Experiences with implementation of the Landing Obligation in mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea, North Western and South Western waters.
Creators: name: Fitzpatrick, Mike
name: Nielsen, Kåre Nolde
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018

description: This Policy Brief provides an overview of the current status, initial experiences, barriers, and opportunities with regard to applying the LO in mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea, North Western Waters and South Western Waters. This area covers the DiscardLess case studies of the North Sea/West of Scotland, Celtic Sea, Eastern Channel &amp; Bay of Biscay. Mixed demersal fisheries provide the biggest challenge for implementation of the LO due to the difficulty of matching quotas with catches for multiple species which are caught simultaneously but in varying proportions. The Policy Brief is written for policy makers, the fishing industry, NGO’s and citizens with an interest in fisheries management and is based on policy documents, stakeholder interviews, meetings and literature. <strong>Box 1: Report Highlights</strong> The overwhelming issue for industry stakeholders in mixed demersal fisheries remains the choke problem. Despite intense efforts to come up with solutions involving national and transnational workshops a significant number of fisheries will have residual choke problems even after all available mitigation measures are applied. The assessment of which mitigation measures can have the greatest effect and how is slowly moving from a qualitative to a quantitative approach. This issue is dealt with in further detail in D4.4. Quota distribution is a significant issue for choke scenarios there may be enough quota but it may not be available to those who need it most. Accordingly flexibility in quota allocation and swopping is key. Significant changes in management in order to deal with residual chokes, for example by removing a stock from the TAC process, may only be permitted when all other available measures under Article 15 are applied. In 2016 only 1 member state reported a choke closure, reflecting that a very significant gap in the implementation of the LO remains For environmental NGOs an increasingly important issue is the lack of recording of unwanted catches and controls. Some NGOs cite the example of the Baltic as a cautionary tale, as they claim discard rates there have increased since the implementation of the LO. The ACs generally favour a risk based approach leading to stronger controls for identified high risk vessels. The issue of how to deal with catches below MCRS remains a hypothetical as very small quantities of unwanted catches have been landed across these fisheries. Industry fears about the potential negative impact of providing discard data and subsequent decrease in observer coverage in some Member States is an issue for science. <strong>Box 2: The methods/approaches followed</strong> Interviews with a broad range of stakeholders from Commission level, through national administrators, industry and NGO representatives and individual fishermen. Attendance at relevant national, regional and EU meetings. Analysis of relevant policy statements, regulatory documents and academic literature. Review of first 2 years of the LO in demersal fisheries and guidelines for improved implementation over coming years. <strong>Box 3: How these results can be used and by who?</strong> The policy brief on experiences with the LO in mixed demersal fisheries is of interest to stakeholders at all levels in EU fisheries as the question of what is actually happening with the LO in other fisheries and regions is asked regularly. The experiences of the first 2 years reported in the policy brief were taken from interviews from fishermen, industry reps, control officers, NGOs and EU commission staff. In addition the guidelines and future implications outlined in the policy brief are relevant to policy makers and higher level stakeholders as they seek to build on previous successes and and avoid past mistakes with the broadening of the LO to other fisheries. The policy briefs will be presented for selected target audiences and are available on the project website. <strong>Box 4: Policy R</strong><strong>ecommendations</strong> A major policy challenge is to catalyse action at the management level (see also D4.4). A top-down process could be used whereby failure to implement measures available in Article 15 would preclude the MS from the potential use of other measures such as the removal of choke problem stocks from the TAC system. This process could also link applied measures to discard reduction targets, as MSs currently are not required to demonstrate such reductions. This top-down process must be matched by a bottom-up process, realigning incentives for fishers to provide data in support of discard mitigation. Without this the quality of scientific data will be negatively effected and implementation will be overly reliant on control and enforcement rather than collaboration. The issue of overcoming short-term losses without going out of business is key for fishers. Some NGOs have proposed specific cases where industry should only receive support if they have implemented effective selectivity measures. A more general application of this approach could incentivise progress while reducing industry fears of bankruptcies. The first amendment to the LO was made in recognition of the fact that it is taking longer to develop multi-year management plans than originally envisaged. Similarly, it may be recognised that LO implementation takes longer than originally hoped for. This amendment also shows that difficulties with making changes to Article 15 may be more political than legal in nature.