furthermore I enclose a list of issues encountered with the
implementation of the pelagic landing obligation per country, complimented by possible mitigation
measures (annex II).
Please note that all recommendations have been unanimously endorsed by the Executive Committee
and I am looking forward to present the advice at the next HLG meeting of the Scheveningen Group.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Gatt
Chairman Pelagic AC
Page
1
of
8
Pelagic Advisory Council
Co-funded
by the EU
 L 220 - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 1: Høringsnotat og høringssvar, fra fiskeriministeren
2037068_0002.png
Annex I:
Recommendations on
the report o e aluatio of differe t o trol ethods for
monitoring
o plia e ith the pelagi la di g o ligatio su itted y the
Scheveningen Control Expert Group in August 2014
General remarks
The Pelagic AC appreciates the sharing of the above mentioned report and wishes to comment on
the recommendations provided by the Scheveningen Control Expert Group (CEG). We firmly believe
that each policy is only as effective as it is enforceable and its success depends on the buy-in of those
affected by it. As such the Pelagic AC is the main stakeholder body to be consulted given that it brings
together the EU catching and processing sector, environmental NGOs, recreational fishermen and
others affected by the Common Fisheries Policy.
In April 2014 the Pelagic AC published an extensive document providing advice on the
implementation of the landing obligation in pelagic fisheries to the Member States and the
Commission
1
. This recommendation also included a chapter on control, monitoring and enforcement
(MCE). While at this stage the Pelagic AC did not feel comfortable enough to provide detailed
recommendations on the MCE instruments to be used, it strongly advocated the need for a level-
playing field both among EU-fishing vessels and between EU and non EU fishing vessels. The call
upon Member States and the Commission to guarantee such a level-playing field is now stronger
than ever before. The Pelagic AC is keen to understand what discussion has taken place with third
countries fishing in the North Sea in regards to MCE of pelagic
fisheries
2
. Fisheries control practice
from
within the EU and outside, including the control activities of the landing obligation so far,
demonstrates that a level-playing field is far from being implemented and the Pelagic AC is
committed to support the Member States and the Commission in realizing this ambition.
Unfortunately, the report of the Scheveningen CEG fails to give consideration to this issue and
therefore we would like to repeat our concerns in relation to control of third country vessels fishing
in the North Sea.
Furthermore, we would like to emphasize the need for better collaboration between the
Scheveningen Group and the Pelagic AC. We have only recently, in October 2015, received the report
of the CEG even though it had been finished in August 2014. Not once during the work of the
Scheveningen CEG has input been sought from the Pelagic AC despite the relevant expertise available
within the AC. Thanks to this expertise the Pelagic AC has identified the mandatory collection of
gramme sizes as a powerful, additional control tool which should be considered by the Scheveningen
Group. Therefore we would like to request that the Scheveningen CEG is tasked to evaluate the
potential implementation of mandatory gramme size collection. This tool can easily be implemented
and would provide a real-time picture of the situation on the fishing grounds. Any discrepancy in
gramme size data could easily be detected and should immediately trigger additional controls.
Finally we would like to repeat our request to set up a regional sub-group dealing exclusively with the
widely distributed stocks. Rather than having three regional groups dealing with the same stocks and
thereby risking incompatible or confusing rules, there should be one regional sub-group dealing with
Northeast Atlantic mackerel, Western horse mackerel, blue whiting, Atlanto-Scandian herring, North
Sea herring, herring in area IIIa and boarfish.
1
2
http://www.pelagic-ac.org/media/pdf/20140429%20PRAC%20land%20obl%20recom.pdf
To our knowledge there have been no efforts to integrate Norwegian authorities into the regional discussions.
Page
2
of
8
Pelagic Advisory Council
Co-funded
by the EU
 L 220 - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 1: Høringsnotat og høringssvar, fra fiskeriministeren
2037068_0003.png
Detailed recommendations
Recommendation 1: Mandatory collection of gramme sizes
Gramme sizes collected on a haul by haul basis offers a real-time monitoring tool that can be rapidly
implemented without much effort. It is a cost-efficient, yet highly effective tool. The mandatory
collection of gramme sizes should therefore be added as a control tool to the table in annex A of the
Scheveningen CEG report.
Recommendation 2: Combination of control tools
The Scheveningen CEG should be tasked to look at combinations of different control tools rather
than evaluating them in isolation.
Recommendation 3: Risk evaluation by vessel type
Risk evaluation by vessel type as listed in annex B should be reconsidered. Rather than categorizing
vessels by length and impact it would be better to categorize them by gear and species, because
some gears and species are more likely to trigger discarding than others.
Recommendation 4: Risk impact and likelihood of herring fisheries
According to scientific advice from ICES
3
and STECF
4
herring fisheries are generally very clean
fisheries. Yet, they are scored higher in terms of risk impact and the same in terms of risk likelihood
as the sprat fishery. However, the sprat fishery is known to have periodic herring bycatch problems
while the fishery is quite large and hence the impact of discarding on the stock would be at least as
high as in the case of herring. Furthermore, it is recommended to differentiate between different
herring stocks.
Recommendation 5: Set-up meeting between the Pelagic AC and the inter-regional group
Du i g the Pelagi AC s o t ol fo us g oup eeti g o 8 Ja ua
6 e ha e ee i fo ed of
the e iste e of a i te
-
egio al g oup o sisti g of the
Scheveningen Group, the NWW group,
the SWW group and EFCA. This inter-regional group seems to come close to fulfilling the role of the
pelagi su
-g
oup as e uested
the Pelagic
AC on numerous occasions, except that it is missing
participation by the Baltic regional group, i.e. BALTFISH. We therefore strongly recommend setting
up a meeting between this inter-regional group, BALTFISH and the Pelagic AC.
Recommendation 6: Harmonization of control rules across regions
We would like to emphasize again the importance of harmonized control rules and monitoring
methods across regions. We foresee that this can be realized either through a specific regional sub-
group dealing exclusively with straddling pelagic stocks or by coming together in an inter-regional
group (see recommendation 5).
Recommendation 7: Close collaboration between the CEG and the Pelagic AC
Rather than discussing CEG reports after they have been finalized it is strongly recommended that a
close collaboration between the CEG and the Pelagic AC will be established to enable the CEG to
profit from the expertise and views different stakeholders can provide.
3
4
ICES Advice 2015, Book 9: Widely distributed and migratory stocks
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)
–
Landing Obligations in EU Fisheries - part
3 (STECF-14-06). 2014. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26610 EN, JRC 89785, 56
pp.
Page
3
of
8
Pelagic Advisory Council
Co-funded
by the EU
 L 220 - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 1: Høringsnotat og høringssvar, fra fiskeriministeren
2037068_0004.png
Recommendation 8: Include control elements in discard plans
None of the pelagic discard plans currently in force includes elements of control despite the Pelagic
AC s st o g ad o a fo u ifo
easu es a oss egio s a d i elatio to thi d ou t
essels.
We therefore strongly recommend that in future versions of the discard plans control elements will
be included. Furthermore we seek clarification on the legal possibility on the inclusion of control
elements in Commission Delegated Acts
Recommendation 9: Level-playing field
To achieve a high degree of compliance with the landing obligation Member States must guarantee a
level-playing field that includes third country vessels fishing in EU waters. Until now a level-playing
field has not been implemented in regards to pelagic fisheries as witnessed by substantial
discrepancies between the regional pelagic discard plans. While for example the discard plan in south
western waters
5
includes a de minimis in the pelagic trawl fishery for mackerel and horse mackerel in
ICES area VIII, this de minimis exemption has not been granted in the north western waters
6
nor in
the North Sea pelagic discard plan
7
despite the fact that all three plans cover the same mackerel and
horse mackerel stock and that the fishing methods are the same.
Recommendation 10: Risk assessment based on gramme sizes
Control Authorities should carry out a risk assessment by analysing mandatorily collected gramme
size information and other data available to control inspectors. Where the mandatory reporting of
the gramme sizes shows that a vessel/vessels are in a high risk category those vessel/vessels shall be
subject to additional monitoring and control requirements such as closed-circuit television (CCTV),
observers, additional electronic reporting requirements (VMS and ERS) and others.
5
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1394/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard plan for
certain pelagic fisheries in south-western waters
6
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1393/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard plan for
certain pelagic fisheries in north-western waters
7
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard plan for
certain small pelagic fisheries and fisheries for industrial purposes in the North Sea.
Pelagic Advisory Council
Co-funded
by the EU
Page
4
of
8
 L 220 - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 1: Høringsnotat og høringssvar, fra fiskeriministeren
2037068_0005.png
Annex II:
Experiences with the landing obligation in pelagic fisheries
General remarks
Provided below is a summary of issues identified per country by members of the Pelagic AC in
relation to the implementation of the landing obligation in pelagic fisheries. This summary is by no
means exhaustive, but draws attention to the most pressing issues and offers a good starting point
for further reflection.
Denmark
–
RSW vessels
The control authorities have evaluated the implementation of the landing obligation in the pelagic
sector. They have reported that there are no issues of concern in relation to compliance and that
there have been no infringements related to the implemented landing obligation.
The main issues for the Danish sector is of legal and administrative nature and deals with how to
manage fisheries for sandeel, sprat and Norway pout previously regulated by now obsolete
inimum percentage of target species
p o isions.
Industry and authorities are dealing with these
issues in close collaboration.
France
–
general
Reporting obligations remain unclear, e.g. in regards to the uptake of de minimis exemptions.
Fishermen are unsure how possible de minimis exemptions are applied, e.g. on individual vessel or
Member State basis. It is therefore of the utmost importance to provide clarification on reporting
obligations to fishermen using simple language that is easy to understand.
France
–
freezer-trawlers
The following issues have been identified on French freezer-trawlers, but might be transferable to
freezer-trawler vessels in general.
Does fish not destined for human consumption have to be sorted species by species? This is
currently being done, (e.g. mackerel is not being mixed with boarfish or horse mackerel).
A small amount of fish will fall onto the deck when hauling the net on-board or be trapped in
the cod-end. Does this fish have to be brought into the factory deck?
A situation can occur in which at the end of a fishing trip it becomes apparent that the last
catch is bigger than what the vessel can hold, e.g. the catch could be 60 tonnes while there is
only space for 50 tonnes. This is very difficult to estimate before the catch is being taken on-
board. How should the remaining 10 tonnes be treated?
Fish frozen for non-human consumption must not be packed (no plastic, no cartons) because
the fish meal factories do not want any packaging. Consequently, the fish blocks move on the
pallets in the cargo hold which creates a highly dangerous situation for the crew. How could
this problem be solved?
Page
5
of
8
Pelagic Advisory Council
Co-funded
by the EU
 L 220 - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 1: Høringsnotat og høringssvar, fra fiskeriministeren
2037068_0006.png
Germany
–
freezer-trawlers
It has been noted in Germany that the interpretation of different regulations varies from Member
State to Member State leading to confusion amongst skippers regarding which interpretations are
correct. Several specific issues have also been identified:
1. Germany does not have quota to cover bycatch of hake and boarfish and obtaining such
quota from other Member States is hardly possible.
2. There is a regulation on how to deal with boarfish bycatch in the horse mackerel fishery (5%
rule), but this regulation is missing in the mackerel fishery.
3. Different minimum conservation reference sizes in the mackerel fishery (see below)
4. Discarding meshed fish that has fallen on deck is forbidden. At the same time this fish must
not enter production facilities as this would otherwise violate veterinary regulations. A
solution to this problem is urgently needed.
5. On pelagic trawlers it is forbidden to discard fish from production areas. At the same time
some species can and must be legally discarded. How should this contradiction be solved?
German inspectors have already noticed this issue.
Ireland
–
RSW vessels
Discards and bycatch can only be detected at factory level. Therefore it is not possible to report
information on discards and bycatch during the fishing trip. This information can only be provided
once the catch has been sorted in a factory.
For this year there has been a zero TAC set for herring in area VIa south, VIIb,c. How should
bycatches of herring in VIa south, VIIbc in other pelagic fisheries be dealt with?
Netherlands, UK, France, Germany
–
freezer-trawlers
Hereunder is a list of issues identified for pelagic freezer-trawler vessels and relevant for vessels from
The Netherlands, Germany, UK and France.
1. Bycatch of species for which no quota or not sufficient quota is available and for which is it
very difficult or impossible to obtain quota. An example that has become apparent during
this year in the pelagic fisheries in western waters is western hake (HKE/571214). For this
bycatch no de minimis exemption has been defined. Inter-species flexibility cannot be
applied either because ICES has not defined the PA reference points for his stock.
2. In area IVa (northern North Sea) mackerel can be caught in large quantities. This can be
mackerel of TAC area MAC/2a34 or mackerel of TAC area MAC/2cx14 with the special
condition MAC/*04a-EN (i.e. western mackerel to be caught in area IVa). The minimum
conservation reference size (MCRS) for western mackerel (MAC/2cx14) is 20 cm and for
North Sea mackerel (MAC/2a34) is 30 cm. The argumentation behind this difference in
MCRS lies in the (far) past and it has not been able to retrieve it. The question is what MCRS
applies to mackerel caught in area IVa. Should it be 30 cm for all mackerel caught in IVa,
independent if it is coming from MAC/2cx14 quota or from MAC/2a34 quota or should the
MCRS vary which the source of the mackerel caught in IVa? The question is relevant in light
of the obligation to land all mackerel caught (independent of size) and the fact that
mackerel below MCRS has a different status. A solution to this issue therefore must be
sought by Member States.
Page
6
of
8
Pelagic Advisory Council
Co-funded
by the EU
 L 220 - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 1: Høringsnotat og høringssvar, fra fiskeriministeren
2037068_0007.png
3. The Omnibus regulation stipulates under point 11 that article 15 of the CFP (1380/2013)
shall not apply to undersized sardine, anchovy, herring, horse mackerel and mackerel, within
a limit of 10 % by live weight of the total catches retained on board of each of those species.
This means de facto that 10% of the total pelagic catches of these species, and on the
condition that these are below MCRS, can be discarded, or, when not discarded, can be
destined for direct human consumption. Although the Omnibus regulation has been
published in May 2015 the pelagic freezer-trawlers do not apply this derogation to the
landing obligation during their operation out of fear that control authorities in Member
States are not aware of this derogation. This derogation could be the solution for the issue
raised under point 2.
4. Before the introduction of the landing obligation pelagic freezer-trawlers all had a so-called
discards chute through which catches of fish below minimum landing size or over-quota
catches or catches of prohibited species were discarded. Since the introduction of the
landing obligation and subsequent inspections at sea all pelagic freezer-trawlers have sealed
off their discards chutes. This means that all catches are now retained on board. However,
there are still catches that can or must be discarded. Such as catches under a de minimis
exemption, bycatches of forbidden species and bycatches of species that do not fall under
the landing obligation. On a pelagic freezer-trawler these catches become apparent mostly
during the processing activities at factory deck level. Therefore, it is practically very
cumbersome / difficult to throw these catches back to sea. This violates labor conditions on-
board and creates problems for safety at sea for the crew concerned.
5. Quota uplift.
Quota uplifts as essential part of the implementation of the landing obligation
–
widely
discussed at this moment in the demersal realm - have not played a role at all during the
introduction of the pelagic landing obligation. Quota uplifts for species that are caught and
bycaught in pelagic fisheries with the aim to ease the introductory difficulties can be a
solution of bycatch problems in the pelagic landing obligation and should be discussed.
6.
Waste f o
the fishi g ope atio .
During the various phases of a fishing operation
–
including the processing at factory deck
level
– a s all po tio of fish is ot usa le e ause it ould e defi ed as a aste p odu t.
This could be meshed fish, or remains of fish after cleaning the (buffer) tanks, or fish that
has fallen out of the processing lines or fish that has been eaten by predators (mammals or
birds). These are usually small amounts of fish and because this fish cannot be used
anymore for direct human consumption it should be accepted by control authorities that
this fish may be thrown back to into the sea.
7. Article 22 of the Technical Measures Regulation stipulates that a vessel has to leave the so-
called mackerel box if it has more than 15% of mackerel by weight in its catch. The
consequence of this is that the vessel that has more than 15% mackerel on board has to
leave the mackerel box. In the horse mackerel fishery in that area it can happen that
mackerel is unintentionally caught. Under the landing obligation this mackerel bycatch has
to be kept on-board the vessel which can lead to the situation that at a certain point more
than 15% of the catch consists of mackerel. At that moment the vessel has to leave the
mackerel box and its fishing grounds for horse mackerel to catch horse mackerel in another
area before being allowed to enter the mackerel box again. Given the enormous size of the
mackerel box this can lead to prohibitively high costs and difficulties.
Page
7
of
8
Pelagic Advisory Council
Co-funded
by the EU
 L 220 - 2018-19 (1. samling) - Bilag 1: Høringsnotat og høringssvar, fra fiskeriministeren
2037068_0008.png
Scotland - RSW vessels
No significant problems have occurred to date with the implementation of the pelagic landing
obligation. Scottish RSW vessels have fished mackerel in January-February, blue whiting in March-
April, herring in the summer and the mackerel fishery is again commencing in the autumn. Many
vessels land mackerel in Norway and have not encountered any major issues. Small bycatches of
horse mackerel in the quarter 1 mackerel fishery have been graded out. Marine Scotland stated that
all whitefish bycatches must be covered with quota swaps. One vessel accidentally caught spurdog
which is a zero TAC species and it remains unclear how to handle such catches when discovered in
the processing factory. Clarification in this regard is urgently needed. One Scottish pelagic vessel has
been piloting CCTV since 2013 in a joint project with Marine Scotland Compliance.
Spain
–
purse-seine vessels
To date no problems have been reported in Spanish pelagic (purse-seine) fisheries thanks to the de
minimis and high survivability exemptions. Due to low bycatch rates these exemptions are sufficient
to allow a smooth implementation of the landing obligation.
Sweden
The introduction of the landing obligation in the Swedish pelagic fishery has on the whole been less
troublesome than expected. A reasonably good and healthy relationship with the competent
authority and others has ensured a relatively smooth introduction of the landing obligation. One
problem, however, is in terms of catches and quota coverage. Since ITQ only applies in the pelagic
fisheries in Sweden, there is no option to have quotas on the species that may be bycatch. This is a
problem that must be solved in due course. A need for better selectivity has been identified in the
herring fishery during autumn when bycatch of saithe may occur. Therefore, a project has been
initiated aiming at finding a sorting grid to drastically reduce the bycatch of saithe. Experience to
date with this grid are very good and people are hopeful that the project will lead to positive results.
From a control perspective, it is still a major problem with the way samples are to be taken. This
requires clarification, but has in itself nothing to do with the introduction of the landing obligation.
Nevertheless, this issue deserves immediate attention.
Page
8
of
8
Pelagic Advisory Council
Co-funded
by the EU