The Managers story – incentives for discard mitigation and Landing Obligation compliance
Creators: name: Reid, Dave
name: Fitzpatrick, Mike
name: Frangoudes, Katia
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018

description: The overall rationale behind this deliverable is to clarify the views of managers in the DiscardLess case studies on which management measures or tools they favour with regards to implementation of the Landing Obligation and discard reduction. This is important as the views of other stakeholders such as industry and NGOs are readily available in published position statements while the views of managers can only really be obtained by interview and an analysis of actual management actions. These tools can be seen as one of a suite of approaches which can be taken, along with technical or gear-based and tactical or individual behavioural approaches but in this case they may be employed by managers either at the European, regional, national or industry organisational level. <strong>Box 1: </strong><strong>Report highlights </strong> There is significant diversity in the general approach to LO implementation favoured by managers across the DiscardLess case studies. Some favour an emphasis on remote electronic monitoring while others are taking a longer-term approach to incentivising a mindset change throughout the catching sector of the industry. Regardless of the overall approach favoured significant inertia is evident in terms of concrete management measures actually applied. This may be related to the relatively short time scales within which it is reasonable to expect significant change in such an important policy aspect of fisheries governance. The observed inertia may also be related to the fact that some member states may not be as supportive of the need for a change in the approach to discard management as others or at least that some are stronger advocates of the LO as a good vehicle with which to change discard practices. High survival and <em>de minimis e</em>xemptions are the most commonly applied measures but even these can not be considered as being fully applied in the majority of cases as they are not being used by fishers. The analysis in this report highlights a very slow progression from identifying the problems to contemplating the solutions but with little real implementation of such solutions as yet. <strong>Box 2: </strong><strong>The approaches followed</strong> Relevant Literature relating to the use of management measures to implement discard policies was reviewed. Member State reports on LO implementation were analysed to ascertain which management measures were being used. Meetings and workshops with specific relevance to management level input to LO implementation between 2015 and 2018 were attended by DiscardLess partners or published reports from such meetings were analysed. A table of available management measures was developed as a tool to discuss managers views on which were most or least useful in LO implementation. Interviews were conducted with managers and others with specific management level input across the DiscardLess case studies. <strong>Box 3: </strong><strong>How can these results be used and by whom?</strong> The report compiles information not previously available in a single document on managers views on LO implementation and as such can be used by managers themselves to examine what is being considered or applied in other regional seas. Other stakeholders including industry groups and environmental NGO’s will also be interested in a summary of the current status of applied management measures and LO implementation. The table summarising all management level options or measures will also be useful to stakeholders or managers looking for an alternative or additional approach to those already specified in the Landing Obligation. <strong>Box 4: Policy R</strong><strong>ecommendations </strong> A policy catalyst to mobilise management action is required. This could take the form of a top-down process whereby failure to implement at least some of the measures available in Article 15 would preclude MS from being able to apply for the use of other more innovative measures such as the removal of choke problem stocks from the TAC system. Greater use of positive incentives, such as additional quota in exchange for the use of selective fishing gear, should also help to move implementation forward. The necessity for improvement in the monitoring of management measure effectiveness i.e. a reduction in discard rates, is also becoming increasingly evident.