Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament On a Community Action Plan to reduce discards of fish
Date: 2002-11-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, discarded fish, economic analysis, environmental impact, fishery management, fishing statistics, impact study

EN

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 26.11.2002
COM(2002)656 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

On a Community Action Plan to reduce discards of fish

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

3.

3.1.

3.2.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

5.

Scope and purpose of this Communication.................................................................. 4

The magnitude of the problem ..................................................................................... 4

Estimates of total quantities discarded by all fleets by geographical area ................... 5

Other estimates of discards. ......................................................................................... 5

Reasons for discarding ................................................................................................. 6

Legislative reasons. ...................................................................................................... 6

Economic reasons......................................................................................................... 7

Consequences of discarding ......................................................................................... 7

Biological consequences .............................................................................................. 7

Economic consequences............................................................................................... 8

Consequences for stock assessments and fisheries management................................. 8

Possibilities to reduce discarding ................................................................................. 8

5.1.

Overall approach .......................................................................................................... 8

5.1.1. General improvement in the state of fish stocks .......................................................... 9

5.1.2. Voluntary departure from fishing grounds................................................................... 9

5.1.3. Making better use of low-value fish............................................................................. 9

5.1.4. Reduction of TAC/quota-related discards.................................................................. 10

5.1.5.

Pilot projects to reduce discards in fishing operations ............................................... 10

5.1.6. Monitoring discard levels........................................................................................... 11

5.2.

Improving technical measures.................................................................................... 11

5.2.1.

- Structure of nets ....................................................................................................... 11

5.2.2. Minimum landing sizes .............................................................................................. 13

5.2.3. Revising the rules associated with the use of specified mesh sizes ........................... 13

5.2.4. Closed or controlled areas .......................................................................................... 14

5.2.5. Real time closures ...................................................................................................... 14

5.3.

Institution of a discard ban ......................................................................................... 14

6.

Summary and Conclusion .......................................................................................... 16

2

ANNEX I: Estimates of total international discards ................................................................ 17

ANNEX II: Discards of fleets or sectors of fleets .................................................................... 19

ANNEX III: Timetable for actions........................................................................................... 21

3

1. 

SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS COMMUNICATION

This Communication deals with the problem of discarding of fish by the Community’s fishing
fleets  in  all  areas  of  operation  but  with  particular  emphasis  on  Community  waters  of  the
north-east Atlantic, the Baltic and the Mediterranean.

Its purpose is:

–  to provide a general overview of the magnitude of discarding,

–  to analyse reasons for discarding,

–  to indicate the biological and economic consequences of discarding,

–  to  indicate  possibilities  for  reducing  quantities  discarded  and  future  action  by  the

Commission and Council.

Discards can be defined as fish1 retained by a fishing gear which have been brought on board
a fishing vessel and are thrown back into the sea.

The  Commission  deals  with  by-catches  and  discarding  of  organisms  other  than  fish  in  its
Action  Plan  for  the  integration  of  environmental  policy  into  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy
which was included in the first set of proposals for the reform of the CFP2.

2. 

THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM

All estimates of quantities of fish discarded arise from scientific sampling programmes, which
exist  since  the  1930’s.  At  that  time  the  estimates  were  provided  for  a  few  very  localised
fisheries and indicated that up to 20% by number of the catches were routinely discarded. In
Community  waters,  routine  sampling  of  discards  started  in  1973  in  Scotland,  primarily  for
haddock  and  whiting  but  also  taking  account  of  many  other  species,  in  the  North  Sea  and
since  1975  in  waters  off  the  west  of  Scotland.  Since  that  time,  the  Commission  has
increasingly funded scientific sampling of discards.

The  scientific  sampling  programmes  have  usually  been  directed  at  demersal  species  often
taken  in  “mixed  fisheries”  where  several  species  are  taken  simultaneously  by  each
deployment  of  the  fishing  gear.  In  such  fisheries,  each  operation  of  the  gear  will  almost
always catch some fish which are discarded. Other fisheries, including those for pelagic fish,
also incur discards but have been less routinely sampled since discarding tends to be episodic
within a fishing voyage and, on a given voyage, may not occur at all.

The  Scottish  sampling  scheme  indicates  that  the  proportion  discarded  of  each  year  class  of
haddock or whiting has not changed significantly since the early 1970’s, despite increases in
mesh size of towed demersal nets and an increasing panoply of additional technical measures
intended to reduce catches of small, often juvenile fish.

1

2

Throughout  this  text,  reference  to  “fish”  should  be  considered  as  a  reference  also  to  crustaceans,
molluscs and any other organisms which are commercially exploited by fisheries.
Communication from the Commission setting out a Community Action Plan to integrate environmental
requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy, COM (2002) 186 final, 28.5.2002.

4

                                                
2.1. 

Estimates of total quantities discarded by all fleets by geographical area

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has made  estimates of total
quantities of haddock and whiting discarded in the North Sea (ICES Sub-area IV) and to the
west of Scotland (ICES Division VIa) and of cod in the eastern and western Baltic Sea. These
estimates  are  incorporated  into  the  data  used  in  routine  stock  assessments  and  are  updated
each  year.  For  haddock  and  whiting,  the  sampling  programmes  were  initiated  in  the  mid-
1970’s. Estimates for Baltic cod first became available in 1996 and have only recently been
included in routine stock assessments. Discarding of cod in the eastern Baltic is low and no
further reference is made to it in this document.

The time series of data available for discards of these stocks is summarised below.

Area

Reference

Percentage discarded

Average weight in gram

Species

Period

By weight

By number

discards

landings

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Haddock

North Sea

1963 – 1999

Haddock W.Scotland

1978 – 1999

Whiting

North Sea

1960 – 1999

Whiting

W.Scotland

1978 – 1999

Cod

West Baltic

1996 – 2000

20

10

20

15

5

50

20

63

60

10

20

30

15

20

25

60

80

55

80

30

150

220

380

550

150

210

480

650

150

220

250

350

100

190

280

320

180

260

680

800

A more detailed presentation of these data is provided in Annex I.

2.2. 

Other estimates of discards.

Other estimates of quantities discarded can be found in reports of studies often part-funded by
the  Commission.  In  the  last  two  years,  ICES  has  held  three  meetings  of  a  study  group  on
discards3  4  5which referred to the findings of studies conducted in the Community waters of
the  north  Atlantic  and  Baltic.  There  are  also  numerous  reports  on  discarding  in  the
Mediterranean. Further reference to these reports is provided in Annex II.

The reports are not exhaustive as they refer only to discarding of one or more species by the
fleet of a Member State or, more usually, only by a sector of a  Member  State’s  fleet.  If the
existing estimates were extrapolated to the total  international level, it can be concluded that
considerable  quantities  are  routinely  discarded  .  Trawl  fisheries  in  the  Mediterranean,  for
example, appear to discard a minimum of 20 per cent of the biomass caught,  with an upper
limit of between 40 and 70 per cent, depending on the depth at which fishing takes place (see
Annex II).

The  reports  of  discarding  in  the  north  Atlantic  confirm  that  mostly  small  fish,  which  are
below their minimum landing sizes are discarded.

3

4

5

Report of the Study Group on Discard and By-Catch Information, ICES CM 2000/ACFM:11
Report of the Study Group on Discard and By-Catch Information, ICES CM 2001/ACFM:13
Report of the Study Group on Discard and By-Catch Information, ICES CM 2002/ACFM:09 Ref. D,G

5

                                                
The results of these sampling programmes are summarised in the table below.

Species

Angler

Cod

Haddock

Hake

Megrim

Plaice

Saithe

Sole

Whiting

Average Length (cm)

Percentage discarded

of fish discarded

by weight

by number

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

19

20

11

18

17

19

22

20

17

24

38

33

26

30

29

46

24

30

1

1

3

3

-

100

1

4

13

13

97

10

12

-

100

77

25

100

-

3

9

11

-

100

5

16

36

-

44

99

35

-

100**

-***

28

100

**Only 2 samples give information on percentages by weight and number.
***Only one sample gives information on percentage by number.

It  is  clear  that  there  is  a  relationship  between  the  selectivity  of  the  fishing  gears  and  the
percentage of catch discarded. The use of gears of large mesh size incurs less discarding (10-
15% by weight) than the use of gears of small mesh size (50% or more in some cases). There
is also considerable geographical and temporal variation in quantities discarded (Examples of
this variation are provided in Annex II).

3. 

REASONS FOR DISCARDING

The reasons for discarding are both legislative and economic. In many instances both reasons
operate simultaneously.

3.1. 

Legislative reasons.

Legislation  makes  discarding  compulsory  in  a  number  of  instances,  affecting  both  juvenile
and adult fish.

Community legislation requires discarding of fish, molluscs and crustaceans for:

(i) individuals less than defined minimum landing sizes;

(ii) catches in excess of defined percentage compositions of catches taken with nets of a given
mesh size;

(iii) catches in excess of quotas.

6

National legislation may also lead to discarding. Some Member States allocate their national
quotas between sectors of the fleet or producer’s organisations. These may be further broken
down into allocations to individual vessels. When a sector of the fleet or individual vessel has
taken its quota, and if no further quota becomes available, catches in excess of quota cannot
be landed but must be discarded, even if a national quota is not exhausted.

On  rare  occasions,  a  Member  State  may  also  prohibit  sale  of  a  species  for  public  health
reasons (e.g. bivalve molluscs). Catches of this species will also be discarded.

Discards  by  Community  vessels  fishing  in  the  waters  of  third  countries  may  also  be
determined  by  the  rules  of  the  country  concerned  or  by  the  unavailability  or  exhaustion  of
quotas for certain species within the terms of fisheries agreements.

3.2. 

Economic reasons

Discarding for economic reasons occurs under two general cases:

(a) commercially less valuable individuals of species  acceptable to markets are  discarded to
keep storage space for fish which are of higher commercial value and

(b) individuals of species of low or zero commercial value, at least in the market targeted by
the vessel in question, will be discarded.

Large  individuals  of  a  given  species  usually  attract  a  higher  market  price  than  smaller
individuals.  This  can  lead  to  so-called  “high  grading”  whereby  large  fish  are  retained  in
preference to smaller fish. 

The large differences of taste in the market can also induce discarding. Some species are not
acceptable  to  consumers  in  the  local  market.  For  example,  whiting  is  unpopular  in  some
Member States and consequently fishermen from those Member States discard almost all of
the whiting which they catch. Similarly, sardines are unpopular in some Member States and
are routinely discarded. 

It is sometimes the case that fish caught towards the end of a voyage may be in excess of the
remaining  storage  capacity  of  the  ship  and  may  therefore  be  discarded,  following  high
grading.

During  long  fishing  voyages  that  can  last  several  weeks  fish  stored  on  a  vessel  may
deteriorate to the point at which they are discarded.

4. 

CONSEQUENCES OF DISCARDING

4.1. 

Biological consequences

The  majority  of  the  individuals  discarded  are  dead  or  moribund.  However,  the  survival  of
discarded molluscs, crustaceans and flatfish is higher than that of roundfish.

The vast majority of fish discarded are much smaller than the maximum size to  which they
can grow and are usually sexually immature. Killing them implies that the potential spawning
stock  biomass  is  constantly  decreased.  If  many  small  individuals  are  killed,  the  spawning
stock biomass may be reduced to a point at which it cannot replenish the stock. 

Discarding of adult individuals also occurs. This is a direct removal from the spawning stock.

7

Discarding  returns  biomass  directly  to  the  ecosystem  but  the  effects  of  so  doing  are  poorly
understood. Some species of seabirds are believed to have increased in abundance as a result
of augmentation of their food supply via discards.

4.2. 

Economic consequences

The loss of growth potential incurred by the capture of small fish, irrespective of whether or
not  they  are  discarded,  reduces  the  potential  yield  from  a  fishery.  The  obvious  economic
consequence is that profits are smaller than they would be if  the fish  were left in the sea to
grow, to reproduce and be caught at a mature age. Reduction in yield may in the short run be
compensated economically by an increase in prices. In the long run, however, if the fish stock
cannot replenish itself  due  to  a  too  small spawning stock, there  is  a risk that  profits will be
lost for good. 

4.3. 

Consequences for stock assessments and fisheries management

As the real quantities of discards are often unknown, the real fishing mortality rates exerted
on  stocks,  especially  on  young  fish,  are  uncertain.  This  has  a  number  of  repercussions,
especially  for  the  evaluation  of  measures  intended  to  improve  selectivity  in  order  to  reduce
catches of young fish. At least some of the reasons for discarding provided in Section 3 will
always prevail. Therefore scientific monitoring of discards will continue to be required  and,
preferably, should be enhanced.

5. 

POSSIBILITIES TO REDUCE DISCARDING

The  Commission  is  convinced  that  Community’s  fisheries  management  must  aim  at
responsible and sustainable fishery and “make the best use of harvested resources and avoid
waste”.6 Reducing the level of discards in Community fisheries is a key element in achieving
that aim.

It will not be possible to reduce discarding significantly by applying only one or two simple
rules.  The  complexity  of  the  problem  requires  action  on  several  frontsIn  this  section  the
Commission  identifies  the  most  promising  avenues  to  reduce  discarding  and  action  that  it
intends to take to promote this objective. Some of the action points will also require decisions
by  the  Council  on  current  Commission  proposals.  A  timetable  for  implementation  of  these
actions is provided in Annex III. 

5.1. 

Overall approach

The Commission can foresee a number of measures which  are, to  a greater  or lesser  extent,
applicable to all fish stocks. However, the Commission recognises that some fishing practices
and/or management  measures  may  give rise to significant  discarding  while  others  may  give
rise to no serious problems. The Commission will engage in discussion with Member States
to define the most problematic areas and will give these priority when proposing amendments
to or augmentation of regulations.

6

Commission Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (“Roadmap”), Section 3.1

8

                                                
5.1.1.  General improvement in the state of fish stocks

The  first  and  most  important  contribution  that  the  Community  can  make  towards  reducing
discards  of  fish  is  to  achieve  a  general  improvement  in  the  state  of  fish  stocks.  At  present,
many  Community  fish  stocks  predominantly  consist  of  small,  juvenile  individuals  which
consequently make up the main component of the catch. It is therefore necessary to reduce the
fishing  effort  on  such  stocks  and  to  implement  appropriate  technical  measures  to  allow
increased recruitment into the spawning stock biomass.  Limitation of fishing effort as  a key
element  of  the  management  of  major  fish  stocks  is,  however,  already  the  subject  of
Commission  proposals7  and  will,  therefore,  not  be  further  dealt  with  in  this  paper.  Further
comment on technical measures and on prohibition of discarding are provided in Sections 5.2
and 5.3 respectively.

With  regard  to  technical  measures,  it  is  clear  that  for  each  fishing  method  for  which
improvement in selectivity of the gear employed can be envisaged, the degree to which such
improvement  can  be  implemented  is  often  limited.  This  is  particularly  the  case  for  fishing
methods  which  are  deployed  in  mixed  fisheries  where  the  degree  of  improvement  of
selectivity  to  bring  about  significant  reduction  in  discarding  of  one  of  the  species  caught  is
such  that  catches  of  the  other  species  would  be  much  reduced  or  entirely  nullified.  In  such
cases, improvements in selectivity via technical measures can be implemented and can bring
about a reduction in discarding but the remaining requirement to sufficiently improve the state
of  the  stocks  concerned  can  only  be  achieved  by  control  of  fishing  effort  exerted  on  these
stocks.

5.1.2.  Voluntary departure from fishing grounds

In  Norwegian  and  other  legislation,  there  is  a  requirement  for  fishermen  to  depart  from
fishing  grounds where  high  quantities  of  small  fish  are  being  caught.  The  Commission  will
consider application of the same principle in Community waters.

Any  such  legal  requirement  is,  in  practical  terms,  difficult  to  enforce  and  therefore  its
successful  application  depends  on  the  voluntary  compliance  of  fishermen.  The  Commission
has already invited its Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture to develop, before
the end of 2002, a code of conduct for responsible fishing. This could provide an appropriate
framework for the development of this concept.

Proposed action: The Commission will ask the Advisory Committee to include this point in
its code of conduct.

5.1.3.  Making better use of low-value fish

Since a certain quantity of currently low-value species are inevitably caught, increasing their
commercial value can reduce discards. Some interesting examples already exist. Community
tuna purse-seiners land,  free of charge, non-tuna catches  in  developing  countries  where  this
fish is used for direct human consumption. In  Spain,  rather  than  being  discarded,  low  value
species obtained from local trawling are used as feed for farming octopus.

7

Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  establishing  measures  for  the  recovery  of  cod  and  hake  stocks
COM(2001)734  final;  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  the  conservation  and  sustainable
exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, COM(2002)185 final

9

                                                
Furthermore, fish discarded by some fleets due to the lack of local demand would be highly
acceptable  in  other  markets.  For  example,  sardines  are  routinely  discarded  by  Italian
fishermen targeting anchovy but would be welcomed in Spanish markets .

Action  by  the  Commission:  By  March  2003,  the  Commission  will  initiate  a  study  on  the
potential  use  of  discarded  fish  for  direct  or  indirect  human  consumption,  together  with
possible consequences for the conservation of the fish species concerned.

5.1.4.  Reduction of TAC/quota-related discards

Some possibilities exist to reduce discarding due to exhausted quotas. These include: 

–  establishing  in  appropriate  cases  by-catch  quotas,  against  which  Member  States  with  no
quota for the species concerned but with fishing rights for other species in the same  area
can land limited quantities of fish which would otherwise have to be discarded;

–  consulting Member  States to determine  whether  national  quota  allocation  systems  within

each Member State can be made more flexible to avoid discards;

–  periodically  revising  quota  allocation  keys  to  take  greater  account  of  recent  fisheries
practice,  by  incorporating  a  dynamic  allocation  process  whereby  the  allocation  key  is
adjusted to take account of recent uptake of quotas rather than being fixed;

–  implementing  a  system  whereby  fishing  effort  is  the  main  element  in  controlling  fishing

pressure, with TAC’s and quotas assuming a less important role over time;

–  multi-species TAC’s: in principle, it is possible to set catch limits for a group of different

species taken in mixed fisheries, rather than individual TAC’s for each species.

Some  of  these  possibilities  are  more  politically  sensitive  than  others  and  several  have
drawbacks. For example, the creation of by-catch quotas can lead to deliberate fishing of the
by-catch quota by some fishing vessels; it would in any case be necessary to ensure that the
quantities  of  by-catch  permitted  to  be  retained  remains  small  for  any  single  fishing  trip.
Similarly,  while  multi-species  TAC’s  appear  attractive  at  first  sight,  they  would  not
necessarily  prevent  fishermen  from  continuing  to  discard  lower-value  species  (such  as
whiting)  and  retaining  higher-value  ones  (such  as  cod  or  haddock).  Nevertheless  the
Commission  considers  that  measures  to  reduce  discarding  necessarily  involve  consideration
of a change of approach in respect of setting catch limits.

Proposed action : Before June 2003, the Commission will consult with Member States on the
practicability and desirability of enacting some combination of these proposals.

5.1.5.  Pilot projects to reduce discards in fishing operations

One way of stimulating change of fishing tactics would be for the Community to  encourage
and to monitor innovative fishing practices designed to reduce discarding. For  example, the
Commission could offer a financial incentive for fishing voyages, with scientific observers on
board,  where  fishermen  would  be  at  liberty  to  engage  in  any  fishing  activity  which  they
believe would significantly reduce discards while maintaining an  economically viable  catch,
even  if  such  fishing  activity  was  not  in  conformity  with  the  requirements  of  current
legislation.

10

The  Commission  will  also  offer  financial  incentives  for  participation  by  fishermen  in  pilot
projects involving scientific observers to  commence in 2003, in which all potential discards
will be returned to shore.

Action by the Commission: During 2003,  following  consultation with the fishing  industry,
the Commission will establish pilot projects of the type indicated.

5.1.6.  Monitoring discard levels

Proposed  action  :  Acting  within  the  framework  of  Council  Regulation  1543/20008  and
Commission Regulation 1639/20019, the Commission will continue to support the collection
of  data  concerning  discards,  particularly  in  those  fisheries  which  are  not  covered  or  are
inadequately covered at present.

5.2. 

Improving technical measures

Technical measures are established mainly to protect juvenile fish. These measures cover four
major aspects:

–  Structure of nets

–  Minimum landing sizes

–  Species composition to be taken with nets of defined mesh size

–  Closed or controlled areas and/or seasons.

5.2.1. 

- Structure of nets

The  use  of  fishing  gears  constructed  in  such  a  way  that  unwanted  fish  are  not  retained  (or
their retention is reduced) will automatically diminish discarding. The Community must take
steps  to  improve  the  selectivity  of  fishing  gear  beyond  the  significant  changes  introduced
recently under emergency measures to protect cod and hake.

The  possibility  of  improving  the  structure  of  nets  depends  upon  the  type  of  net.  These
possibilities are discussed below.

Towed demersal nets 

Recent  changes  in  technical  measures  as  a  part  of  the  cod  and  hake  recovery  plans
considerably improved selectivity, particularly for towed demersal nets . They include general
increases  in  mesh  size,  incorporation  into  towed  nets  of  square-mesh  panels  and  panels  of
diamond  mesh  of  large  mesh  size,  definition  of  maximum  thickness  of  twine  from  which
netting  materials are made and definition  of  the  shape  of  meshes  permitted  to  be  used.  The
Commission  will  therefore  soon  bring  forward  a  proposal  for  a  revised  text  of  the  Council
Regulation concerning technical measures for the north-east Atlantic which incorporates all of
the recently-adopted innovations.

8

9

Council  Regulation  (EC)  n°  1543/2000  establishing  a  Community  framework  for  the  collection  and
management of the data needed to conduct the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 176, 15.7.2000
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  n°  1639/2001  establishing  the  minimum  and  extended  Community
programmes  for  the  collection  of  data  in  the  fisheries  sector  and  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the
application of Council Regulation (EC) n° 1543/2000

11

                                                
These  improvements  are  not,  however,  all  consistent  with  the  most  up-to-date  scientific
advice and further increases in mesh sizes to improve selectivity have to be foreseen. 

There is room for improvement in the short term in some areas, by introducing higher mesh
sizes in some fisheries, such as the mixed fishery using towed nets of 80mm mesh size in the
southern  North  Sea,  and  by  further  developing  separator  trawls  or  similar  devices  in  other
fisheries.

In  the  medium  term,  although  it  is  still  too  early  to  assess  the  effects  of  recently  adopted
general  increases  in  mesh  sizes  in  relation  to  cod  and  hake  recovery,  the  Commission
considers  it  likely  that  a  further  general  increase  in  mesh  size  will  be  necessary.  It  will
therefore review the situation in 2004 and make appropriate proposals.

Proposed action: The Commission will explore how to improve selectivity and, in particular,
encourage trials of more selective gears. The Commission will also  in  the first half of  2003
review existing research findings on alternative fishing gear. 

The Commission will encourage further research into selectivity of fishing gears as a priority
under  the  6th  Framework  Programme  for  Community  research  and  will  consider  proposing
amendments  of  Community  legislation  as  soon  as  the  results  of  these  research  activities
become available. 

The  Commission  will  report  during  2004  on  the  impact  of  existing  technical  measures  and
will consider the need for a further increase in mesh sizes for demersal fisheries at that time.

Static nets

If properly used, such gears are highly selective and produce few discards. It might, therefore,
be desirable to encourage more widespread use of static nets, provided that they are equipped
with proper devices to prevent bycatch of cetaceans and seabirds.

However, static gears are not without potential  problems.  If they are left unattended for  too
long,  fish  retained  in  them  are  attacked  by  scavengers  or  are  otherwise  damaged  and  are
subsequently discarded. Lost static nets may continue fishing even though unattended (ghost
fishing).

Existing  Community  measures  on  static  nets  must  be  reviewed.  Even  if  static  gears  are,  in
general,  more  selective  than  towed  gears,  it  will  nevertheless  be  necessary  to  limit  and,  in
some  cases,  reduce  fishing  effort  from  this  source  as  part  of  a  general  contribution  to  the
recovery of depleted fish stocks. Some progress has been made recently with respect to static
gears  in  the  Baltic  where  the  International  Baltic  Sea  Fisheries  Commission  and  hence  the
Community have agreed upon limitation of immersion time and physical dimensions of such
gears.  In  the  Mediterranean,  similar  conditions  have,  in  some  cases,  been  put  in  place  by
national legislation. However, it may be desirable to initiate further improvement in the Baltic
and to bring similar conditions into Community legislation for the Mediterranean.

Proposed  action:  As  part  of  the  forthcoming  proposal  for  a  revision  of  the  Community’s
technical measures for the north-east Atlantic, the use of static nets of mesh size less than 100
or  120mm  will  be  reviewed.  The  Commission  will  propose  prohibition  of  static  nets  of
smaller mesh sizes except in restricted time periods and limited geographical areas. 

This  process  will  also  be  extended  progressively  and  where  desirable  or  appropriate  to
technical measures in the Baltic and in the Mediterranean.

12

The Commission will propose to limit the maximum physical dimensions of static nets. 

The Commission will also consult with the fishing industry and national authorities on means
of limiting the immersion time of static gears.

Other fishing gears

Modifying  the  structure  of  some  fishing  gears  such  as  purse  seines  is  unlikely,  per  se,  to
improve selectivity. Similar  considerations  apply  to  pelagic  trawls  except,  perhaps,  in  some
specialised  fisheries.  Greater  possibilities  for  reduction  of  catches  by  these  gears  of  small,
subsequently discarded fish appear to lie in implementing conditions to control seasons and/or
geographical  areas  where  such  gears  may  be  deployed  and  of  encouraging  within  codes  of
conduct improved methods of deployment of these gears.

Greater  possibilities  of  improving  selectivity  may  exist  with  respect  to  dredges,  lines  and
traps..

Proposed  action:  The  Commission  will  organise  meetings  in  the  first  half  of  2003  with
scientists and industry to discuss  and  define possibilities  and will follow up  with legislative
proposals as appropriate.

5.2.2.  Minimum landing sizes

Minimum landing sizes are an important line of defence against the capture of small fish and
many parties advocate retaining the current minimum sizes or even increasing them.

Scientific sampling programmes tell us, however, that undersized fish constitute the majority
of  discards.  Regulations  fixing  minimum  sizes  for  fish  can  therefore  significantly  influence
the volume of discards.

The  Commission  considers  that,  in  principle,  either  minimum  landing  sizes  should  be
established in the light of a pre-decided selectivity of fishing gears or the selectivity of fishing
gears  should  be  adjusted  in  the  light  of  pre-decided  minimum  landing  sizes.  In  either  case,
minimum landing sizes and selectivity must be concordant. 

Current  minimum  landing  sizes  are  in  many  cases  not  consistent  with  the  selectivity  of  the
gears  used  to  catch  the  fish,  even  after  the  improvements  in  selectivity  which  are  expected
from the recent changes in technical measures. The fishing gears still retain fish smaller than
the  minimum  landing  sizes.  If  the  Community  does  not  further  improve  selectivity  from  its
present levels keeping the current minimum sizes will continue to lead to discarding, in some
cases on a large scale. Only a greater consistency between minimum landing sizes and mesh
sizes, i.e. a reduction of minimum landing sizes, can reduce discards for this reason.

Proposed  action:  The  Commission  will  propose  appropriate  changes  in  minimum  landing
sizes  in  association  with  any  future  proposals  for  the  improvement  of  selectivity  of  fishing
gears.

5.2.3.  Revising the rules associated with the use of specified mesh sizes

For each range of mesh size permitted for use in a given geographical area, the Community’s
technical measures fix a minimum percentage of target species (or a maximum percentage of
non-target  species)  which  may  be  retained  on  board  having  been  caught  with  the  specified
mesh size. Some of these “catch composition” conditions lead to obligatory discarding.

13

These  conditions  must  be  reconsidered,  while  recalling  that  removal  or  dilution  of  such
conditions  opens  the  possibility  that  fish  which  can  potentially  grow  to  large  size  could
increasingly become the targets of small mesh sizes.

Proposed action: These conditions will be re-examined in parallel with the adoption by the
Council of the proposed Council Regulation for technical measures.

5.2.4.  Closed or controlled areas

Preventing  fishing  in  areas  with  a  high  concentration  of  juvenile  fish  can  help  to  reduce
discards.

Closed  or  controlled  areas  for  the  protection  of  juvenile  fish  are  already  in  place  under
Community legislation. The Commission considers that other areas should be added if there is
a biological reason for doing so. In addition, most closed areas are not fully closed since there
are  often  derogations  which  allow  certain  types  of  fishing  which  are  likely  to  catch  the
juveniles that should be protected.

Proposed action: Before June 2003, the Commission will carry out a critical examination of
derogations  on  access  to  closed  areas  and  will  also  consider  establishment  of  additional  or
augmented closed areas.

5.2.5.  Real time closures

A real-time closure to fishing within a defined area for a limited time period must be enacted
when dense concentrations of juvenile fish occur unpredictably.

The Commission has proposed to provide for real-time closures in the Community legislation
for the recovery of cod and hake stocks.

Proposed  action:  The  Council  is  urged  to  decide  on  the  Commission  proposal  for  a
regulation  establishing  recovery  measures  for  cod  and  hake,  which  includes  provisions  on
real-time closures. Once the regulation has entered into force, the  Commission will monitor
the application and effectiveness of such measures.

5.3. 

Institution of a discard ban

Norway  has  implemented a legal prohibition  of discarding.  It  has  often  been  suggested  that
the Community might introduce a similar ban or a ban on discarding fish above legal landing
size  [OK]The  Commission  believes  that  these  options  should  be  seriously  considered  as  a
medium-term  objective  and  that  a  Community-level  work  programme  should  be  started  to
examine the practical implications of such a measure.

While a discard ban might be attractive at first sight not least as it conveys a clear signal to
change fishing practice to avoid large catches of small fish, it poses a number of problems and
questions  which  would  need  to  be  addressed  if  such  a  system  were  to  be  effectively
implemented.

–  The existence of a discard ban  enshrined in law may simply hide the fact that discarding
continues  largely  unaffected.  Such  a  ban  is  very  difficult  to  enforce.  No  fisherman  will
discard fish in the presence of an on-board observer or if an  enforcement vessel is in the
vicinity of the fishing vessel but fish may be discarded at other times.

14

–  A discard ban  only  prevents fish from being thrown back in the sea.  A  potential  benefit,
however,  is  that  the  small  fish  caught  are  accessible  to  scientific  monitoring  which
improves knowledge about mortality rates, particularly of young fish.

–  If compliance with a discard ban is assumed such that all potential discards are returned to
land, there will be large quantities of such fish landed. The problem then arises of what to
do with these fish. Most of them will be undersized individuals. Community legislation on
minimum landings sizes would have to be changed if the fish is to be landed or sold. Such
landings  might  be  allowed  for  sale  for  human  consumption.  Fish  that  is  not  suitable  for
human consumption might be permitted to be sold to fishmeal plants for the production of
fish meal and oil. Such plants are, however, rare in some Member States.

–  In the discard ban currently implemented by Norway, the landings of potential discards are
deducted from quotas for the respective species. The same procedure might be applied by
the  Community.  However,  the  quantities  referred  to  as  Total  Allowable  Catches  are,  in
most  cases,  Total  Allowable  Landings  in  which  no  account  is  taken  of  discards.  Before
establishing a discard ban it would be necessary to establish a true Total Allowable Catch
(including  discards)  against  which  discards  would  be  counted.  To  do  this,  it  would  be
necessary  to  predict  potential  discards  on  a  scientific  basis.  While  this  is  possible  in
principle, the necessary data do not exist except for the few instances mentioned in Section
2.1, based on estimates of discarding by the total international fleet.

The  recently  introduced  improvements  of  technical  measures  and  additional  measures  to  be
introduced over the next three  years will, presumably, bring about a  reduction in  catches of
unwanted or undersized fish and this should alleviate at least some of the problems indicated
above.  Nevertheless,  the  Commission  believes  that,  while  the  scale  of  catches  of  juveniles
may be reduced in coming years, it will be necessary to explore the problems indicated above
before moving to a full-scale discard ban.

This  can  be  achieved  by  detailed  discussion  with  Member  States  and  industry  and  by
establishing pilot projects in which fishermen engage to return all potential discards to shore.

The Commission will also consult with Norway about the practical operation of their system.

Action by the Commission: During 2003, the Commission will consult with Member States
and with the fishing industry to examine ways of reducing the problems indicated  above, in
anticipation  of  a  Community  ban  on  discards  which  the  Commission  might  consider  to
propose  in  2005  for  implementation  from  2006.  The  Commission  will  also  consult  with
Norway about the practical operation of the Norwegian system.

15

6. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

There  is  a  range  of  action  that  could  be  adopted  in  reducing  bycatch  and  discards.  For  any
given fishery or method of fishing a particular combination of actions may be necessary, but
not all actions will be applicable to all fisheries. The Commission envisages that for all major
fisheries or methods of fishing where discards are known or perceived to be a problem actions
needs  to  be  developed,  probably  within  forthcoming  multi-annual  management  processes.
These  actions  should  be  developed  in  close  co-operation  with  the  industry  and  relevant
stakeholders and also within the proposed framework of Regional Advisory Committees. 

These plans could include: 

–  development of a  requirement for voluntary  departure  from  fishing  grounds  when  and/or

where large quantities of discards are being generated;

–  development of conditions to increase the commercial value of fish of currently low value

–  adoption of measures intended to reduce discarding incited by TAC/quota restrictions

–  development  of  pilot  projects  to  investigate  innovative  fishing  practices  which  avoid  or

reduce discarding

–  support for continuation of collection of data on quantities of fish discarded

–  developed of improved technical measures including :

–  adoption of measures to ensure improved structure of fishing gears

–  review of minimum landing sizes

–  review of conditions defining species composition of catches to be taken with nets

of specified mesh size

–  review and or augmentation of closed or controlled areas and/or seasons including

real-time closures

–  consideration  of  the  institution  of  a  discard  ban  following  the  consultation  process

indicated in Section 5.2.2.

The problem  of  discards,  particularly  in  mixed  fisheries,  is  a  long-standing  one  and  will  be
difficult  to  resolve.  Although  different  models  exist  inside  and  outside  the  Community  no
satisfactory  solution  has  yet  been  found.  The  Community  must  nevertheless  take  up  this
challenge, as part of its efforts to  achieve  sustainable  fisheries  in  Europe.  We can  and must
improve the present situation. 

By  this  Communication,  the  Commission  invites  Member  States,  fisheries  scientists  and
industry to join it in a collaborative effort to reduce discards.

16

ANNEX I: Estimates of total international discards

Estimates  of  the  total  international  quantities  of  fish  discarded  exist  only  for  haddock  and
whiting  in  the  North  Sea  and  to  the  west  of  Scotland  and  for  the  western  cod  stock  in  the
Baltic.

Haddock

North Sea 

The  estimated  absolute  quantities  in  weight  discarded  have  decreased  since  1975.  In  the
period  1976  –  1998,  between  50,000  and  100,000  tonnes  were  discarded  each  year.  These
quantities represented between 20% and 50% by weight and 20% and 60% by number of the
total  catch.  Since  1981,  there  has  been  a  tendency  for  the  percentage  discarded,  both  by
weight  and  by  number,  to  increase.  The  average  weight  of  individuals  discarded  has
fluctuated  between  150  and  220g  since  1963  whereas  the  average  weight  landed  has
fluctuated between 380 and 550g.

West of Scotland

Since 1978, between 5,000 and 20,000 tonnes were discarded each year, representing between
10% and 20% by weight and 30% and 80% by number of the total international catch. During
this period, the average weight of individuals discarded has fluctuated between 150 and 210g
and the average weight landed has fluctuated between 480 and 650g.

Whiting

North Sea 

Between 1960 and 1987, the weight discarded fluctuated between 50,000 and 100,000 tonnes
per year. In more recent years, 50,000 tonnes or less per year were discarded. The percentage
by  weight  landed  has  increased  from  20%  in  1962  and  in  the  period  1995  to  2000  has
fluctuated between 50% and 63%. Since 1960, the average weight of an individual discarded
has fluctuated between 150 and 220g while the average weight landed has fluctuated between
250 and 350g.

West of Scotland 

Between 1978 and 1999, the weight discarded fluctuated between 25,000 and 12,000 tonnes.
The percentage by weight has increased  from 15%  in 1979  to more than 60%  in 1999. The
numbers discarded have often exceeded those landed and the percentage discarded by number
has  increased  from  20%  in  1979  to  more  than  80%  in  1999.  The  average  weight  of  an
individual  discarded  has  varied  between  100  and  190g  while  the  average  weight  of  an
individual landed has fluctuated between 280 and 320g.

Cod

Western Baltic 

Since  1996,  a  maximum  of  5000  tonnes  was  discarded  each  year.  In  the  same  period,  the
percentage discarded by weight was, in 1998, slightly greater than 10% while the percentage
discarded by number fluctuated between 20% and 32%. The average weight of an individual
discarded fluctuated between 180 and 220g.

17

The following  figures  summarise  recent  trends  in  the  proportion  of  fish  by  number  that  are
discarded from the above-mentioned stocks, and of the average weights of individual fish that
are discarded or retained.

North Sea Haddock. Mean weight

1963

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

Total

Discard

Industrial

Human consumption

North Sea Whiting. Mean weight

North Sea Haddock. 
Relative catch composition by number

1963

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

Discard

Industrial

Human consumption

North Sea Whiting
Relative catch composition by number

80%

70%

60%

50%

%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

90%

80%
70%

60%

50%
40%

30%

20%
10%

0%

0.6

0.5

0.4

g
k

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Human consumption

Discard

Industrial

Total

Human consumption

Discard

Industrial

VIa Haddock. 
Relative catch composition by numbers

%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

VIa Haddock. Mean weight

kg

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

Discard

Human consumption

Total

Discard

Human consumption

%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

VIa Whiting. 
Relative catch composition by numbers

VIa Whiting. Mean weight

g
k

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

Discard

Human consumption

Total

Discard

Human consumption

Western Baltic cod. 
Relative catch composition by numbers

Western Baltic cod. Mean weight

1.2

1

0.8

g
k

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Discard

Human consumption

Total

Discard

Human consumption

18

ANNEX II: Discards of fleets or sectors of fleets

North Atlantic

The  information  presented  by  the  ICES  study  group  on  discards  referred  to  in  Section  2.2
confirms that the majority of fish discarded are small individuals and are predominantly less
than their respective minimum landing sizes.

Information is provided for the species indicated in the following list. The average length of
fish discarded and, in most cases, estimates of the percentage of the total catch of each species
discarded by weight and by number are also available.

Species

Angler

Cod

Haddock

Hake

Megrim

Plaice

Saithe

Sole

Whiting

Average Length (cm)

Percentage discarded

of fish discarded

by weight

by number

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

19

20

11

18

17

19

22

20

17

24

38

33

26

30

29

46

24

30

1

1

3

3

-

100

1

4

13

13

44

10

12

-

100

77

25

100

-

3

9

11

-

100

5

16

36

-

97

99

35

-

100**

-***

28

100

**Only 2 samples give information on percentages by weight and number.

***Only one sample gives information on percentage by number.

Mediterranean Sea

Mediterranean fisheries are characterised as being typically multi-species and multi-gear. The
number of marketed species is very high.

Trawl fisheries

Estimates of the percentage of the total biomass caught and subsequently discarded by several
trawl fleets of the Mediterranean vary between 15% and 70%.

The percentage of total biomass discarded by trawlers depends on the depth at which trawling
takes place. The percentage of discards of biomass caught by trawlers fishing at depths of less
than 150m ranges from a minimum of 20% to a maximum of 70%. At depths between 150m

19

and 350m, between 20 and 60% of biomass is discarded while at depths in excess of 350m,
discarding lies between 20 and 40%.

Artisanal fisheries

One of the major artisanal fisheries is carried out by static gill nets for which the main target
species is common sole (Solea vulgaris) together with rays (Raja asterias), gurnards (Trigla
lucerna)  and  crustaceans  (Squilla  mantis).  Approximately  8-9%  of  the  total  catch  of  all
biomass is discarded.

Gill  nets  are  also  employed  to  catch  large  specimens  of  European  hake  (Merluccius
merluccius)  and  approximately  6  to  8%  of  the  total  catch  of  biomass  is  represented  by  this
species.

Another important fishing method is the trammel net with cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) as the
main  target  species.  Quantities  discarded  vary  between  16  and  35%  and  consist
predominantly of damaged specimens of commercial species. The majority of discards in this
fishery consist of horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) 

Small pelagic fisheries

The fishing gears deployed are pelagic pair trawls and purse seines with fish attracted to them
by  light.  The  catch  is  comprised  mostly  of  anchovy  (Engraulis  encrasicolus)  and  sardines
(Sardina pilchardus) which often occur in mixed shoals.

Discards  occur  of  up  to  80%,  especially  when  large  catches  of  sardine  are  taken  in  the
anchovy fishery.

20

ANNEX III: Timetable for actions

2002

Rules  associated  with  use  of  specified  mesh  sizes:  Possibly  modify  to  be  changed  (after
consulting ms)when discussing the new Technical Measures Regulation.

Voluntary departure from fishing grounds: Inclusion in Code of Conduct to be developed
by the Commission’s Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

2003

Better use of low-value fish : Initiate study on potential use.

Towed demersal nets: Review of existing knowledge on selectivity, meeting(s) with industry
and scientists, perhaps initiation of trials of more selective gears.

Static nets : Proposal  on permitted mesh  sizes, geographical  areas  for use  of  such nets and
physical  dimensions  of  nets.  Discussion  with  industry  concerning  limitation  of  immersion
time.

Other  fishing  gears:  Meeting(s)  with  industry  and  scientists.  Follow  up  with  legislative
proposals and/or trials of more selective gears.

Augmentation  of  closed  or  controlled  areas:  Critical  examination  of  derogation  and
consideration of additional and/or augmented closed areas.

TAC/quota-induced discards: Consultations with Member States on adjustments to existing
rules in order to minimise effects of discards.

Pilot  projects  on  reduction  of  discards:  Initiate  following  discussion  with  industry,
scientists and Member States.

Collection  of  data  on  discards  :  To  be  encouraged  in  implementation  of  national
programmes under Council Regulation 1543/2000 and Commission Regulation 1639/2001.

Implications of a discard ban : Consultations with Member States and the fishing industry
to try to reduce potential problems arising from a discard ban.

2004

Report on the impact of general mesh size increases implemented in 2001 as part of cod and
hake emergency measures. Possible proposals for further general increase, within effect from
2005.

2005

Possible proposal for a legal ban on discarding from 2006.

Other possible actions after 2003

Real time closures: More widespread application.

Amendment  of  minimum  landing  sizes:  Possibly  in  conjunction  with  2004  proposals  for
further mesh size increases.

21