Synthesis of the landing obligation measures and discard rates.
Date: 2021-08-18
Institutions: European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency
Subjects: discarded fish, fish, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing controls, fishing grounds, fishing regulations, law of obligations, quantity of fish landed, report

ANNEX 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EXEMPTIONS 

Table A1 Pelagic fisheries 

Species 

Mackerel  
(Scomber scombrus) 

Herring 

(Clupea harengus) 

Mackerel  
(Scomber scombrus) 

Horse mackerel  
(Trachurus ssp.)  

Herring  
(Clupea harengus) 

Blue whiting  
(Micromesistius poutassou) 

Albacore tuna 
(Thunnus alalunga) 

Gear 
Class 

Period of 
exemption 

Delegated 
Act 

Gear 

code 

ICES 

area 

High survivability 

2015-2020 

EU2014_1395
EU2014_1393 

EU2018_0189 
EU2018_0190 

3a, 4, 5b, 
6, 7 

PS 

Purse 
Seine 

2019-2020 

EU2018_0190  GND 

7e-f 

2015-2020 

EU2014_1395
EU2014_1393 

EU2018_0189 
EU2018_0190 

PS 

3a, 4, 5b, 
6, 7 

2019-2020 

EU2018_0190  GND 

7e-f 

De minimis 

2015-2019 

EU2014_1395
EU2014_1393 
EU2018_0189 
EU2018_0190  OTM 

4b, 4c, 7d 

2020 

EU2018_0189 
EU2018_0190 

4b, 4c, 6 

2015-2019 

EU2014_1395
EU2014_1393 
EU2018_0189 
EU2018_0190  OTM 

4b, 4c, 7d 

4b, 4c, 6 

4b, 4c, 7d 
4b, 4d, 7d 

4b, 4c, 6, 
7 

3a, 4 

7 
5b, 6, 7 

EU2018_0189 
EU2018_0190 

EU2014_1395
EU2014_1393 
EU2018_0189 
EU2018_0190 
EU2018_0189 
EU2018_0190 

EU2014_1395 
EU2018_0189 
EU2014_1393 
EU2018_0190 

OTM 

OTM 
PTM 

EU2014_1393 
EU2018_0190 

OTM 
PTM 

7 

Pelagic 
trawl 

2020 

2015-2019 

2020 

2015-2020 

2015-2017 
2018-2020 

2015-2017 
2018-2020 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Boarfish 
(Capros aper) 

Whiting  
(Merlangius  
Merlangus) 

2015-2016 

EU2014_1393  OTM 

6, 7 

2015-2020 

EU2014_1395 
EU2018_0189 

OTM 
PTM 

4 

2018-2019 

EU2018_0190  OTM 

7d 

2019 
2020 
2021 

EU2018_0190 
EU2018_2034 
EU2019_2239 

OTM 
PTM 

6, 7, 7b-k 

Anchovy (Engraulis 
encrasicolus), mackerel 
(Scomber scombrus), jack 
mackerel and horse 
mackerel (Trachurus spp.) 

Purse 
seine 

High survivability 

2015_2020 

EU2014/1394 

PS 

8, 9, 10, 
CECAF 
34.1.1., 
34.1.2. 
and 34.2 

Herring (Clupea harengus) 

2015_2020 

Mackerel (Scomber 
scombrus) 

2015_2017 

EU2018/0188 
EU2014/1393 
EU2018/0190 
EU2014/1393 

PS 

5b, 6, 7 

PS 

5b, 6, 7 

Herring (Clupea harengus) 
Mackerel (Scomber 
scombrus) 

Gillnet 

2018_2020 
2019_2020 
2019_2020 

PS 
EU2018/0190 
EU2018/0190  GND 
EU2018/0190  GND 

5b, 6, 7 
7e-f 
7e-f 

Anchovy (Engraulis 
encrasicolus) 

Purse 
seine 

De minimis 
2015-2017 

EU2014/1394 

PS, 
OTM 

Mackerel (Scomber 
scombrus) and horse 
mackerel (Trachurus spp.) 

2015-2020 

EU2014/1394 
EU2018/0188 

PS 

Albacore tuna (Thunnus 
alalunga) 

Pelagic 
trawl 

2015-2020 

PTM 

EU2014/1393 
EU2014/1394 
EU2018/0190 
EU2018/0188 

8, 9, 10, 
CECAF 
34.1.1., 
34.1.1. 
and 34.2 
8, 9, 10, 
CECAF 
34.1.1., 
34.1.1. 
and 34.2 
7, 8 

Anchovy (Engraulis 
encrasicolus), mackerel 
(Scomber scombrus) and 
horse mackerel (Trachurus 
spp.) 

2018-2020 

EU2018/0188  OTM 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
Blue whiting 
(Micromesistius poutassou) 

2015-2017 

5b, 6, 7, 8 

OTM, 
PTM 

EU2014/1393 
EU2014/1394 
EU2018/0190 
EU2018/0188 

Boarfish (Capros aper) 
Mackerel (Scomber 
scombrus), horse mackerel 
(Trachurus ssp.) and herring 
(Clupea harengus) 

2015-2016 
2015-2016 

EU2014/1393  OTM 
EU2014/1393  OTM 

6, 7 
7d 

Whiting (Merlangius 
merlangus) 

Anchovy (Engraulis 
encrasicolus) 

Bottom 
trawling 

2018-2020 
2019-2021 

2019-2020 

Blue whiting 
(Micromesistius poutassou) 

2018-2020 

Boarfish (Capros aper) 

2019-2020 

6, 7d 
7b-7k 

8, 9 

8c, 9a 

7b-c, 7f-k, 
8, 9 

EU2018/0190  OTM 
OTM, 
EU2018/2034 
PTM 
EU2019/2239 

EU2018/2033 
EU2019/2239 

OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TBB, 
OT, 
PT, 
TX, 
SSC, 
SPR, 
SDN, 
SX, SV 
EU2018/0044  OTT, 
OTB, 
PTB, 
OT, 
PT, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TX, 
SSC, 
SPR, 
TB, 
SDN, 
SX, SV 
OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TBB, 
OT, 
PT, 
TX, 
SSC, 
SPR, 

EU2018/2033 
EU2019/2239 

  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
Mackerel (Scomber 
scombrus) 

2019-2020 

Whiting (Merlangius 
merlangus) 

2016-2021 

Horse mackerel (Trachurus 
spp.) 

2019-2020 

Nets 

2019-2020 

SDN, 
SX, SV 

EU2018/2034 
EU2018/2033 
EU2019/2239 

EU2015/2438 
EU2018/2034 
EU2018/0046 
EU2018/2033 
EU2019/2239 

OTB, 
OTT, 
OT, 
PTB, 
PT, 
SSC, 
SDN 
SPR, 
SX, 
SV, 
TBB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, TX 
OTB, 
OTT, 
OT, 
PTB, 
PT, 
SSC, 
SDN, 
SPR, 
SX, 
SV, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, 
TX, 
BT2 
OTB, 
OTT, 
OT, 
PTB, 
PT, 
SSC, 
SDN 
SPR, 
SX, 
SV, 
TBB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, TX 
EU2018/2033  GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTR, 
GTN 

EU2018/2034 
EU2019/2239 
EU2018/2033 

6, 7b-7k, 
8, 9 

7b-7k, 8, 
9 

6, 7b-7k, 
8, 9 

8, 9, 10, 
CECAF 
34.1.1., 
34.1.2. 
and 34.2 

  
 
  
  
Mackerel (Scomber 
scombrus) 

Nets 

2019 

2020 

Whiting (Merlangius 
merlangus) 

Nets 

2019 

2020 

8, 9, 10, 
CECAF 
34.1.1., 
34.1.2. 
and 34.2 
8, 9, 10, 
CECAF 
34.1.1., 
34.1.2. 
and 34.2 
8, 9 

8, 9 

EU2018/2033  GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTR, 
GTN 
EU2019/2239  GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTR, 
GTN 
EU2018/2033  GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTR, 
GTN 
EU2019/2239  GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTR, 
GTN 

  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Table A2. Demersal fisheries 

Species 

Gear 

Class 

Period of 
exemption 

Delegated 
Act 

Gear 

ICES 

code 

area 

High survivability 

2016-2018 

EU2015_2440 
EU2016_2250 

FPO 

3a, 4 

EU2018_0045 

Norway lobster (Nephrops 
norvegicus) 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 
EU2019_2238 

FPO, 
FYK 

2a, 3a, 4 

EU2018_2035 

2a, 3a, 4 

2020-2021 

OTB, 
OTT, 
TBN 

OTB, 
TBN 

EU2015_2440 

EU2016_2250 

EU2018_0045 

2016-2019 

EU2018_2035 

EU2018_0045 

EU2018_2035 

OTB, 
TBN 

EU2018_2035 

OTB, 
TBN 

2018-2019 

2019 

3ª 

4 

2ª 

Cod (Gadus morhua) 

EU2018_0306 

2015-2021 

EU2014_1396 

3b,3c,3d 

FPO, 
FYK, 
FPN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Common Sole (Solea solea) 

2018-2021 

EU2018_0045 

3a, 4 

FPO, 
FYK 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

2016 

EU2015_2440 
EU2018_0190 

OTB, 
TBN 

3ª 

2017-2021 

2018-2021 

EU2018_0045 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

FPO,F
YK 

3ª, 4 

2017-2021 

EU2016_2250 

EU2018_0045 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

OTB 

4c 

Haddock (Melanogrammus 
aeglefinus) 

2018-2021 

EU2018_0045 

Hake (Merluccius  
merluccius) 

North Deepwater Prawn 
(Pandalus borealis) 

Plaice (Pleuronectes 
platessa) 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

2018-2021 

EU2018_0045 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

2018-2020 

EU2018_0306 

FPO,F
YK 

FPO,F
YK 

FPO,F
YK 

FPO, 
FYK, 
FPN 

3a, 4 

3a, 4 

3a, 4 

3b,3c,3d 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2018-2021 

EU2018_0045 

FPO,F
YK 

3a, 4 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 

2a, 4 

BT2 

EU2019_2238 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

Saithe (Pollachius virens) 

2018-2021 

EU2018_0045 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

Salmon (Salmo salar) 

2015-2020 

EU2014_1396 

EU2018_0211 

Skates and rays 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 

GNS, 
GTR, 
GTN, 
GEN, 
OTB, 
PTB, 
SDN 

FPO,F
YK 

FPO, 
FYK, 
FPN 

3a, 4 

3a, 4 

3b,3c,3d 

Turbot (Scophtalmus 
maximus) 

Whiting (Merlangius 
merlangus) 

2020-2021 

2020 

EU2019_2238 

EU2019_2238 

EU2019_2238 

2018-2021 

EU2018_0045 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

All 

2a, 3a, 4 

FPO, 
FYK 

TBB 

FPO, 
FYK 

3a, 4 

4 

3a, 4 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Norway lobster (Nephrops 
norvegicus) 

De minimis 

2016-2018 

EU2015_2440 

EU2016_2550 

EU2018_0045 

2a, 4 

OTB, 
TBN, 
OTT, 
TB 

TBN, 
TB 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

4b, 4c 

Cod (Gadus morhua) 

2018-2019 

EU2018_0045 

2018-2021 

EU2018_0045 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

OTB, 
TBN 

3ª 

OTB, 
OTT, 
SDN, 
SSC 

4c 

(4 in 
2019) 

2020-2021 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2238 

OTB, 
OTT, 
TBN 

3ª 

2020-2021 

EU2019_2238 

TBN, 
TB 

4b, 4c 

2016-2021 

EU2015_2440 

EU2016_2550 

EU2018_0045 

EU2019_2338 

2a, 3a, 4 

GN, 
GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTN, 
GTR, 
GEN, 
GNF 

OTB, 
TBN, 
OTT(2

Common Sole (Solea solea) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016-2021 

EU2015_2440 

3ª 

020-
2021) 

EU2016_2550 

EU2018_0045
EU2019_2338 

TBB 

2016-2021 

4 

EU2015_2440 

EU2016_2550 

EU2018_0045 

EU2018_2035 

TBN 

EU2019_2338 

TB 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2338 

EU2019_2338 

2020-2021 

4b, 4c 

4b, 4c 

Haddock (Melanogrammus 
aeglefinus) 

2016 

EU2015_2440 

TBN 

3a 

EU2015_2440 

2016-2021 

OTB 

3a 

EU2016_2550 

EU2018_0045 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2338 

EU2016_2550 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2017-2021 

EU2018_0045 

OTT 

3a 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2338 

EU2018_2035 

2019 

EU2019_2338 

TBB 

4b, 4c 

2020-2021 

TBN, 
TB 

3a, 4b, 
4c 

Hake (Merluccius  
merluccius) 

2019-2021 

3a, 4b, 
4c 

EU2018_2035 
EU2019_2338 

OTB, 
TBN 

EU2019_2338 

3a 

2020-2021 

2019 

EU2018_2035 

2020-2021 

EU2019_2338 

Horse mackerel (Trachurus 
spp.) 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2338 

Ling (Molva molva) 

2019 

EU2018_2035 

OTT 

TBB 

TB 

OTT, 
PTB, 
TBB 
(TR2, 
BT2) 

OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB 

4b, 4c 

4b, 4c 

4 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mackerel (Scomber 
scombrus) 

2020-2021 

EU2019_2338 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2338 

North Deepwater Prawn 
(Pandalus borealis) 

2019 

EU2018_2035 

2020-2021 

EU2019_2338 

LLS 

OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBB 
(TR2, 
BT2) 

TBN, 
TBB 

TBN, 
TB 

4 

4b, 4c 

Plaice (Pleuronectes 
platessa) 

2018 

EU2018_0045  OTB 

3a, 4 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2338 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2338 

3ª 

4b, 4c 

OTB, 
OTT, 
BT 

TBN, 
TB 

Saithe (Pollachius virens) 

2018-2019 

EU2018_0045 

EU2018_2035 

OTN, 
TBN 

3ª 

2020-2021 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2338 

OTB, 
OTT, 
TBN 

3a 

2019-2021 

EU2018_2035 

4b, 4c 

TBN, 
TB 

EU2019_2338 

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus), 
Blue whiting 
(Micromesistius poutassou), 
Norway Pout (Trisopterus 

2020-2021 

EU2019_2338 

OTB, 
OTM, 
OTT, 
PTB, 

3a, 4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
esmarkii), Sand eel 
(Ammodytes spp.) 

PTM, 
SDN, 
SPR, 
SSC, 
TB, 
TBN 

Whiting (Merlangius 
merlangus) 

2017 

EU2016_2550 

FPO 

3ª 

2017 

EU2016_2550 

OTB 

3a 

2018-2021 

EU2018_0045 

OTB, 
TBN 

3a 

EU2018_2035 

EU2019_2338 

2020-2021 

EU2019_2338 

OTT, 
PTB 

3a 

2018 

EU2018_0045 

2019 

EU2018_2035 

4c 

4 

OTB, 
OTT, 
SDN, 
SSC,  

TBN 

OTB, 
OTT, 
SDN, 
SCC, 
TBN 

TBB, 
TBN, 

2019 

EU2018_2035 

4b, 4c 

TB 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2019 

EU2018_2035 

TB 

4 

2020-2021 

EU2019_2338 

2020 

EU2019_2338 

2021 

EU2019_2338 

OTB, 
OTT, 
SDN, 
SCC 

TBN 

OTB, 
OTT, 
SDN, 
SCC 

4b, 4c 

4 

4b, 4c 

2021 

EU2019_2338 

4c 

Table A3 

Species 

Gear 

Class 

Period of 
exemption 

Delegated 
Act 

Gear 

ICES 

code 

area 

Common sole (Solea solea) 

High survivability 

Bottom 
trawling 

2017-2019 

EU2016/2375 
EU2018/0046 
EU2019/2239 

2020_2021 

7d 

7d 

OTT, 
OTB, 
TBS, 
TBN, 
TB, 
PTB, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
OTT, 
OTB, 
TBS, 
TBN, 
TB, 
PTB, 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
Norway lobster (Nephrops 
norvegicus) 

2016-2018 

2019 

2019 

2020_2021 

2020_2021 

OT, 
PT, TX 

EU2015/2439 
EU2016/2374 
EU2018/0044 

OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, 
OT, 
PT 
and 
TX 
EU2018/2034  OTB, 
SSC, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
SDN, 
SPR, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
OTM, 
PTM, 
TB, 
SX, 
SV, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
EU2018/2033  OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, 
OT, 
PT 
and 
TX 
EU2019/2239  OTT, 
OTB, 
TBS, 
TBN, 
TB, 
PTB, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
EU2019/2239  OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, 

8, 9 

6a, 7 

8, 9 

6a, 7 

8, 9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Plaice (Pleuronectes 
platessa) 

2019 

Skates and rays 
(Rajiformes) 

2019 
2020 
2020_2021 

2020_2021 
2019 

2019 

7d-g 

7 
7 (7a-7k) 
7d-g 

7d 
6, 7 

8, 9 

OT, 
PT 
and 
TX 
EU2018/2034  OTT, 
OTB, 
TBS, 
TBN, 
TB, 
PTB, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
TBB 
EU2018/2034 
EU2019/2239 
TBB 
EU2019/2239  OTT, 
OTB, 
TBS, 
TBN, 
TB, 
PTB, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
EU2019/2239 
SDN 
EU2018/2034  OTB, 
SSC, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
SDN, 
SPR, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
OTM, 
PTM, 
TB, 
SX, 
SV, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
EU2018/2033  OTB, 
SSC, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
SDN, 
SPR, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
OTM, 
PTM, 
TB, 
SX, 
SV, 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
2020 

Red seabream (Pagellus 
bogaraveo) 

Longline
s 

2017 

2019 

2020_2021 

Plaice (Pleuronectes 
platessa) 

Nets 

2019 

2020_2021 

Skates and rays 
(Rajiformes) 

Nets 

2019 

2019 

2020 

OT, 
PT, TX 

EU2018/2033 

EU2017/2167 

EU2019/2239 

EU2019/2239  OTB, 
SSC, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
SDN, 
SPR, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
OTM, 
PTM, 
TB, 
SX, 
SV, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
LLS, 
DWS 
LLS, 
DWS 
LLS, 
DWS 
EU2018/2034  GTR, 
GTN, 
GEN, 
GN 
EU2019/2239  GTR, 
GTN, 
GEN, 
GN 
EU2018/2034  GNS, 
GN, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTN, 
GTR, 
GEN 
EU2018/2033  GNS, 
GN, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTN, 
GTR, 
GEN 
EU2019/2239  GNS, 
GN, 
GND, 
GNC, 

6, 7, 8, 9 

9 

9a 

9a 

7d-g 

7d-g 

6, 7 

8, 9 

6, 7, 8, 9 

  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
Norway lobster (Nephrops 
norvegicus) 

Traps 

2016 

EU2015/2438 

2017 

EU2016/2375 

2018 

EU2018/0046 

2019 

EU2018/2034 

2020_2021 

EU2019/2239 

GTN, 
GTR, 
GEN 
FPO, 
FIX, 
FYK 
FPO, 
FIX, 
FYK 
FPO, 
FIX, 
FYK 
FPO, 
FIX, 
FYK 
FPO, 
FIX, 
FYK 

6, 7 

6, 7 

6, 7 

6, 7 

6, 7 

De minimis 

Cod (Gadus morhua) 

Bottom 
trawling 

2019 

Common Sole (Solea solea) 

2016-2018 

EU2018/2034  OTB, 
OTT, 
OT, 
PTB, 
PT, 
SSC, 
SDN 
SPR, 
SX, 
SV, 
TBB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, TX 
TBB 

EU2015/2438 
EU2016/2375 
EU2018/0046 
EU2018/2034 

2016 

EU2015/2439 
EU2016/2374 

2019 

OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
and 
TBB 
TBB 

7b-c, 7e-k 

7d-g 

8a, 8b 

7d-h 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
2019 

2020_2021 
2020_2021 

Great forkbeard (Phycis 
blennoides) 

2019 

Greater silver smelt 
(Argentina silus) 

2020 

Haddock (Melanogrammus 
aeglefinus) 

2019 

8a, 8b 

7a, 7d-h 
8a, 8b 

9a 

5b, 6 

7b-c, 7e-k 

EU2018/2033  OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
and 
TBB 
EU2019/2239 
TBB 
EU2019/2239  OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
and 
TBB 
EU2018/2033  OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TBB, 
OT, 
PT, 
TX, 
SSC, 
SPR, 
SDN, 
SX, SV 
EU2019/2239  OTT, 
OTB, 
TBS, 
TBN, 
TB, 
PTB, 
OT, 
PT, TX 
EU2018/2034  OTB, 
OTT, 
OT, 
PTB, 
PT, 
SSC, 
SDN 
SPR, 
SX, 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
2020 

Hake (Merluccius 
merluccius) 

2016-2020 

Megrim (Lepidorhombus 
spp.) 

2020 

Norway lobster (Nephrops 
norvegicus) 

2016-2018 

EU2015/2439 
EU2016/2374 
EU2018/0044 
EU2018/2033 
EU2019/2239 

SV, 
TBB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, TX 
EU2019/2239  OTB, 
OTT, 
OT, 
PTB, 
PT, 
SSC, 
SDN 
SPR, 
SX, 
SV, 
TBB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, TX 
OTT, 
OTB, 
PTB, 
OT, 
PT, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TX, 
SSC, 
SPR, 
TB, 
SDN, 
SX 
and 
SV 
OTT, 
OTB, 
TBS, 
TBN, 
TB, 
PTB, 
OT, 
PT, 
TX, 
BT2 
OTB, 
OTT, 
OT, 
PTB, 
PT, 
SSC, 
SDN, 

EU2015/2438 
EU2016/2375 
EU2018/0046 

EU2019/2239 
EU2018/2033 

6a, 7b-c, 
7e-k 

8, 9 

7, 8, 9 

6a, 7 

  
 
  
  
  
Plaice (Pleuronectes 
platessa) 

2019-2020 

Pollack (Pollachius 
pollachius) 

2019 

2020 

Red seabream (Pagellus 
bogaraveo) 

2019 

SPR, 
SX, 
SV, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TB, TX 
EU2018/2033  OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TBB, 
OT, 
PT, 
TX, 
SSC, 
SPR, 
SDN, 
SX, SV 
EU2018/2033  OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TBB, 
OT, 
PT, 
TX, 
SSC, 
SPR, 
SDN, 
SX, SV 
EU2019/2239  OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TBB, 
OT, 
PT, 
TX, 
SSC, 
SPR, 
SDN, 
SX, SV 
EU2018/2033  OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TBB, 

8, 9 

8, 9 

8, 9 

9a 

 
 
  
 
 
Sole (Solea spp.) 

2019 

Alfonsinos (Beryx spp.) 

Longline
s 

2019 

Great forkbeard (Phycis 
blennoides) 

2020_2021 

2019 

2020_2021 

Anglerfish (Lophiidae) 

Nets 

2018 

2019 

2020 

EU2019/2239 

EU2018/2033 

OT, 
PT, 
TX, 
SSC, 
SPR, 
SDN, 
SX, SV 
EU2018/2033  OTB, 
OTT, 
PTB, 
TBN, 
TBS, 
TBB, 
OT, 
PT, 
TX, 
SSC, 
SPR, 
SDN, 
SX, SV 
LHP, 
LHM, 
LLS, 
LLD 
LHP, 
LHM, 
LLS, 
LLD 
LHP, 
LHM, 
LLS, 
LLD 
LHP, 
LHM, 
LLS, 
LLD 
EU2018/0044  GNS, 
GN, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTN, 
GTR 
and 
GEN 
EU2018/2033  GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTR, 
GTN 
EU2019/2239  GNS, 
GND, 

EU2019/2239 

EU2018/2033 

9a 

10 

10 

10 

10 

8a, 8b-e, 
9a 

8, 9 

8, 9 

  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
Common Sole (Solea solea) 

2016-2021 

Megrim (Lepidorhombus 
spp.) 

2019-2020 

Plaice (Pleuronectes 
platessa) 

Pollack (Pollachius 
pollachius) 

2019-2020 

2019-2020 

Norway lobster (Nephrops 
norvegicus) 

Traps 

2016-2018 

EU2018/2033 
EU2019/2239 

EU2015/2439 
EU2018/0046 
EU2018/2034 
EU2018/2033 
EU2015/2438 
EU2019/2239 

GNC, 
GTR, 
GTN 
GN, 
GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTN, 
GTR, 
GEN, 
GNF 
GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTR, 
GTN 
EU2018/2033  GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTR, 
GTN 
GNS, 
GND, 
GNC, 
GTR, 
GTN 
FPO, 
FIX, 
FYK 

EU2015/2438 
EU2016/2375 
EU2018/0046 

EU2018/2033 
EU2019/2239 

7d-h, 8a, 
8b 

8, 9 

8, 9 

8, 9 

6, 7 

Black scabbardfish 
(Aphanopus carbo) 

Longline
s 

2017 

EU2017/2167 

LLS, 
DWS 

8, 9, 10, 
CECAF 
34.1.2. 

  
  
  
  
 
 
Annex 1.2 

Summary of the online workshop on the Landing Obligation management and control measures in the 
Baltic and North Seas – 9 & 10 June 2020  

Authors: Floor Quirijns, Noémi Van Bogaert and Kristian Schreiber Plet-Hansen  

Consortium: Wageningen Marine Research (WMR), Wageningen Economic Research (WEcR), MRAG 
Limited Europe; MRAG Limited; Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas); 
Research institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute: 
Federal Research Institute of Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries (TI), Technical University of Denmark 
(DTU), National Marine Fisheries Research Institute (NMFRI), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences 
(SLU) and Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment (BIOR)  

Background information  

This workshop was part of the EASME/EMFF/2018/1.3.2.4 – Lot 1 – SC02 study project “Synthesis of the 
landing obligation measures and discard rates”, carried out by a consortium consisting of scientific 
institutes from 8 countries in the Baltic and North Seas region. The consortium is contracted by the 
European Commission’s Executive Agency for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (EASME), on behalf 
of the Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE). In total, there was a 
participation of 42 stakeholders from governments, fisheries organizations (pelagic and demersal), 
NGOs, control authorities and fisheries scientists.  

Day 1  

The workshop was initiated by Floor Quirijns (WMR) welcoming participants, followed by a short 
introduction by Evelien Ranshuysen (DG MARE) on the purpose of the study ‘Synthesis of the landing 
obligation measures and discard rates’. The study should result in an improved understanding of the 
management measures that were put in place for the implementation of the LO and to evaluate 
whether these measures contributed to reducing discards, as the objective of the landing obligation is to 
eliminate discards by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches and by ensuring that catches are landed.  

After the introduction, two presentations by the consortium followed on the progress of the work. 
Kristian Schreiber Plet-Hansen (DTU Aqua) presented the work on the identification of fisheries and 
species covered by the LO; management measures; and voluntary actions taken to facilitate the LO 
(slides in Annex I). Noémi Van Bogaert (ILVO) presented the consortium’s work so far on definition and 
characterization of control measures in place; evaluation of those measures; and how input from 
authorities and stakeholders are gathered (slides in Annex II).    

A plenary discussion was held, in which the main topics were:  

• It is important to realize that there are synergistic effects between measures, i.e. measures can 
influence the wider incentive for the use of selective gears. Exemptions that allow more selective gear in 
closed areas may speed up the use of certain gear.   

• A question was asked on whether there are examples of self-sampling for control purposes in the EU. 
In the Netherlands a self-sampling project has been ongoing since almost two decades: used for 
scientific purposes (stock assessments), but not for control purposes. When self-sampling would be a 

part of a Fully Documented Fisheries (FDF), it might be used for control purposes. There currently is an 
experiment in the Netherlands with an FDF scheme to improve data on catch, discards and landings. At 
the moment this system is still too complex, time consuming and expensive. For it to work, more 
automated techniques (e.g. image analyses) need to be applied.   

• Feasibility of having a reference fleet using EM techniques: depends on the fishery. In a mixed 
demersal fishery, a reference fleet can give an indication of what happens in the fleet, but cannot be 
representative. There is too much variation in catches and unwanted bycatch in time and space.  

• How Article 171 is used in various member states. In the Netherlands the TAC for a species is split up in 
a part for wanted and a part for unwanted catch. The proportions are based on information in the ICES 
advice: from the unwanted catch part all quantities that fall under the de minimis and high survivability 
exemptions are deducted. The remaining part of the unwanted catch is used as a ‘top up’, or extra 
quota. The ITQs (quota allocated to individual vessels) are only based on the TAC for wanted catch. The 
top-up quota is managed on a national scale: if the fishery has been selective, there will be a remaining 
share. That remaining share could in future be applied to compensate fishers that use selective fishing 
methods, whom would get additional quota they could use to increase their share of wanted catch. 
Additional information on this can be provided if other participants are interested2.  

• How de minimis is a complicated measure: not only because of exemption specifications in the discard 
plans (such as the de minimis exemption for sole caught in fishery for Northern prawn, which is based 
on a combined limit for 10 species out of the annual TAC for a range of 12 species), but also because the 
percentage is set on an EU level, even though there are huge differences in discards percentages 
between MS/fleets.  

• National control officers experience difficulties in checking logbooks/landings/sales data during the 
inspection of fishing vessels that are active in several EU waters. How can control officers effectively 
inspect catch fractions of vessels that land their fish in foreign harbours and are consequently 
transported to other countries? There seems to be a lack of data exchange and cooperation between 
MS in this respect.   

Day 2  

Day 2 was initiated with a presentation on the outcome of a short, online (not representative) multiple-
choice survey after which participants split into one of the 3 subgroups. What follows here, is a 
summary of the conversations in each of the subgroups.    

Subgroup 1 discussed a number of the LO management measures and how these measures impacted 
different fisheries of the member states involved. It was noted that it was easier for member states to 
go for the trials/scientific justification necessary for the high survival or de minimis exemptions, than to 
conduct lengthy selectivity trials. Efforts should be made to simplify the legal framework (Technical 
measures regulations), to allow fishermen to test innovative gear more easily. Additionally, member 
states could benefit from collaborations with each other and regionalization of exemptions (e.g. sharing 

1 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common 
Fisheries Policy, Article 17 - Criteria for the allocation of fishing opportunities by Member States 
2 The additional information can be requested via one of the workshop organizers: floor.quirijns@wur.nl.   

                                                           
resources, conducting research together). For fishermen and control officers, regionalization of 
exemptions would imply a less complex legislation and potentially better compliance.   

Subgroup 2 exchanged ideas on possibilities for improving selectivity, which are not yet put into 
practice. The group mainly focused on factors that limit the implementation of new selective gear, such 
as a lengthy process that is required to get from “a good idea” to an implemented gear. There have 
been many trials on improving fishing selectivity, but often they do not result in more selective gears 
being used in the fishing fleet. This is mainly due to the complexity of the steps that need to be taken 
successfully, ranging from developing the idea into a gear adjustment and testing it; getting support 
from colleagues in the fishery, from the government and NGOs; getting scientific evidence for the 
functioning of the new gear; having it evaluated by STECF; getting international support; to making sure 
that the new gear fits the regulations.   

Subgroup 3 discussed the control measures for the LO. The group agreed that singling out one control 
measure is not a solution, but that a combination of measures is key. All participants representing the 
industry, three out of four NGO participants and a ministry representative argued that top-down 
application of more control must be avoided if not complemented by the implementation of incentives 
e.g. free gear selection, access to closed areas or exemptions for the LO. An NGO representative argued 
that using electronic monitoring (EM) as a data collection tool might increase the incentive for 
compliance and may help improve stock assessments. Data collection through the EM could be 
promoted and used to change the often negative views on EM into something more positive by the 
constructive role it can play in fisheries.  

In a final plenary session the subgroups reported back the above conclusions to the other participants.   

General workshop conclusions  

One of the outcomes of the workshop was a shared understanding between ministries, industry and 
NGOs that the landing obligation suffers from a “branding” issue, in the sense that the regulation tends 
to be phrased negatively, be it for compliance levels, for feasibility or for purpose of the regulation. This 
has created an environment around the landing obligation that fosters non-constructive solutions and a 
general lack of understanding, especially among fishermen. Emphasizing why the LO is meaningful and 
phrasing challenges and solutions more positively, while acknowledging issues, is important to support 
mutual understanding and promote a more positive environment around the LO.    

Implementation of more selective fishing gear did not occur as much as desired. The complex and 
lengthy process to get new gears tested, supported and approved, both nationally and on a European 
level, does not encourage the industry to work along that path. It would be helpful if the process of 
developing and implementing selective gear would be made easier.    

Several participants from ministries, industry and NGO’s shared the opinion that while new monitoring 
tools can be useful to shift the culture of compliance with the landing obligation in a more positive 
direction, it is vital that such tools are not implemented in a top-down approach on its own. Rather, 
more advanced monitoring tools should be introduced together with benefits such as the option of free 
gear selection, specific landing obligation exemptions, access to otherwise closed areas or sustainability 
certifications. Particularly NGO’s stated that it is important to implement more advanced monitoring 
tools – such as electronic monitoring with video like the current Dutch FDF trial or electronic monitoring 

without video as the Danish and Scottish mussel dredge BlackBox systems – in a manner where it is 
emphasized that these measures mainly function as data collection tools to better manage the fisheries 
to the benefit of all, rather than introducing such tools as purely control measures. 

A representative from the Commission remarked that the LO will not be a success until effective 
control and enforcement measures are introduced. There are too many incentives for non-
compliance because of for example choke situations or having to land low-value catches which 
cannot be sold for human consumption. Only with effective control, enforcement and 
inspection will the landing obligation be respected.  

 
 
Annex I – slides from the presentation by Kristian Schreiber Plet-Hansen 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex II – slides from the presentation by Noémi Van Bogaert 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1.3 

Report of the online workshop on the Landing Obligation 
management and control measures in the Western Waters – 17 
June 2020 

Summary prepared by Martin Aranda (AZTI), Julio Valeiras (IEO), Eoghan Kelly (MI), Sara-Jane 
Moore (MI) Jonathan White (MI), Eva Velasco (IEO) and Raúl Prellezo (AZTI) 

Consortium: MRAG, MRAG Europe, AZTI, IEO, CEFAS, MI, DTU Aqua, WUR 

Attendees: 

Type of stakeholder 

Number of 
attendees 

Region/country 

Morning session 
EU administration 
Industry 
Conservationist NGO 
Administration 
Research 
Total 
Language-based afternoon session 

2 
14 
2 
2 
8 

EU 
ES, UK, FR, IR, NL 
UK 
ES, IR 
ES, IR, UK, FR 

28 

EU administration 
Industry 
Conservationist NGO 
Administration 
Research 
Total 

Spanish  

7 

1 
4 

English 
1 
9 
2 
1 
4 

Region/country 
EU 
ES, IR, FR 
UK 
ES, IR 
ES, IR, UK, FR, NL 

12 

17 

Background information  

This workshop is a milestone of the EASME/EMFF/2018/1.  3.  2.  4 – Lot 1 – SC02 study project 
“Synthesis of the landing obligation measures and discard rates”, carried out by a consortium 
consisting of scientific institutes from 6 countries in the Western Waters region.  The consortium 
is  contracted  by  the  European  Commission’s  Executive  Agency  for  Small  and  Medium-Sized 
Enterprises (EASME), on behalf of the Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG 
MARE).    In  total,  there  was  a  participation  of  26  stakeholders  from  governments,  fisheries 
organizations  (inshore  and demersal),  NGOs,  control  authorities and  fisheries scientists from 
diverse countries with interest on European Western waters fisheries, including attendees from 
Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and UK.  The workshop was organised in two sessions 
within the same day, encompassing a morning session for the presentation on the progress of 
the study and preliminary findings, and an afternoon session were the main topics concerning 
the  Landing  Obligation  (LO)  implementations  were  debated  by  the  stakeholders.    In  the 
afternoon session,  the  stakeholders  were  divided  by  language  of  preference.    The  session in 
Spanish was led by Julio Valeiras (IEO) and the session in English by Jonathan White (MI).    

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  Morning session 

Raul  Prellezo  (AZTI)  welcomed  participants  to  this  event  and  was  followed  by  a  short 
introduction by Evelien Ranshuysen (DG MARE) on the purpose of the study “Synthesis of the 
landing  obligation  measures  and  discard  rates”.    The  study  should  result  in  an  improved 
understanding of the management measures that were put in place for the implementation of 
the  LO  and  to  evaluate  whether  these  measures  contributed  to  reducing  discards,  as  the 
objective of the landing obligation is to eliminate discards by avoiding and reducing unwanted 
catches and by ensuring that all catches are landed.   

After the introductory presentations, two presentations on management measures (Task 1) and 
control, enforcement, and compliance (Task 3) were made  by Julio Valeiras (IEO) and Martin 
Aranda (AZTI) respectively (see slides in the Appendix).   

A plenary discussion followed the task presentations and participants revised the outcomes of 
the presentations, in particular the mapping of the exceptions applied in the diverse fisheries in 
Task 1.   

Queries  were  made  concerning  the  cost  effectiveness  of  the  implementation  of  the  Remote 
Electronic Monitoring (REM) and particularly Close Circuit TV (CCTV).  It was suggested that the 
cost  of  implementing  CCTV  could  be  cheaper  than  implementing  a  conventional  observers 
program large enough to ensure compliance with the LO, although the process of a mandatory 
implementation  may  face  industry  opposition  and  may  be  costly  from  a  legal  perspective.  
Additionally, there are other costs associated with these new technologies that are not usually 
discussed  but  that  can  make  this  implementation  costly  and  time  demanding  such  as  the 
development of the software to analyse the data collected by these devices and the validation 
of these analyses by scientists.  There were other opinions on the potential use of cameras to 
ensure the quality of the data besides its potential for control and surveillance.  Concerning costs 
of cameras an estimation made by WWF was referred, which places this cost in a range between 
EUR 3,200 to EUR 5,200 per year per vessel, encompassing hardware and analysis.   

There was a reflection that the main problem of the LO is the complexity of the implementation 
itself, with a very complex set of regulations, exemptions, flexibilities, quota management, etc.  
So, at this stage it is worthless to point at a specific segment of the fleet.  The project team 
points out the difficulties of the LO owing to the almost 300 exemptions, which have changed 
regularly since the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, for different fisheries and 
periods  (annual  /  triennial).    In  task  1,  the  work  of  collecting  all  the  documents  was  very 
laborious, which indicates that the normative is complex, and difficult to comply with by sectors 
of the fishing industry faced with multiple pieces of evolving legislation.   

Concerning the incentives deployed by the management system there were positive elements 
such as the funds deployed by the EMFF to work throughout the whole value chain by funding 
innovation  in  processing  and  marketing  of  unwanted  fish.    Concerning  this,  trials  on  new 
products are being made in different countries, although the literature reviewed in the project 
indicates that stakeholders have  concerns regarding investments in  installation of processing 
capacities,  since  a  viable  production  requires  a  steady  raw  material  supply,  and  further, 
unwanted fish should not be landed in future under a full implementation of the LO.   

A point was raised regarding the distinction between the discard ban and LO, which are not the 
same.  The issue of discards reduction is addressed elsewhere in the EU with many studies about 
selectivity.    But  the  LO  is  a  big  problem  for  the  industry  and  requires  other  measures  to  be 

2 

 
mitigated.  There was a question put to STECF on how trials conducted by scientist are evaluated.  
This was regarded as important for the industry to understand the process.   

A final question invited a reflection of what has been done in the framework of the LO and what 
will be done in the future.   

In the framework of the present study, in the next few days an online survey will be conducted 
to fill in gaps that may have been left unresolved.   

2.  Afternoon sessions 

The session started with a presentation by Julio Valeiras (IEO) (Spanish) and Jonathan White 
(MI) (English) on the aims of the afternoon session and a list of open questions to be discussed 
amongst the participants.   

1.  How the management measures have performed from 2014?  
2.  Have these been effective to achieve the original objectives of LO? 
3.  Which measures were the best? 
4.  Which measures did not work? 
5.  Which management measures would you propose for a successful implementation of the 

LO? 

6.  Which other management measures are potentially useful for the implementation of LO? 

a.  Session in Spanish: 

Management measures: 

The participants commented that the introduction of the LO was rushed and did not balance all 
objectives of the CFP.  The researchers opined that the enforcement has not been smooth and 
the goal of decreasing mortality has been diluted.  The process has been built year by year and 
the exemptions too.  There has been no vision of métier but of important species.  There is no 
strategic vision and the administrations and industry have been reactive to soften the impact.  
The objective should not only be to comply with the law, but to continue to fish sustainably.   

Industry representatives wonder what the LO's goal is: a discard ban or a landing obligation.  
Whether it is to fulfil an obligation or to find solutions to mitigate discards.  The initial LO has 
not  focused  on  the  objectives,  has  not  assessed  the  economic  or  social  consequences.  
Imposition has been carried out without reflection with stakeholders.  After 5 years, it would be 
important  to  carry  out  some  study  of  the  benefits  obtained  at  the  environmental  and 
sustainability level to see if they have worked.   

Impact  assessments  have  lacked  from  the  start  of  the  process.    In  addition,  repeated 
consultation from the Advisory Councils (ACs) were not clarified.  The agreements have been 
made  "in  extremis"  since  2013.    Some  measures  may  work  effectively  but  do  not  solve  the 
problem of discards.  There  are also concerns with regards  to the management system itself 
which is based on TACs and quotas.  The delegated acts refer to quotas not to métiers.  TACs 
and quotas blocks all possibilities of solving discards.  Swaps have allowed to overcome TACs 
constrains, but this is not  enough.   Measures are  totally  limited by the  “Principle of Relative 
Stability” for countries that have some zero quotas.  Discards reduction is not possible if there 
are zero quotas for a significant part of the species.  Although this does not pose a problem for 
some countries for some others such as Spain this becomes a difficult problem to overcome.   

Administrations are continuously learning.  It has been very difficult to establish and coordinate 
measures.  There have been delays in the publication of national regulations.  The LO and the 

3 

 
 
TACs and quotas system are very difficult to align and the delegated acts refer to populations / 
species.  Funding for research has been very limited and it is very difficult to renew the scientific 
information every year since research takes time.  The requirement of the EC that does not want 
to make the renewals  every 3 years, impedes having the necessary  time  for the coordinated 
work of all the stakeholders.   

The  administrative  process  takes  a  long  time  from  the  Council  of  Ministers  to  the  national 
implementation.    The  risk  of  choke species seems to be  the main  problem to  be  addressed.  
There is evidence that the process of introduction of new measures is lengthy.  The exemptions 
work  well  for  some fisheries,  for example  static fishing  gear  but  not  for  others.   There are 
fisheries in which de minimis exemptions have not been allowed, these are few species and in 
small quantities, but they create problems on board.  For example, the bottom longline sector 
was not too impacted by the LO.  For this fishery, de minimis were not approved.  Flexibility 
measures in this fishery reduced overall effort on the target species, although the same has not 
happened in other fisheries.   

There is a need for more studies on selectivity and use of unwanted fish, but it is evident that 
funding cannot satisfy all needs.  Improvements on selectivity are required and an evaluation 
of its effectiveness for the fishers has to be  conducted to  use them.  The administration has 
become fixated on commercial trawling species because they produce problems that already 
existed.    Scientists  have  been  more  concerned  that  the  devices  were  highly  selective  even 
though the sector could not or would not like to adopt them.   

It is viewed that in the future the system needs to be proactive and not reactive and to establish 
a long-term strategy.   But there are certain urgent needs like the renewal of some exceptions.   

Ongoing and potential incentives: 

Concerns were conveyed on the “penalisation” imposed to fleet sectors that are more selective 
to provide quota flexibilities to others that are  less selective.  This  occurs since a part of the 
quota is reserved to solve the discard rates of non-selective fisheries.   Flexibility measures are 
complex, difficult  to implement and  need revision (benchmarks need to be conducted).  The 
measures are blocked by the quota system and the “Relative stability” which limits the fishing 
possibilities of some fleets (by Art. 14), as a consequence of 9 or 10 species for which they have 
no quota available.   

There is much work to be conducted on selectivity and markets for unwanted fish, but there is 
a  need  to  focus  on  métiers  where  more  risk  of  non-compliance  exists.    Concerning  sector 
initiatives, the “Choke  mitigation tool” was proposed, which is a framework that enables the 
identification of issues, gaps and priority actions on selectivity, survivability, and economic and 
social impacts.  Many tools were proposed by the ACs, such as selectivity studies, de minimis, 
survival, TAC and quotas.  In all countries, research has been carried out on fishing activities, but 
a lot of testing is still required before launching new designs.  In turn, inconsistencies occur with 
the official technical measures applied in the different fishing grounds (which are complex and 
different by fishery, area, country, type of boat, target species, etc.).   

It is recognised that collaboration between the scientists and the fishing sector on technical 
and scientific topics  is fluent and relevant,  but technical transference  to fishers of technical 
improvements is not timely.  The possibility that captains can carry out tests with selective gears 
in  their  own  way is discussed,  after  the  relevant selectivity trials  with researchers  on  board.  
There are even some legal considerations impeding skippers to try their own technical measures, 

4 

 
which may not be consistent with the technical regulation in force.  New measures have to pass 
a complex administrative process, including STECF, before they may become part of the applied 
legislation.   

It is considered that there should be more trials on selectivity.  As an example, a selectivity device 
that was put into force to avoid unwanted species in NWW.  Thanks to this the mini quota for 
this species was not employed.  The EU is provided funding and financing projects but results 
need to be more visible.  There is also a need to revise the normative concerning the obligation 
to land fish below MCRS.  The industry believes that species outside the TACs and quotas system 
should not enter into this system in the future because it would make compliance with the LO 
harder.  The main problem is the choke species, since the exemptions have to be renewed every 
year,  greatly  complicating  the  process.    Pro-activeness  is  needed  for  setting  up  long-term 
strategies but considering current needs.  Other measures must be studied: removal from the 
regime  of  species  with  no  quota  or  small  percentages  or  removal  of  the  minimum  sizes  for 
species with low percentage of catch.   

It is a need to develop a compliance spirit.  It will be advisable to have a debate on measures to 
strengthen this spirit, to deploy incentives to reward the good practices with aid or some extra 
quotas  and  flexibilities  and  reinforce  communication  and  training.    For  example,  inspectors 
conducting control activities on board should also inform and educate skippers concerning their 
obligations under the LO.   

Control measures: 

REM  technologies  seem  viable  solutions  at  first  sight  and  emerge  as  an  alternative  to  costly 
observers’  programs.    Nevertheless,  their  use  in  control  and  surveillance  are  still  under 
development, in particular the algorithms to interpret the data, which then need to be validated.  
Funding is being devoted for such developments.  It seems that the REM could work better with 
pelagics  rather  than  in  demersal  fisheries,  where  their  application  would  be  much  more 
complex.  REM, and particularly CCTV, is being applied by fishers for purposes other than control 
and  require  many  man-hours  to  observe  the  recordings.    Should  the  systems  become 
mandatory,  they  should  be  used  for  double  purposes:  control  and  surveillance,  and  science.  
Level-playing conditions in control are required for all fleets.  CCTV has a legal aspect that implies 
a serious responsibility for the fishing master, since he withstands the burden of proof.  This is 
particularly problematic in MS where fishing infractions follow criminal procedures.  In addition, 
it was commented that traditional control means should be prioritized, improved, and applied 
on a level-playing basis instead of opting for technical means, which are not fully mature such 
as REM and particularly the CCTV approach.   

Finally, it was agreed that it is necessary to keep separated data collection for control purposes 
and for scientific purposes.  Although there is a clear divide between the two, it is complicated 
to establish a clear distinction between the use of data for scientific purposes and control.  It 
is of key importance to count on good data to justify the quota needs the sector requires.   

5 

 
 
 
b.  Session in English: 

Regulatory and institutional adaptations: 

It was raised that the obligation is to land unwanted catch but there are no facilities on land to 
deal with it.  There is no  economic  gain from the unwanted catch.   Research is ongoing for 
potential  uses  of  unwanted  catch.    Regulation  needs  to  be  fine-tuned  and  improved.    It  is 
frustrating from an industry perspective that closures, etc., only apply to certain vessels and it is 
difficult to convince PO members that management is working.  Management do not want to 
incentivise catching undersize fish.   Institutional frameworks have not dealt well with <MCRS 
issue.  Adaptation needs to be conducted by relevant departments.    

Fishers do not want to land juvenile fish as there is no value and it negatively impacts the stock.  
Basically, if there is no incentive to take up vessel space for <MCRS then it is hard for them to 
comply with the LO.   It takes around two days to break even on a fishing trip and the objective 
is to maximise the load of saleable fish.  Regulations and work on selectivity should provide a 
short-term incentive to land <MCRS, while also working on other areas to reduce catching.  It 
was  pointed  out  that  there  is  a  mismatch  between  size  at  maturity  and  MCRS.    In  some 
countries, smaller fish are a desired catch.   

Concerning things to change in the LO  implementation,  public relations and  communication 
were poor during the setup of the regulation.  The LO was poorly implemented with a top-down 
approach, ignoring fisheries complexity.   

Flexibility and incentives: 

With regards to the pros and cons of flexibilities and incentives such as de minimis, fishers do 
not want to fill boats with unmarketable fish.  Quota swaps help when quotas are exhausted, 
Spain  got  6%  of  other  member  state’s  quota  to  allow  them  to  continue  fishing  after  the 
implementation  of  the  LO.    Mixed  fish  advice  must  be  considered  on  top  of  single  species 
advice.   

Exemptions are common and difficult to monitor and make it hard to know if TAC is being met 
or  exceeded.   This  complexity  is  also added to by  incentives to  improve selectivity or get  an 
exemption.    Incentives  are  available  in  the  form  of  funding,  usually  to  improve  selectivity 
through trials or get an exemption for example through survivability trials.  

In  addition,  similarity  should  be  considered  between  incentives  in  the  Common  Agriculture 
Policy (CAP) for the CFP, for example sheep farmers to graze land, comparable to the aims of 
Marine Protected Areas (MPA).  To get stocks to MSY, fishers should be compensated to stay in 
business.  MS manage their EMFF spending independently to differing degrees of success, and 
division of funds across MS needs to be considerate to the marine area each MS manages. 

Selectivity: 

Industry support a science and evidence based approach using trials, and are willing to adapt 
and  change and  participate  in  trials.   There  is  a  lot  of research that  can be applied1.   Some 
Member States’ reports to the STECF, to Evaluation of Member States’ Annual Reports on the 
Landing Obligation (for 2019) for DG MARE, contain good information on selectivity trials while 

1 For example, SMARTFISH: http://smartfishh2020.eu/ 

6 

 
                                                             
 
there  is  little  information  from  others.    A  better  approach  might  be  the  use  of  real  time 
measures and avoidance measures.  NWW is one of the few regions where progress is being 
made on selectivity improvement.   

Good results of trials are difficult with changing parameters such as size classes, etc.  A bottom 
up approach was  suggested,  where  fishers are given more flexibility to develop trials/ tools/ 
management measures.  Such an approach would require a robust framework to work within 
and funding.  Some sectors of the fishing industry have undertaken a lot of work with selectivity, 
following this work however, they may then be restricted for catch owing to quota allocations. 
There  needs  to  be  consideration  of  more  flexibility  on  quota.    There  is  limited  funding  and 
limited resources for trials.  Even if money is spent by industry and innovations were to be made, 
funding may be denied under the EMFF as measures may not be compatible with EU regulations.  
It was stated how important avoidance was for fishers.  Their knowledge comes into play.  It 
is important not to end up in choke scenarios set by the quotas so avoidance is very important 
for selectivity.   

Control Measures: 

It was commented that cameras are the best way to monitor to get good/ improved data and 
not necessarily for control.  A question was raised of who would monitor footage and provide 
resources.  Many vessels could be fitted with CCTV cameras, with footage recorded to a hard 
drive and sent, with accompanying data to authorities to see in real time.  Random sampling 
could be set up where 1/10 or 1/5 cameras could record what is being caught.  Currently there 
is <1% observer coverage, which could be increased to 10% coverage, being in addition a good 
source of independent data.  This would help in improving compliance with regulations.   

It is important to distinguish between compliance and scientific data.  Coverage in UK is <1% 
observer coverage.  It should be noted that a voluntary scheme may be expected to lead to a 
bias  and  a  lack  of  representative  data.    The  technology  is  not  yet  sophisticated  enough  for 
artificial intelligence, however technology should not be a barrier. Even so most people would 
not like cameras monitoring them 24 hours per fishing day.   The CCTV idea needs trial and error 
and a real drive for it to be developed, data could be stored and analysed in the future.   

An idea was raised of setting aside quota and giving it to boats to do trials on this.  There is 
industry willingness for this.  However, industry would not be in favour of cameras recoding all 
day long.   A point was discussed on the unviability of covering 85,000 vessels instead a risk-
based  approach  may  be  more  appropriate,  looking  at  métiers  with  high  risk  of  unwanted 
catches.  The CCTV approach could be used to enhanced  monitoring.  It was mentioned that 
there needs to be a chain of evidence to prosecute vessels that are accused of non-compliance.  
It was also commented that log sheets are difficult to interrogate.  There is little information on 
EU log sheets on what devices are being used on vessels, only mesh sizes used in the codend are 
available.  Scientific data relies on logbook data and now on reports of unwanted catches and 
BMS landings.   It is not easy for fishermen to complete; it is not easy for scientists either as they 
need good quality data.  Logbooks  need to include fields detailing specific selectivity devices 
being used.  

7 

 
 
 
 
Conclusions: 

Participants  in  the  workshop  tended  to  agree  that  the  LO  is  a  complex  institutional  and 
regulatory  process,  encompassing  many  regulations,  exemptions  and  flexibilities,  amongst 
others.  These are hard to understand by the industry and complex to implement and enforce 
for  Member  States.    Although  the  elimination  of  discards  is  accepted  and  regarded  as 
necessary, the obligation to land unwanted fish faces problems that make this  economically 
unviable for the industry at least at this stage.  There is agreement that scientists, managers, 
and industry are putting substantial effort to improve selectivity with intensive use of technical 
and economic means and positive results are being yielded.  But it is recognised that there is still 
much to do, and more trials and funding are needed.  There are concerns, however, that the 
implementation  of  these  improvements  in  the  field  is  not  timely  and  have  to  face  a  long 
administrative and technical process before being used.  There are some technical devices with 
good  results  but  with  loss  of  target  species.    It  is  not  clear  to  fishers  how  they  may  be 
compensated  for  this  economic  loss,  which  discourage  them  to  apply  these  measures.    The 
industry seems to have practical solutions but they cannot be put in place if they are not in 
line with the current regulatory framework.  Thus, some sort of flexibility is required to allow 
fishers  to  employ  its  empirical  knowledge  and  come  up  with  viable  solutions  to  reduce 
unwanted catches.  It would be important to make visible the industry’s intention to improve.  
It  is  necessary  to  incentivize  the  implementation  of  the  selectivity  results  on  fishing  vessels: 
investments, profit-based results, compensation with financing and quotas.   

REM is a promising tool that may greatly help in control for improving the levels of compliance.  
These technologies could also be used to improve the quality of the data, which is regarded as 
essential  to  evaluate  the  state  of  the  resources.    The  CCTVs  in  particular  are  perceived  as 
advantageous for a number of reasons although the costs of implementing them goes beyond 
a simple installation of the devices on board which could be affordable, but the development 
of methodologies and software for analysis could be costly and lengthy.  This besides the many 
legal  and  social  difficulties  that  a  mandatory  use  of  CCTV  brings  about.    Improvement  of 
traditional control means are needed, until the REM methodologies are mature.  In any case, a 
risk-based approach is required and métiers having higher risk should be prioritised.   

Compliance  with the  LO goes beyond strict  control,  it requires deployment of  incentives and 
communication to build a compliance spirit within the fishing sectors.  Control must be carried 
out  in  a  way  that  fosters  compliance  and  encourages  good  fishing  practices.    So  far,  the 
management  system  has  provided  means  to  counteract  the  problems  arising  since  the 
introduction of the LO, such as exemptions, flexibilities and uplifts amongst others, which have 
worked relatively well depending on the fishery in question.   Funding  is available under the 
EMFF for improvements onboard, and even for processing and in trade of unwanted fish, being 
the degree of use different from country to country.  Still efforts are required to find means to 
improve  the  compliance  spirit  and  actions  should  be  conducted  to  trigger  debate  on  this 
matter.   

Countries have made an enormous effort to advance and adapt to the LO.  It is necessary to 
continue the coordinated work of administration, industry, and scientists.  Problems must be 
addressed  comprehensively, evaluating what  has been already done over the years, working 
métier by métier.  One could recover measures that already exist and look at what others have 
done.    The  general  objective  must  be  that  the  fishing  activity  continues  to  be  profitable  in 
compliance with the regulations.  To achieve the goals of reducing mortality from discards, it is 
very important that the sector is involved at all times.   

8 

 
ANNEX 1.4 – LITERATURE SEARCH OUTPUTS 

Table A1: Search terms applied in institutional literature search  

Institution, search date 
and sites 

STECF, 24. March 2020 

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europ
a.eu/reports/plenary 

Relevant documents 

STECF. (2013). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 43rd Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-13-02). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26904(JRC 
83565), 120 pp. https://doi.org/10.2788/96228 

STECF. (2014a). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 45th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-14-01). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26616(JRC 
89783), 86 pp. https://doi.org/10.2788/15586 

STECF. (2014b). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 46th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-14-02). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 2810 
E(JRC 91540), 117 pp. https://doi.org/10.2788/11931X 

STECF. (2015a). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 48th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-15-01). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27220(JRC 
95802), 75 pp. https://doi.org/10.2788/878866 

STECF. (2015b). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 49th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-15-02). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27404(JRC 
97003), 127 pp. https://doi.org/10.2788/878866 

STECF. (2015c). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 50th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-15-03). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27602(JRC 
98672), 90 pp. https://doi.org/10.2760/088784 

STECF. (2016a). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of the landing obligation joint 
recommendations (STECF-16-10). Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27758. https://doi.org/doi:10.2788/59074 

STECF. (2016b). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Special request for evaluating Baltic cod additional 
measures (STECF-16-23). Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, EUR 27758. https://doi.org/10.2788/638914 

STECF. (2017). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 55th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-17-02). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 28359. 
https://doi.org/10.2760/53335 

STECF. (2018a). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 57th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-18-01). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, JRC111800. 
https://doi.org/10.2760/088784 

STECF. (2018b). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 58th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-18-02). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, JR112730. 
https://doi.org/10.2760/74942 

STECF. (2018c). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 59th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-18-03). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, JRC114701. 
https://doi.org/10.2760/335280 

STECF. (2019a). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 61st Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-19-02). 

 
 
STECF, 24. March 2020 

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europ
a.eu/reports/discards 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, JRC117461. 
https://doi.org/10.2760/31279 

STECF. (2019b). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – 62nd Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-19-03). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, JRC118961. 
https://doi.org/10.2760/1597 

STECF. (2013). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Landing obligation in EU fisheries (STECF-13-23). 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26330, 
115. https://doi.org/10.2788/37460 

STECF. (2014a). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Landing Obligation in EU Fisheries - part II (STECF-
14-01). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 
26551, 67. https://doi.org/10.2788/26264 

STECF. (2014b). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Landing Obligations in EU Fisheries - part 3 
(STECF-14-06). In Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2788/53393 

STECF. (2014c). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Landing Obligations in EU Fisheries - part 4 
(STECF-14-19). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 
EUR 26943, 96 pp. https://doi.org/10.2788/63715 

STECF. (2015a). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Landing Obligation - Part 5 (demersal species for 
NWW, SWW and North Sea) (STECF-15-10). Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27407, 62 pp. 
https://doi.org/10.2788/692447 

STECF. (2015b). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – TAC adjustments for stocks subject to the landing 
obligation (STECF-15-17). In Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2788/561762 

STECF. (2016a). Reports of the Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) - Minimum conservation size for Red 
Seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) (STECF-16-09). Publications Office of 
the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27758, 16 pp. 
https://doi.org/10.2788/0643 

STECF. (2016b). Reports of the Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Merging of the BT1 and BT2 gear 
categories in the North Sea (STECF-16-02). Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27758, 10 pp. 
https://doi.org/10.2788/638914 

STECF. (2016c). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of the landing obligation joint 
recommendations (STECF-16-10). Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27758. https://doi.org/doi:10.2788/59074 

STECF. (2016d). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Methodology and data requirements for reporting 
on the Landing Obligation (STECF-16-13). Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27758. 
https://doi.org/10.2788/984496 

STECF. (2017). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of the landing obligation joint 
recommendations (STECF-17-08). Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg, JRC107574. https://doi.org/10.2760/149272 

STECF. (2018a). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Data and information requested by the Commission 
to support the preparation of proposals for fishing opportunities in 2018 

2 

 
 
 
DG MARE, 24. March 
2020 

https://ec.europa.eu/fish
eries/cfp/fishing_rules/di
scards_en 

(STECF-17-13). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 
JRC108053. https://doi.org/10.2760/628725 

STECF. (2018b). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of the landing obligation joint 
recommendations (STECF-18-06). Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg, JRC112740. https://doi.org/10.2760/999971 

STECF. (2019). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of Landing Obligation Joint 
Recommendations (STECF-19-08). Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg. 

EC. (2014a). 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. Official Journal of the European Union, L370/35. 

EC. (2014b). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 
1396/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard plan in the Baltic 
Sea. Official Journal of the European Union, L 370/40. 

EC. (2015). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2015/2440 of 
22 October 2015 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in the North Sea and in Union waters of ICES Division IIa. 
Official Journal of the European Union, L 336/42. 

EC. (2016). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2016/2250 of 
4 October 2016 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in the North Sea and in Union waters of ICES. Official Journal 
of the European Union, L 340/2. 

EC. (2017a). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/1393 
of 24 May 2017 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014 
establishing a discard plan for certain small pelagic fisheries and 
fisheries for industrial purposes in the North Sea. Official Journal of the 
European Union, l197/1. 

EC. (2017b). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/189 of 
23 November 2017 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014 
establishing a discard plan for certain small pelagic fisheries and 
fisheries for industrial purposes in the North Sea. Official Journal of the 
European Union, L36/4. 

EC. (2018a). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/2035 
of 18 October 2018 specifying details of implementation of the landing 
obligation for certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea for the period 
2019-2021. Official Journal of the European Union, L327/17. 

EC. (2018b). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/211 of 
21 November 2017 establishing a discard plan as regards salmon in the 
Baltic Sea. Official Journal of the European Union, L41/1. 

EC. (2018c). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/306 of 
18 December 2017 laying down specifications for the implementation of 
the landing obligation as regards cod and plaice in Baltic Sea fisheries. 
Official Journal of the European Union, L60/1. 

EC. (2018d). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/45 of 
20 October 2017 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in the North Sea and in Union waters of ICES Division IIa for 
the year 2018. Official Journal of the European Union, L7/6. 

EC. (2014). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 
1393/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard plan for certain 
pelagic fisheries in north-western waters 

EC. (2014). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 
1394/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard plan for certain 
pelagic fisheries in south-western waters 

3 

 
 
 
EC. (2015). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2015/2438 of 
12 October 2015 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in north-western waters 

EC. (2015). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2015/2439 of 
12 October 2015 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in south-western waters 

EC. (2016). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2016/2374 of 
12 October 2016 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in South-Western waters 

EC. (2016). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2016/2375 of 
12 October 2016 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in North-Western waters 

EC. (2017). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/2167 of 
5 July 2017 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2374 
establishing a discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in South-
Western waters 

EC. (2018). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/44 of 
20 October 2017 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2374 
establishing a discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in South-
Western waters 

EC. (2018). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/46 of 
20 October 2017 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal and 
deep sea fisheries in North-Western waters for the year 2018 

EC. (2018). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/188 of 
21 November 2017 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1394/2014 
establishing a discard plan for certain pelagic fisheries in South-
Western waters 

EC. (2018). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/2033 of 
18 October 2018 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in South-Western waters for the period 2019-2021 

EC. (2018). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/2034 of 
18 October 2018 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in North-Western waters for the period 2019-2021 

EC. (2019). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2019/2237 of 
1 October 2019 specifying details of the landing obligation for certain 
demersal fisheries in South-Western waters for the period 2020-2021 

EC. (2019). COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2019/2239 of 
1 October 2019 specifying details of the landing obligation for certain 
demersal fisheries in North-Western waters for the period 2020-2021 

ICES, 25 March 2020 

Search terms at ICES 
search engine: ALL 
(north sea baltic sea 
landing obligation 
management measures) 
"landing obligation" at  

ICES. (2014a). First Interim Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on 
Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), 5-9 May 2014, New 
Bedford, USA. 

ICES. (2014b). Report of ICES Advisory Committee , 3-6 December 
2013, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:01, 47 pp. 

ICES. (2015a). Annex 4: Final report of TOR Innovative dynamic catch 
control devices in fishing. ICES WGFTFB Report 2015, ICES-FAO 
W(Annex 4), 134–183. 

http://www.ices.dk/publi
cations/library/Pages/def
ault.aspx 

ICES. (2015b). Second Interim Report of ICES-FAO Working Group on 
Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), 4-7 May 2015, 
Lisbon, Portugal. 

ICES. (2016a). EU request on potential management for salmon in the 
Gulf of Finland (ICES measures Subdivision 32). ICES Special Request 
Advice, (May), 1–7. 

ICES. (2016b). Report of the Working Group on Fishing Technology and 
Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), 25-29 April 2016, Merida, Mexico. 

4 

 
 
 
ICES. (2017a). EU request to provide advice on fisheries-related 
anthropogenic impacts on eels in EU marine waters. ICES Special 
Request Advice, (May), 1–6. 

ICES. (2017b). Interim Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on 
Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB). ICES WGFTFB 2017 
REPORT 4-7 April 2017. Nelson, New Zealand. 

ICES. (2017c). Report of the Working Group on Fish Distribution Shifts 
(WKFISHDISH), 22–25 November 2016, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, 
Denmark. 

ICES. (2018a). Annex 9: Special Request - Revision of the contribution 
of TACs to fisheries management and stock conservation. In Report of 
the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). 

ICES. (2018b). EU request for ICES to provide advice on a revision of 
the contribution of TACs to fisheries management and stock 
conservation. ICES Special Request Advice, (September), 1–35. 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4531 

ICES. (2018c). EU request for ICES to provide advice on a revision of 
the contribution of TACs to fisheries management and stock 
conservation for: whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in ICES Division 3.a, 
plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in ICES Subarea 8 and Division 9.a, and. 
ICES Specieal Request Advice, (September), 1–35. 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4596 

ICES. (2018d). EU request for ICES to provide advice on a revision of 
the contribution of TACs to fisheries management and stock 
conservation for selected deep-water stocks. ICES Specieal Request 
Advice, (September), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4531 

ICES. (2018e). Interim Report of the Working Group on Methods for 
Estimating Discard Survival (WGMEDS), 27 November - 1 December 
2017, Olhão, Portugal. 

ICES. (2018f). Interim Report of the Working Group on Methods for 
Estimating Discard Survival (WGMEDS), 29 October - 2 November 
2018, Mundaka, Spain. 

ICES. (2018g). Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing 
Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), 4 ― 8 June 2018, Hirtshals, 
Denmark. In ICES CM 2018/EOSG:12. Retrieved from 
www.ices.dkinfo@ices.dk 

ICES. (2018h). Report of the Working Group on Spatial Fisheries Data 
(WGSFD). Aberdeen. 

ICES. (2019a). Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS). 
ICES Scientific Reports, 1(20), 653 pp. 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5949 

ICES. (2019b). Baltic Salmon and Trout Assessment Working Group 
(WGBAST). ICES Scientific Reports, 1(23), 312. 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4979 

ICES. (2019c). EU request on a revision of the contribution of TACs to 
fisheries management and stock conservation for greater silver smelt 
(Argentina silus) in ICES Subarea 7, and for boarfish (Capros aper) in 
ICES divisions 8.b and 8.c. ICES Special Request Advice, (June), 1–4. 

ICES. (2019d). ICES Advice basis. ICES Advice. 

ICES. (2019e). Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish 
Behaviour (WGFTFB). ICES Scientific Reports, 1(61), 363 pp. 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5592 

ICES. (2019f). Working Group on Technology Integration for Fishery-
Dependent Data (WGTIFD). ICES Scientific Reports, 1(46), 28 pp. 
https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5543 

5 

 
ICES. (2019g). Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks 
in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK). ICES Scientific Reports, 
1(7), 1271 pp. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5402 

ICES. (2019h). Workshop on Science with Industry Initiatives 
(WKSCINDI). ICES Scientific Reports, 1(68), 67 pp. 
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5610 

ICES. (2020). Working Group on Recreational Fisheries Surveys 
(WGRFS; outputs from 2019 meeting). ICES Scientific Reports, 2(1), 78 
pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5744 

Moore, C., Vermard, Y., Ulrich, C., Taylor, M., Brunel, T., Dolder, P., & 
Lövgren, J. (2018). Ad hoc Report on the Special Request on further 
development of ICES mixed fisheries considerations and biological 
interactions. 

National guidance sheets 
consulted 

Ministerie van Economische Zaken Coöperatieve Visserij Organisatie 
(2015). Stappenplan voor de invoering van de aanlandplicht demersaal 
Noordzee en Kanaal 

Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland (2017). Informatiebulletin 
December 2017 

Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland (2018). Informatiebulletin 
Visserij December 2018 

NaturErhverstyrelsen (2014). Vejledning til landings-forpligtelsen for 
fiskeri efter industriarter og pelagiske arter, Version 1.0 af 22. 
december 2014 

NaturErhverstyrelsen (2014). Vejledning til landings-pligten for 
Østersøen, Version 1.0 af 22. december 2014 

NaturErhverstyrelsen (2016). Vejledning til landings-forpligtelsen for 
fiskeri efter industriarter og pelagiske arter, Version 2.0 af 30. 
december 2016 

NaturErhverstyrelsen (2016). Vejledning til landings-pligten for 
Østersøen, Version 2.0 af 23. december 2016 

NaturErhverstyrelsen (2016). Vejledning til landingspligten for 
demersalt fiskeri i Nordsøen, Skagerrak og Kattegat, Version 2.0 af 30. 
december 2016 

Fiskeristyrelsen (2018). Vejledning til landingspligten for demersalt 
fiskeri i Nordsøen, Skagerrak og Kattegat, Version 3.0 af 19. november 
2018 

Fiskeristyrelsen (2019). Vejledning til landingspligten for fiskeri efter 
små pelagiske arter og industriarter i Nordsøen, Skagerrak og Kattegat, 
Version 3.0 af 12. april. 2019 

Fiskeristyrelsen (2019). Vejledning til landingspligten for Østersøen, 
Version 3.0 af 12. april. 2019 

Fiskeristyrelsen (2019). Vejledning til landingspligten for demersalt 
fiskeri i Nordsøen, Skagerrak og Kattegat, Version 4.0 af 12. april 2019 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A2: Search terms applied for peer-reviewed literature search.  

Search term 

Identified results 

"Landing Obligation" AND 
"electronic monitoring" 
AND "fully documented 
fisheries" AND "catch 
quota management" AND 
"discard ban" AND 
"fisheries management" 
AND "European Fisheries 
Control Agency"  

"Landing Obligation" AND 
"electronic monitoring" 
AND "fully documented 
fisheries" AND "catch 
quota management" AND 
"discard ban" AND 
"fisheries management" 

Run date: 6. March 2020 

1 result, of which the potentially relevant studies are: 

James, K. M., Campbell, N., Vigarsson, J. R., Vilas, C., Plet-Hansen, K. 
S.,Borges, L., et al. (2019). “Tools and technologies for the monitoring, 
control and surveillance of unwanted catches,” in The European Landing 
Obligation: Reducing Discards in Complex Multi-Species and Multi-
Jurisdictional Fisheries, 

eds S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, and S. Kennelly (Cambridge: Springer). 

Run date: 6. March 2020 

20 results, of which the potentially relevant studies not already 
listed above are listed: 

Borges, L., Cocas, L., and Nolde Nielsen, K. 2016. Discard ban and 
balanced harvest: a contradiction? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73: 
1632–1639. 

Calderwood, J., Robert, M., Pawlowski, L., Vermard, Y., Radford, Z., 
Catchpole, T. L., and Reid, D. G. 2019. Hotspot mapping in the Celtic 
Sea: An interactive tool using multinational data to optimise fishing 
practices. Marine Policy: 103511. Elsevier Ltd. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103511. 

Matias da Veiga Malta, T. A. 2019. Industry-led fishing gear 
development under the new European Union Common Fisheries Policy. 
Technical University of Denmark. 

Mortensen, L. O., Ulrich, C., Eliasen, S., and Olesen, H. J. 2017. 
Reducing discards without reducing profit: Free gear choice in a Danish 
result-based management trial. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74: 
1469–1479. 

Mortensen, L. O., Ulrich, C., Hansen, J., and Hald, R. 2018. Identifying 
choke species challenges for an individual demersal trawler in the North 
Sea , lessons from conversations and data analysis. Marine Policy, 87: 
1–11. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.031. 

Msomphora, M. R. 2016. Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of 
Fisheries in Europe - With perspectives of the result-based mangement. 
The Arctic University of Norway. 62 pp. 

Suuronen, P., and Gilman, E. 2019. Monitoring and managing fisheries 
discards: New technologies and approaches. Marine Policy: 103554. 
Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103554. 

Ulrich, C., Olesen, H. J., Bergsson, H., Egekvist, J., Håkansson, K. B., 
Dalskov, J., Kindt-Larsen, L., et al. 2015. Discarding of cod in the 
Danish Fully Documented Fisheries trials. ICES Journal of Marine 
Science, 72: 1848–1860. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Ulrich, C. 2018. Research for PECH Committee - Landing Obligation and 
Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries - the North sea. 

van Helmond, A. T. M., Chen, C., Trapman, B. K., Kraan, M., and Poos, 
J. J. 2016. Changes in fishing behaviour of two fleets under fully 
documented catch quota management: Same rules, different outcomes. 
Marine Policy, 67: 118–129. Elsevier. 

"Landing Obligation" AND 
"discard ban" AND 
"fisheries management"  

Run dates: 9. March 2020 & 12-13 March 2020 

306 results, of which the potentially relevant studies not 
already listed above are listed: 

Alternativa, B. (2018). Shedding light on alternative shrimp fishing : 
development of shrimp pots with a focus on selection, attraction and 
behaviour. 

Anbleyth-Evans, J. W., & Williams, C. (2018). Fishing for Justice: 
England’s Inshore Fisheries’ Social Movements and Fixed Quota 
Allocation. Human Geography, 11(1), 28–43. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/194277861801100103 

Barros, L. F. (2017). Promoting species separation in trawl gears by 
using rigid grids and light systems Promoting species separation in 
trawl gears by using rigid grids and. 

Batsleer, J., Rijnsdorp, A. D., Hamon, K. G., van Overzee, H. M. J., & 
Poos, J. J. (2016). Mixed fisheries management: Is the ban on 
discarding likely to promote more selective and fuel efficient fishing in 
the Dutch flatfish fishery? Fisheries Research, Vol. 174, pp. 118–128. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.09.006 

Baudron, A. R., & Fernandes, P. G. (2015). Adverse consequences of 
stock recovery: European hake, a new “choke” species under a discard 
ban? Fish and Fisheries, 16(4), 563–575. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12079 

Bird, C., Bendall, V., Ellis, J., & Catchpole, T. (2018). Health and vitality 
of discarded skates and rays. 

Bohman, B. (2019). Regulatory control of adaptive fisheries: 
Reflections on the implementation of the landing obligation in the EU 
common fisheries policy. Marine Policy, Vol. 110. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103557 

Borda, I. S. (2014). Approach to the 2014 discard ban in the EU 
Common Fisheries Policy and trials with bycatch reducing trawl 
techniques. Ixai Salvo Borda. The Arcticc University of Norway. 

Borges, L. (2015). The evolution of a discard policy in Europe. Fish and 
Fisheries, 16, 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12062 

Borges, L., & Penas Lado, E. (2019). Discards in the Common Fisheries 
Policy: The Evolution of the Policy. In S. S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, & S. J. 
Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation - reducing discards in 
complex, multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries (pp. 27–47). 
Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer 
Nature. 

Brookhuis, N. (2015). Swimming against the current? An exploration of 
the conditions for a successful implementation of the landing obligation 
in fisheries policy. 

Brunel, T., & Steins, N. A. (n.d.). Potential approaches to use the range 
of values for Fmsy in mixed fisheries management Potential approaches 
to use the range of values for Fmsy in mixed fisheries management. 

Calderwood, J., & Reid, D. G. (2019). Quota exhaustion and discarding: 
How Ireland’s monthly quota system has a limited relationship with 
discarding patterns in the commercial fishing fleet. ICES Journal of 
Marine Science, 76(1), 244–254. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsy158 

8 

 
 
Campos, A., Fonseca, P., Pilar-Fonseca, T., Leocádio, A. M., & Castro, 
M. (2015). Survival of trawl-caught Norway lobster (Nephrops 
norvegicus L.) after capture and release-Potential effect of codend 
mesh type on survival. Fisheries Research, 172, 415–422. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.07.038 

Catchpole, T. L., Elliott, S., Peach, D., Mangi, S. C., & Gray, T. S. 
(2018). How to deal with the EU landing obligation: Lessons from an 
English discard ban sea trial. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75(1), 
270–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx119 

Catchpole, T. L., Ribeiro-santos, A., Mangi, S. C., Gray, T. S., & Hedley, 
C. (2017). The challenges of the landing obligation in EU fisheries. 
Marine Policy, 82(September 2016), 76–86. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.001 

Catchpole, T., Marlen, B. Van, Uhlmann, S., Theunynck, R., Randall, P., 
Mehault, S., … Reijden, K. Van Der. (2015). Live and let die : The rapid 
development of research to assess survival of discards in European 
fisheries. 

Dickey-Collas, M. (2014). Why the complex nature of integrated 
ecosystem assessments requires a flexible and adaptive approach. ICES 
Journal of Marine Science, 71(5), 1174–1182. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu027 

Dolder, P. J., Thorson, J. T., & Minto, C. (2018). Spatial separation of 
catches in highly mixed fisheries. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–11. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31881-w 

Eliasen, S. Q., & Bichel, N. (2016). Fishers sharing real-time 
information about “bad” fishing locations. A tool for quota optimisation 
under a regime of landing obligations. Marine Policy, 64, 16–23. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.007 

Ern, R., Molbo, K., Jensen, T. H., Kucheryavskiy, S. V., Møller, P. R., & 
Madsen, N. (2018). Discard survival in Danish set-net fisheries. 

Fauconnet, L., & Rochet, M. J. (2016). Fishing selectivity as an 
instrument to reach management objectives in an ecosystem approach 
to fisheries. Marine Policy, 64, 46–54. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.004 

Feekings, J., Berg, C. W., Krag, L. A., & Eigaard, O. R. (2016). 
Influence of twin and multi-rig trawl systems on CPUE in the Danish 
Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) fishery. Fisheries Research, 175, 
51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.11.017 

Feekings, J. P., Krag, L. A., Malta, T. A. M. da V., Lund, H. S., Eliasen, 
S., Ulrich, C., & Mortensen, L. O. (2016). Industry-led fishing gear 
selectivity improvements. How can we increase flexibility and ownership 
over the gears used whole ensuring an effective introduction of the new 
EU Common Fisheries Policy? Abstract from ICES- FAO Working Group 
on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour, Mérida(Mexico). 

Fitzpatrick, M., Frangoudes, K., Fauconnet, L., & Quetglas, A. (2019). 
Fishing Industry Perspectives on the EU Landing Obligation. In Sven 
Sebastian Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, & S. J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European 
Landing Obligation - reducing discards in complex, multi-species and 
multi-jurisdictional fisheries (pp. 71–87). Springer Open. 

Fitzpatrick, M., Maravelias, C. D., Eigaard, O. R., Hynes, S., & Reid, D. 
(2014). Modelling FIshers’ preferences for alternative management 
options under the Common Fisheries Policy (No. 14-WP-SEMRU-04). 

Fitzpatrick, M., Maravelias, C. D., Eigaard, O. R., Hynes, S., & Reid, D. 
(2017). Fisher’s preferences and trade-offs between management 
options. Fish and Fisheries, 18(5), 795–807. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12204 

9 

 
Frost, H. S., & Hoff, A. (2017). The landing obligation in view of 
different management regimes. Fisheries Research, 195, 202–213. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2017.07.013 

Gamiz, N. A. (2019). Evaluation and implementation of discards policies 
under catch-based fisheries management. 
https://doi.org/doi.org/10.18174/507129 

Garcia, D., Dolder, P. J., Iriondo, A., Moore, C., Prellezo, R., & 
Urtizberea, A. (2019). A multi-stock harvest control rule based on 
“pretty good yield” ranges to support mixed-fisheries management. 
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 77, 119–135. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz181 

García, D., Prellezo, R., Sampedro, P., Da-Rocha, J. M., Castro, J., 
Cervino, S., … Gutiérrez, M.-J. (2017). Bioeconomic multistock 
reference points as a tool for overcoming the drawbacks of the landing 
obligation. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74(2), 511–524. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/278097a0 

Gatti, P., Méhault, S., Morandeau, F., Morfin, M., & Robert, M. (2019). 
Reducing discards of demersal species using a 100 mm square mesh 
cylinder: Size selectivity and catch comparison analysis. Marine Policy, 
(October 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103777 

Guillen, J., Holmes, S. J., Carvalho, N., Casey, J., Dörner, H., Gibin, M., 
… Zanzi, A. (2018). A Review of the European Union Landing Obligation 
Focusing on Its Implications for Fisheries and the Environment. 
Sustainability, 10(4). 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040900 

Hawkins, A. D. (2019). The Importance of Involving Stakeholders and 
Scientists in the Management of Marine Fisheries. Journal of Fisheries 
Science, 1(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.30564/jfsr.v1i1.917 

Hidalgo, M., Ligas, A., Bellido, J. M., Bitetto, I., Carbonara, P., Carlucci, 
R., … Vrgoc, N. (2019). Size-dependent survival of European hake 
juveniles in the Mediterranean Sea. Scientia Marina, 83(S1), 207–221. 
https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04857.16A 

Hoff, A., Frost, H., Andersen, P., Prellezo, R., Rueda, L., 
Triantaphyllidis, G., … Bellido, J. M. (2019). Potential Economic 
Consequences of the Landing Obligation. In Sven Sebastian Uhlmann, 
C. Ulrich, & S. J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation 
Reducing Discards in Complex, Multi-Species and Multi-Jurisdictional 
Fisheries (pp. 109–128). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03308-8 

Holm, P., Hadjimichael, M., Linke, S., & Mackinson, S. (2020). 
Collaborative Research in Fisherie - Co-creating Knowledge for Fisheries 
Governance in Europe. 

Jacques, N. (2018). Modelling the bycatch reduction of a shrimp trawl 
with a combined Nordmøre grid and sieve panel configuration in the 
north east Atlantic deep-water shrimp (Pandalus borealis) fishery (The 
Arctic University of Norway). Retrieved from 
https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/14193/thesis.pdf?sequen
ce=2&isAllowed=y 

Karlsen, J. D., Krag, L. A., Herrmann, B., & Lund, H. S. (2016). Using 
fish behaviour to separate fish from Nephrops in a horizontally divided 
codend in the mixed trawl fishery. Abstract from ICES-FAO Working 
Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour, Mérida(Mexico). 
Retrieved from www.ices.dk 

Koffeman-Kramer, J. (2017). Influencing EU fisheries policy through 
(trans)national networks: The case of the Province of Flevoland. Utrecht 
Univeristy. 

Kraak, S. B. M., Haase, S., Minto, C., & Santos, J. (2019). The Rosa Lee 
phenomenon and its consequences for fisheries advice on changes in 

10 

 
fishing mortality or gear selectivity. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 
76(7), 2179–2192. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz107 

Kraak, S. B. M., & Hart, P. J. B. (2019). Creating a Breeding Ground for 
Compliance and Honest Reporting Under the Landing Obligation: 
Insights from Behavioural Science. In Sven Sebastian Uhlmann, C. 
Ulrich, & S. J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation - 
reducing discards in complex, multi-species and multi-jurisdictional 
fisheries (pp. 219–236). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-03308-8 

Krag, L. A., Krafft, B. A., Engås, A., & Herrmann, B. (2016). Employing 
a trawl independent multi-compartment towing rig to study selectivity 
of crustaceans in trawls. Abstract from ICES-FAO Working Group on 
Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour, Mérida(Mexico). Retrieved from 
www.ices.dk 

Krag, Ludvig A., Herrmann, B., Feekings, J., & Karlsen, J. D. (2016). 
Escape panels in trawls-a consistent management tool? Aquatic Living 
Resources, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2016028 

Kynoch, R. J., Fryer, R.J, & Neat, F. C. (2015). A simple technical 
measure to reduce bycatch and discard ofskates and sharks in mixed-
species bottom-trawl fisherie. Ices Cm 2014/3849-O:16, 72(6), 1861–
1868. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv037 

Leite, L., & Pita, C. (2016). Review of participatory fisheries 
management arrangements in the European Union. Marine Policy, 
74(October), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.08.003 

Lindebo, E., Stevens, D., Olsson, P., Ruiter, P., Parker, D., Ulrich, C., & 
Park, M. (2016). Adapt, improvise and overcome: fishermen’s 
responses to the Landing Obligation. IIFET 2016 Scotland Conference 
Proceedings, 1–8. 

Little, A. S., Needle, C. L., Hilborn, R., Holland, D. S., & Marshall, C. T. 
(2015). Real-time spatial management approaches to reduce bycatch 
and discards: Experiences from Europe and the United States. Fish and 
Fisheries, 16(4), 576–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12080 

Mackinson, S., Platts, M., Garcia, C., & Lynam, C. (2018). Evaluating 
the fishery and ecological consequences of the proposed North Sea 
multi-annual plan. PLoS ONE, 13(1), 1–23. 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190015 

Madsen, N., & Holst, R. (2017). Development and testing of a separator 
frame in a Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus fishery. Fisheries 
Science, 83(6), 929–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-017-1138-5 

Mangi, S. C., Dolder, P. J., Catchpole, T. L., Rodmell, D., & Rozarieux, 
N. De. (2015). Approaches to fully documented fisheries : practical 
issues and stakeholder perceptions. Fish and Fisheries, (16), 426–452. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12065 

Marçalo, A., Guerreiro, P. M., Bentes, L., Rangel, M., Monteiro, P., 
Oliveira, F., … Gonçalves, J. M. S. (2018). Effects of different slipping 
methods on the mortality of sardine, sardina pilchardus, after purse-
seine capture off the Portuguese southern coast (Algarve). PLoS ONE, 
13(5), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195433 

Marshall, C. T., Wiff, R., & Cornulier, T. (2017). Using commercial and 
survey data to infer real-time fish distribution in the North Sea at high 
resolution. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science, 8(10), 1–71. 
https://doi.org/10.7489/1973-1 

Methling, C., Skov, P. V., & Madsen, N. (2017). Reflex impairment, 
physiological stress, and discard mortality of European plaice 
pleuronectes platessa in an otter trawl fishery. ICES Journal of Marine 
Science, 74(6), 1660–1667. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx004 

Morfin, M., Méhault, S., Benoît, H. P., & Kopp, D. (2017). Narrowing 
down the number of species requiring detailed study as candidates for 

11 

 
the EU Common Fisheries Policy discard ban. Marine Policy, Vol. 77, pp. 
23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.12.003 

Msomphora, M. R., & Aanesen, M. (2015). Is the catch quota 
management (CQM) mechanism attractive to fishers? A preliminary 
analysis of the Danish 2011 CQM trial project. Marine Policy, 58(43), 
78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.011 

Noack, T., Frandsen, R. P., Wieland, K., Krag, L. A., Berg, F., & Madsen, 
N. (2017). Fishing profiles of Danish seiners and bottom trawlers in 
relation to current EU management regulations. Fisheries Management 
and Ecology, 24(6), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12244 

Noack, Thomas. (2017). Danish seine – Ecosystem effects of fishing. 
Technical University of Denmark. 

Noack, Thomas, Frandsen, R. P., Krag, L. A., Mieske, B., & Madsen, N. 
(2017). Codend selectivity in a commercial Danish anchor seine. 
Fisheries Research, 186, 283–291. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.10.006 

Pastoors, M. A., van Helmond, A. T. M., van Marlen, B., van Overzee, 
H. M. J., & de Graaf E. (2014). Pelagic pilot project discard ban, 2013 - 
2014. Retrieved from http://edepot.wur.nl/301926 

Penas Lado, E. (2020). Quo Vadis Common Fisheries Policy? Retrieved 
from http://hdl.handle.net/2086/6200 

Pointin, F., Cornou, A. S., Prod’homme, R., Taupin, N., & Rochet, M. J. 
(2018). A method to address the non-random spatial distribution of on-
board observer data to map landings and discards. Fisheries Research, 
199, 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2017.10.023 

Prellezo, R., Carmona, I., García, D., Arregi, L., Ruiz, J., & Onandia, I. 
(2017). Bioeconomic assessment of a change in fishing gear selectivity: 
the case of a single-species fleet affected by the landing obligation. 
Scientia Marina, 81(3), 371. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04597.18a 

Prellezo, R., & Curtin, R. (2015). Confronting the implementation of 
marine ecosystem-based management within the Common Fisheries 
Policy reform. Ocean and Coastal Management, 117, 43–51. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.03.005 

Rätz, H. J., & Lloret, J. (2016). Optimising sustainable management of 
mixed fisheries: Differentiating and weighting selective strategies. 
Ocean and Coastal Management, 134(2016), 150–162. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.10.005 

Rätz, H. J., & Lloret, J. (2018). Inter-species quota flexibility – 
Exploring a new management tool in European Common Fisheries 
Policy. Ocean and Coastal Management, 163(July), 222–231. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.06.017 

Reid, D. G., Graham, N., Suuronen, P., He, P., & Pol, M. (2016). 
Implementing balanced harvesting: practical challenges and other 
implications. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(6), 1690–1696. 

Rindorf, A., Clausen, L. W., Garcia, D., Hintzen, N. T., Kempf, A., 
Maravelias, C., … Voos, R. (2016). Myfish: Maximising yield of fisheries 
while balancing ecosystem, economic and social concers: Legacy 
booklet. (February). 

Robert, M., Calderwood, J., Radford, Z., Catchpole, T., Reid, D. G., & 
Pawlowski, L. (2019). Spatial distribution of discards in mixed fisheries: 
species trade-offs, potential spatial avoidance and national contrasts. 
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 29(4), 917–934. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-019-09581-z 

Salomon, M., Markus, T., & Dross, M. (2014). Masterstroke or paper 
tiger - The reform of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy, 
47, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.02.001 

12 

 
Sandalli, G. (2017). Fishing Enterprises towards sustainable fisheries in 
the EU’s reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Universidad de 
Córdoba. 

Siikavuopio Kolflaath, B. (2015). The new Common Fisheries Policy and 
its landing obligation- Implications for governability and legitimacy A 
case study of the Scottish mixed roundfish trawl fishery. The Arctic 
University of Norway. 

Sobrino, J. M., & Sobrido, M. (2017). The common fisheries policy: A 
difficult compromise between relative stability and the discard ban. The 
Future of the Law of the Sea: Bridging Gaps Between National, 
Individual and Common Interests, 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-51274-7_2 

Stockhausen, B. (2019). How the Implementation of the Landing 
Obligation Was Weakened. In Sven Sebastian Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, & S. 
J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation Reducing Discards 
in Complex, Multi-Species and Multi-Jurisdictional Fisheries (pp. 165–
178). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03308-8 

Uhlmann, S. S., Chen, C., & Pastoors, M. A. (2014). Feasibility study: 
discard survival. In IMARES Wageningen UR. 

Uhlmann, S. S., van Helmond, a. T. M., Kemp Stefansdottir, E., 
Sigurthardottir, S., Haralabous, J., Bellido, J. M., … Rochet, M.-J. 
(2014). Discarded fish in European waters: general patterns and 
contrasts. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71(5), 1235–1245. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst030 

Uhlmann, Sebastian S, Theunynck, R., Ampe, B., Desender, M., 
Soetaert, M., & Depestele, J. (2016). Injury, reflex impairment, and 
survival of beam-trawled flatfish. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 
73(4), 1244–1254. 

Valentinsson, D., Ringdahl, K., Storr-Paulsen, M., & Madsen, N. (2019). 
The Baltic Cod Trawl Fishery: The Perfect Fishery for a Succesful 
Implemenation of the Landing Obligation. In Sven Sebastian Uhlmann, 
S. J. Kennelly, & C. Ulrich (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation - 
reducing discards in complex, multi-species and multi-jurisdictional 
fisheries (pp. 197–218). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03308-8 

van Der Reijden, K. J., Molenaar, P., Chen, C., Uhlmann, S. S., 
Goudswaard, P. C., & Van Marlen, B. (2017). Survival of undersized 
plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), sole (Solea solea), and dab (Limanda 
limanda) in North Sea pulse-trawl fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine 
Science, 74(6), 1672–1680. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx019 

van Helmond, Aloysius T M, Mortensen, L. O., Plet-Hansen, K. S., 
Ulrich, C., Needle, C. L., Oesterwind, D., … Poos, J. J. (2020). Electronic 
monitoring in fisheries: Lessons from global experiences and future 
opportunities. Fish and Fisheries, 21, 162– 189. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12425 

van Hoof, L., Kraan, M., Visser, N. M., Avoyan, E., Batsleer, J., & 
Trapman, B. (2019). Muddying the Waters of the Landing Obligation: 
How Multi-level Governance Structures Can Obscure Policy 
Implementation. In Sebastian S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, & S. J. Kennelly 
(Eds.), The European Landing Obligation Reducing Discards in Complex, 
Multi-Species and Multi-Jurisdictional Fisheries (pp. 179–196). 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03308-8 

Verkempynck, R. (2014). How does survival of discards influence stock 
development ? 

Villasante, S., Pita, C., Pierce, G. J., Guimeráns, C. P., Rodrigues, J. G., 
Antelo, M., … Coll, M. (2016). To land or not to land: How do 
stakeholders perceive the zero discard policy in European small-scale 
fisheries? Marine Policy, Vol. 71, pp. 166–174. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.05.004 

13 

 
Vogel, C., Kopp, D., & Méhault, S. (2017). From discard ban to 
exemption: How can gear technology help reduce catches of undersized 
Nephrops and hake in the Bay of Biscay trawling fleet? Journal of 
Environmental Management, Vol. 186, pp. 96–107. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.017 

Vogel, C., Kopp, D., Morandeau, F., Morfin, M., & Méhault, S. (2017). 
Improving gear selectivity of whiting (Merlangius merlangus) on board 
French demersal trawlers in the English Channel and North Sea. 
Fisheries Research, 193(September), 207–216. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2017.04.013 

14 

 
 
Annex 1.5 

Interview guide 

Anonymized ID: ___________________________________________________________________ 

Organisation: _____________________________________________________________________ 

Type of fishery stakeholder (admin/PO/manager):_______________________________________ 

Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

Thank you for your cooperation! 

 
 
 
 
A1. What management measures have been implemented in this region in the period 2014-
2020?  

Please  go over each management  measure, one by one,  and  provide  a yes/no answer including more 
details in case the answer is “yes” (i.e. year of implementation, description of the measure etc.) 

Could be management or policy measures such as: 

  Closed areas 

  Temporarily closed areas / (near) Real-Time closures / temporary stop on fishing activities 

 

 Avoidance/Moving-on rules 

  Selective gear 

1.  Minimum mesh size 

2.  Maximum twine thickness 

3.  Selective devices like sorting grids or square mesh panels in demersal trawl fisheries 

4.  Sieve-panel or catch reduction devices (BRDs) 

5.  Beam size and number of dredges in beam trawl and dredge fisheries 

6.  Net height/length in gillnet  

7.  Maximum number of nets or hooks 

8.  Hanging ratio in gillnet fisheries 

9.  Increased  selectivity  in  traps/pots  e.g.  escape  gap  dimensions  or  modifications  to 

increase species/size selectivity 

10. Lights 

11. Others? 

  High survivability exemptions 

  De minimis exemptions 

  Quota swaps 

1.  Between member states 

2.  Between vessels within member state 

3.  For what species? 

 

Interstock flexibility (species quota swap) 

  Change in quota management  

1.  What are the current quota management systems? 

2.  Are there species-specific differences?  

3.  Has this been the same from 2014 to now?  

  Change of minimum landing size (or rather Minimum Conservation Reference Size compared 
to MLS since MLS became MCRS. The case for Baltic cod from 38 cm to 35 cm in 2015 but 
others? 

  Removal of TAC to avoid LO for the stocks? The case for dab and flounder in the North Sea 

in early 2017 but others?  

  Last Haul (“last observed haul”-approach) 

 

Interspecies and inter annual quota flexibility mechanisms 

  Others? 

A2. What operational solutions / management measures mentioned above (A1) have been tried  
in this region in the period 2014-2020?  

In addition to the above listed this could be: 

  Trials  on  electronic  monitoring  (e.g.  Germany,  Denmark,  Netherlands,  England,  Scotland, 

(Sweden)) 

  Voluntary  vessels  measures  (e.g.  water-filled  hopper  or  water  provisions  during  sorting 

process to increase survivability, increase mesh size, ensilage of BMS-catches, etc.) 

  Others? 

B.  Of these, which were tested or implemented specifically due to the landing obligation?  

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

C.  Of the management measures and operational solutions we have talked about, are there 

any which were tested or implemented as ecosystem measures? For instance: closed areas 

to protect seabed from fishing pressure. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

D.  What  are/were/could  be  operational  solutions  (e.g.  technical  fix  in  fishing  operations, 

escape panels, lights as deterrents/attractants to remove unwanted fish, potential change 

of  mesh  size)  from  pilot  studies  or  trials  that  could  be  more  efficient  than  management 

measures when facing the LO, in your view? 

 
 
 
 
D1: How have the management measures impacted different fleet segments / fisheries? E.g. Less 

risk of chokes? Decreased income? Increased handling time? 

D2: How have the operational solutions or trials impacted different fleet segments / fisheries?  

D3:  Has  there  been  a  difference 

in  adoption/compliance  between  different 

fleet 

segments/fisheries in terms of adopting management measures? If so please describe  

D4:  Has  there  been  a  difference 

in  adoption/compliance  between  different 

fleet 

segments/fisheries in terms of adopting operational solutions? If so please describe 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

E1: What are the main obstacles in the implementation of these management measures*? 

E2: What are the main obstacles in the implementation of these operational solutions*?   

*(e.g. lack of data, models or appropriate scientific understanding, or where the solutions would 

be incompatible with entrenched legislation (e.g. relative stability) or due to level playing field 

among actors (essentially that management and control measures are equal enough between 

member states to ensure fair competition in the industry regardless of nationality) 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

F1: Which management measures were successful and/or have been adopted by the fishing fleet 

and do you have an estimate of how large the uptake is?  

F2: Which operational solutions/trials were successful and/or have been adopted by the fishing 

fleet and do you have an estimate of how large the uptake is?  

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
G.  Do  you  know  of  any  voluntary  initiatives  taken  by  local  producer  organisations  (POs)  or 

advisory councils (ACs) to facilitate the landing obligation? Including market measures. 

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

H.  Do you have an overview of to what extent the implemented management measures are 

complied with?  

________________________________________________________________________________ 

I.  Do  you  know  on  what  basis  exemptions  from  the  LO  have  been  implemented  for  the 

area/fisheries you represent? This could for instance be due to unavoidable mixed catches, 

survivability, disproportionate costs for handling and sorting the catch, lack of funding for 

investments/adaptations 

J.  How are exemptions monitored by controlling offices in your country? 

K.  What  other  challenges  (outside  of  the  Landing  Obligation)  can  you  identify  as  of  major 

concern to different fleet segments/fisheries?  

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1.6 – DATA ASSEMBLY TEMPLATE 

 
ANNEX 1.7: Methods  

The methods applied in Task 3 are:  

1.  a desk study (literature review, data collection);  

2.  In-depth  assessment  and  consultation  with  experts  and  stakeholders  via 

different tools: oral interviews, an e-workshop, an online survey. 

Each of these methods are described under separate headings below. 

Desk study 

For  the  desk  study,  a  five-step  approach  for  systematic  reviewing  (Khan  et  al. 

2003) was used. First, the main review questions were identified:  

3.  What are the control management measures currently in force?  

4.  What are their characteristics and advantages/disadvantages?  

5.  Which ones are broadly implemented, and which ones are not?  

Relevant primary and grey literature publications were identified using a two-stage 

approach. In the first stage studies were identified using scientific citation search 

engines (e.g., Web of Science (WoS), Google Scholar). A list of search terms was 

used to identify the literature, including “wild cards” (e.g., discards*). We limited 

our 

focus 

to  European  studies  conducted 

in 

the  period  2014-2020 

(February/March).  Valorisation  of  bycatch  products,  ecological  assessments  and 

“high survival” studies were not included. The results of this search are listed in 

Table A3 (Annex 2). Relevant literature was exchanged between Tasks 1 and Tasks 

3.  The second stage  was  an  extended literature search: examining  the  selected 

articles to identify other sources of relevant information/data from the reference 

lists of those articles (Annex 2, Table A4). Besides A1-publications, a search was 

conducted  for  reports  and  other  relevant  documents  published  by  different 

(inter)national organisations (e.g. EFCA, ICES, EC) and Member States (Annex 2, 

Table  A5).  Various  European  project  outputs  (e.g.,  H2020  Discardless1,  H2020 

Minouw2) were consulted as well.  

In a next step, the quality of the studies was assessed via content screening of the 

selected papers and a final list of publications was made. Lastly, relevant info was 

summarized and main findings were synthesized and interpreted.  

1 www.discardless.eu 
2 www.minouw-project.eu 

1 

 
                                       
Oral interviews 

For Task 1 and Task 3, a joint interview guide with 18 open questions was drafted 

with  the  aim  of  interviewing  stakeholders  (MS  ministries,  fishing  industry  and 

NGOs) on LO management measures. This interview guide was employed by the 

consortium (Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland the Netherlands, Belgium, Latvia, 

Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK and the Outermost Regions of Portugal and 

Spain).  A  minimum  of  two  interviews  was  demanded  per  country.  Each  of  the 

partners delivered written transcripts with anonymous responses.  

E-workshop 

Two  e-workshops,  for  both  “Baltic  Sea  and  North  Sea”  (BS&NS)  and  “Atlantic 

Western Waters” (AWW), were organized for Task 1 and Task 3 combined: 

  “The Landing Obligation management and control measures in the Baltic and 

North Seas” on the 9 and 10 June 2020 (Lot1). 

  “The Landing Obligation management and control measures in the Atlantic WW 

” took place on the 17 of June 2020 (Lot 2). 

A  summary  of  the  respective  e-workshops  was  sent  to  all  stakeholders  and 

provided  as  an  Annex  (both  Lots).  During  the  first  day  of  the  workshop  two 

presentations were given on the topic of LO management measures and commonly 

employed  control  technologies  in  EU  fisheries.  During  the  second  day  of  the 

workshop,  stakeholders  were  split  over  three  subgroups.  Discussions  in  both  e-

workshops related to the topic of control and enforcement mainly revolved around 

the general lack of compliance to the LO and the future use of electronic monitoring 

to improve compliance. Feedback from the participants was used as a basis for the 

online survey (Task 3.3).  

Online survey 

To complement information gathered via the literature study, an online survey was 

developed  in  Survey  Monkey©.  Survey  questions  were  drafted  in  close 

collaboration with scientists from both Lots involved in Task 1.2. This questionnaire 

listed  28  questions, 

including  closed-  and  open-ended  questions.  The 

questionnaire was sent to all participants of the e-workshop.  

To broaden the range of disciplines covered other eligible experts of AWW, North 

Sea and Baltic sea fisheries were identified and addressed as well. In total, the link 

to the full survey was emailed to 179 stakeholders in total (115 in Lot 1 and 64 for 

2 

 
Lot 

2,  NGO’s, 

scientific 

institutes, 

EU 

institutions, 

consultancy, 

governments/ministries). The survey was also forwarded by some respondents to 

other  experts  in  their  own  network.  The  survey  was  accessible  for  respondents 

between October 26 and November 20, 2020. The estimated time needed to fill in 

the survey was 15 minutes.  

The  first  part  of  the  survey  (Questions  1-3)  aimed  to  sketch  the  stakeholder 

profiles. Questions number 4, 5 and 6 focussed on LO management measures 

(e.g., gear modifications, move-on rules, removal of TACs and area closures) and 

mainly  delivered  input for Section 2 of the  main  report.  The  other  responses to 

each  of  the  questions  in  the  survey  relate  to  the  following  overarching  topics: 

management measures, control measures and compliance, funding and regulatory 

process  and  Remote  Electronic  Monitoring  (REM).  The  main  outcomes  of  the 

literature  review that was conducted  under  Section  5  of the  main  report  will  be 

discussed  jointly  with  survey,  e-workshop  and  interview  outcomes  below  in  the 

general discussion.  

Response rate and stakeholders’ profile 

In  total,  94  respondents  answered  the  questionnaire,  62  for  NS&BS  and  32  for 

AWW.  The  average  response  rate  to  the  survey,  defined  as  the  number  of 

responses  received  divided  by  the  number  of  surveys  sent  out,  could  not  be 

calculated  as  the  invitation  link  to  the  survey  was  forwarded  by  multiple 

stakeholders.  Hence,  the  number  of  stakeholders  that  received  the  survey  is 

unknown.  However,  the  response  rate  per  question  could  be  calculated  (Annex 

3.2- Table A1). The response rate per question (in percentage) was calculated by 

dividing  the  number  of  respondents  answering  a  specific  question  to  the  total 

number of respondents taking part in the study (i.e., 62 and 32). The response 

rate varied between 11-100%, with an average of 60.77% (Annex 3.2-Table A2) 

for NS&BS and 14-100%, with the same average for AWW (Annex 3.2– Table A10).  

In the first part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate the field 

of  their  professional  activity  (Question  1),  the  country  where  they  work 

(Question 2) and the  geographical areas  where they are  active  (Question 3). 

The geographical distribution of the respondents covered the NS, the BS, the AWW 

and  to  a  minor  extent  the  Mediterranean,  outermost  regions  and  other  regions 

(e.g.,  global,  all  EU  waters).  For  the  NS&BS  Table  1  shows  the  percentage  of 

3 

 
respondents for each professional category and country where they conduct their 

activities.  Most  respondents  indicated  to  be  professionally  active  in  industry 

(37%),  followed  by  NGO’s  (23%),  ministries  (15%)  and  scientific  institutions 

(14.5%). For the AWW, Table 2 provides the structure of the responses by country 

and  professional  field.  37%  of  the  respondents  were  located  in  Spain,  23%  in 

France, followed by UK with almost 17% of the respondents, other countries were 

below 10%. Most respondents indicated to belong to industry (60%), followed by 

research (20%), NGO’s (10%) or consultancy firms (6.7%).  

The geographical distribution of the respondents covered the AWW and to a minor 

extent the Mediterranean, Outermost Regions, and other regions (e.g., North Sea). 

Table  1:  Percentage  (%)  respondents  per  country  and  professional  field  (EU  offices/institutions, 
Ministry/government, Industry, NGO, science, other) for BS&NS. In the field “Other”, respondents 
could indicate additional answer options besides the ones provided. Countries are abbreviated: BE = 
Belgium, DE = Denmark, FR = France, GE = Germany, NO = Norway, PO = Poland, SW= Sweden, 
NE = the Netherlands, UK = United Kingdom. 

Field/Country 

BE 

DE 

FR 

GE  NO 

PO 

SW 

NE 

UK  Other  Total 

EU offices 

4.84 

1.61 

Ministry 

3.23 

3.23 

3.23 

1.61 

3.23 

6.45 

14.52 

Industry 

1.61  17.74 

NGO 

3.23 

3.23 

1.61 

3.23 

6.45 

1.61 

4.84  1.61  1.61  37.10 

3.23 

1.61  4.84  3.23  22.58 

Research & 
academia 

4.84 

1.61  1.61  1.61  1.61 

1.61 

1.61 

Other 

1.61 

1.61 

1.61 

14.52 

4.84 

Totals 

17.74  25.81  1.61  6.45  1.61  11.29  11.29  12.90  6.45  4.84 

Table  2:  Percentage  (%)  respondents  per  country  and  professional  field  (EU  offices/institutions, 

Ministry/government,  Industry,  NGO,  science,  other)  the  AWW.  Countries  are  abbreviated:  FR  = 

France, IR – Ireland, BE = Belgium, PT = Portugal, SP = Spain, UK = United Kingdom. 

Field/Country 

FR 

IR 

BE 

PT 

SP 

UK 

Total 

Consultancy 

EU agency/body 

Ministry 

3.33% 

3.33% 

3.33% 

6.66% 

3.33% 

Industry 

20.00% 

3.33%  3.33% 

23.33% 

10,00%  59.99% 

NGO 

3.33% 

3.33% 

3.33% 

9.99% 

Research & 
academia 

6.67% 

6.67% 

6,67%  20.01% 

Totals 

23.33%  6.66%  6.66%  10.00%  33.66%  16.67% 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1.8 – SPECIES AND GEARS COVERED BY THE LO FROM 
2015 TO 2020 IN THE BALTIC AND NORTH SEAS AND ATLANTIC 
WESTERN WATERS 

Baltic Sea 

Table A1 - Overview of Baltic Sea species with first year of species becoming subject 
to the  landing obligation, the relevant discard plans, gear codes, exemptions from 
the  landing  obligation  in  place,  gear  codes  for  exemption  and  ICES  area  for 
exemption. 

Species 

First year 

Discard 
plans 

Relevant 
gear codes  

Type of LO 
exemption 

Gear code 
LO 
exemption  

ICES area 
with LO 
exemption  

Cod (Gadus 
morhua) 

2015 

2015 

Salmon 
(Salmo 
salar) 

Herring 
(Clupea 
harengus) 

2015 

Sprat 
(Sprattus 
sprattus) 

2015 

Plaice 
(Pleuronect
es platessa) 

2017 

2017 

All other 
species 
with TAC or 
MCRS 

All 

All 

High 
survivability 

FPO, FYK, 
FPN 

3b,3c,3d 

High 
survivability 

FPO, FYK, 
FPN 

3b,3c,3d 

All 

None 

None 

None 

All 

None 

None 

None 

All 

High 
survivability 
(from 
2018) 

FPO, FYK, 
FPN 

3b,3c,3d 

All 

None 

None 

None 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) No 
1396/2014 
and 
2018/306 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) No 
1396/2014 
and 
2018/306 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) No 
1396/2014 
and 
2018/306 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) No 
1396/2014 
and 
2018/306 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) No 
1396/2014 
and 
2018/306 

REGULATIO
N (EU) No 
1380/2013 
and 
2018/306 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
North Sea pelagic fisheries/species 

Table A2 - Overview of pelagic species in the North Sea region with first year of 
species becoming subject to the landing obligation, the relevant discard plans, gear 
codes, exemptions from the landing obligation in place, gear codes for exemption 
and ICES area for exemption. 

Species 

First year 

Discard 
plans 

Relevant 
gear codes 

Type of LO 
exemption 

Gear code 
LO 
exemption 

ICES area 
with LO 
exemption 

PS; OTM, 
PTM 

3a, 4 

2015 

Herring 
(Clupea 
harengus) 

2015 

2015 

Blue 
whiting 
(Micromesis
tius 
poutassou) 

Greater 
silver smelt 
(Argentina 
silus) 

2015 

Horse 
mackerel 
(Trachurus 
spp.) 

2015 

Mackerel 
(Scomber 
scombrus) 

Sprat 
(Sprattus 
sprattus) 

2015 

2015 

Norway 
Pout 
(Trisopteru
s esmarkii) 

Sand eel 
(Ammodyte
s spp.) 

2015 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
1395/2014 
and 
2018/189 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
1395/2014 
and 
2018/189 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
1395/2014 
and 
2018/189 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
1395/2014 
and 
2018/189 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
1395/2014 
and 
2018/189 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
1395/2014, 
2017/1393 
and 
2018/189 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
1395/2014 
and 
2018/189 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
1395/2014 

OTM, PTM, 
PS, OTB, 
PTB, GNS, 
GND, MIS 

High 
survivability 
and de 
minimis 
(1% from 
2019) 

OTM, PTM 

None 

None 

3a, 4 

OTM, PTM 

None 

None 

4 

OTM, PTM, 
PS 

De minimis 
(1% from 
2019) 

OTM, PTM 

4b, 4c 

OTM, PTM, 
PS, OTB, 
PTB, GNS, 
GND,LLS, 
LHP, MIS 

OTM, PTM, 
PS, MIS, 
ind. Trawl 

PS 

3a, 4 

High 
survivability 
and de 
minimis 
(1% from 
2019) 

None 

None 

3a, 4 

Any trawl < 
32 mm, PS 

None 

None 

3a, 4 

Any trawl < 
32 mm, PS 

None 

None 

3a, 4 

2 

 
2015 

Whiting 
(Merlangius 
merlangus) 

2019 

Any pelagic 
quota 
species 

Any pelagic 
quota 
species 

2019 

and 
2018/189 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
1395/2014 
and 
2018/189 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035  

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035 
and 
2019/2238 

when 
caught by 
pelagic 

De minimis 
(1% from 
2019) 

OTM, PTM 

4 

All 

All 

High 
survivability 

FPO/FYK 

3a, 4 

TBN, TB 

4b, 4c 

De minimis 
(7% 
combined 
from 2019. 
6% planned 
for 2021) 

3 

 
 
North Sea demersal fisheries/species 

Table A3 - Overview of demersal species in the North Sea region with first year of 
species becoming subject to the landing obligation, the relevant discard plans, gear 
codes, exemptions from the landing obligation in place, gear codes for exemption 
and ICES area for exemption. Exemptions altered or removed before 2020 are not 
shown. 

Gear code 
LO 
exemption  

ICES area 
with LO 
exemption  

3a, 4 

FPO/FYK, 
OTB, OTT, 
SDN, SCC, 
TBN 

3a, 4 

FPO/FYK, 
OTB, OTT, 
SDN, SCC, 
TBN 

3a, 4 

FPO/FYK, 
OTB, OTT, 
SDN, SCC, 
TBN 

3a, 4 

FPO/FYK, 
OTB, OTT, 
SDN, SCC, 
TBN 

3a, 4 

FPO/FYK, 
OTB, OTT, 
TBN, TB 

2a, 3a, 4 

FPO/FYK, 
OTB, OTT, 
TBN, TB 

Species 

First year 

Discard 
plans 

Relevant 
gear codes  

Type of LO 
exemption 

Cod (Gadus 
morhua) 

2017 

2016 

Haddock 
(Melanogra
mmus 
aeglefinus) 

Whiting 
(Merlangius 
merlangus) 

2017 

2016 

Saithe 
(Pollachius 
virens) 

2016 

Hake 
(Merluccius  
merluccius) 

2016 

Norway 
lobster 
(Nephrops 
norvegicus) 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(4-6% by 
2021 
depending) 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(4-6% by 
2021 
depending) 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(4-6% by 
2021 
depending) 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(4-6% by 
2021 
depending) 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(4-6% by 
2021 
depending) 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(6% by 
2021 
depending) 

All 

All 

All 

All 

All 

All 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2016/2250, 
2018/2035, 
2018/45, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2015/2440, 
2016/2250, 
2018/2035, 
2018/45, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2016/2250, 
2018/2035, 
2018/45, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2015/2440, 
2016/2250, 
2018/2035, 
2018/45, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2015/2440, 
2016/2250, 
2018/2035, 
2018/45, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2015/2440, 
2016/2250, 
2018/2035, 
2018/45, 
2019/2238 

4 

 
2016 

North 
Deepwater 
Prawn 
(Pandalus 
borealis)(P
RA) 

2016 

Common 
Sole (Solea 
solea) 

2016 

Plaice 
(Pleuronect
es platessa) 

2019 

Turbot 
(Scophtalm
us 
maximus) 

Skates and 
rays 

2019 

2019 

Horse 
mackerel 
(Trachurus 
spp.) 

2019 

Mackerel 
(Scomber 
scombrus) 

Sprat 
(Sprattus 
sprattus) 

2019 

2019 

2019 

 Blue 
whiting 
(Micromesis
tius 
poutassou) 

Norway 
Pout 
(Trisopteru
s esmarkii) 

All 

All 

All 

All 

All 

All 

All 

All 

All 

All 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2015/2440, 
2016/2250, 
2018/2035, 
2018/45, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2015/2440, 
2016/2250, 
2018/2035, 
2018/45, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2016/2250, 
2018/2035, 
2018/45, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035, 
2019/2238 

5 

FPO/FYK, 
TBN, TB 

3a, 4 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(6% by 
2021 
depending) 

2a, 3a, 4 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption, 
De minimis 
(from 3-6% 
combined 
by 2021) 

FPO/FYK, 
OTB, OTT, 
TBB, GN, 
GNS, GND, 
GNC, GTN, 
GTR, GEN, 
GNF 

2a, 3a, 4 

FPO/FYK, 
SDN, OTB, 
PTB, GNS, 
GTR, GTN, 
GEN, BT2, 
TBN, TB 

FPO/FYK, 
TBB 

3a, 4 

All 

2a, 3a, 4 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption, 
De minimis 
(from 3-6% 
combined 
by 2021) 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption 
(from 
2020) 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption  

De minimis 
(6% 
combined 
from 2021) 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBB 
(TR2, BT2) 

De minimis 
(6% 
combined 
from 2021) 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBB 
(TR2, BT2) 

4 

4 

3a, 4 

3a, 4 

3a, 4 

de minimis 
(1% from 
2020) 

de minimis 
(1% from 
2020) 

de minimis 
(1% from 
2020) 

OTB, OTM, 
OTT, PTB, 
PTM, SDN, 
SPR, SSC, 
TB, TBN) 

OTB, OTM, 
OTT, PTB, 
PTM, SDN, 
SPR, SSC, 
TB, TBN) 

OTB, OTM, 
OTT, PTB, 
PTM, SDN, 
SPR, SSC, 
TB, TBN) 

 
2019 

 Sand eel 
(Ammodyte
s spp.) 

Ling (Molva 
molva) 

2019 

2019 

Other quota 
species, 
including 
pelagic 

All 

All 

All 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035, 
2019/2238 

Delegated 
regulation 
(EU) 
2018/2035, 
2019/2238 

de minimis 
(1% from 
2020) 

OTB, OTM, 
OTT, PTB, 
PTM, SDN, 
SPR, SSC, 
TB, TBN) 

3a, 4 

De minimis 
(3%) 

LLS 

4 

FPO/FYK, 
TBN, TB 

3a, 4 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption, 
De minimis 
(6% 
combined 
from 2021) 

6 

 
 
 
 
Atlantic Western waters pelagic fisheries/species 

Table A4 - Overview of pelagic species in the AWW region with first year of species 
becoming subject to the landing obligation, the relevant discard plans, gear codes, 
exemptions from the landing obligation in place, gear codes for exemption and ICES 
area for exemption. 

Species 

First year 

Discard 
plans 

Relevant 
gear codes  

Type of LO 
exemption 

Gear code 
LO 
exemption  

ICES area 
with LO 
exemption  

2015 

Albacore 
tuna 
(Thunnus 
alalunga) 

2015 

Anchovy 
(Engraulis 
encrasicolus
) 

2015 

Blue 
whiting 
(Micromesis
tius 
poutassou) 

2015 

Boarfish 
(Capros 
aper) 

2015 

Herring 
(Clupea 
harengus) 

Horse 
mackerel 

2019 

EU2014_13
93 
EU2018_01
90 
EU2014_13
94 
EU2018/01
88 

EU2014_13
94 
EU2018/01
88 

EU2014_13
93 
EU2018_01
90  
EU2014_13
94 
EU2018/01
88 
EU2018/00
44 

EU2014_13
93 
EU2019/22
39 
EU2018/20
33 

EU2014_13
93 
EU2018_01
90 

EU2018/20
34 
EU2019/22

PTM 

De minimis 
(5-7%) 

PTM 

7, 8 

All 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(1-7%) 

All 

De minimis 
(5-7%) 

All 

De minimis 
(0.5-7%) 

8, 9, 10, 
CECAF 
34.1.1., 
34.1.2. and 
34.2 

5b, 6, 7, 8, 
9a 

6, 7, 8, 9 

PS, OTM, 
OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TBB, 
OT, PT, TX, 
SSC, SPR, 
SDN, SX, 
SV 

OTM, PTM, 
OTT, OTB, 
PTB, OT, PT, 
TBN, TBS, 
TX, SSC, 
SPR, TB, 
SDN, SX, SV 

OTM, PTM, 
OTT, OTB, 
PTB, OT, PT, 
TBN, TBS, 
TX, SSC, 
SPR, TB, 
SDN, SX, SV 

Survivability 
exemption 

PS, GND 

5b, 6, 7 

De minimis 
(3-7%) 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TBB, 

6, 7b-7k, 8, 
9, 10, 
CECAF 

All 

All 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Trachurus 
spp.) 

2015 

Mackerel 
(Scomber 
scombrus) 

2016 

Whiting 
(Merlangius 
merlangus) 

All 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(1-7%) 

All 

De minimis 
(4-7%) 

34.1.1., 
34.1.2. and 
34.2 

5b, 6, 7, 8, 
9, 10, 
CECAF 
34.1.1., 
34.1.1. and 
34.2 

7b-7k, 8, 9 

OT, PT, TX, 
SSC, SPR, 
SDN, SX, SV, 
GNS, GND, 
GNC, GTR, 
GTN 

PS, OTM, 
OTB, OTT, 
OT, PTB, PT, 
SSC, SDN 
SPR, SX, SV, 
TBB, TBN, 
TBS, TB, TX, 
GNS, GND, 
GNC, GTR, 
GTN 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TBB, 
OT, PT, TX, 
SSC, SPR, 
SDN, SX, SV, 
GNS, GND, 
GNC, GTR, 
GTN 

39 
EU2018/20
33 
EU2019/22
39 

EU2014_13
93 
EU2018_01
90 

EU2015/24
38 
EU2016/23
75 
EU2018/00
46 
EU2018/20
34 
EU2019/22
39 
EU2018/20
33 
EU2019/22
39 

8 

 
 
 
 
Western waters demersal fisheries/species 

Table A5 - Overview of demersal species in the AWW region with first year of species 
becoming subject to the landing obligation, the relevant discard plans, gear codes, 
exemptions from the landing obligation in place, gear codes for exemption and ICES 
area for exemption. Exemptions altered or removed before 2020 are not shown. 

Species 

First year 

Discard 
plans 

Relevant 
gear codes  

Type of LO 
exemption 

Gear code 
LO 
exemption  

ICES area 
with LO 
exemption  

Alfonsinos 
(Beryx spp.) 

Anglerfish 
(Lophiidae) 

2019 

2018 

LL 

All 

EU2018/20
33 

EU2018/00
44 
EU2018/20
33 

10 

8,9 

De minimis 
(5%) 

LHP, LHM, 
LLS, LLD 

De minimis 
(4-7%) 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TBB, 
OT, PT, TX, 
SSC, SPR, 
SDN, SX, SV, 
GNS, GN, 
GND, GNC, 
GTN, GTR 
and GEN 

2017 

EU2017/21
67 

All 

Predation 

LLS, DWS 

Black 
scabbardfis
h 
(Aphanopus 
carbo) 

Cod (Gadus 
morhua) 

2019 

EU2018/20
34 

All 

De minimis 
(7%) 

8, 9, 10, 
CECAF 
34.1.2. 

7b, 7c, 7e-
7k 

7d-7h, 8a, 
8b, 9a 

OTB, OTT, 
OT, PTB, PT, 
SSC, SDN 
SPR, SX, SV, 
TBB, TBN, 
TBS, TB, TX 

OTT, OTB, 
TBB, TBS, 
TBN, TB, 
PTB, OT, PT, 
TX, GN, 
GNS, GND, 
GNC, GTN, 
GTR, GEN, 
GNF 

2016 

Common 
Sole (Solea 
solea) 

All 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(3-7%) 

EU2015/24
38 
EU2016/23
75 
EU2018/00
46 
EU2018/20
34 
EU2019/22
39 
EU2015/24
39 
EU2016/23
74 
EU2018/20
33 

9 

 
2019 

Great 
forkbeard 
(Phycis 
blennoides) 

2020 

2019 

Greater 
silver smelt 
(Argentina 
silus) 

Haddock 
(Melanogra
mmus 
aeglefinus) 

2016 

Hake 
(Merluccius 
merluccius) 

2019 

Megrim 
(Lepidorho
mbus spp.) 

2016 

Norway 
lobster 
(Nephrops 
norvegicus) 

9a, 10 

5b, 6 

6a, 7b, 7c, 
7e-7k 

8, 9 

7, 8, 9 

6, 7, 8, 9 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TBB, 
OT, PT, TX, 
SSC, SPR, 
SDN, SX, SV, 
LHP, LHM, 
LLS, LLD 

OTT, OTB, 
TBS, TBN, 
TB, PTB, OT, 
PT, TX 

OTB, OTT, 
OT, PTB, PT, 
SSC, SDN 
SPR, SX, SV, 
TBB, TBN, 
TBS, TB, TX 

OTT, OTB, 
PTB, OT, PT, 
TBN, TBS, 
TX, SSC, 
SPR, TB, 
SDN, SX and 
SV 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TBB, 
OT, PT, TX, 
SSC, SPR, 
SDN, SX, SV, 
GNS, GND, 
GNC, GTR, 
GTN 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TB, OT, 
PT, TX, FPO, 
FIX, FYK 

EU2019/22
39 

EU2018/20
33 
EU2019/22
39 

All 

De minimis 
(3-7%) 

EU2019/22
39 

All 

De minimis 
(0.6%) 

EU2018/20
34 
EU2019/22
39 

EU2015/24
39 
EU2016/23
74 
EU2018/00
44 
EU2019/22
39 

EU2018/20
33 
EU2019/22
39 

EU2015/24
38 
EU2016/23
75 
EU2018/00
46 
EU2018/20
34 
EU2019/22
39 
EU2015/24
39 

All 

All 

De minimis 
(3-7%) 

De minimis 
(5-7%) 

All 

De minimis 
(3-5%) 

All 

Survivability 
exemption 

10 

 
EU2016/23
74 
EU2018/00
44 
EU2018/20
33 
EU2019/22
39 

EU2018/20
34 
EU2019/22
39 

All 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(3-5%) 

2019 

Plaice 
(Pleuronect
es platessa) 

2019 

Pollack 
(Pollachius 
pollachius) 

EU2018/20
33 

All 

De minimis 
(2-5%) 

7, 8, 9 

8, 9 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TBB, 
OT, PT, TX, 
SSC, SPR, 
SDN, SX, SV, 
GNS, GND, 
GNC, GTR, 
GTN 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TBB, 
OT, PT, TX, 
SSC, SPR, 
SDN, SX, SV, 
GNS, GND, 
GNC, GTR, 
GTN 

2019 

EU2018/20
33 

All 

Red 
seabream 
(Pagellus 
bogaraveo) 

Survivabilit
y 
exemption; 
de minimis 
(7%) 

LLS, DWS, 
OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TBB, 
OT, PT, TX, 
SSC, SPR, 
SDN, SX, SV  9 

2019 

Skates and 
rays 
(Rajiformes) 

EU2018/20
34 
EU2019/22
39 
EU2018/20
33 

All 

Survivability 
exemption 

6, 7, 8, 9 

OTB, OTT, 
PTB, TBN, 
TBS, TBB, 
OT, PT, TX, 
SSC, SPR, 
SDN, SX, SV, 
GNS, GND, 
GNC, GTR, 
GTN 

11 

 
 
ANNEX 1.9 FISHERY ANALYSIS PLOTS IN THE SHINY APP 

This  fishery  analysis  page  provides  figures  that  highlight  discard  rates  and  associated 
information for each fishery and species selected. The figures show discard rates by fishery over 
the time series, discard coverage for the fisheries and species, spatial distribution of landings 
prior and post the introduction of the landing obligation and ICES stock assessment information 
(if available for the species). 

Only  fisheries  that  meet  the  criteria  set  in  the  threshold  filters  on  the  Dashboard  page  are 
shown. The filters allow the user to set thresholds for discard coverage and contribution to total 
landings by the fisheries, in order to filter out fisheries with discard rates based on very little 
information or fisheries that are of less importance for the landings of the species.  

Figure A1; Discard rates.  

Figure  A1  shows  a  time  series  with  overall  discard  rate  (black  line),  discard  rate  by  country 
(coloured lines) and discard rate of each individual data entry by country and exemption type 
(different shape of the data points). The size of the individual data points is proportional to the 
amount of discards of the data point.  Each panel shows one fishery. The percentage shown in 
the header of the plots reflects the proportion of landings of the selected species taken by each 
fishery. The figure is interactive, and you can hover the cursor over any data point, as well and 
turn on and off data to visualise only certain features as well as directly download the figure to 
your computer. 

  
 
 
The  overall  discard  rate  reflects  the  ratio  between  the  sum  of  all  discard  entries  (across 
countries) and the sum of all landings and discard entries (total discards/(total landings+total 
discards)) of the species. This means that countries with large catches have more influence on 
the overall discard rate than countries with smaller catches.  

It is important to know that discard data is based on National sampling programmes that do 
generally not support the fine level of aggregation requested by the STECF FDI data call. Discards 
are  usually  estimated  on  a  more  aggregated  level  and  then  partitioned  into  individual  data 
entries, in order to meet the requirements of the more disaggregated data format. This means 
that  individual discard  data points  in  Fig  A1  do  not  reflect  true  variability  between  or within 
strata,  but should be viewed merely as an  illustration of the diversity in the submitted data. 
Depending on the method used to partition the discard estimates between smaller data entries, 
some data points in the plot may have the same discard rate since they were derived from the 
same discard estimate, but they may also appear to have different rates even if they are still 
derived from the same estimate. Therefore, care should be taken when interpreting individual 
data point in Figure A1. The (sometimes) increased number of data points from 2015 onwards 
in Figure A1 is an effect of a change in the requested data format and does not reflect increased 
sampling intensity.  

Figure A2; Discard coverage  

Figure A2 shows the proportion of landings (in weight) that have a matching discard estimate. 
The left panel shows the proportion of landings of all species in the fishery covered by discard 
estimates.  This  panel  gives  an  idea  of  how  well  the  fishery  has  been  sampled  in  general  for 
discards. The right panel shows the proportion of landings of the selected species that has an 
associated discard estimate. This plot reflects the settings of filter 1 and 2 on the Dashboard 
page in the ShinyApp; if filter 1 is set to 40 %, only fisheries with an average discard coverage 
(across years) in the right panel of this plot will be shown in all the plots of the Fishery analysis 
page in the ShinyApp. The same goes for filter 2 and the left panel. 

   
 
 
  
 
  
Figure A3; Spatial distribution of landings. 

Figure A3 shows the sum of landings of the selected species by fishery and ICES rectangle, both 
for  the  years  before  (top  panels)  and  after  (bottom  panels)  the  introduction  of  the  landing 
obligation.  Since  the  year  of  the  landing  obligation  introduction  varies  between  species  and 
fisheries, the panels do not always reflect the same number of years across fisheries.  

Figure A4; Change in spatial distribution of landings.  

Figure A4 shows the relative change in landings of the selected species between the time periods 
prior  and post  implementation  of the  landing  obligation,  by ICES rectangle. The  landings are 
standardized within each time period before the change is calculated. 

 
 
  
 
 
Figure A5; ICES stock assessment information. 

Figure A5 shows the recruitment, fishing pressure and spawning stock biomass as provided by 
ICES stock assessment working groups. Since discard rates are strongly influenced by the size 
structure  and  abundance  of  the  stocks,  this  holds  important  information  when  interpreting 
changes in discard rates. Especially recruitment is an important factor in regard to discards; if 
recruitment goes down, the proportion of small fish in the stock will decrease and discard rates 
will likely also decrease.  

 
 
 
ANNEX 1.11 

Table  A1  Response  rate  (%)  per  question  for  the 
stakeholders  of  the  North  Sea  and  Baltic  Sea.  Answered  = 
number of respondents that answered the question. Skipped 
= number of respondents that skipped the question. 

Question Number 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Answered  Skipped 

62 
61 
62 
43 
42 
41 
39 
28 
7 
27 
27 
25 
40 
28 
35 
38 
40 
40 
40 
40 
40 
40 
40 
39 
39 
40 
37 
15 

0 
1 
0 
19 
20 
21 
23 
34 
55 
35 
35 
37 
22 
34 
27 
24 
22 
22 
22 
22 
22 
22 
22 
23 
23 
22 
25 
47 

Response rate (%) 
100 
98.39 
100 
69.36 
67.74 
66.13 
62.90 
45.16 
11.29 
43.55 
43.55 
40.32 
64.52 
45.16 
56.45 
61.29 
64.52 
64.52 
64.52 
64.52 
64.52 
64.52 
64.52 
62.90 
62.90 
64.52 
59.68 
24.19 

1 

 
 
 
 
Table A2 Written answers provided by stakeholders (North Sea and Baltic Sea) below 
answer option “Other” for Question 5. 

N0 

Quotes 

“Exemptions need to be based on sound scientific evidence and their use effectively 
monitored and all discards documented. In light of poor compliance as widely 
recognised exemptions represent risky loopholes. TAC removal only addresses choke 
issues cosmetically without any benefit for the stocks but on the contrary removes a 
direct way of controlling fishing mortality. MCRS should only be changed where this is 
in line with the biology of the stock, i.e. reflecting the maturity of the stock. Out of 
the options specified any quota related options are preferable.” 

“As the priority should lay on avoidance of unwanted catches.” 

“Charging scheme linked to landing over quota fish.” 

“Varies case by case. These LO management measures can have an effectiveness, 
but you can't say anything in general terms - it all depends on the specific 
circumstances.” 

“It all depends on the specific conditions.” 

“All have the potential, again depending on specifics.” 

“Remove MCRS.” 

“Increasing selectivity (through different measures) to not catch those unwanted 
catches in the first place.” 

“Subsidies for gear innovations and responsive fisheries management when 
innovative gears are ready for use.” 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

“Unwanted catches should be avoided in the first place. That is an objective of the 
CFP.” 

11 

“Criteria for national quota swaps to avoid quota hoarding for target species only”. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A3 Written answers provided by stakeholders (North Sea and Baltic Sea) below 
answer option “Other” for Question 6. 

N0 

1 

See comments on other questions re: why options like TAC removal and exemptions are 
risky. Interannual and interspecies flexibility similarly pose risks biologically since they 
mean that additional quota beyond the scientific advice for a stock could be added, 
jeopardising sustainability. 

Quotes 

2  Only answered to measures, that comply with the overarching goals of the CFP 

3 

4 

5 

Where "not relevant" was ticked: I do not consider these as long term economically 
sustainable solutions. Obviously, there is a certain, though unsustainable short term 
effectiveness with profitability of the fleet 

A more ecosystem-based management system and more efficient control at sea would be 
a more holistic approach for the long term economic and ecosystem health. 

Varies case by case. These LO management measures can have an effectiveness, but you 
can't say anything in general terms - it all depends on the specific circumstances. 

6 

It all depends on the specific conditions. 

7 

Silly question. The all have potential but it depends on the actual stock, fishery, area, 
situation. For bureaucrats and scientists it may be interesting to think in boxes, but this is 
not so for practical people 

8  Marketing incentives: e.g. establishing discard avoidance champions and publicising them 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A4 Written answers provided by stakeholders (North Sea and Baltic Sea) below 
answer option “Other” for Question 8. 

N0 

Quotes 

“The key challenge is that the incentive to continue discarding (e.g. to avoid choking 
/ not being able to fully exhaust one's quota portfolio) are too strong, while the risk 
of detection and punishment for non-compliance is too high due to the lack of proper, 
comprehensive control/monitoring/enforcement (e.g. through REM). Without reliable 
control measures being rolled out across the fleet, non-compliance will remain an 
issue. The prevalence of exemptions and flexibilities (including also the margin of 
tolerance, or thresholds re: reporting based on vessel size) make the rules more 
complex, and make it even harder to detect whether any discards are legal (e.g. 
falling under an exemption) or not.” 

“There is very little acceptance of the policy in the first place. It is perceived as a 
perverse and contradictory piece of legislation: to avoid discards by bringing them 
ashore and killing them all. Fishers run a business and will try to dodge costs at all 
costs, especially if the risk of sanctions and means of surveillance are almost non-
existent.” 

“Enforcement is completely inadequate as long as Remote Electronic Monitoring is 
not structurally introduced in the fleet.” 

“No effective control measures at sea, no sufficient observer coverage, too many 
exemptions.” 

“There is basically no at sea control in place and no sanctions or penalties exist.” 

“Economic reasons.” 

“Mostly in cases where an increase in selectivity is difficult to reach (but doable if 
with more effort), it is easier for the fishermen to throw the unwanted catches back 
into the sea (discarding) - also because they know it is difficult to control and 
enforce.” 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

“Not enough official controls.” 

“Control is too difficult and economic incentives remain to discard (due to choke 
species and high grading). Fishers do not see the legitimacy of the measures and do 
not buy in to them. (complexity of measures, specially cumulated to other 
regulations, does not help either)” 

“Control measures are inadequate. Need onboard observers or electronic 
monitoring.” 

“When innovative more selective gears are invented there is not enough stimulants 
to use it (SepNep, pulse fishery) in terms of regulations and enforcement. And 
secondly, the landing obligation is not seen as legitimate in the fishing sector and the 
rules are often not logical or contradictory to what they want to achieve.” 

“The fishing industry has not bought into the landing obligation and many operators 
don't see any point to it. It is highly unrealistic to expect voluntary compliance and 
without effective control and enforcement compliance will never be achieved.” 

“No REM used onboard.” 

“Ineffective control, difficulty to control discard at sea.” 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
Table  A5  Written  answers  provided  by  stakeholders  (North  Sea  and  Baltic  Sea)  below 
Question 9. 

N0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

“This argument could be turned around - what does it take to free up tasks of the crew? 
Could the sorting process become more automated, what are the innovations and 
investments it would take?". 

Quotes 

“Processing and storing additional volumes of fish”. 

“Sorting the catch”. 

"If LO is implemented without exemption, each vessel needs abt 3 extra crew 
(seeVisNed/WR reports on best practices etc)." 

“Selecting all the discards from the conveyor belt is very much work which does not 
generate any income and which comes on top of the hard work of fishing.” 

6  Separation wanted/unwanted catches takes time and money” 

Table  A6  Written  answers  provided  by  stakeholders  (North  Sea  and  Baltic  Sea)  that 
answered “Yes” to Question 26. 

N0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Quotes 

“Increasing the number of inspections on fishing grounds together with last haul 
inspections.” 

“Continued use of conventional measures (observers, last-haul analysis...).” 

“It should cover all segments, however if it is a questions between only risk basis or 
no REM, then of course risk basis would be the most obvious to start with.” 

“REM should be tied to a license and seafood certification. low risk vessels could be 
controlled at sea by drones, aircraft and other traditional means.” 

“Real time AIS monitoring, observers, machine species identification on board.” 

“All vessels should be equipped, but image-check is on a risk basis: vessels don't 
know if and when they are checked.” 

“With inspector.” 

“All vessels should comply to REM not to be tempted in the way that vessels are 
modified for not to use the REM.” 

“I think REM should be operated by the fisheries; not by the control authorities.” 

“Seagoing inspections.” 

“Yes, at first takes time to put on REM. But risk based by fishery, not by vessel.” 

“Vessels in low impact fleets (in terms of discards and catch volumes) may not need 
to be controlled at sea.” 

13 

“As in the past.” 

“REM equipped vessels should be used as a source of reference data to compare the 
catches of non-REM equipped vessels. Non-REM equipped vessels with significantly 
different catch profiles should be elevated in risk status and equipped with REM.” 

“Observer program, last haul.” 

“Via traditional control measures.” 

14 

15 

16 

5 

 
 
 
 
Table A7 References made regarding open questions in the Questionnaire for stakeholders of the North Sea and Baltic Sea. 

Question N0 

Question 

Total N0 
responses 

Quotes 

12 

What measures should be 
introduced by countries to 
ensure control and 
enforcement of the LO? 

25 

“REM rolled across the fleet is the most cost-effective and robust tool.” 
“To use 21st century technology - sensor scanners, cameras, drones. the same 
technology that could also be used to improve the transparency of the business 
operations, not just for sustainable seafood certification schemes - to document 
responsible seafood production with traceable and validated data.” 
“Electronic monitoring” 
“Compulsory remote electronic monitoring, jointly with e-log and VMS/AIS on ALL 
vessels, depending on operating distance from shore” 
“electronic monitoring” 
"E-Logbooks for all vessels to record all catches,VMS/AIS/ Green box also on board of 
vessels <12m, REM with CTTV on board of vessel having high risk non-compliance with 
the LO regarding to EFCA risk assessment" 
“Mandatory Remote Electronic Monitoring ( cameras on board) for the fishing licence to 
be valid, added to the already existing measures” 
“REM” 
“Incentivised Catch quota management With CCTV; lower quotas for those that want to 
stay out of this arrangement” 
“A fundamental discussion is needed to determine whether the LO can be implemented 
by fishers and is enforceable by control agencies - a discussion on REM potential is also 
possible but this is not the be all end all solution to the challenges of the LO.” 
“More frequent controls” 
“Harmonizing control strategies between MS” 
“REM” 
"A combination of management measures: the use of modern innovative control tools 
(sensor data, CCTV as an REM tool, artificial intelligence); more bottom up and result 
orientated - like the Canadian halibut fisheries in British Colombia (fishers were given X 
amount of years to get to 100% catch accountability, they opted for CCTV/REM after long 
process); instead of a sanctioning system, a reward system for the fishers that comply 
and can show this.” 

“Control and enforcement measures should go hand in hand together with 
implementation measures (such as real time closures, temporal and spatial measures) - 
as a measures 'package' to avoid catching unwanted catches. " 
“They should at least double  their manpower “ 
“More cooperation and incentives for the fishers. Stakeholder work,e.g. workshops with 
fishers, NGO and consumers “ 
“Electronic monitoring” 

6 

 
 
 
“REM +  more active use of art 17 in national quota allocation to low-discard 
fleets/vessels” 
“More of the traditional controls as mentioned above and greater budget for the 
controlling agencies to do more of these controls and generate more relevant 
knowledge.” 
“Additional incentives?” 
“Technical measures for fishing gears to improve the selectivity” 
“For MS to fulfill their obligations to ENSURE control and enforcement of the LO some 
form of continuous monitoring during fishing activities at sea is needed. Remote 
electronic monitoring (REM) incorporating CCTV, sensors and artificial intelligence data 
review is the best means to do so.” 
“REM” 
“CCTV, remote control” 
“Remote Electronic monitoring (REM)” 
“Reporting of catch damaged by predators leaves some room for improvement. However, 
most cases of catches damaged by seals occur in small scale fisheries but nevertheless e-
logbook should be ready for this type of reporting. 
“This probably depends on the MS, but the resolution re: types of exemptions is too low, 
making it difficult/impossible to allocate discards to a specific exemption or account them 
against the respective exemption allowance to make sure the overall exemption 
allowance is not exceeded.” 
"Explanation to Question 7.: Compliance is relative, there is sufficient data of not 
compliance of LO in DK waters so the question should have 3 potential answers. “ 

“ 

“Mandatory REM will improve the accuracy towards reality, more control at sea, right now 
control at sea is below 10%. Countries should be audited on how countries complied with 
LO, putting pressure on the countries for better control and sanctions, so countries 
should report back on compliance of LO on annual basis and not every 6yrs or whatever 
the control reports are requested.” 

“More involvement with the fishing industry in order to achieve a workable (minimum 
administrative burden) and correct registration” 
“To install technology that allows to register unwanted catches (weighing scales and 
mechanical doors). To add extra fields that allow registration of sub-gear types, 
otherwise it will be impossible to disentangle later on whether a modified, more selective 
gear actually did have the desired effect of reducing discards, if that information was not 
registered anywhere, or even worse pooled within the umbrella classification of a 
conventional gear type.” 
“Make the log book easier for the fishermen to fill in - e.g. automatic "flags" if they forget 
to fill in something or miss to send harbour reports etc. Today such mistakes may lead to 

7 

14 

What could be done to 
improve the logbooks? 

28 

 
 
 
 
sanctions, but boost often they are not done to try to "cheat" - but only by mistake by 
tired persons.” 
“Connect with additional control tools such as video.” 
“Digitize where this has not yet happened, make them mandatory irrespective of vessel 
length” 
“No idea yet” 
“It is not really the design but how it is used, properly or not.” 
“The need for registering, if discards are due to deminimis or other law is unnecessary as 
long as it is registered. The other task is for the control.” 
“e-Logbook must be used to document fishery and not to criminalize fishermen” 
“Not necessary to mention in the log book on which ground the fish has been discarded. 
It just has to be fit for purpose” 
“It's foolish that you can write whether or not you have discard due to deminimis or due 
to other regulation - it doesn't matter why you discard, it just matters that they do” 
“It does not make sense that you can write whether or not you have discard to deminimis 
or other regulation. “ 
“Design them to fit the practicalities on board, and the purpose of getting information on 
actual catch. Not the academic "need" for information or desire to find something to 
punish the fishermen for.” 
“There are so many exemptions that it  is almost impossible to improve the logbooks. 
Better to simplify the regulations.” 
“Especially for the logging of the exemptions a solution should be found “ 
“It is not the logbook, but the compliance to fill in the logbook” 
"Reduce specifications of recording. No reason for stating under which rule a fish is 
discarded. That may be done as a follow up control based on area and fishing gear. 
Logbook should be more clear on the specific gear in use including the panels" 
“Making them as automated and user friendly as possible, not only technically, but also 
using communication techniques or others, such as behavioural science” 
"They need to be streamlined within the country - central system that can be updated 
automatically via internet. They need to encompass more details" 
“Operational simplicity  “ 
“Access  simplicity” 
“I don't know.” 
“The obligation to record discards pre-dates the LO by several years so, in principle, this 
is nothing new. However, the requirement to record information associated with the 
pelagic high-survivability exemptions (point of retrieval and sampling results) in 
electronic fishing logbooks hasn't been developed by any Member State.” 
“More guidance during filling of logbook (built-in reminders about prohibited species, 
legal discards, etc.)” 
“Separate input fields for the different kinds of discards (BMS, predator damage)” 

8 

 
 
27 

How can CCTV for control 
purposes on-board be made 
acceptable for vessel owners 
and operators? 

37 

“The costs of installation, servicing and maintenance of the CCTV systems should be 
partially covered by the administration (EU funds).” 
“They are exploiting a common resource and need to accept that this comes with a 
bigger responsibility; it is also in the sector's own interest to be able to 
demonstrate/evidence 'good' behaviour, i.e. compliance with the rules, e.g. in order to 
receive/keep sustainability certification; there are also important advantages re: data 
collection which in turn could help improve stock assessment and the scientific basis of 
TACs; privacy concerns need to and can be addressed through sensible positioning of 
cameras and handling of the footage.” 
“Through ultimatums, i.e. " if you can show that you do not have any bycatch or below 
xx then you may fish there/ get extra quota, if you cannot show compliance with LO 
(throuhg REM), you cannot fish..” 
“REM does not only means CCTV so other alternatives should be investigated” 
“By automating the process - no human eyes on the catch, by doing spot checks only 
(i.e., checking 10% of recordings), by giving ownership to the data (e.g. benefits also 
seafood certification schemes), by coupling license/costs to its use, by coupling price at 
provision rate of high quality, accurate data and operations.” 
“Difficult, since the fishermen do not see the point of the cameras. What are the cameras 
supposed to see?” 
“It is a licence to produce. If they have nothing to hide, they should have no 
reservations. Privacy issues can be overcome technically. “ 
“Stakeholder process, strict rules on privacy rights, incentives” 
“Results-based management: less rules for those who comply. Those who refuse EM have 
their quota top up automatically deduced of suspected discards” 
“See example in Spain and US” 
“It should be a mandatory piece as technical measures so far has not had enough 
positive impact on the fish stock and its recruitment nor on the ecosystem rehabilitation 
for fish stocks rebuilding capacity. Fish is a common property, no one owns the fish. 
Therefor the member states should have the courage to implement REM on their MS 
vessels as a part of the rights to fish. The voluntary act has already been tried out for 
many years and the result is fairly low. The measures are strongly needed both for the 
ecosystems and its fish stock as for the viability of economics in the future of the EU 
Fisheries sector.” 
“Through consultation and effective rapid trial with both owners and operators”. 
“Incentivize voluntary arrangement; those that opt out receive Lower quota (e.g cf. 
Catch quota management) “ 
“Legal requirement” 
“If they are exempted from ex. the LO, logbook requirements and have free choice of 
gear. Data will be logged and all can be controlled, so should still have the data on 
fisheries on this basis to ensure the aim of the management.” 
“Incentives as an exemption from the LO and freedom with regards to fishing measures.“ 

9 

 
 
“If on a voluntary basis with Incentives such as free selection, no LO etc.” 
“Exception from LO might be an idea” 
“If incentives are introduced  such as free choice of gear etc.” 
“If benefits are offered. Fishing is a business and if benefits for the business are larger 
than reluctance then REM will be accepted” 
“By convincing fishermen that it is for their transparency in the face of authorities as they 
complain they are” 
“Vessel owners in control of CCTV systems.” 
“It has to be mandatory for all fishing vessels fishing in EU waters” 
“It is also a mentality shift. in this a quote of the UK House of lords hearing on the 
landing obligation in 2019 is striking in my opinion 'Similar like the 70 m/h speed limit. 
You cannot deploy inspectors everywhere. It requires a cultural shift between 
government, regulator and the industry: a partnership” 
“Not at all” 
“If other rules do not apply. No need for technical regulations, logbook recordings or prior 
notifications. “ 
“If it brings an advantage to them, for example having to report less on discards or not 
at all” 
"Quota uplift.  Ease  - or rather almost abolishment - of technical regulation. That is, 
making the fishers accountable for their catch but in return they are free to choose how 
to catch it.” 
“Exemptions from the LO (high survivability or deminimis)" 
“They can be offered easier rules / less regulation” 
“Extra bonus  quota allocated “ 
“Bonus quota allocated” 
“The rules that are controlled with CCTV should be seen as legitimate and feasible. “ 
“Starting with a small pilot project to understand all the aspects. This will take time!  
Offer some (financial, quota...) incentives” 
“If the CCTV is appropriate for the protection purpose” 
“It should be explained to the industry that it is in the fishing industry's best long term 
interests to ensure the success of the LO. Without effective control and enforcement the 
LO will fail and widespread, illegal, unreported discarding will continue. This will result in 
overfishing and will jeopardize the socio-economic objective of the CFP. Effective control 
and enforcement of the LO will level the playing field between MS and operators alike, 
meaning that compliant fishermen won't have to compete unfairly with those that choose 
to infringe the rules intended to safeguard their future fishing opportunities. REM has 
been proven by Member State trials, and internationally, as the only realistic means to 
control the landing obligation.” 
“Incentives in the form of extra quota allocation, increased area access. Careful with 
relaxing gear restrictions before proof of concept of CCTV system.” 
“By awarding the vessel owners and operators in some way for installing CCTV” 

10 

 
 
28 

Feel free to leave any 
comments on this survey and 
/ or additional remarks in 
relation to the questions and / 
or the topic of the LO here. 

15 

“This is a very useful initiative - I just felt that some of the questions were a bit leading, 
e.g. re: options like TAC removal in the context of catch avoidance when really such 
options should not really be considered since they provide zero incentive to avoid 
unwanted catches, but just cosmetically 'fix' the problem.” 
“Highlighting other advantages of REM for fishers is important. With REM fishers can 
actually document where their fishing grounds are - in relations to discussion on Marine 
Spatial Planning. Currently there is not documentation of fishing activities of 2/3 of all DK 
fishers, as those vessels are below 12 m. So in the light of e.g. future windfarm plans, 
fishers might have difficulties to show what are importance fishing grounds and they are 
weak on the negotiation tables with energy producers etc..” 
“No other comments” 
“I find the question on economic viability very limited in its usability, as short vs. long-
term effects need to weighed, would only suggest to use it together with same question 
on ecologic sustainability “ 
“There has to be a real game change within the Fisheries both on the gear improvement 
to be less harming to ocean habitats and to reduce non target species through selectivity. 
An even tighter cooperation between managing bodies, scientists and fishing industry is 
needed to solve some of those unwanted and destructive things still ongoing today. The 
hardest Changes for humans are to rethink and use a new mind set for more long-term 
measures. Maybe some real information Campaigns can help.” 
"Questionnaire surveys that only offer the opportunity to choose among given answers 
are in general a total waste of time and only adds to the impression of ""system failure"" 
and the lack of will (or ability) to understand the complexity of the subject. I was 
requested by my superiors to answer and would have reclined if not ordered to do so. “ 
“This is amongst the worst and most simplistic I have come across so far (and I've seen a 
lot)" 
“Some questions on funding is out of my knowledge therefore I had to choose "I do not 
know" 
“Question 7 was impossible to answer because there are different fisheries within a 
country. In some fisheries the LO works quite well in others it does not work very well. 
The answers are now drawn into one direction.” 
“I feel the objective of the landing obligation is sometimes forgotten - to reduce the 
catches of unwanted catches (by increasing selectivity) instead focusing on the 
compliance and control of landing all catches; as well as the fact that the co-legislators 
(The Council, the European Parliament and the Commission) have 'installed' the landing 
obligation in the CFP with the latest reform. Commitment is sometimes not seen clearly.  
There has been a lot of collaboration between the different stakeholders throughout the 
phasing in of the landing obligation, and although still challenging - much more is known. 
I feel sometimes a reset needs to happen of thoughts and mentality to really work 
towards the objective of the landing obligation: to reduce the catches of unwanted 

11 

 
 
catches (not to be interpreted as a comment for deletion of the landing obligation - but 
instead to go further)” 
“The LO is not workable and not enforceable. It is simplified wishful thing if authorities go 
ahead with just enforcement without looking at the 'workability' Both at choke situations 
as well as in mixed fishery (the sole/plaice dilemma)  Glad to discuss this in further detail 
wvisser@visned.nl We need to make the move from LO to (verifiable correct) Information 
Obligation” 
"The process for getting new gears approved is too slow. There is a need to make more 
uniform exemptions from the LO. If plaice has a high survivability exemption in the North 
Sea, it should have it in the Baltic too" 
“ Strictly Pelagic segment fully complies with the LO. “ 
"Enforcement of rules that are not seen as legitimate through camera's on board will 
further alienate fishermen from EU fisheries management. Fisheries management should 
become more flexible to adapt quicker to new selective gears or undesirable use of 
fishing gears. Fishermen should be involved more in managing stocks and the marine 
environment, they are the first to observe changes at sea but currently there is not 
enough trust in the authorities to share these experiences. fishermen are scared that 
their information will be used against them." 
“The LO will never work without effective control and enforcement. There are too many 
powerful drivers for non-compliance. All credible indications point towards widespread 
non-compliance across all sea basins. Unless effective controls are introduced the LO will 
fail and undocumented discarding will continue. This will lead to the failure of one of the 
core pillars of the reformed CFP, further overfishing and reductions in future fishing 
opportunities.” 
“”No comments” 

12 

 
 
Table A8 Overview of interview questions and summarized feedback relevant for Task 3 
for the NS&BS and the AWW. A1, D3, H, J refer to questions from interview guide. 

Geographical area 

Question 

Feedback (summarized) 

It was commented by various respondents 
that the Last Haul program is not really a 
“management measure” but instead an 
inspection program organized by EFCA. Most 
respondents indicated having knowledge of a 
limited number of LH inspections that had 
taken place onboard of vessels of their 
respective MS, but did not have a good 
overview of how and when LH inspections 
occurred exactly. It was also noted that LH 
inspections are difficult to plan ahead and 
carry out logistically. LH inspections cannot 
always provide the “true picture”, or are a 
“piece of circumstantial evidence”, as one 
haul can be very different from another. 

Most respondents answered “No” to this 
question, indicating that the adoption of LO 
measures and compliance happened 
similarly for different segments and 
fisheries. Some respondents argued that 
there may be differences for small-scaled, 
coastal fisheries. 

Some reluctance in answering this question 
was observed (blank answers, or “no 
comments”, see transcripts – Annex 4). Two 
respondents answered that the LO was fully 
complied with regarding the use of certain 
(selective) gears. Various respondents 
reported that fishers are experiencing 
difficulties with the administrative burden 
and complexity of the current LO regulation, 
resulting in continued discarding and 
misreporting of catch fractions. The main 
problem behind this seems to be the fact 
that the majority of the fishing industry does 
not agree with the rationale behind the LO. 

Most respondents answered that exemptions 
are being monitored by control officers that 
check logbook entries at sea and ports 

Exemptions are the predominant 
management measures put in place for 
facilitating implementation of the LO. Other 
management measures employed include 
flexibilities in quota management. 

A1. What management 
measures have been 
implemented in this 
region in the period 2014-
2020? E.g. Last Haul (LH) 
inspection program? 

D3. Has there been a 
difference in 
adoption/compliance 
between different fleet 
segments/fisheries in 
terms of adopting 
management measures? 
If so please describe. 

H. Do you have an 
overview of to what 
extent the implemented 
management measures 
are complied with? 

J. How are exemptions 
monitored by controlling 
offices in your country? 

A1. What management 
measures have been 
implemented in this 
region in the period 2014-
2020? 

North Sea and Baltic 
Sea (NS&BS) 

Atlantic WW (AWW) 

13 

 
 
D3. Has there been a 
difference in 
adoption/compliance 
between different fleet 
segments/fisheries in 
terms of adopting 
management measures? 
If so please describe. 

Respondents commented that the success of 
the LO implementation varies on a case by 
case basis due to the nature of the different 
fisheries, being more difficult to adopt in 
fisheries encompassing trawling and mixed 
fisheries. Concerning operational means, a 
diversity of selectivity and avoidance means 
are in place and they have been applied 
according to the needs of the fishery in 
question. 

H. Do you have an 
overview of to what 
extent the implemented 
management measures 
are complied with? 

J. How are exemptions 
monitored by controlling 
offices in your country? 

Some reluctance in answering this question 
was observed (blank answers, see 
transcripts – Annex 4). This was a difficult 
question to answer for stakeholders and no 
one provided a figure on the extent of 
compliance. Some respondents commented 
that the complexity of the regulatory 
framework is a heavy burden for the sector. 
Exemptions can provide some alleviation, 
but these are only temporal means. Choke 
situations are very common, and this 
hardens compliance with the LO. 
Underreporting of catches may happen when 
a quota is close to zero. Other facts leading 
to non-compliance are the impossibility to 
trade fish below MCRS for human 
consumption and the lack of a market for 
unwanted fish. 

Most respondents answered that exemptions 
are being monitored by control officers that 
check logbook entries at sea and ports. 
Hence, traditional means are predominantly 
employed within the LO. REM with CCTV 
seems to offer a reliable option to monitor 
discards and discourage this practice. There 
are divided positions concerning CCTV and is 
a challenge from the legal and social point of 
view, while it appears to be less expensive 
than other means e.g., observers onboard. 
There is still much research to do on the 
methods to analyse the data gathered by 
these devices. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
Table  A9  Response  rate  (%)  per  question  for  the 
stakeholders  of  the  AWW.  Answered  =  number  of 
respondents  that  answered  the  question.  Skipped  = 
number of respondents that skipped the question. 

Question Number 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Answered  Skipped  Response rate (%) 

32 
32 
31 
26 
27 
23 
26 
17 
6 
16 
17 
11 
17 
8 
17 
17 
17 
17 
23 
23 
22 
21 
21 
23 
23 
22 
18 
13 

0 
0 
1 
6 
5 
9 
6 
15 
26 
16 
15 
21 
15 
22 
15 
15 
15 
15 
9 
9 
10 
11 
11 
9 
9 
10 
14 
19 

100 
100 
96,88 
81,25 
84,38 
71,88 
81,25 
53,13 
18,75 
50,00 
53,13 
34,38 
53,13 
25,00 
53,13 
53,13 
53,13 
53,13 
71,88 
71,88 
68,75 
65,63 
65,63 
71,88 
71,88 
68,75 
56,25 
40,63 

15 

 
 
 
 
Table A10 Written answers provided by stakeholders of the AWW (Lot  2) below answer 
option “Other (please specify)” for Question 8 

N0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

“The implementation on board is difficult: understanding of the exemptions (what can or not 
be rejected depending on the area), declaration on the paper-logbooks (not enough space, 
small boxes …). Also there is a danger to keep the catch (high quantity of small pelagics 
which can be higher than the maximal load authorized on the vessel for example)” 

Quotes 

“Fish markets are not ready to receive and accommodate the BMS fraction of the catch; 
some fishers are still having training on the correct use of the new logbook format created 
to accommodate BMS fractions” 

“Contrary to their obligations under EU law, Member States have not adopted the necessary 
measures to ENSURE control and enforcement of the LO at sea. REM supplemented by 
sensors and artificial intelligence reviewing systems could be used to control the LO. In the 
absence of effective control and enforcement measures, the LO will never be respected” 

“If space on board is occupied by unintended species, commercial fishing would become 
unprofitable in some/most cases, thus leading to serious economic consequences.  Also, the 
placing of new species in the market is not an easy task. Consumers also have to be 
educated on the different healthy species available to them” 

5 

“There is no control nor penalties” 

6 

“There is no monitoring at sea” 

7 

“The implementation is difficult to apprehend so the LO is partially applied. Because of this 
complexity, the LO is not well accepted by the industry” 

Table A11 Written answers provided by stakeholders below answer option “There are not 
enough people onboard to do the extra work required by the LO for Question 9 

N0 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

“The LO causes additional time per fishing trip to sort the catches so this time isn't 
available to fix the gears, rest, ... Also, this is additional handling for the landing” 

Quotes 

“In small scale fisheries there are few people onboard, a lot of work and sometimes bad 
weather conditions” 

“Bureaucracy and bigger quantities of fish to handle may put work on board at risk” 

“The EODE project made a survey about the extra work” https://www.comitedespeches-
hautsdefrance.fr/nos-actions/gestion-de-ressource/eode/ 

“Extra work in sorting/storing catches in accordance to regulations” 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A12 Written  answers  provided by  stakeholders  (AWW)  that  answered “Yes”  to 

Question 26. 

N0 

1 

CCTV equipped vessels should be used as a source of reference catch data for 
comparison to non-CCTV equipped vessels. Non-CCTV equipped vessels that show 
significant different catch profiles should be equipped with REM systems. 

Quotes 

17 

 
 
Table A13 References made regarding open questions in the Questionnaire for stakeholders of the AWW 

Question 
N0 

Question 

Total N0 
responses 

Quotes 

12 

What measures should be 
introduced by countries to 
ensure control and 
enforcement of the LO? 

6 

14 

What could be done to 
improve the logbooks? 

6 

27 

How can CCTV for control 
purposes on-board be 
made acceptable for vessel 
owners and operators? 

13 

“Observers onboard, encourage fishermen’s commitment” 
“Remote electronic monitoring (REM) tools incorporating CCTV systems, sensors and artificial intelligence 
reviewing systems. Protocols for data exchange between coastal and flag MS should be established. REM has 
been proven to be capable of controlling and enforcing the LO in MS trials and is being increasingly used in 
other fisheries around the world” 
“Increase controls and include new tehcnologies for an effective LO” 
“Measures should be introduced for data collection and better scientific knowledge” 
“REM and more control” 
“Either 100% observer or alternative such as REM” 

“Simplify them” 
“A new logbook format was developed to accommodate BMS and I think some fishers are still having training 
on its correct use” 
“Some MS don't have the capacity to record "DIM" and "DIS" in the LB. No code to distinguish between 
predator damaged and high-survivability species in most MS” 
“Adequate them to all the casuistic to be found on board” 
“More involvement with the fishing industry in order to achieve a workable (minimum administrative burden) 
and correct registration” 
“Specific entries for exemptions” 

“Be sure that privacy of the crew is respected, that the costs of the equipment and the treatment of data isn’t 
the responsibility of vessels and that the efficacy of CCTV is proven before any other consideration”. 
“Counting on the fishermen's opinion in the decision- making” 
“CCTV cameras would be acceptable in certain fisheries only on a risk basis because there are other means 
sufficiently effective. Cameras would not need to be mandatory in fisheries in comparison to other public 
labours and activities”. 
“At first, it can't be acceptable, in the same way that they would not be acceptable in any job...It's a matter of 
privacy...” 
“It should be explained to them (fishers) that ensuring control and enforcement of the LO, and upholding the 
objective of the CFP, is in their own long-term interests. REM will level the playing field between operators that 
wish to respect the rules (allegedly the majority) with operators that choose to infringe the rules and operate 
at an unfair competitive advantage”. 
“Know-how and personal data protected above all” 
“An incentive to start using CCTV could be though: scientific quota, non-stop of fisheries during certain times 
of the year as they became full documented fisheries...” 
“REM does not only mean CCTV so other alternatives should be investigated” 

18 

 
 
 
 
“It is likely to be difficult to convince industry while LO itself is not proved to be an efficient policy to attain a 
real sustainability of the resources in single and mixed fisheries, while keeping economic and social 
sustainability. At the moment, it is about wishing to control something that cannot be put 100% in practice 
without undermining article 16 of the CFP (loss of fishing opportunities)” 
“Equal rules for everyone” 
“You are not allowed to fish if you don’t have a camera, you will have more at sea inspection, traceability of 
products for certification, optimise fishing strategies and crews 
“We have to make sure that privacy of the crew is respected, and that the efficacy of REM is proven. Moreover, 
the cost of the equipment (and date collection) should not be the vessel's responsibility” 
“Non-intrusive monitoring, initially” 
“Change the law so that vessels don’t discard to avoid chocking. CCTV can be overcome by vessels, it is not 
foolproof” 

“For a better quality of stock evaluation (which was the main aim of the landing obligation at the beginning), 
we need a full documentation of the catches and not an obligation to land all these catches. The reality of the 
LO on the field is that it’s too complex, the exemptions are too limited by gears / meshsize / area and in time. 
For a better implementation, we need simplification. I didn’t answer many questions because I don’t think we 
can choose just 1 answer from 1 to 5. There are so many different cases between species / area / gears that 
we can always find an example where it works and another where it doesn’t. We can’t find one solution that 
fits all cases but high survivability and de minimis exemptions are fundamental to help implement the LO. The 
problem of the LO is the intricacy of the rules and it’s not the money available to conform to them that can 
change it” 
“LO has been approved under political pressure, and as a bleaching effect on the image of fishing. There are 
no evaluations of the impacts that it supposes nor the affectation on the stocks or the economy of the sector. 
With the LO a complete revolution should be inititited to redifine its objectives.” 
“Without effective control and enforcement the LO will not be respected and it will fail. There are too many 
strong drivers for non-compliance to expect voluntary compliance. REM incorporating CCTV systems is the 
ONLY means to control the LO at sea. MS that fail to ensure control and enforcement of the LO should be held 
to account” 
“The most important issue is the sensibilisation of the industry in relation to the ecosistem (it includes LO) and 
of cour the full  implementation of the regulation by the Authorities” 
“More funds should be foreseen for scientific purposes both on scientific and commercial boats” 
“I think the survey is very technical and many questions require an important knowledge of the sector and the 
situation of the fleet and the owners, which is not bad, but makes a bit difficult to answer some questions” 
“The goal of the LO is not to land everything but to lead to a full documentation of the all the catches. The LO 
as it is now, is really complex so we need to work on how it can be simplified so all fishermen can fully 
understand this regulation. This should be priority so the LO can be fully implemented and efficient. On 
another topic, the survey format is not the most adequate as there are many cases and we should qualify each 
case based on the context and where it happened so it’s sometimes difficult to choose one answer that fits all” 
“Lack of enforcement” 
. 

19 

28 

Feel free to leave any 
comments on this survey 
and / or additional 
remarks in relation to the 
questions and / or the 
topic of the LO here. 

8 

 
 
 
Table  A14  Written  answers  provided  by  stakeholders  (North  Sea  and  Baltic  Sea) 
below Question 10. 

N0 

Quotes 

I think all of these apply - the most concerning part is the lack of reliable 
comprehensive catch documentation since this deteriorates the data which go into 
stock assessments, ultimately undermining the scientific advice upon which TACs 
should be based. One key issue that does not seem to be sufficiently acknowledged 
and addressed is that TACs are now set based on catch rather than landings advice, 
with catch-based TACs being in many cases (and on average) substantially bigger 
than landings-based TACs (as was the case before 2015). Fishers basically receive 
extra quota to allow them to land what they would have previously discarded - but at 
the same time compliance remains poor. This means that the shift to catch-based 
TACs leads to potentially substantial catches beyond scientific advice, as long as 
compliance remains low. This undermines the whole purpose of the LO and the 
ambition of the CFP to ensure sustainable EU fisheries. 

To dodge costs at all costs when running a business. The low acceptance of the 
scientific justification for this legislation in the first place. A paradigm shift is needed 
to turn fishers into environmental stewards and custodians of the sea, and not 
exploiters for money. 

1 

2 

3  don't know enough about current practices 

4 

The non acceptance of this legislation by fishermen, as they believe they kill their 
future by killing small fish 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A15: AWW. Respondents’ perceptions about compliance by country and sector 
(30 respondents). 

No, I don’t believe 

Yes, I believe that 

Sector 

that compliance is 

compliance is 

occurring (%) 

occurring (%) 

Belgium 

France 

Ireland 

Portugal 

Spain 

UK 

EU agency 

Industry 

Industry 

NGO 

Industry 

NGO 

Consultancy 

Research & academia 

Consultancy 

Industry 

NGO 

Research & academia 

Industry 

Research & academia 

3.33 

3.33 

20.00 

3.33 

3.33 

3.33 

3.33 

3.33 

6.67 

3.33 

3.33 

3.33 

3.33 

No 

answer 

3.33 

3.33 

13.33 

3.33 

3.33 

3.33 

3.33 

Total 

63.33% 

23.33% 

13.33% 

21