Evaluation of joint recommendations on the landing obligation and on the technical measures regulation (STECF-22-05).
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishery research, fishing regulations, quantity of fish landed, report, technical regulations

Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 
- 
Evaluation of Joint 
Recommendations on the landing 
obligation and on Technical 
Measures Regulation  
(STECF-22-05) 

Edited by Dominic Rihan, Fabio Grati & Hendrik Doerner 

2022 

 EUR 28359  EN 

 
 
This publication is a Science for Policy re port by the Joint Research C entre  ( J R C ),  t he  Eu ro pe an  
C om mission’s science and knowle dge service. It aims to provide evidence -based scientific s upport  
to the  European policymaking process. The scientific output expresse d d oe s n ot  i m pl y  a  pol i cy  
position of the European C ommission. Ne ither the European C ommission nor any person actin g o n 
be half of the Commission is re sponsible for the use that might be made o f t h i s p ub li cat i on.  F or 
inform ation on the m ethodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication f or wh i ch  
the  source  is neither Eurostat nor other C ommission services, users should contact the re fere n ce d 
source . The designations employed and the presentation of material on the m aps d o not imply  t he  
e x pression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Europe an  Un i on co nce rn i ng t h e  l e gal  
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimi t at ion  of  
its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  

Nam e : STEC F secretariat 

Addre ss: Unit D.02 Water and Marine Resources, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra VA, Italy  

E-m ail: jrc-stecf-secre tariat@ec.europa.eu 

Te l.: +39 0332 789343 

EU Science Hub 

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JR C 130330 

EUR  28359 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-55195-9 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/390054 

STEC F 

ISSN 2467-0715 

Lux embourg: Publications O ffice  of the European Union, 2022  

© Europe an Union, 2022 

The  re use policy of the European Commission is implemented by the C ommission Decision 
2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of C ommission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, 
p. 39). Ex cept otherwise  noted, the re use of this document is authorised under the Cre ative 
C om mons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/lice nses/by/4.0/). This means that re use is allowe d provided 
appropriate cre dit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or re production of photos or 
othe r m aterial that is not owne d by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright 
holders. 

All conte nt © European Union, 2022 

How  to  cite   this  re port:  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  – 
Evaluation  of  Joint  Recommendations  on  the  landing  obligation  and  on  Technical  Measures 
Regulation (STECF-22-05). EUR  28359 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 
2022, ISBN 978-92-76-55195-9, doi:10.2760/390054, JRC130330. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Authors: 

STECF advice:  

Abella, J. Alvaro; Bastardie, Francois; Borges, Lisa; Casey, John; Damalas, Dimitrios;  Daskalov, 
Georgi; Döring, Ralf; Gascuel, Didier; Grati, Fabio; Ibaibarriaga, Leire; Jung, Armelle; Knit t w eis, 
Leyla; Ligas, Alessandro; Martin, Paloma; Motova, Arina; Moutopoulos, Dimitrios; Nord, Jenny; 
Prellezo,  Raúl;  O’Neill, Barry; Raid, Tiit; Rihan, Dominic; Sampedro, Paz; Somarakis, Stylianos; 
Stransky, Christoph; Ulrich, Clara; Uriarte, Andres; Valentinsson, Daniel; van Hoof,  Luc; Vanhee, 
Willy; Villasante, Sebastian; Vrgoc, Nedo 

EWG-22-05 report:  

Rihan, D.; Grati, F.; Bleeker, K.; Bolognini, L.; Borges, L.; Browne, D.; Avdic Mravlje, E.; Döring, 
R.; Jakovleva. I.; Liontakis, A.; Lloret, J.; McHugh, M.; Pereira, J.; Oliver, M.; Raid, T.; Sala, A.; 
Tsitsika, E.; Uhlmann, S.; Viva, C; Zolubas, T. 

i 

i 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 

Abstract............................................................................................................................ 1 

SCIENTIFIC,  TECHNICAL  AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES 
(STECF) - Evaluation  of Joint Recommendations on the landing 
obligation and on Technical Measures Regulation (STECF-22-05) .... 2 

Background provided by the Commission.............................................................. 2 

Terms of Reference for EWG-22-05......................................................................... 4 

STECF response ............................................................................................................. 5 

Review of the EWG 22-05 report.............................................................................. 5 

General observations ................................................................................................... 5 

Observations on the review process ........................................................................ 6 

Observations on de minimis exemptions  ............................................................... 7 

Observations on high survivability exemptions .................................................... 8 

Observations on technical measures ....................................................................... 9 

Observations on the economic impacts of the landing obligation  ................... 9 

Observations on joint recommendations ................................................................ 9 

STECF conclusions ...................................................................................................... 59 

Contact details of STECF members ........................................................................ 62 

Expert Working Group EWG-22-05 report ........................................................... 66 

1 

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 67 

1.1 

Terms of Reference for EWG-22-05 ......................................................... 69 

2 

3 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

4 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

5 

Main elements of the discard plans  .......................................................... 71 

EWG 22-05 Observations ............................................................................ 72 

General Observations ................................................................................... 72 

Observations on de minimis exemptions ................................................ 73 

Observations on high survivability exemptions..................................... 74 

Observations on technical measures ........................................................ 75 

Evaluation of Regional Joint Recommendations .................................... 76 

Structure of Advice – de minimis exemptions ....................................... 76 

Structure of Advice – high survivability .................................................. 77 

Survivability of skates and rays – General considerations ................ 77 

Survivability of plaice – General considerations ................................... 77 

NORTH SEA – Overview of Joint Recommendations ............................ 78 

ii 

ii 

 
 
 
5.1 

5.2 

6 

6.1 

6.2 

6.3 

7 

7.1 

7.2 

8 

De minimis exemptions................................................................................ 82 

High survivability exemptions .................................................................... 95 

NWW – Overview of Joint Recommendations  .......................................105 

De minimis exemption.................................................................................109 

High Survivability exemptions...................................................................124 

NWW – Technical  measures in the Celtic  Sea, Irish  Sea and  West of 
Scotland...........................................................................................................133 

SWW – Overview of Joint Recommendations  .......................................136 

De minimis exemptions...............................................................................139 

High Survivability exemptions...................................................................159 

Baltic Sea – Overview of Joint Recommendations...............................164 

8.1 

High survivability exemptions ...................................................................165 

9 

Mediterranean – Overview of Joint Recommendations ......................169 

9.1 

De minimis exemptions...............................................................................170 

9.1.1  South-Eastern Mediterranean Sea ...........................................................170 

9.1.2  Adriatic Sea ....................................................................................................174 

9.1.3  Western Mediterranean Sea ......................................................................178 

10 

Black Sea – Overview of Joint Recommendations ...............................181 

10.1  High survivability exemptions ...................................................................181 

11 

Economic Impacts Of The Landing Obligation ......................................183 

11.1  Request from the Commission ..................................................................183 

11.2  Overview of Ad hoc contract......................................................................183 

11.3  EWG 22-05 observations ............................................................................184 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Conclusions.....................................................................................................185 

References ......................................................................................................188 

List of Relevant Regulations ......................................................................192 

Annexes ...........................................................................................................196 

Annex I  - Templates for the provision of fisheries  information  to support  de 
minimis and high survivability exemptions ...........................................196 

Annex II – ICES template for critical review of survival experiments ........199 

16 

18 

Contact details of EWG-22-05 participants ...........................................201 

List of Background Documents .................................................................204 

iii 

iii 

 
Abstract 

Commission  Decision  of  25  February  2016  setting  up  a  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 
Committee  for  Fisheries,  C(2016)  1084,  OJ  C  74,  26.2.2016,  p.  4–10.  The  Commission  may 
consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, 
fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar 
disciplines. This report contains a review of Joint Recommendations submitted by Member St at es 
Regional  Groups  for  the  implementation  of  the  Landing  Obligation  in  2023  and  beyond.

1 

1 

 
 
 
SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (STECF) - 
Evaluation of Joint Recommendations on the landing obligation and on Technical 
Measures Regulation (STECF-22-05) 

Background provided by the Commission 

Joint Recommendations on the Landing Obligation (exemptions) 

After consulting the relevant Advisory Councils, Member States cooperating at  sea -basin level 
may provide the Commission with joint recommendations requesting exemptions from the landing 
obligation.  Where  the  STECF’s  advice  is  positive,  the  Commission  adopts  delegated  acts 
implementing these joint recommendations into EU law, in accordance with Art icle 15(6) of  t he 
Common  Fisheries Policy1 (CFP). Where there is no multiannual plan for the fishery in quest ion, 
article  15(6)  of the CFP empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts laying down on a 
temporary basis specific discard plans containing the exemptions. The six potential elements that 
can be contained in a discard plan are the following:  

  Definitions of fisheries and species  
  Provisions for survivability exemptions  
  Provisions for de minimis  exemptions  
  The fixation of minimum  conservation reference sizes  
  Additional technical measures needed to implement the landing obligation; and  
  The documentation of catches.  

The temporary discard plans under Article 15(6) with a maximum  of 6 years have expired in 2020 
or will expire in 2021 and have been or should be replaced by provisions adopt ed under art ic le 
15(5) and specified in multiannual plans. Under the existing multiannual plans, provisions 2 specify 
that  the  Commission  is  empowered  to  adopt  delegated  acts  following  Article  18  of  the  CFP 
(Regionalisation procedure). Currently, most of the delegated regulations specifying the details of  
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  have  been  adopted  by  the  Commission  under  the 
existing multiannual plans (Western Waters, the North Sea and Baltic).  

In 2022, the discard plan for turbot fisheries in the Black Sea will expire as well as the Delegat ed 
Regulation regarding the derogation for the MCRS of Venus shells (Venus spp.) For this y ear and 
EWG, there are nine joint recommendations to be expected, see annex 1 for more  det ail but  in 
summary: 

1)  Landing obligation - Joint recommendation Western Waters. Discard plan valid until 2023. 
One  exemption  requiring  additional  information,  plus  several  extension  requests  for 

1  Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, 
amending  Council  Regulations  (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and  (EC) 
No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22. 

2  Article  13,  Regulation (EU) 2019/472 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for stocks fished 
in  the  Western  Waters  and  adjacent  waters,  and  for  fisheries  exploiting  those  stocks,  amending  Regulations  (EU)  2016/1139  and  (EU) 
2018/973,  and  repealing  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  811/2004,  (EC)  No  2166/2005,  (EC)  No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007 and (EC)  No 
1300/2008 

2  Article  11,  Regulation  (EU) 2018/973 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 establishing a multiannual plan for demersal stocks  
in  the  North  Sea  and  the  fisheries  exploiting  those  stocks, specifying details of the implementation of the landing obligatio n in the North Sea 
and repealing  Council Regulations (EC) No 676/2007 and (EC) No 1342/2008 

2  Article  7,  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1139  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  6  July  2016 establishing a multiannual  plan for the stocks of 
cod,  herring  and  sprat  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  the  fisheries  exploiting  those  stocks,  amending  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2187/2005  and 
repealing  Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 

2  Article  14,  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1022  of  the  European  Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries 

exploiting demersal  stocks in the western  Mediterranean  Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 

2 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                              
exemptions  granted  until  the  31st  of  December  2022,  and  (possibly)  two  new  high 
survivability derogations 

2)  Landing obligation – joint recommendation North Sea. Valid until 2023 so only exemptions 

requiring additional information +  one request for a new exemption 

3)  Landing  obligation  –  joint  recommendations  Southwestern  waters.  Valid  only  2023 

exemptions requiring additional information. 

4)  Landing obligation – joint recommendation high survival exemption for plaice in the Balt ic  

Sea. New exemption. 

5)  Landing obligation – joint recommendation turbot fisheries Black Sea. Valid until 2022. 
6)  Landing obligation – joint recommendation demersal fisheries Western Mediterranean Sea. 
Valid  until  2024  so  only  exemptions  requiring  additional  information;  will  include  high 
survivability exemption request for Venus Shell 

7)  Landing  obligation  – 

fisheries  south-eastern 
Mediterranean.  Valid  until  2024  so  only  de  minimis  exemptions  requiring  additional 
information (small pelagics bycatch) 

recommendation  demersal 

joint 

8)  Landing  obligation  –  joint  recommendation  demersal  fisheries  Adriatic  Sea.  Valid  until 
2024  so  only  de  minimis  exemptions  requiring  additional  information  (small  pelagics 
bycatch) 

9)  Technical Measures – joint recommendation from NWW 

The STECF has reviewed the joint recommendations prepared by the regional groups of  M ember 
States annually since 2014-2018 on fisheries subject to the landing obligation in the subsequent 
year. The implementation of the landing obligation has entered fully int o f orc e as of  1 January 
2019. STECF is requested through this working group to review and evaluate the Member States’ 
joint  recommendations  requesting  either  additional  or  continued  (with  additional  scientific 
information as requested by STECF) exemptions for >2023.  

Joint Recommendations on Technical Measures (Regulation) 
All amendments, supplements, repeal or derogations from technical measures will be based upon 
Article  15  of  the  Technical  Measures Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/1241). The entry into 
force of this Regulation resulted in the introduction of the process of regionalization in numerous 
fields as far as technical measures are concerned. In this process, t he regional groups should 
develop joint recommendations that would need to go through the STECF in  order t o assess t o 
what extent the recommendation proposed goes in line with achieving the objectives set out  in 
the Regulation.  

Main elements of the joint recommendations to be considered by STECF  

Landing obligation - de Minimis and High Survivability  
The main elements that STECF should continue to evaluate are the additional exemptions f or de  
minimis or on the basis of high survivability for species subject to the landing obligation.  

In addition to any new exemptions, STECF should also review additional information supplied t o 
support  several  of  the  exemptions  granted  for  2022  but  with  the  provision  that the Member 
States concerned should submit further data to the Commission by 1 May 2022 to allow STECF to 
further assess these particular exemptions.  

Technical measures 
One joint recommendation from Italy regarding derogation of the MCRS of Venus shells (Venus 
spp.)  has  been  already  assessed in STECF PLEN 22-01. No joint recommendation on directed 
fishing is expected to be submitted. Any submitted joint recommendations on technical measures 
cover (one of) the following:  

  Measures  modifying  the  size  and  characteristics  of  fishing  gear  that  MS  may  wish  to 
implement in certain areas to increase selectivity and decrease the negative effects of  t he 
activity in the environment 

  Minimum  Conservation References Sizes for recreational fisheries 
  Mitigation measures for bycatch of certain sensitive species, suc h as c etaceans or sea 

birds 

3 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Definition  of  the  directed  fisheries  for  each  species  and  sea  basin,  with  a  deadline  of 

August 2020. 

Terms of Reference for EWG-22-05 

Based on the previous evaluations of the STECF, the Ad-hoc c ontract 19- 01 on t emporary de 
minimis exemptions, the joint recommendations that will be submitted by Member States regional 
groups (see annex), the following draft terms of reference are proposed:  

STECF is requested to:  

Review  the  supporting  documentation  underpinning  exemptions  on  the  basis  of  high 

1. 
survivability in respect of:  

a.    Exemptions agreed for 2022 on the basis of high survivability where there was a requirement 
for further information to be supplied by 1 May 2022. In such cases, ST ECF  should assess t he 
quality of the information supplied and, where possible, provide a qualitative assessm ent of  t he 
ongoing efforts to address the needs for further information identified by STECF last year  

b.    New exemptions based on high survivability. In data poor situations, assess w hat f ur ther 
supporting  information  may  be  available  and  how  this  could  be  supplied  in  the future (e.g., 
survival studies, tagging experiments).  

2. 
Review  the  supporting  documentation  (biological,  technical  and/or  economic)  for  de 
minimis exemptions on the basis that either increasing selectivity is very difficult to achieve, or  
to avoid handling unwanted catches would create disproportionate cost in respect of:  

a.    The de minimis exemptions agreed for 2022 where t here w as a r equir ement f or f ur ther 
information to be supplied by 1 May 2022. In such cases, STECF should assess the quality of  t he 
information supplied and, where possible, provide a qualitative assessment of the ongoing efforts 
to address the needs for further information identified by STECF last year 

b.        New  de  minimis  exemptions.  In  data  poor  situations,  assess  what  further  supporting 
information  may  be  available  and how this could be supplied in the future (e.g. discard data 
collection, selectivity studies).  

As joint recommendations might be submitted on the basis of the Technic al Me asure s 
Regulation (TMR) and they will be reviewed in this same EWG, STECF is also reque sted 
to: 

On directed fishing definition, no joint recommendation is expected to be submitted for the NWW, 
the NS and SWW. Therefore, this evaluation is not included in this ToR.  

3) For any joint recommendations submitted on the elements of the TMR, the STECF is requested 
to: 

a.  Review  whether  there  is  sufficient  information  to  support  proposed  minimum 
conservation reference size(s) that deviate from existing minimum landing sizes, and w het her 
they are consistent with the objective of ensuring the protection of juveniles; as w ell t aken int o 
account Article 15(5) of the TMR stating mesh size specifications shall not lead to a deterioration 
of selectivity standards. 

b. Review the supporting documentation provided for technical m easures aim ed at  inc reasing 
gear  selectivity  for  reducing  or,  as  far  as  possible,  eliminating  unwanted  catches  including 
reducing fishing mortality on stocks in need of remedial measures for rebuilding biom ass. T his 

4 

4 

 
 
 
should  include,  if  relevant,  an  indication  of  where  further  selectivity  is  currently  difficult to 
achieve in a specific fishery, given the current state of technological developments.  

4)  Additionally, the STECF is requested to review the findings of the ad hoc contract linked to this 
EWG ‘Summary  of information on possible socio-economic impact of the implement at ion of  t he 
landing obligation’, to be submitted by the selected expert by 11.05.2022 

STECF noted (22-01) that they may be able to, for example, provide som e updat ed lit er ature 
review of reports and publications of the socioeconomic impacts of the landing obligation, as w ell 
as providing a comprehensive overview on model-based conclusions from different scenarios and 
fisheries of implementing the landing obligation. That review could be performed through an ad-
hoc  contract,  and  later  summarised  and  included  in  the  next  EWG  dealing  with  the  landing 
obligation through a specific ToR for this group. This specific ad-hoc contract f ollow s up t o t he 
above suggestion. As there is no or only very limited information on the socio-economic impacts, 
the STECF suggested to provide a summary of information from literature or research projects as 
background document to be included in the ToR of the upcoming STECF EWG 22-05. This ad hoc  
contract should provide the group with some background information on the available information 
on possible socio-economic impacts of the landing obligation, linked to the c ont ent of  t he joint  
recommendations evaluated -specifically the de minimis exemptions. 

STECF response 

Review of the EWG 22-05 report 
General observations 

The report of Expert Working Group 22-05 (STECF EWG 22-05) represent s t he f indings of  t he 
meeting convened to review and to address the implications associated with the implement at ion 
of  the  Member  States’  joint  recommendations  requesting either additional or continued (with 
additional scientific information as requested by STECF) exemptions for 2023.  

Joint recommendations for discard plans represent the agreement among Member St at es (MS) 
cooperating regionally on the elements for the preparation of Union law (Commission  delegat ed 
act)  in  accordance  with  Article  15.6  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy.  Where  there  is  no 
multiannual plan for the fishery in question, article 15(6) of the CFP empowers the Commission to 
adopt  delegated  acts  laying  down  on a temporary basis specific discard plans containing the 
exemptions. The potential elements that can be contained in a discard plan are: def init ions of  
fisheries  and  species;  de  minimis  and  high  survivability  exemptions;  setting  of  minimum 
conservation reference sizes (MCRS); additional technical measures needed t o implement  t he 
landing obligation; and the documentation of catches. 

EWG  22-05  reviewed  the  new  or  amended  joint  recommendations  for  the  North  Sea,  North-
Western waters (NWW), South-Western waters (SWW) and Balt ic  Sea. T hese pert ained t o de 
minimis  and high survivability exemptions with separate JRs for technical measures. Additionally, 
in  2022,  as  the  discard  plan  for  certain  demersal  fisheries  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  expire, 
Member States submitted two joint recommendations to extend several de minimis  exempt ions 
for bycatch of pelagic species in demersal fisheries beyond 2023 in the Western Mediterranean, 
and  the  Adriatic  Sea.  Additionally,  requests  to extend high survivability exemptions for three 
species  of  bivalve  molluscs were received for the South-eastern Mediterranean, along with a 
request for a high survivability exemption for the Black Sea.  

As  in  2021,  STECF  recognises  that  for  2022  the  restrictions  imposed due to the coronavirus 
pandemic created additional challenges to Regional Groups, the Commission and the STECF in the 
preparation  of  proposals  and  supporting 
information,  collation  and  review  of  joint 
recommendations. STECF acknowledges this has severely limited the ability of the Member States 
to collect catch data as well as hindering research work to support  exempt ions and t est gear 
modifications to improve selectivity. 

Additionally,  in  2021  and  2022,  STECF  recognises  that  the  conditions  of  the   Trade  and 
Cooperation Agreement between the EU and UK has introduced new access arrangement s t o UK 
waters  as  well  as  different  measures  for  operating  in  UK  waters.  These  new  measures  and 

5 

5 

 
 
arrangements have created further difficulties for Member States and the fishing indust ry in t he 
implementation of the landing obligation.  

Improvements in selectivity: STECF reiterates that the avoidance of  unw anted c atch t hrough 
improved  selectivity  or  other  means  should  be  the  primary  focus  in implementing the  landing 
obligation. As identified by EWG 22-05, STECF recognizes that modifying selectivity can result  in 
some  immediate  reduction  in  revenue,  but  these  should  be  viewed in the broader context of 
medium-term gains in stocks and the risk of choke events and the utilization of quota to land low  
value catches.  

Quality  of  data:  STECF  recognises  the  progress  made  in  supplying  supporting  information to 
justify exemptions and the volume of work that has been carried out to generate this information. 
However, for the 2022 JR’s there are still many cases where the information and data supplied is 
not  new  information,  with previous studies and information submitted to support exemptions.  
For some exemptions no supporting information has been provided at all.  ST ECF  observes t his 
has restricted the ability of EWG 22-05 to carry out an evaluation of  t he exempt ions over and 
above that carried out in previous EWGs.  

Additionally, STECF notes that the catch information presented lacks consistency. In many c ases 
it relates to different years, much wider areas than covered by the exemption or is not present ed 
as absolute estimates but as percentages of overall catch information f or t he relevant  f ishery. 
Therefore,  STECF  reiterates  the  need  to  improve  the  quality  and  consistency of cat ch data 
provided to support exemptions. Such data is important to understand the relationship bet ween 
the level of potential discards under the requested exemptions and the actual level of  unw ant ed 
catches  in  the  relevant fishery and for the relevant stocks. This will allow STECF to make an 
assessment as to the level of risk of discards allowed under exemption will potentially have on the 
stats of the stock or stocks involved. 

Reporting  of  catch  data:  STECF  notes  that  the  weaknesses  in  the  collection  of  cat ch 
documentation data consistently reported remain. If the data situation does not improve and t he 
true quantities being caught as reported do not reflect the actual removals, it  w ill  likely  have a 
significant impact on the quality of scientific advice and may compromise the achievement of  t he 
MSY  objective.  This  potential  for  this  discrepancy  is  higher  for  de  minimis  than high survival 
exemptions because the actual discard amount may be substantially higher than the permitted de 
minimis  amount.  For  high  survival exemptions, this risk has been mitigated to some extent by 
deducting the estimated dead discards associated with the exemptions from the t ot al allow able 
quota  prior  to  allocation.  STECF  acknowledges  that  the  use  of  CCTV  and Remote Electronic 
Monitoring (REM) has been given new impetus, particularly in the North Sea with pilot st udies in 
several fisheries. STECF recognises this technology provides a more effective way to monit or t he 
landing obligation to generate catch evidence for science and compliance. 

Review of exemptions: STECF notes that many of the existing discard plans expire at  t he end of  
2023,  meaning  these  exemptions  will no longer apply unless renewed. In this context, STECF 
welcomes the intention of DGMARE to carry out a full review of the exemptions that are in plac e . 
Such a review would help to determine whether they need to be amended or are st ill required 
given likely changes in catch patterns, gears used, vessels involved and uptake. In initiating suc h 
a  review,  however,  STECF  stresses  it  is  vital  that  Member States and the Advisory Councils 
understand  what  information  is  needed  to  support  this  review  and  allow  STECF  carry  out  a 
meaningful evaluation. 

Observations on the review process 

EWG  22-05  met  remotely  from  the  16-20  May  2022  to  carry  out  the  evaluation  of  the  JRs 
submitted. Following the EWG meeting, DGMARE invited Member States to submit supplementary 
information on each exemption. Member States were given 5 days to provide t his inf ormat ion. 
The  supplementary  information  received  by  DGMARE  from  Member  States  was  compiled  and 
reviewed under an ad-hoc contract (STECF contract 2222) between 1 and 8 June 2022 and t he 
reviewer’s comments were incorporated into the regional sections contained in t he EWG 22 - 05 
report.  The  final  revised  report  of  the  EWG  was  submitted  to  DGMARE on 10 June, and later 
replaced by a corrected version on 26 June 2022. 

6 

6 

 
 
As in previous years, there was limited time for Regional Groups to respond to any serious gaps 
identified  by  the  EWG.  Additional  information  provided  was  primarily  fishery  information  or 
provision of missing catch data as well as in some case clarifications on the basis and justification 
for  specific  exemptions.  STECF  urges  Member States to provide such fishery information and 
catch data with their submissions, to avoid such gaps occurring. 

Beyond  those  obvious  gaps,  and  as  in  previous years, in many cases the missing information 
identified  by  EWG  is  more substantive information which can only be collected from scientific 
trials or through dedic ated studies. Therefore, in these cases, the additional information supplied 
did not influence the conclusions made by the EWG. It is questionable w hether t he request f or 
additional information beyond what can be easily obtained from standard data sources is actually 
useful, given it generally does not alter the STECF observations and conclusions.     

Observations on de minimis exemptions 

Recording of catches: STECF observes under Article 15 of the CFP Basic regulation Member States 
have a legal requirement to record all catches discarded under de minimis  exemptions. However, 
STECF  notes  that  in  many  cases  this  information  is  lacking  from  the  supporting  information 
provided by Member States. Other than the limited information contained in t he F DI dat abase, 
STECF has no clear understanding of the level of discarding under the various exemptions and the 
extent to which the fleet from Member States are utilising the exemptions.  

Impact of de minimis  exemptions: STECF notes in many exemptions the relationship between the 
de minimis  volume requested and the level of unwanted catches is unclear from the inf ormat ion 
provided to support the exemption. In some cases, the de minimis  volume c overs 100% of  t he 
unwanted catches, usually in fisheries where the levels of unwant ed c atch are small. In ot her 
cases, the de minimis  volume covers only a small  part of the unwanted catches. STECF observes 
that the supporting information should contain indications on the measures to be taken to reduc e 
these residual unwanted catches. 

Disproportionate costs: STECF acknowledges the substantial effort made by t he Member St at e 
Groups to provide information and analyses on disproportionate costs since t he int roduction of  
the landing obligation. However, as advised by STECF in 2021, given the  difficulties in assessing 
what  level  of  costs  is  disproportionate,  it  would  be  more  informative  for  Member  States  to 
describe  the  relationship  between  the  de  minimis  volume  requested  and  the  actual  level  of 
unwanted catches This helps put the proposed exemption in the context of  t he f ishery and t he 
state of the stock(s) for which the exemption is covering. It provides a basis for STECF to assess 
the  risk  of  the  exemption  on  the relevant stocks covered by the exemption. To support this, 
STECF consider that information to define the fleets impacted along with a clear description of the 
problem is required. Referencing previous economic data demonstrating t he level of  inc reased 
costs  because  of  having  to  handle  and  store  unwanted  catches  on  board  is  useful.  STECF 
acknowledges the efforts made by several Member States groups to follow this approach, not ing 
the limitations and inconsistencies in the catch information made available.  

STECF further observes that EWG 21-05 requested more information on the methodolo gy of  t he 
calculation of the economic impact assessment provided in 2020 and 2021 to support many of the 
de minimis  exemptions in Southwestern waters. However, STECF notes no additional informat ion 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05 meaning the out comes of  t his st udy 
cannot be fully assessed in the context of assessing the impacts of the landing obligation.  

Calculation of de minimis:  STECF notes that Member States have continued t o use a variet y of  
ways to calculate de minimis  volumes. In most cases for single species de minimis  exemptions, a 
percentage  (e.g.,  5%  or  7%)  has  been applied to the catches of the relevant species  in the 
relevant  fishery.  However,  for several fisheries where the intention is to discard 100% of the 
catches  (e.g.,  boarfish in the NWW and whiting bycatch in demersal beam trawl fisheries the 
North Sea), catches of the relevant stocks from all fisheries (e.g., for boarf ish c atches f rom all 
gears) or for different species (e.g., in the case of whiting, catches of sole and plaic e are used) 
have been used as the basis for the calculation. EWG 22-05 has commented on this approac h in 
the relevant exemption requests. However, the EWG cannot adjudicate whether this is a c orrect  
interpretation of Article 15(5c) of the CFP Basic Regulation. 

7 

7 

 
 
Incentive to discard: STECF reiterates that de minimis  exemptions can provide an inc ent ive f or 
vessel  operators  to  continue  discarding  unwanted  catches  at  sea  and  only retain unwanted 
catches  on  board  if  they  are  inspected  on  hauling,  or  to  bring  only  permitted  de  minimis 
quantities ashore on landing.  

De  minimis  exemptions  in  Mediterranean  demersal  fisheries:  STECF  observes  as  in  previous 
years,  the  de  minimis  exemptions  in  the  Mediterranean  are  based  on  generic  justifications 
relating to improvements in selectivity being difficult to achieve and disproportionate costs. While 
there are indications that considerable selectivity work is ongoing, this has not translated into any 
concrete actions to date, other than actions undertaken put in place under other legislation (e.g., 
West Med Management Plan).  

Observations on high survivability exemptions 

Assessing high survivability: STECF notes that limited new survivability studies have been carried 
out in 2021/2022 presumably due to Covid-19. STECF reiterates that assessing what constitutes 
high  survivability  remains  problematic, which is made more complex by the limited information 
available  and  the  variability  in  the  available  survival  estimates.  This  means  that  judging  the 
representativeness of individual or limited studies as an indicator of disc ard survival ac ross an 
entire fishery is difficult given the range of factors that can influence survival and how  t hey may 
vary in time even within a fishery. Examples of this in the latest JRs include t h e exempt ions f or 
bivalve mollusc species in the Mediterranean and skates and rays in NWW, SWW and t he Nort h 
Sea. 

Cuckoo Ray survivability: STECF notes the observations of EWG 22-05 that trends are emerging 
from the evidence provided to support survivabilit y exemptions for skates and rays. In particular, 
STECF notes the evidence from experimentation carried out shows the survival of cuckoo rays is 
less than other ray species. This is in context of reported discard rat es of  bet ween 27- 39% in 
some fisheries. However, catch data only covers a limited number of fisheries and the true extent 
of unwanted catches of cuckoo rays is not clear and therefore t he impac t  of  t he exempt ion in 
terms of dead discards is also unknown. 

Plaice survivability: STECF observes that for beam trawl fisheries in the North Sea, NWW and f or 
the trawl fishery in the Baltic, the main motivation is to mitigate against t he economic  c osts of  
landing  high  volumes  of  unwanted  plaice.  In  the  case  of  these  fisheries, it is noted that the 
justification  for  survivability  exemption  for  plaice  continues  to  be  based  on  the  potential for 
improving survival and selectivity. In this regard, STECF notes the extensive work that has been 
carried  to  date,  but  also  that  this  work  has  shown  that  estimates  of  survival  are still highly 
variable for plaice. STECF further notes that reported discards in c ert ain f isheries remain high 
(e.g., in North Sea the discard rate reported by ICES is in excess of 70%).  

Bivalve  Mollusc  survivability  in  the  Mediterranean:  STECF  concurs  with  EWG  22-05  that  the 
survivability  exemptions  for  bivalve  molluscs  continue  to  be  supported  with  only  limited 
supporting  information.  Apart  from  Venus  shells  (Venus  spp.),  the  exemptions  assume  that 
because the species must be landed alive on the market, that this equates to high survivabilit y. 
STECF observes this does not necessarily follow and information on survival rates of these species 
is needed to support these requests, noting this information could be taken from previous studies 
in similar  fisheries in other fisheries as observed by EWG 22-05. 

Roadmaps:  STECF  notes  that  some  clarity  on  the  objectives  for  roadmaps  developed  for 
survivability  of  plaice  and  skates  and  rays  has  been  provided,  although  timetables  for  the 
completion of the roadmap are still lacking.  

Discard rate and discard mortality: STECF re-emphasises the need to consider survivability in t he 
context of the discard rate for the fishery seeking an exemption (STECF 17-02), highlighting t hat 
medium  survival rates in high discarding fisheries still lead to high discard mortality rates. STECF 
has also previously concluded (STECF 19-02) that unless surviving discards are accounted f or in 
stock  assessments  when  dead discards are accounted for in TAC setting, where survivability 
exemptions are in place, the actual fishing mortality will not match the agreed catch level. This is 
particularly the case for plaice. 

8 

8 

 
 
 
Observations on technical measures 

Uptake of selective gears: STECF notes that only one JR related to changes in technical measures 
has  been  submitted  in  2022 and this JR concerned the extension of the use of existing gears 
covered under existing discard plans. STECF highlights that other than where selective gears have 
been  made  mandatory  under  legislation,  there  are  still  relatively  few  examples  of  uptake  of 
selective gears, even in fisheries where unwanted catches remain high. 

Coordination of selectivity studies: STECF reiterates that while extensive work has been c arried 
out  on  selectivity,  for  some  regions,  this  work  remains  uncoordinated  and  not  necessarily 
targeted at the right fisheries. A review of the work completed to identify what w orks and w hat  
does not, along with detailing the gaps in knowledge would help to channel further experiment s 
into  the  appropriate  fisheries.  STECF  further  notes  that  there  are  indications  of  various 
experiments with lights to reduce unwanted catches. Consolidating the findings int o one review  
would be helpful to understand whether using lights has potential to reduc e unw anted c atches 
and for which species and in which fisheries. 

Observations on the economic impacts of the landing obligation 

STECF acknowledges the ad hoc contract provided to EWG 22-05 on the economic impacts of t he 
landing obligation provides a comprehensive overview of existing scientific information.  

STECF agrees with EWG 22-05 that an ex-post analysis of the economic implication of the landing 
obligation should be conducted, to explain the reasons for the impact (if so), but also contrasting 
the results with the ex-ante literature. This should also include possible ways to mit igat e short -
term losses without resorting to putting place multiple exemptions. The aim should be t o allow  
the sector to be able to cope with the short -term losses to realise t he mid -  t o long- t erm gains 
that studies have shown could accrue from better implementation of the landing obligation.  

Observations on joint recommendations  

Based  on  the  terms  of  reference,  EWG  22-05  considered  multiple  existing  exemptions  for de 
minimis and high survivability whic h were granted on a temporary basis for one year f or w hic h, 
the Commission requested additional information from Member States. A limited number  of  new  
requests  for  de  minimis  and  high  survivability  exemptions  were  also  received  from the NWW 
group for a high survivability exemptions for sole below MCRS caught with bottom trawls in ICES 
division  7e;  de  minimis  exemption  for  Northern  prawn  caught  with  demersal  trawls  in  ICES 
division  3a  and  Subarea  4;  high  survivability  exemption  for  plaice  below  MCRS  caught  with 
gillnets, trammel nets, Danish and Scottish seines and bottom trawls in ICES subdivisions 22 - 32 
in the Baltic Sea.  

For the Mediterranean, three Joint Recommendations were submitted by the dif f erent regional 
groups  (SUDESTMED,  PESCAMED  and  ADRIATICA);  SUDESTMED  and  ADRIATIC  submitted 
additional supporting information relating to de minimis exemptions for pelagic spec ies c aught 
as  bycatch  in  demersal  fisheries  and  PESCAMED  for  high  survivability in dredge fisheries for 
scallops and clams. A request for a high survivability exemption for turbot in the Black Sea w as 
also submitted by Romania and Bulgaria.  

EWG 22-05 also considered a Joint Recommendations on regional technical measures rec eived 
from  the  NWW.  This  was  in  the  context  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1241  which  establishes  a 
framework for technical measures for the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of 
marine ecosystems. Article 15 of this Regulation and corresponding annexes put in place technical 
measures at regional level and inc lude an empowerment for the Commission to adopt delegat ed 
acts to amend, supplement, repeal or derogate from those technical measures. These delegated 
acts are based on Joint Recommendations submitted by Member States concerned, in accordance 
with the regionalisation procedure described in Article 18 of the CFP.  

The number of exemptions proposed in the JRs for evaluation by EWG 22- 05 w as c omparable 
with  the  previous  submissions  in  2021  (EWG  21-05,  STECF  PLEN  21-02).  The  number  of 
individual  exemptions  proposed  for  introduction  or  continuation  in  2022  was  49  (3  new 
exemptions and 46 for renewal) compared with 58 for 2021.  

Table 2.2.1 Number of recommendations by type and region evaluated by EWG 22-05  

9 

9 

 
 
De minimis 
exemptions  High Survivability exemptions  Technical Measures 

Region 

NWW 

North Sea 

SWW 

BA LTIC 

PESCA MED 

SUDESTMED 

A DRIATIC 

BLA CK SEA  

10 

8 

13 

1 

1 

Total 

33 

4 

4 

2 

1 

3 

1 

15 

1 

1 

Main findings 

For each exemption by region the information set out in a-d is provided: 

a.  the main findings of the EWG 22-05. 

b.  a list of supplementary data and information provided by Member states in response t o a 

request from DG MARE and based on the draft EWG findings. 

c.  the reviewer’s comments on the supplementary data and information provided by Member 

States. 

d.  the comments arising from the STECF review of the EWG 22-05 report  

Table  1a.  Main  findings of the STECF EWG 22-05, summary of additional information received 
relating to exemptions presented and Reviewer’s Comments: North Sea. 

De minimis 

Exemption 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Whiting below MRCS caught in the mixed demersal fisheries by vessels 
using bottom trawls or seines in ICES divisions 4a and 4b 

Limited new information has been provided other than partial information 
on catches and fleets. This information does not relate solely to the area 
covered by this exemption but a much wider area. T he majorit y of  t he 
catches in the fisheries appears to be from ICES division 4c  and 7d.   In 
this regard, the impact of this exemption cannot be assessed, and t he 
previous observations made by EWG 19-08 and 20-04 remain relevant. 

Additionally,  estimates  of  discards  reported  in  logbooks  are  provided. 
However,  these  estimates show very low catches and discards, when 
compared to the catch information provided for 2019 whi c h show s high 
catches and discards of whiting. Therefore, it  is not  c lear how  reliable 
these  estimates  are  of  catches  and  discards,  noting  the  issues  with 
deploying on board observers due to Covid has limited data collection.  

Catch information suggests the discarding in these fisheries is high w it h 
nearly 4,000 tonnes of whiting discarded in 2019. Noting the data ref ers 

10 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

to a much wider area, nonetheless it would seem the de minimis  c at ch 
requested covers only a part of the unwanted catches in the fisheries and 
improving selectivity in the fisheries should remain the priority. 

The  information  on  fish  behaviour  to  light  opens  new  possibilities  for 
selectivity trials and further work is encouraged. 

The following Supplementary information was provided: 

France 

France  indicated that the results of the EODE and selectivity projects 
described under annex 6.5-6.6 are also applicable to the fishery covered 
by  this  exemption  and  have  likely  benefits  for  reducing  catches  of 
undersized whiting. 

Regarding LED-lights projects France indicates that while t he result s of  
the  SELUX  project  are  interesting  for  whiting,  two  out  of  the  nine 
experiments completed show difficulties remains for bot h devic es. T he 
catch reductions observed were for whiting of all sizes, meaning t here 
are economic losses associated with using these devices w hich makes 
they may not be options acceptable to fishers.   

Netherlands 

The  Netherlands  provided  the following data is provided for  the Dutch 
fleet: 

MS 

Year 

No 
Vessels 

of 

Landings 
of whiting 
(tonnes) 

Estimated 
discards 
of whiting 
(tonnes) 

Estimated 
whiting 
catches 
(tonnes) 

NL 

2021 

42 

67 

83 

150 

Belgium 

Belgium  indicated  that  innovations  are  being  developed  for  different 
fishing métiers practiced by Belgian fishermen (beam trawl, ot t er t raw l, 
flyshoot  and  passive  fishing)  to  reduce  by-catches  and/or  optimize 
commercial  catches.  Based  on  brainstorm sessions that are organized 
throughout the project, commercially feasible network designs  w it h t he 
widest possible support within the sector are selected. 

The first trials undertaken are: 

  LED on headrope of commercial flyshoot vessel (5 days); 

  Luminescent netting on board of passive fisheries vessel, pots 

targeting bown crab (6 days); 

  LED on board of passive fisheries vessel, pots targeting bown crab 

(6 days); 

  LED in Benthic Release panel on board of research vessel, RV 

Belgica, beam trawl targeting sole (10 days). 

Several  more  sea  trials  will  be  planned  for  different  innovations  per 
métier  to  collect  further  data.  Data  collection  will  be  based  on  a 
combination of self-sampling (by the crew) and through observer trips in 
which ILVO staff embark to perform extensive catch analysis. At  least 5 

11 

11 

 
 
more innovations will be tested (for which at least 1 self-sampling and 1 
observer  trip  will  be  performed  per  innovation). In addition, 6 more (5 
day) campaigns on board the research vessel RV “Belgica” and 10 days 
on board of research vessel RV “Simon Stevin” are planned. T he exact 
number of trials will depend on the selected innovations.     

Reviewer’s  comment: Reviewer acknowledges the most recent catch 
information  provided  by  NL  for  2021  and  the  overview  of  on-going 
Belgian project regarding LED-lights technology. The Belgian studies ar e 
interesting  although  several  are  not  necessarily  relevant  to  this 
exemption (crab pot work). The Reviewer agrees that the results of  t he 
French EODE project, described under annex 6.5-6.6, in general, are st ill 
applicable as background information to this exemption but non etheless 
do not add any new or additional information to that previously provided 
to STECF. The additional information is usef ul but  does not  af f ect t he 
main findings of EWG-22-05. 

STECF  agrees  with the observations of EWG 22-05 and notes the on-
going work with lights to reduce unwanted catches. STECF not es such 
work  is  being  carried  out  by  a  number  of  Member  States  in  different 
fisheries and it would be useful to collate this work to allow taking st oc k 
of the results of the different trials and identify the fisheries w here such 
technology could be best utilised.  

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

Mackerel, horse mackerel, herring and whiting in the pelagic fishery 
carried out by pelagic trawlers up to 25 meters in ICES divisions 4b and 
4c south of 54 degrees north 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Limited new information has been provided other than partial information 
on catches and fleets. Therefore, an assessment of  t he impac t  of  t his 
exemption cannot be completed and the previous observations made by 
EWG 19-04 and 20-04 remain relevant. 

The  new  catch  information  provided  in  the  JR  indicates  in  2019,  the 
estimated discard rate for the OTM-PTM fishery was 5.8%, decreasing t o 
1.2% in 2020. It is not clear if this figure is based on total discards f rom 
the fishery or just the four species listed under the exemption.  

According to the observer data presented, horse mac kerel and w hit ing 
are the main species discarding in 2019 and 2020 (horse mackerel made 
up  53% and 28% and whiting 13% and 71% respectively). Discards of 
herring and mackerel are reported to be minimal,  and it is not clear w hy 
these species are included in the exemption, if the issue is princ ipally t o 
cover unwanted catches of whiting and horse mackerel. 

Vessels availing of the exemption use both pelagic and de mersal t raw ls 
on the same fishing trips and sometimes on the same day. However, it  is 
unclear how unwanted catches discarded under t his exempt ion c an be 
distinguished from unwanted catches caught with bottom trawls w it hout 
specific control measures in plac e.  

With  respect  to  difficulties  in  improving  the  gear selectivity in French 
artisanal small pelagic fisheries, the JR states that the low disc ard rat es 
are  due  to  their  selective  nature  and  the  fact that fishermen already 
adopt voluntarily spatio-temporal measures to avoid unwanted catches. 
It  is  not  clear  what  kind  of  spatio-temporal  avoidance  measures  are 
meant here. 

The justification for the exemption assumes that the unw anted c atches 
are insignificant in the pelagic fisheries and options to improve selectivity 

12 

12 

 
 
Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

have been exhausted. Recognising that achieving addit ional selectivity 
improvements would be difficult in such fisheries and the costs for sorting 
would be high given the nature of the species and fisheries involved, this 
cannot be fully assessed from the information supplied. 

Following Supplementary information was provided:  

France 

France indicates that the discard profile presented shows low discards of  
mackerel  and  herring  for  2020  but  report  that  there  is  variability  of 
discards year-to-year. In this regard, the Obsmer report 2020 based on 
2018 data showed that mackerel accounts for 9,2% of  t he t ot al c atch 
and 4,3% of the total discards, with 0,3% of the mackerel c atches t hat 
are  discarded.  As  a  result,  the  scope  of  the exemption should remain 
unchanged, to cover potential needs to discard herring and mac kerel as 
well, due to the variable catch composition.  

Additionally, the precautions underlined in the Obsmer report  regardin g 
the  representativeness  of  the  data  for  2020  should  be  recalled, 
considering the disruption in the sampling program due to the Covid and 
post-Brexit crisis. 

Regarding  moving-on  measures,  it  relates  to  the  geographical  areas 
where  fishing  vessels  operate.  Indeed,  vessels  tend  to  choose  their 
fishing  location  to  avoid  certain  areas  where  important  bycatches  of 
these  species  were  observed  in  the  previous  years,  including  coastal 
areas where catches tend to be more diversified in their composition.  

Reviewer’s comment: Reviewer acknowledges the clarification pr ovided 
by France. The comment regarding the variability of c atch c omposition 
and hence levels of discards is duly noted. The comments on the spat io -
temporal measures while clarifying these relate to moving-on measures, 
do not seem to go over and above normal operational decisions of wher e 
to fish by fishers. No information as to the extent to whic h t hey lead t o 
avoidance of unwanted catches of the species covered by the exemption.    

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

STECF  agrees  with  the  observations  of EWG 22-05 and highlights the 
difficulties in monitoring catches discarding under this exempt ion given 
the nature of the fishery and that vessels can use different gears during 
the same fishing trip. 

Sprat,  sandeel,  Norway  pout  and  blue  whiting  caught  in  the 
demersal mixed  fisheries with trawls and the fishery for Northern praw n 
in ICES division 3a and ICES subarea 4 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Additional documentation has been provided to support the continuation 
of this exemption in the form of updated catch and bycatch informat ion,  
showing that bycatches of industrial species was very low – 0.1 % in t he 
demersal human consumption fisheries. 

The  JR  has  also  provided  an  explanation  of  why  improvements  in 
selectivity  in  these  fisheries  would  be  difficult to achieve which seem 
reasonable. 

No Supplementary Information provided 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 

13 

13 

 
 
 
 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05. 

Exemption 

Ling below MCRS caught with longlines in ICES subarea 4 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Limited new information has been provided other than partial information 
on catches and fleets for 2020-2021. The previous observations made by 
EWG 19-04 and 20-04 remain relevant.  

Based  on  the  data  presented  discards  of  ling  are  low  in  the  longline 
fishery and the observer data collected from 2019 reports discards of  26 
tonnes. However, while this indicates little impact on the stock, w it hout 
catch information, no assessment can be made.  

The observations of EWG 20-05 that the arguments regarding difficult ies 
in improving selectivity are credible given the nature of the fisheries and 
discards covered by the exemption are quite low are still valid. However, 
the  qualitative  nature  of  the  information  presented  means  that  the 
improvements of selectivity, for example through increases in hook size 
would have on the fishery have still not been provided.   

With  respect  to improving the selectivity, the JR provides three study 
programmes as examples of studies carried out to reduce unwanted by -
catch  of  sensitive  species  by  improving  fishing  techniques  in  longline 
fisheries.  These  studies  while  interesting  are  not  relevant  to  this 
exemption.        

The following Supplementary information was provided: 

France 

While the studies mentioned in the joint recommendation are focused on 
other sea basins and other species, the intention was to provide ST ECF  
with  an  overview  of  other  works  conducted  on  that  specific  gear. 
Regarding the specific fishery for ling with longlines, no dedicated studies 
are available. Considering the volumes involved and the selectivity of the 
fishery  for  these  gears,  the  scientific  and  financial  focus  was  rather 
channelled towards other exemptions. 

Reviewer’s comments: Reviewer acknowledges the clarification provided. 
However, it does not alter the main findings of EWG-22-05. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05 that  t he EWG 19- 04 
and 20-04 still remain relevant. Without catch information relating to the 
specific exemption, an assessment of the likely impact of this exempt ion 
cannot be made, noting that it appears discards of ling in the fishery are 
small (~27 tonnes) 

Exemption 

Horse mackerel in the demersal mixed  fisheries with bot t om t raw ls in 
ICES divisions 4b and 4c  

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Only  limited  new  information  has  been  provided  other  than  partial 
information on catches and fleets.  In this regard, a f ull  as sessment of  
the  impact  of  this  exemption  is  not  possible  and  the  previous 
observations made by EWG 19-08 and 20-04 remain relevant. 

Additionally, the estimates of discards reported from logbooks are very 
low  catches  and  discards,  when  compared  to  the  catch  information 

14 

14 

 
 
 
provided  for  2019  which  showed  high  catches  and  discards  of  horse 
mackerel. Therefore, it is not clear how reliable these estimat es are of  
catches  and  discards,  noting  the  issues  with  deploying  on  board 
observers due to Covid during 2021. 

The exemption request is based on old studies of trawl selectivity, w hic h 
date  back  to  2017  or  earlier.  No  new  selectivity  investigations  are 
reported  or planned but it appears none of the gears tested are being 
used in the fisheries.  

The catch information presented suggests discarding in these fisheries is 
high with nearly 8,500 tonnes discarded in 2019. It w ould seem t he de 
minimis  catch requested covers only a part of the unw ant ed c atches in 
the fisheries and therefore, improving selectivity in the f isherie s should 
remain the priority. 

The  estimates  of  the  costs  for  landing  unwanted  horse  mackerel  are 
significant. However, they are based on average discards over the period 
2013-2016,  which  may  not  be  representative  of  the  situation  in  the 
fisheries currently. 

The following Supplementary information was presented: 

France 

France indicates that the results of the Obsmer sampling program  w ere 
provided to allow for a more comprehensive analysis.  

Regarding the disproportionate costs, the elements provided under annex 
6.5-6.6 present the main findings of the EODE and relevant  selectivity 
studies.  It  aimed  at  analysing  the  costs  generated  by  a  full 
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  by  the  bot tom  trawlers  fleet 
targeting multiple demersal species. As such, the study did indeed f oc us 
on a fishery likely to need and use the exemption. 

Reviewer’s  comments:  Reviewer  acknowledges  the  clarifications 
provided. The issues around data collection are noted. However, disc ar d 
estimates based on logbook information should be treated w it h c aution 
and not used as the basis for discard estimation.  

On  the  EODE  and  selectivity  studies,  the  clarifications  are  noted. 
However,  they  are  not  new  studies  and  do  not  add  any  additional 
information to allow STECF fully evaluate the impact of the exemption or  
led to improvements in selectivity in the relevant fisheries. 

The  supplementary  information  however  does  not  affect  the  main 
findings of EWG-22-05.     

STECF  agrees  with  the  comment  of  EWG  22-05  that  the  previous 
observations  made  by  EWG  19-04  and  20-04  still  remain  relevant. 
Without  catch  information  relating  to  the  fishery,  only  a  limited 
assessment  can  be  made  of  the  impacts  of  the  exemption.    The 
supporting information and justification remain generic and not  spec if ic 
to horse mackerel. STECF also notes that discarding in these fisheries are 
high. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

Mackerel caught with bottom trawls in ICES divisions 4b and 4c  

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Only  limited  new  information  has  been  provided  other  than  partial 
information on catches and fleets.  In this regard, a f ull  assessment of  
the  impact  of  this  exemption  is  not  possible  and  the  previous 
observations made by EWG 19-08 and 20-04 remain relevant. 

15 

15 

 
A substantial part of the landings is discarded in the fishery part ic ularly 
by bottom trawlers below 18 m  (71%) and above 18 m  (30 - 51%). T he 
proportion of discarded mackerel appears to be in the range of 0.2-3% of  
the total catch of mackerel but what this equates to in volume t erms is 
unclear. 

The  selectivity  information  from  three  French  study  projects  gives  a 
valuable insight to the research aimed to reduce unwanted by introducing 
various technical measures. However, they are not new, dat ing back t o 
2017  and  earlier.  It  is  unclear  whether  any  of  the  selectivity 
improvements tested have been implemented in the fishery. 

It is accepted that it is difficult to improve selec tivity w it hout c ausing 
significant commercial losses for vessels fishing in such mixed  f isheries. 
However, the data provided indicate that the levels of discarding in these 
fisheries  is  high  and  therefore,  efforts  to  improve  selectivity  should 
continue. 

The following Supplementary information was provided: 

France 

The French selectivity projects described under annex 6.5 - 6.6 f ocus on 
the  fleets  likely  to  avail  of  this  exemption  (i.e.,  the  fleet  of  bottom 
trawlers operating between the south of the North Sea and the Channel). 
While  the  projects  are  not specifically dedicated to mackerel or horse 
mackerel, the devices were tested to lead to potential improvement s of  
the fleet’s selectivity. In that the regard, the elements presented in t he 
annex  remains  relevant  for  this  exemption.  The  SELECFISH  project  in 
particular  was  aimed  at  testing  devices  that  could  lead  to  reducing 
discarded volumes of TAC species. 

Reviewer’s  comments:  Reviewer  acknowledges  the  clarifications 
provided. However, they do not alter the main findings of EWG 22-05. 

STECF  agrees  with  the  comment  of  EWG  22-05  that  the  previous 
observations  made  by  EWG  19-04  and  20-04  still  remain  relevant. 
Without  catch  information  relating  to  the  fishery,  only  a  limited 
assessment  can  be  made  of  the  impacts  of  the  exemption.    The 
supporting information and justification remain generic and not  spec if ic 
to mackerel. STECF also notes that discarding in these fisheries are high.  

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

Blue whiting caught in the industrial pelagic fishery by vessels targeting 
blue whiting in ICES subarea 4 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Limited new catch information specific to catches f rom ICES subarea 4 
has been provided and therefore, full assessment of  t he impac t of  t his 
exemption  is  not  possible.  However,  it  is  noted  that  the  volume  of 
unwanted catch of blue whiting compared to the total catch f or 2021 by 
the  industrial  vessel  availing  of  this  exemption  is  relatively  small  (63 
tonnes or 2.4%) and would have not have any impact on the overall blue 
whiting stock. 

The  description  of  the  operation  on  board  the  vessel,  as  well  as  the 
qualitative information provided to support the assertion that the costs of 
handling  unwanted  catches  on  board  are  disproportionate,  provide  a 
reasonable justification for this exemption. However, no assess ment as 
to whether the losses indicated are disproportionate or not  is possible, 
having little information on total income or other indicators on the vessel 
economics. 

Regarding  selectivity,  the  vessel  is  already  fishing  with  a  codend  in 

16 

16 

 
Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

excess of the legal minimum  mesh size. Improving selectivit y f urt her in 
the  fishery  may  not  be  advantageous  as  it  may  lead to unaccounted 
mortality  due  to  the  likely  low  survival  of  escaping  blue  whiting  as 
indicated in the JR. 

No Supplementary information has been provided.  

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05. STECF cannot assess 
the impact of this exemption, noting that the volume of unwant ed catch 
of blue whiting compared to the total catch for 2021 is relat ively small 
and  most  likely  will  not  have  any  impact  on  the  overall  blue  whiting 
stock. 

Exemption 

Northern prawn – caught with demersal trawls and seines using mesh 
sizes above 70mm  in ICES division 3a and subarea 4. 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

The background and the justification of this new exemption are similar  t o 
those  presented  by  Scheveningen  group  for  the  combined  de  minimis 
exemption  for  industrial  species.  Therefore,  the  observations  for that 
exemption are relevant. 

The current discard volumes reported for all of the f leet s is less t han 1 
tonne annually with a discard rate of between 0.002 t o 0.023%. In t he 
overall context of the fishery, given the discard rat es and volumes are 
low, the impact of the exemption is likely to be minimal.    

The  justification  that  the  catches  are  insignificant  in  the  demersal 
fisheries and options to improve selectivity have been exhausted are not  
necessarily supported with quantitative evidence.    How ever, based on 
the  information  supplied  for  this  exemption  and  for  the similar one for 
industrial species, it is reasonable to assume that improving selec t ivit y 
further in the fishery to reduce such a small bycatch is difficult to achieve 
in practice. 

No supplementary information was provided 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05. 

Plaice below the minimum  conservation reference size caught w it h 80 -
119 mm  beam trawl gears (BT2) in ICES subarea 4 

Since  2019,  progress  has  been  made  in  increasing  the  knowledge  of 
plaice  survivability.  Additionally,  considerable  work  has  begun  on  the   
estimation  of  catch  volumes  and  composition,  by  development   of 
systems and protocols for self-reporting and automated video analysis. 
Research  on  ways  to  improve  selectivity is also ongoing. No concrete 
results have been presented to date, but the preliminary f indings seem 
encouraging for some of the gear modifications tested.  

17 

17 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

High Survivability 

Exemption 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

 
 
 
 
 
For beam trawlers, the justification for survivability exemption for plaic e 
continues  to  be  based  on  the  potential  for  improving  survival  and 
selectivity, but this is based on variable estimates of survival.  

The current survival estimates are still highly variable and only relevant  
for the larger beam trawl vessels. No new information has been provided 
for smaller vessels with less than 221KW engine power ot her t han t hat 
contained in Uhlmann  et al. (2016).  

There  is  also  only  limited  and  inc onclusive  information  on  the 
effectiveness  of  the  Flip-up  rope  and  the  Benthic  Release  Panel  to 
improve  survivability.  The  use  of  these  devices  is  specified  in  the 
Delegated Act as a condition of the exemption. If these devices are not  
effective  in  increasing  survivability,  then  the  value  of  making  them  a 
condition of the exemption is questionable even though t hey may have 
other benefits not related to survivability.  

The current survival estimates need to be considered in t he c ont ext  of  
the  current  discard  rates  reported,  which  are in excess of 70%. ICES 
advice shows the plaice stock in the North Sea is in good condit ion w it h 
fishing  mortality  below  Fmsy,  Fpa,  and  Flim,  and  spawning-stock size 
above  MSY  Btrigger,  Bpa,  and  Blim. However, given the survival rates 
are in the range of 20-40% and the discard rates are high, considerable 
volumes  of  plaice  discarded  under  this  exemption  are  likely  not  to 
survive.   

Unless  surviving  discards  are accounted for in stock assessments and 
dead  discards  are  accounted  for  in  TAC  setting  when  survivability 
exemptions are in place, the actual fishing mortality will  not  mat c h t he 
agreed catch level.  

Introducing discard survival estimates should continue to be discussed by 
ICES  for  more  stocks  and  especially  plaice,  given  the  proliferation  of 
survival exemptions.  

The observations of EWG 21-05 that there is still a need f or c larit y on 
objectives and timelines in respect of the roadmap remains as t here is 
still no timetable for the completion of the roadmap. 

The following Supplementary information was provided: 

Netherlands 

The  Netherlands has provided Additional information regarding timeline 
of  on-going  projects  under  the  roadmap.  The  information  in  the Joint 
Recommendation  indicates  the  timeline  of  the  different  projects.  The 
Fully Documented Fisheries (FDF) project aims to automatically regist er 
all caught fish through recognition and identification of  t he volume and 
composition  of  catches and discards in demersal fisheries. This should 
contribute  to  improvements  in  the  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation. The first pilot project had a phased implement at ion of  t hree 
years,  between  2019  and  2022.  The  Dutch  authorities  are  currently 
extending  this  pilot  project  until  1  May  2023,  in  order  for the current 
project  to  connect  to  the  follow-up  FDF  project. There are still some 
elements that need further research, for example t he aut omat ic image 
recognition and the automatic and reliable data collection.  

The  follow-up  FDF  project  is  investigating  the  effectiveness  and 
verifiability  of  the  algorithm  at  sea  to  gain  insights  on  possible 
improvements.  Furthermore,  the  project  runs  parallel  to  the  new 
research  project  on  the  survivability  of  plaice  and turbot in the bea m 
trawl  and  Danish  seine  fisheries  that  are  mentioned  in  the  turbot 
exemption.  

18 

18 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

 
The research project on the survivability of plaice and turbot will design, 
develop,  and  evaluate  a  system  to  automatically  predict  the  survival 
probability  of  bycatch  on-board  of  a  fishing  vessel.  Additionally,  the 
project will include tests of the Tiaki cod-end, which is a gear researched 
within  the  SELOV-project.  The  results  of this research should provide 
insight  into  the  effects  on  discards  survival  (qualitative,  based  on 
condition scoring). 

Belgium 

Belgium  provided  further  clarifications  on  the  table  presented  in  the 
supporting  annex.  This  indicated  that  the  BE  projects  monitoring  HS 
Plaice  are  finished.  BE  is  exploring  whether  cooperation  with  NL  is 
possible for the next discard plan (also for turbot).  For now, t here is no 
additional information available for BRP or flip up rope. 

Reviewer’s comments: Reviewer acknowledges the additional information 
provided on the ongoing NL projects on implementation of  F DF  and on 
survivability  of  plaice  and  turbot.  The  project  aims  to  develop  and 
evaluate  a system to automatically predict the survival probability of 
bycatch onboard of a fishing vessel. Additionally, the project will inc lude 
tests of the Tiaki cod-end, which is a gear researched within the SELOV -
project. The results of this research are expected t o pr ov ide valuable 
insight into the effects on discards survival.  

The additional information clarifies some of the concer ns of  EWG 22 -05 
on elements of the roadmap. However, it does not m ater ially alt er t he 
observations  of  EWG  22-05  that  there  are  no  clear  timelines  for 
completion of the roadmap.  

STECF  acknowledges  that  progress  has  been  made  in  increasing  the 
knowledge  of  plaice  survivability.  Additionally,  considerable  work  has 
begun  on  the  estimation  of catch volumes and composition as well as 
ways to improve survivability and selectivity in the relevant fisheries.  

The  new  estimates  of  survival  provided  as  well  as  the  update  catch 
volumes and catch composition which improves the knowledge on plaic e 
survivability in the beam trawl fishery and the impact of the exemption.  

STECF notes that given the survival rates are in the range of 20-40% and 
the  discard  rates  are  high,  considerable  volumes  of  plaice  discarded 
under this exemption are likely not to survive.  

STECF  agrees  with  EWG  22-05  that  there  is still a need for clarity on 
objectives and timelines in respect of the roadmap and notes there is still 
currently no timetable for the completion of the roadmap. 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

Skates and rays  caught  by  all fishing gears in the North Sea in ICES 
division 3a and ICES subarea 4 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Significant  new  information  has  been  provided.  This  includes  the 
requested summary table to provide a means to different i ate new  f rom 
existing information. Update on the progress (projects mentioned above 
–  ongoing)  regarding  the  roadmap was also provided. However, catch 
data was limited to several species and specific gears. Significant gaps in 
knowledge on catches of some rays remain.  

Further survival work is planned for the coming year. This should provide 
better understanding of skates and ray survival in specific f isheries but  
also note that each species should be assessed. The RAYWATCH projec t 
will  provide  species  useful  vitality  observations  and  biological data as 

19 

19 

 
 
Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

preliminary  results  suggest.  However,  it  should be noted that survival 
estimates  from  captive  monitoring  or  tagging  studies  would  provide 
important post-release survival data. 

As  highlighted  by  STECF  previously,  Member  States  should  be 
encouraged to use their joint scientific capacity to compile and analyse 
previous  and  new  data  in  a  more  systematic  way  to  assist  future 
assessment of the exemptions covered under the roadmap. 

The following Supplementary information was presented: 

The  Scheveningen  group  underlines  that  many  scientific  projects 
(SUMARIS  II,  Innorays,  Bridging  Knowledge  gaps,  Raywatch…)  are 
ongoing and that their outcomes is foreseen by the end of  2022.   Many 
of these projects indeed include a captivity phase or a mark- rec apt ure 
study.  As such, the group hopes to provide new results in the next  joint  
recommendation on landing obligation.   

Reviewer’s  comments:  Reviewer  acknowledges  that  the  results  of  a 
number of ongoing projects including the captive monitoring or tagging -
recapture studies to obtain post -release survivability estimations w ill be 
made available in the next JR on LO. While it  does not  m at er ially alt er 
the main findings of EWG 22-05, it is nonetheless posit ive t hat w or k is 
continuing given the wide scope of this exemption and m any data gaps 
that exist. 

STECF 
Comments 

STECF  agrees  with  the  observations  of  EWG  22-05  and  agrees  that 
Member States should be encouraged t o look at improving catch data f or 
the different species as this data is lacking in many cases.  

STECF also encourages Member States use their joint scientific c apacity 
to compile and analyse previous and new data in a more systematic w ay 
to  assist  future  assessment  of  the  exemptions  covered  under  the 
roadmap.  

Exemption 

Mackerel and herring in the purse seine fisheries in ICES divisions 2a, 
3a and subarea 4 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

The conclusions of STECF PLEN 14-02 that, the survival estimates of 70% 
for  mackerel  and  herring  remain  valid.  This  assumes  the  experiments 
undertaken  on  the crowding density effects and crowding duration on 
mackerel  and  herring  mortality  referred  to  in  the  original  JR  are 
representative  of  the  conditions  experienced  under  commercial  purse 
seine  fishing  operations.  It  is  also  dependent  on  compliance  with  the 
rules set out in the Delegated Act regarding the point  of  ret rieval af t er 
which fish cannot be released from the purse seine. There is no indication 
that either of these c onditions have been met.  

The assertion by the Scheveningen group that the introduction of  CCT V 
into pelagic fisheries will increase the use of purse seines and t heref ore 
the use of the exemption is unclear. There does not  seem any obvious 
linkage between the two. 

Given  no  new  supporting  information  has  been  provided  and that this 
exemption has been in place since 2015, it should be subject to a further 
review  as  part  of  the  wider  review  planned for next year. This should 
assess whether the survival estimat es provide are still valid, t he impac t  
of  the  exemption  on  the  stocks  involved  and  also  based  on  uptake, 
whether it is still required. 

20 

20 

 
 
Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

The following Supplementary information was provided: 

France 

There are no French vessels likely to operate in this f ishery w it h purse 
seines in the North Sea. 

Sweden 

There are no Swedish vessels targeting mackerel and herring using purse 
seines.  Fifteen  Swedish  vessels  targeted  herring  and  mackerel  during 
2021 using trawls in the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat.  

Denmark 

The Danish fleet has so far not used this exemption as desc ribed in t he 
current exemption, which is only available for the purse seine f isheries. 
Thus,  no  discards  have  been  registered  in  this  fishery  under  the 
exemption.  The  Danish  pelagic  fleet  have in recent years switched to 
pelagic  trawls  to  target  mackerel  and  herring.  In  2019-2021 only one 
Danish vessel fished mackerel with purse seines with a bycatch of herring 
(less than 1%). All c atches were landed. 

Catch DK vessel 

MACKEREL  

 Herring bycatch 

2019                 550.000 kg     

2020                 800.000 kg     

              3.000  kg    

2021             2.810.000 kg     

           22.000  kg    

These bycatches are to be compared with the overall initial Danish quot a 
of mackerel of 18 666 000 kg for 2021 and the total herring quot a. T he 
herring  bycatch  is  a  very small percentage of the total Danish herring 
quotas for 2021, which consists of 4 elements: 

North Sea  

50 661 000 kg 

-bycatch 

  7 421 000 kg 

Skagerrak/Kattegat    9 080 000 kg 

-bycatch 

  5 692 000 kg 

Regarding  the  context  for  this  request:  The  Danish  pelagic  industry 
expects a few vessels to return to the purse seine fisheries for mac kerel 
and herring when cameras are inst alled on their vessels given that these 
vessels  would  then  be  prepared  to  meet  the  condition  of  electronic 
monitoring which was a condition for using the exempt ion. It  w ould be 
unfortunate timing if the exemption is not extended at the same t ime as 
vessels on their own initiative are being equipped to meet the condit ions 
set. Further information on the use of the exemption in the fut ure c ould 
be provided in due time. It should be noted as well that article 8 of  (EU) 
delegated  regulation  2020/2015  provides  a  similar  exemption  for  the 
North  Western  Waters,  while  not  coming  to  an  end  on  the  31st  of 
December  2022.  Coherence  between  the  two  areas  pleads  for  a 
prolongation of the exemption in force in the North Sea unt il t he end of  
the current discard plan.   

Reviewer’s  comments:  The  supplemented  information  provided  has 
responded to some of the queries raised by EWG 22-05. It indicates t hat 
only DK would benefit from the exemptions since Danish pelagic industry  
expects a few vessels to return to the purse seine fisheries for m acker el 
and herring when CCTV cameras are installed onboard.  No SWE nor  F RA 
are planning the purse seine fishery in the area.  T he Rev iew er agr ees 

21 

21 

 
  
 
 
 
 
that  temporal  coherence  in  prolongation  of  the  similar  exemption 
between the neighbouring North-Western Waters and Nor t h Sea w ould 
seem reasonable. However, the need to review this exemption as part of  
a wider review of all exemptions is still relevant, given the limited use of  
this exemption, both in North-Western waters and the North Sea. 

STECF 
Comments 

STECF agrees with observations of EWG 22-05, and that this exempt ion 
should  be  subject  to  a  further  review  to  assess  whether  the survival 
estimates  provided  are  still  valid,  the  impact  of the exemption on the 
stocks involved and also based on uptake whether it is still required. 

Exemption 

Turbot caught with beam trawls (TBB) with a cod-end equal to or larger 
than 80mm  in ICES subarea 4 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

The Scheveningen Group has provided detailed catch and discard data as 
well  as  a  description  of  the  fisheries by Member State involved in the 
fishery. This shows discards of turbot in the fishery are low  in  t erms of  
overall catches, noting that German and Belgian disc ard est imat es are 
based  on  few observed trips in the beam trawl fishery which may bias 
discard estimates.  

Both catches and discards show a decreasing trend in in recent years The 
reason for the reduction in catch is unclear but may be related to the ban 
on the use of the pulse trawl.  

The current survival estimates need to be c onsidered in t he c ont ext  of  
the current discard rates reported, which for all of  t he f leet s is around 
2%.    ICES  advice  shows  the  turbot  stock  in  the North Sea is in good 
condition with fishing mortality below Fmsy and spaw ning - stock size is 
above MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim.   Assuming the survival rat es are in 
the range of 38-75%% and the discard rates and volumes are low , t he 
impact of the exemption is likely to be low.   

The  observation  of  EWG  21-05  that  a  synthesis  of  available  survival 
estimates, and characteristics of all relevant fisheries is needed to assess 
the consequences of the exemption fully remains valid. 

The following Supplementary Information was provided: 

Netherlands 

Information about intended research on this exemption was provided by 
the Netherlands. In previous years, two survival estimat e st udies w ere 
carried  out.  Firstly,  discard  survival  probabilities  were  assessed  for 
several species, including turbot and sole, caught by commerc ial pulse -
trawlers.  Based  on  nine  sea  trips,  the  estimated  discard  survival 
probabilities for turbot and sole were 30% and 19% respectively (Schram 
et  al.,  2018).  Furthermore,  the  condition  of  turbot  discards  in  tickler 
chain  beam trawl fisheries were measured as a substitute for survival. 
This  research  concluded  that  the  survivability  of  turbot  in  the  tickler 
chain  beam  trawl  fisheries  is  most  likely  lower than measured in pulse 
fisheries.   

To  provide  new  survival  estimates,  the  Dutch  authorities  intends  to 
launch  a  new  research  project  which  focusses  on  the  survivability of 
plaice  and  turbot  in  the  beam  trawl  (TBB)  and  Scottish  seine  (SSC) 
fishery this year. The project consists of four separat e w ork pac kages, 
including research on possibilities to increase discard survival. The aim is 
to present preliminary results of this research next year. The Dut c h and 
Belgian authorities are currently discussing how to align t heir ef f ort s in 
relation to this research. 

22 

22 

 
BE  and  NL  will work together to see how their respective work can be 
aligned, to possibly advance in a coordinated manner. 

Reviewer’s  comments:  Reviewer  acknowledges  that  a  new  research 
project involving both NL and BE focusing on the survivabilit y  of  plaic e 
and turbot in the beam trawl (TBB) and Scottish seine (SSC) fisher y  w ill 
be launched this year with the aim to present preliminary result s of  t his 
research next year. The potential results of this project are expected t o 
be relevant to this exemption. 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05 that the likely impac t  
of this exemption is low given the low level of t urbot  disc ards.   STECF 
further observes that NL and BE are about to launch a research project 
focusing on the survivability of plaice and turbot in the beam trawl (T BB) 
and Scottish seine (SSC) fishery. This project will be launched t his year 
with the aim to present preliminary results in 2023. The potential result s 
of this project are expected to be very relevant to this exemption. 

STECF 
Comments 

Table  1b.  Main  findings of t he STECF EWG 21-05, summary of additional information received 
relating to exemptions presented and Reviewer’s Comments: NWW. 

De minimis 

Exemption 

Main 
findings 
of EWG 22-05 

Whiting  caught  by  vessels  using bottom trawls and seines with a mesh 
size equal to or greater than 80 mm,  pelagic trawls and beam trawls with a 
mesh size of 80 to 119 mm  in ICES divisions 7b to 7k 

New information has been provided by France and Ireland but only part ial 
information on catches and fleets. France has only provided relative values 
for  the  level  of  unwanted  catches. No data has been provided by other 
Member States operating in NWW. A full assessment of the impac t  of  t his 
exemption is not possible. The previous observations made by EWG 15- 10, 
17-08, 21-05 remain relevant. 

For  some  métiers  (e.g.,  Nephrops  fishery  in  the  Celtic  Sea  and  bottom 
trawls targeting crustaceans, mainly grey shrimp, in the East ern Channel 
and the south of the North Sea), the whiting discard rate is likely t o above 
the 5% de minimis  requested, although in some of the fisheries the volume 
in  the  overall  context  of  the  whiting  stock  is  relatively  low.  For  other 
métiers, the discard rates are relatively low.  

France and Ireland have continued to test a range of technical measures t o 
reduce unwanted catches of whiting in particular mét iers, suc h as in t he 
Nephrops  fishery.  The  results  from  some  of  these  trials have led to the 
introduction of more selective gears into the Celtic Sea, while ot hers have 
yielded positive indications in reducing unwanted catches of whiting but  do 
not appear to be widely used as yet. 

The whiting (and cod stocks) in the Celtic Sea is currently in a poor st at e 
according to the latest ICES advice. Therefore, it is important that reducing 
unwanted  catches  should  remain  a  priority  in  the  fishery.  It  is  also 
important  that  any  whiting  discarded  under  the  exemption  be  fully 
monitored and recorded. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-

to 

The following Supplementary Information was provided: 

Belgium 

 Belgium  reports  that no sampling data for whiting is available. The data 
collection in a Member State, here Belgium, is according t he DCF /EU MAP 
2017/1004, the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/909 (for the 

23 

23 

 
05 

collection  and  management  of  data  in  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture 
sectors)  and  the  Commission  Delegated  Decision  (EU)  2019/910 
establishing the list of mandatory research surveys and thresholds.  

These  regulations  and  decisions  define how to establish the multiannual 
Union  program  for  the  collection  and  management  of  biological, 
environmental,  technical  and  socioeconomic  data  in  the  fisheries  and 
aquaculture sectors. Based on the guidance in these documents, it  is f or 
Belgium  less  relevant  to  collect  data  on  flyshoot  or  trawl  fisheries. 
Therefore, no information on whiting catches in 4c and 7d (see WP 2022 -
2027 - 2022-2027). 

France 

The  French  fleet  covered  by  the  exemption  landed  4  350t  of whiting in 
2021.  The total landings for this fleet accounted for 79 121t in 2021, all 
species  included.  Regarding  area  7d  in  particular,  landings  of  whiting 
accounts  for  1  718t  of  the  total landings of 24 651t. The impact of the 
exemption should therefore remain limited. 

Reviewer’s  comments:  Belgium  explains  the  reason  for  no  catch 
information  being  available  for  whiting.    France  has  provided  updated 
landing  data  for  2021,  However  no  information  on  discards.  The  new 
information does not alter the main observations of EWG 22-05. 

STECF 
Comments 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05. STECF notes that in the 
absence of catch data for all Member States involved in the f leet , it  is not  
possible to fully assess the impact of the exemption.  

STECF acknowledges the continued efforts by Member States in t he NWW 
to improve selectivity in the relevant fisheries. STECF encourages Member 
States  to  continue  with  this  work  but  also  to  collaborate  to  share 
information and results from the different initiatives taken. 

STECF reiterates its earlier (STEF 21-05) observation that besides whit ing, 
also  the  cod  stock  remains  heavily depleted in the Celtic Sea. Reducing 
fishing  mortality  on  this  stock  should  be  a  priority  and  therefore 
continuation of an exemption for a stock closely associated with c od if  not  
strictly  monitored,  may  lead  to  increased  fishing  mortality  due  to 
unreported discarding. 

Exemption 

Haddock  caught  in  the  TR1  and  TR2  trawl  and  seine  fisheries  in  ICES 
divisions 7b, 7c and 7e to 7k 

Main 
findings 
of EWG 22-05 

New information has been provided by France and Ireland but only part ial 
information on catches and fleets. France has only provided relative values 
for  the  level  of  unwanted  catches. No data has been provided by other 
Member  States  operating  in  NWW.  Therefore,  a  full  assessment  of  the 
impact of this exemption is not possible. The previous observations made 
by EWG 17-08, 20-04, 21-05 which remain relevant. 

For some métiers (e.g., Nephrops fishery in the Celtic Sea and beam t raw l 
fishery),  the  haddock  discard  rate  is  likely  to  be  well  above  the  5%  de 
minimis  requested,  although  in  some  of  the  fisheries  the  volume  in  the 
overall context of the haddock stock is relatively low. For other métiers, the 
discard rates are relatively low although in the mixed demersal fisheries the 
volumes of unwanted haddock catches are quite high relatively to the stock 
size.  

24 

24 

 
 
 
France  and  Ireland  have  continued  to  test  and  a  range  of  technical 
measures  to  reduce unwanted catches of haddock in particular métiers, 
such as in the Nephrops fishery. The results from some of these trials have 
led to the introduction of more selective gears into the Celtic Sea. 

The  haddock  stock  in  the  Celtic  Sea  is  currently  fished  sustainably 
according to the latest ICES advice. However, given the high discard rat es 
in some fisheries, it is important that reducing unw anted c atches should 
remain a priority in these fisheries. It is also important  t hat  any haddock 
discarded under the exemption be fully monitored and recorded. 

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

The following Supplementary Information was provided: 

France 

The French fleet covered by the exemption, landed 4 181t  of  haddoc k in 
2021.  The total landings for this fleet accounted for 44 955t in 2021, all 
species included. 

Reviewer’s comments:  France has provided updated landing data for 2021. 
However,  no  new  information  on  discard  volume  has  been  provided. 
Therefore, the new information does not alt er t he m ain observations of  
EWG 22-05.  

STECF 
Comments 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05. STECF notes that in the 
absence of catch data for all Member States involved in the f leet , it  is not  
possible to assess fully the impact of the exemption. 

STECF acknowledges the continued efforts by Member States in t he NWW 
to improve selectivity in the relevant fisheries. STECF encourages Member 
States  to  continue  with  this  work  but  also  to  collaborate  to  share 
information and results from the different initiatives taken. 

STECF  further  acknowledges  that  the  recent  trials  testing  a  range  of 
technical measures to reduce unwanted catches of haddock in part ic ular 
métiers,  such  as  in the Nephrops fishery have led to the introduction of 
more selective gears into the Celtic Sea. 

STECF reiterates its earlier (STEF 21-05) observation t hat t he c od st ock 
remains  heavily  depleted in the Celtic Sea. Reducing fishing mortality on 
this stock should be a priority and therefore continuation of an exempt ion 
for a stock closely associated with cod if not strictly monitored, may lead t o 
increased fishing mortality due to unreported discarding. 

Exemption 

Boarfish caught by vessels using bottom trawls in ICES divisions 7b-c and 
7f-k 

Main 
findings 
of EWG 22-05 

Other than partial information on catches and fleets f or 2019 - 2021, only 
limited new information has been provided. Therefore, a full assessment  of  
the exemption is not possible. The previous observations made by EWG 19-
04 and 20-04 remain relevant. 

Given the paucity of available catch information, monitoring the catches of  
boarfish  in  the  relevant  fleets  covered  by  this  exempted  should  be 
encouraged. 

The  supporting  information  indicates  that  the  current  0.5%  de  minimis 
based on bottom trawl catches would not be sufficient t o account f or t he 
total unwanted catches of boarfish for the French fleet. France had to sw ap 
in up to 84 tonnes to cover boarfish unwanted catches in 2021. 

Based on the supporting information, bycatch of boarfish by Irish demersal 

25 

25 

 
 
vessels are very low when taken in the context of the Irish demersal f leet  
operating in the Celtic Sea. They represent less than 0.5% of the total Irish 
boarfish catches. 

Catch data and a description of the fisheries of other Member States (Spain 
and  Belgium)  availing  of  this  exemption  would be helpful although would 
not materially change the observation that under both the current wording 
and  the  new  wording,  the  exemption  covers  only  a  small  portion of the 
total unwanted catches of boarfish.  

The observations of EWG 20-04 and 21-05 that the inf ormat ion provided 
indicates that selective improvement by regulatory measures t o avoid t he 
catches of boarfish will be hard to achieve without severe economic impacts 
on  the  revenue  of  the  boats  concerned  remain  valid.  However,  the 
arguments presented in the supporting document are generic. The priorit y 
should  be  to  improve  selectivity  to  reduce  the  unwanted  catches  and 
therefore, the costs for handling such catches, accepting that this should be 
balanced against the costs of sorting small quantities of boarf ish f rom t he 
other marketable catch. 

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

An additional document has been submitted by France t o complem ent t he 
annex  previously  submitted  on  boarfish.  The  new  document  provides 
additional relative information on proportion in the total catch, discard, and 
discard  in  the  total  catch  of  boarfish  in  bottom  trawl  fishery  (>18m), 
targeting anglerfish and various demersal species in 2018, w hile no dat a 
are  available  for  2019  and  2020 as during Obsmer campaigns 2019 and 
2020, no boarfish discards were observed in large enough quantities t o be 
included  in  the  report.  New  information  indicates  that  all  boarf ish  was 
discarded, and the share of boarfish ranged f r om 3.8% t o 8.9% in  t ot al 
discard amount (in catches of >18m vessels targeting var ious demersal 
species and targeting anglerfish, respectively). 

Table 1 Summary table of proportion in the total catch, discard and discard in the 
total catch of boarfish in bottom trawl fishery (>18m), targeting anglerfish, in ICES 
zone 7b,c,e,f,g,h,j in 2018 (Gauduchon et al.2020) 

Proportion 
total catch 

in  the 

Proportion  of  discard 
in the total catch 

Proportion  in the total 
discard 

2019 

2,3 

2,3 

8,9 

Table 2 Summary table of proportion in the total catch, discard and discard in the 
total catch of boarfish in bottom trawl fishery (>18m), targeting various demersal 
species, in ICES zone 7b, c,e,f,g,h,j in 2018 (Gauduchon et al.2020) 

Proportion 
total catch 

in  the 

Proportion  of  discard 
in the total catch 

Proportion  in  the  total 
discard 

2019 

1,1 

1,1 

3,8 

Additionally, the document provides argumentation on working c ondit ions 
onboard and the results of analysis of onboard work time of catch handling 
due to LO from EODE program (Balazuc et al. 2016). This information w as 
already made available for EWG 22-05. 

26 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Reviewer’s comments:   

The additional information is useful and provides further information on the 
extent of boarfish catches in France. However, the information dates back 
to  2019  and  it  is  not  clear  how  representative  of  the  current  level  of 
catches in the relevant fleets.     

STECF 
Comments 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05 that the impac t  of  t his 
exemption and the previous observations made by EWG 19- 04 and 20- 04 
still remain relevant.  

STECF  acknowledges  testing  gears  to  improve  the  selectivity  only  for 
boarfish is challenging. Prior to the landing obligation boarfish were alw ays 
discarded due to their low market value. Diverting scarce research funds to 
specifically investigate boarfish selectivity is not really an option. Therefore, 
STECF observes improvements in selectivity for boarfish are only going t o 
be delivered as a consequence of using selective gears designed to reduc e 
unwanted  catches  of  different  target  species.  For  instance,  the use of 
square mesh panels in gadoid fisheries may lead to a reduction in boarf ish 
catch. 

STECF  acknowledges  that  for  exemptions  for  data  poor  stocks  such as 
boarfish, the quality of the catch data makes drawing any c onclusions on 
the impacts of such exemptions difficult.     

Exemption 

Megrim below MCRS caught using bottom trawls with a mesh  size of  70 -
99mm  and beam trawls with a mesh size of 80-119mm in ICES subarea 7 

Main 
findings 
of EWG 22-05 

Only  limited  catch  information  has  been  provided  by  Ireland  and  it  is 
unclear whether other Member States in NWW intend to use this exemption 
if extended. 

In the absence of any new information, no assessment of the impact of this 
exemption on the megrim  stock can be made.  

The earlier assessments by STECF that evidence showing landing unwanted 
catches has an associated cost, is still not sufficient to demonstrate t hose 
costs are disproportionate.  

Improving selectivity in the relevant fisheries should be the priority as t his 
will  reduce  the costs for handling unwanted catches. This is particularly 
relevant  given  the  limited  data  provided  shows  the  level  of  unwanted 
catches of megrim  in Irish fisheries are significant.  

It is not clear why the exemption is proposed to cover t he w hole of  ICES 
subarea 7 for beam trawls but is limited to only certain trawlers operating 
in a smaller area defined in the Fishing Opportunities Regulat ion f or  2020 
(Celtic Sea Protection Zone). 

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

The supplementary information was provided by as follows: 

France  

Additional  information  extracted  from  the  French  sampling  program  are 
submitted as complementary information. The French fleet operating w it h 
the  gears  covered  by the exemption in ICES subarea 7 landed 2073 t of 
megrim  in  2021,  on  a  total  landing  of  57  669t overall. The Obsmer data 
indicates that the share of megrim ranged from 4.7% to 0.6% in  t he t ot al 
unwanted  catches  (in  catches of >18m vessels targeting anglerfish and 
targeting various demersal, respectively). According to the observer dat a 
for  2019, 3% of the megrim that is discarded by French bottom trawlers 

27 

27 

 
 
>18m  targeting anglerfish in the Celtic Sea, the Western Channel and t he 
Irish  sea  is  undersized.  As  the  discard  rate  of  undersized  fishes  is  low, 
France  concludes  that  this  means  this  fishery  is  already  selective  for 
megrim.    

Spain 

Spain has provided discard data associated with this de minimis  exc ept ion 
for megrim  in ICES subarea 7 by Spanish bottom trawlers. During 2021, 18 
bottom trawlers fished in subarea 7 in this ICES zone, and only 2  of  t hem 
made  use  of de minimis exemption, accounting for a total of 3,311 kg of 
discards,  equating to 1,70% of the total de minimis amount available for 
this species. Spain accounts for the low uptake of this exemption to be due 
to the conditions of the exemption which excluded some vessels. In t his 
regard, Spain was informed recently by the Commission on a derogation for 
Spain to be able to use 80 mm  codend mesh size outside of the Celt ic  Sea 
Protection  Zone,  which  may  vary  the  use  of  this  exemption in the near 
future. Therefore, the maintenance of a certain perc entage of  de minimis 
exemption would continue to be necessary for the Spanish fleet. 

Reviewer’s comments:  

The additional catch information provided by France and Spain is  usef ul. 
However, it does not give a clear picture of the level of unwant ed c atches 
of megrim in the relevant fisheries. Other than the Irish information, t here 
is no catch data for the relevant beam trawl fleets.  The dat a pr ovided by 
Spain  for  2021  show  that only 2 out of 18 vessels used this exemption, 
utilising 1.7% of the estimated de minimis volume. It is not clear how  t his 
estimate was generated, nor is it clear the potential level of  c atches t hat 
would  be  discarded  if more vessels availed of the exemption. However, 
based on the uptake by only a small proportion of the vessels, assuming 
similar  level  of  catches  would  suggest  the  volume  would potentially be 
higher than the de minimis volume requested.    

The supplementary information indicates that the impact of this de minim is 
exemption has been limited and continuation of t he exem ption w ould be 
primarily  helpful  for  the  fishing  industry  by  providing  flexibility  for  the 
fleets. However, noting the relatively high discards reported by Ir eland in 
similar fisheries to Spain and France, improvements in selec tiv it y should 
remain the priority. 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05.  

Common  sole  caught  using  beam  trawls  with  mesh  size  of  80-119mm 
with a large mesh panel in ICES divisions 7a extended to include 7j,k 

findings 
Main 
of EWG 22-05 

The exemptions requested are both a temporal and geographical extension 
of existing exemptions. Partial catch and fleet informat ion is provided by 
Belgium  and Ireland. 

Measures to reduce the unwanted catch of sole have been put  in plac e, 
notably through the implementation of the legal obligation to use “F lemish 
panels”,  as  reported  in  previous STECF reports. This has resulted in the 
reduction of 40% of the undersized catches, to the extent that according to 
ICES  they  are  now  apparently  mostly  negligible  (ICES, 2021 and 2021). 
The extent to which the Flemish panel has contributed to this is unclear. 

There are further plans in progress to improve the knowledge of the st ock, 
through  genetic analysis of fish and the validation of environmental DNA 

28 

28 

 
 
analyses, that may result in a better assessment of stock limit s and st ock 
size, potentially overcoming lack of observers for this fleet. T he combined 
results  of  these  new  and  ongoing  projects  are  expected  to  improve 
knowledge on the stocks that will help to better def ine t he impac t of  t he 
fisheries and therefore focus the impact of management measures suc h as 
the requested exemptions on the landing obligation. Improved know ledge 
on  the  stocks  involved  is  expected  to  allow  better  spatial  planning and 
potentially further reduce unwanted catches. 

The request for a temporal extension of the derogat ion t o area 7a and a 
spatial extension to area 7jk appears to be reasonable, based on t he low  
level of catch and linkage to the use of the Flemish panel.  

It is unclear why the JR requests a 3% de minimis  for 7jk, when apparently 
the reported catch rates are very low and discards negligible.    

ICES advice indicates a sudden increase in the discards in area 7a f or t he 
period  2018–2020.  Understanding  why  this  increase  in  discards  has 
occurred  would  be  helpful  given  the  exemption  is  linked  to the use of a 
selective gear and given previously ICES reported a decrease in discards of  
sole in this area. 

The following supplementary information was received from NWW Group:  

Belgium 

Belgium  contends that the 3% de minimis  volume does not mean that  t his 
percentage has to be used completely. It is a buffer between the quota and 
the  reality  in  the  fishery.  Belgium  points  out  that  as  the  Commission  is 
aware there is always a lag of 2 years when using data t o predic t  f ishing 
opportunities and therefore this percentage provides flexibility if the fishing 
opportunities is not fully aligned with the reality at sea.  

In 2020 there was no UK-survey due to Covid. The UK- survey f eeds int o 
the  estimation  of  juveniles  in  the  stock.  Therefore,  an  average  of  the 
previous years was taken instead. In 2021 there was a survey, indic ating 
that there is an increase in juveniles. But it was decided not t o adapt t he 
mean  of  2020.  This  means  as  a  consequence  that  the  estimation  of 
juveniles is probably lower than in reality. This, in combination with the fact 
that new quota has a 2-year delay with real catches, has resulted in higher 
discards  of  2–3-year-olds.  Therefore  the  3%  is  really  needed  to 
compensate this assessment. The same goes for the sole 7j,k. 

Reviewer’s  comments:  Reviewer  agrees  that  utilisation  of  the  3%  de 
minimis is not an obligation to discard that amount. It does provide a lev el 
of some flexibility for the fleets. An explanation of the higher disc ards has 
been  provided  by  it  is  difficult  to  understand  and  does  not  necessarily 
explain this increase.  

Given no new information has been provided, the main findings of the EWG 
22-05 remain. 

STECF  agrees  with  the  observations  of  EWG  22-05.  STECF  notes  that 
measures taken to reduce the catch of the unwanted size classes t hrough 
the  implementation  of  the  legal  obligation to use “Flemish panels”, have 
resulted in the reduction of 40% of the undersized catches, t o t he ext ent 
that they are now apparently mostly negligible. 

STECF  further  motes  that  there  are  plans  in  progress  to  improve  the 
knowledge of the stock through genetic studies that may result in a bet t er 
understanding of stock limits and stock size. STECF considers t his he lp t o 
define  the  impact  of  the  fisheries  and  therefore  focus  the  impact  of 
management measures such as the requested exemptions on t he landing 

29 

29 

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

STECF 
Comments 

 
obligation. 

Exemption 

Greater silver smelt caught using bottom trawls with a mesh size greater 
or equal to 100mm  in ICES division 5b (EU waters) and subarea 6 

findings 
Main 
of EWG 22-05 

Only limited new information has been provided and is restricted to part ial 
information  on  catches  and  fleets  for  2019-2021.  Therefore,  a  full 
assessment of the exemption is not possible. 

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

findings 
Main 
of EWG 22-05 

It  is  apparent  that  the  unwanted  catch  of  greater  silver  smelt  in  the 
relevant  mixed-species  fisheries  is small in volume, with nearly all of the 
catches  discarded  by  the  EU  demersal  fleet. Given the low volumes the 
impact of the stock of the exempt ion is likely to be low, partic ularly given 
recent  ICES  advice  for  greater  silver  smelt  advising  a  large  increase 
(213%) in the TAC for this species. 

No  updated  information  has  been  provided  of  the  uptake  of  the  square 
mesh  panel  by  Spanish  vessels  as  reported  in  2020  and  it is not known 
whether the square mesh panel is being used by the Spanish fleet. 

Given the paucity of available catch information, monitoring the catches of  
greater silver smelt in the relevant fleets covered by this exempted should 
be encouraged. 

No supplementary information provided 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05 and notes t hat t he low  
level of discards reported indicate of the impact of this exempt ion is likely 
to be low. 

Horse mackerel caught using bottom trawls, seines and beam t raw ls in 
ICES subarea 6 and ICES divisions 7b-7k 

Only  limited  new  catch  and  fishery  information  has  been  provided  by 
France  and Ireland. Some of information dates back to the period 2013-
2016 and may not be representative of the current situation in the relevant  
fisheries. Therefore, a full assessment of the impac t  of  t his exempt ion is 
not possible and the previous observations made by EWG 19-04 and 20- 04 
remain relevant.  

According to the French data, a substantial part of the landings is discarded 
in  the  fishery  (40%)  particularly  by  bottom  trawlers below 18 m (71%). 
The proportion of discarded horse mackerel appears to be higher t han f or 
mackerel in the range of 0.2-6.7% of the total catch in the fishery (highest  
in the Danish seine fishery).  

Close to 100% of horse mackerel are discarded in the fishery. Therefore, it  
is  unlikely  that  the  current  de  minimis  volume  will  c over  all  of  these 
unwanted  catches  suggesting  further  improvements  in  the  fishery  to 
improve selectivity may be warranted. 

The selectivity information from three French selectivit y projects gives a 
valuable insight to the research aimed to reduce unwanted by int roduc ing 
various  technical  measures.  However, they are not new, dating back to 
2017 and earlier. It is unclear whether any of the selectivity improvement s 

30 

30 

 
 
 
tested have been implemented in the fishery. The new research using lights 
is encouraging and should be continued. 

It  is  acknowledged  that  it  is  difficult  to  improve  selectivity  for  horse 
mackerel without causing significant commercial losses for vessels f ishing 
in such mixed fisheries. However, the data provided indicate that the levels 
of  discarding  in  these  fisheries  is  high  and  therefore, efforts to improve 
selectivity should continue. 

Continued  efforts  to  improve  the  overall  selectivity  of  the  catches  or 
considering  ways  to  improve  the commercial utilization of the unwanted 
>MCRS horse mackerel catches should be encouraged. 

The following Supplementary information was provided by the NWW Group: 

The  NWW  Member  States  pointed  out  there  was an error in the original 
EWG  22-05  observations  communicated  to  the  Member  States Group in 
that the level of de minimis  exemption in the Regulation is 3% and has not  
changed. This was confirmed by DGMARE. 

France 

For France, the fleet covered by the exemption (that is, operat ing in ICES 
divisions 7b to 7k with the gears listed under article 13.1.j) landed 313t  of  
horse mackerel in 2021, on a total volume of landings of  68 218 t ons (all 
species included).  Horse mackerel therefore accounted f or 0.45% of  t he 
total landings. France contends this should be taken int o ac count, along 
with the difficulties to improve the selectivity, considering the regulat ion in 
force in the area and the costs associated with the devices tested in various 
projects when assessing the supporting information. 

Reviewer’s comments: 

Reviewer  agrees  with  NWW  Group  comment  on  3%  derogation.    The 
additional information provided by France is useful and indicates that horse 
mackerel make up only a small proportion of the landings from the relevant 
fleets.  However,  no  information  is  provided  on  the  level  of  catches 
discarded under the exemption. Therefore, the main f indings of  t he EWG 
22-05  particularly  regarding  the  need  to  improve  selectivity  in  these 
fisheries remain valid. 

STECF  agrees  with  the  observations  of  EWG  22-05  that  the  previous 
observations made by EWG 19-04 and 20-04 still remain relevant. Without 
catch information relating to the fishery, only a limited assessment  can be 
made  of  the  impacts  of  the  exemption.  The supporting information and 
justification remain generic and not specific to horse mackerel. STECF also 
notes  that  discarding  in  these  fisheries  are  high  and  efforts  to  improve 
selectivity should be encouraged. 

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

Mackerel  caught  using  bottom  trawls,  seines  and  beam  trawls  in  ICES 
subarea 6 and ICES divisions 7b-7k 

Main 
findings 
of EWG 22-05 

Only  limited  new  catch  and  fishery  information  has  been  provided  by 
France  and  Ireland.  Some  of  the  information  dates  back  to  the  period 
2013-2016 and may not be representative of the current sit uation i n t he 
relevant  fisheries.  Therefore,  a  full  assessment  of  the  impact  of  this 
exemption is not possible and the previous observations made by EWG 19 -
04 and 20-04 remain relevant 

According  to  the  data  submitted  by  France,  a  substantial  part  of  the 
landings is discarded in the fishery (40%) particularly by bot t om t raw lers 
below 18 m  (71%). However, the proportion of discarded mackerel appears 

31 

31 

 
to be quite low in the range of 0.0-0.4% of the tot al c atch in t he f ishery 
(highest in the bottom trawl fishery in ICES divisions 6a and 6b).  

The  selectivity  information  from  three  French  study  projects  gives  a 
valuable insight to the research aimed to reduce unwanted by int roduc ing 
various  technical  measures.  However, they are not new, dating back to 
2017 and earlier. It is unclear whether any of the selectivity improvement s 
tested have been implemented in the fishery. 

It  is  acknowledged  that  it  is  difficult to improve selectivity for mackerel 
without  causing  significant  commercial  losses  for vessels fishing in such 
mixed  fisheries.  However,  the  data  provided  indicate  that  the  levels  of 
discarding  in  these  fisheries  is  high  and  therefore,  efforts  to  improve 
selectivity should continue. 

The  Obsmer  document  provided  is  in  French  with  only  a  short  English 
summary. 

The Supplementary information was provided as follows: 

France 

The French fleet covered by the exemption landed 3 519t  of  mac kerel in 
2021.  The total landings for this fleet accounted for 68 218t in  2021, all 
species included. 

Regarding  the  economic  loss,  it  was  not  possible  to  supplement  the 
information already provided in the annex regarding the EODE project t hat 
details associated costs with landing obligation.  

Reviewer’s comments: Reviewer acknowledges the additional explanat ion 
from France and the updated landing data f or  2021. How ever , t he data 
provides no further information on the level of  m ac ker el disc ards in t he 
relevant fisheries. The main findings of EWG 22-05 remain valid. 

STECF agrees with the comments of EWG 22-05. The arguments presented 
in  the  supporting  document  for  JR  are  generic.  Therefore,  the 
supplementary  information  provided  does  not  highlight  the  anticipated 
losses to the fleet in the case of the repeal of a de minimis  exemption. T he 
priority should be to improve selectivity to reduce t he unw anted catches 
and  therefore,  the  costs  for handling such catches, accepting that this 
should  be  balanced  against  the  costs  of  sorting  quantities  of  horse 
mackerel from the other marketable catch. 

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

Haddock below MCRS caught with a mesh size up to 119mm  in  t he West  
of Scotland Nephrops fishery in ICES division 6a 

Main 
findings 
of EWG 22-05 

It is apparent that this exemption is targeted at UK vessels operating in a 
fishery inside UK waters. No supporting information has been provided f or 
its continuation. Therefore, as no Union vessels participate in the fishery it  
is unclear whether it is still required. 

No Supplementary Information was provided 

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

STECF 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05. 

32 

32 

 
 
 
Comments 

High Survivability 

Exemption 

Skates and rays  (Rajiformes)  caught  by  any  fishing gear in the North-
Western Waters (ICES subareas 6 and 7) 

Main 
findings 
of EWG 22-05 

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

STECF 
Comments 

The additional Irish study has provided further evidence that c uckoo rays 
have a lower survival rate compared to other ray species w hile report ed, 
but  incomplete  discard  rates  are  between  27  and  39%.  The  discard 
estimates only cover a limited number of fisheries and t he t rue ext ent  of  
unwanted catches of cuckoo rays is not clear. 

It is noted that survival experiments carried out have shown for cuckoo ray 
(as  well  other  ray  species),  mortalities  are  protracted  suggesting  that 
keeping rays in captivity may risk underestimating survival in captive trials. 

As for cuckoo ray, the information provided in the past and additional catch 
data provided to support the JR show quite high discard rates for some ray 
species, which could equate to high levels of discard mortalit y associated 
with  this  exemption  if  the  survival  rates  are  low.  However,  the  catch 
information provided is incomplete and filling the gaps in catch data for ray 
species should be prioritised to allow a full assessment of this exemption on 
the relevant species. 

No Supplementary Information was provided 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05 and agrees that Member 
States  should  be  encouraged  to  look  at  improving  catch  data  for  the 
different species as this data is lacking in many cases.  

STECF also encourages Member States use their joint scientific capacity t o 
compile and analyse previous and new data in a more  syst emat ic w ay t o 
assist future assessment of the exemptions covered under the roadmap. 

STECF  notes  that  the  additional  information  provided  to  support  the 
exemption request confirmed relatively low survival estimat es f or c uckoo 
rays. STECF further observes that the limited catch data provided indic ate 
discard rates of 25-35%. However, the catch information is incomplete and 
therefore  the  assessment  of  the  impact  of  this  exemption  in  terms  of 
possible dead discards. 

STECF  notes  the  observations  that  carrying  out  large -scale  survival 
experiments for rays is challenging, given their morphology. This may lead 
to increases in experiment-induced mortality leading to underestimation of  
survival rates.  

Exemption 

Plaice caught in ICES divisions 7a to 7g using beam trawls 

Main 
findings 
of EWG 22-05 

Only supporting information has been provided by Belgium. Catch data and 
fishery  information  is  missing  for  all  Member  States  operating  in  the 
fisheries, making it difficult to assess the impact of this exempt ion on t he 
different plaice stocks. 

Since 2019, progress has been made in increasing the knowledge of plaic e 

33 

33 

 
 
survivability. Additionally, research on ways to improve selec tivity is also 
ongoing.  No  concrete  results  have  been  presented  to  date,  but  the 
preliminary  findings seem encouraging for some of the gear modif ic at ions 
tested.  

The selectivity projects planned by the Netherlands in t he Nort h Sea may 
also  be  relevant  to  the  beam  trawl  fishery in the North-western waters 
given the similarities between fisheries. 

For  beam  trawlers,  the justification for survivability exemption for plaice 
continues  to  be  based  on  the  potential  for  improving  survival  and 
selectivity, but this based on variable estimates of survival. No further trials 
to estimate survivability are currently planned in the fishery. 

The current survival estimates are still highly variable and only relevant f or 
the  larger  beam  trawl  vessels.  No  information  has  been  provided  for 
smaller  vessels  with  less  than  221KW  engine  power  other  than  that 
contained in Uhlmann  et al. (2016).  

There is also only limited and inconclusive information on the effectiveness 
of the Flip-up rope and the Benthic Release Panel to improve survivabilit y. 
The use of these devices is specified in the Delegated Act as a condit ion of  
the exemption. If these devices are not effective in increasing survivability, 
then the value of making them a condition of the exemption is questionable 
even though they may have other benefits not related to survivability.  

The current survival estimates need to be considered in the context  of  t he 
current discard rates reported, in the various plaice stocks in NWW. Discard 
rates range from negligible in 7hjk to 62% in the Irish Sea.  

Unless surviving discards are accounted for in stock assessments and dead 
discards are accounted for in TAC setting when survivability exemptions are 
in place, the actual fishing mortality will not match the agreed catch level. 
Currently this is only considered for the Irish Sea stock.  

Introducing discard survival estimates should continue to be disc ussed  by 
ICES  for  more  stocks  and  especially  plaice,  given  the  proliferation  of 
survival exemptions. 

No Supplementary Information was provided 

STECF  acknowledges  that  progress  has  been  made  in  increasing  the 
knowledge of plaice survivability. Additionally, considerable work has begun 
on  the  estimation  of  catch  volumes and composition as well as ways to 
improve survivability and selectivity in the relevant fisheries.  

The  new  estimates  of  survival  provided  as  well  as  the  update  catch 
volumes  and catch composition which improves the knowledge on plaice 
survivability in the beam trawl fishery and the impact of the exemption.  

STECF notes that given the survival rates are in the range of  20- 40% and 
the discard rates are high, considerable volumes of plaice discarded under 
this exemption are likely not to survive.  

STECF  agrees  with  EWG  22-05  that  there  is  still  a  need  for  clarity  on 
objectives and timelines in respect of the roadmap and notes. 

STECF agrees with EG 22-05 that unless surviving discards are ac counted 

34 

34 

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

STECF 
Comments 

 
 
for  in  stock  assessments  and  dead  discards  are  accounted  for  in  TAC 
setting  when  survivability  exemptions  are  in  place,  the  actual  fishing 
mortality  will  not  match  the  agreed  catch  level.  Currently  this  is  only 
considered for the Irish Sea stock.   

Exemption 

Common Sole below MCRS caught with bottom trawls by vessels less than 
12m in ICES division 7e 

Main 
findings 
of EWG 22-05 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 

to 

PLEN 19-02 STECF observed that a key concern with a previous request for 
this  exemption  was  the  proportion  of  the  catches  made  up  of rays and 
spider crab compared to the time the survival estimates w ere generated. 
The  presence  of  these  species  will  negatively  influence  the  survival  of 
discarded  fish  given  their  spikey  or  rough  morphology  which  can  harm 
other fish.  While overall immediate survival rates of undersized sole w ere 
very  good  (99.1%),  85%  were  caught  in  a  single  trip  during  spring. 
Catches  of  spider  crab  are  greater  in  the  summer  and  autumn  a nd  are 
likely to result in lower survival. 

A  delayed  survival  rate  was  only  presented for Category A sole, and no 
rates for overall or for the other vitality categories w ere presented. T he 
delayed  survival  rate  for  Category  A  was  estimated  at 69.4%. Previo us 
studies reported by Randall et al. (2017) and Ribeiro Santos et  al. (2016) 
estimated  sole  survival  from  coastal  trawlers  at  88%  for  the  Eastern 
Channel and 46% for the North Sea, respectively. 

While the request states that fishing will be undertaken out side of  nursery 
areas there is no mention of where these areas are located. Additionally, as 
noted in PLEN 19- 02, as a general rule, where exemptions have conditions 
attached  there  is  no  evidence  of  them  being applied by Member States 
making  controlling and enforcing such measures a challenge.  

In the supporting Annex, it is stated the proposed exemption would cover a 
fleet  of  about  90  French  ≤12  m  fishing  vessels.  However,  there  is  no 
information on vessels from other nations fishing in this area. Additio nally, 
there is no reference to the other areas of 7e where ≤12  m  OT B vessels 
are likely to target sole. It is important to include data on any other vessel 
fishing  in  area  7e  because  they  would/should  also  be  covered  by  the 
exemption.  It is not clear what is meant by the entire f leet  in relat ion t o 
the number of days at sea in 26E7 and 26E8—it needs to be made clear if it 
is just the French fleet and only OTB vessels under 12 m  or is it all vessels.  

While  the  ICES  Advice  on  fishing  opportunities, catch,  and effort for 7e 
states that ~19% of sole is captured in otter trawls there is no indication if  
other vessel segments catch sole in areas 26E7 and 26E8, and t heref ore 
the impact of a survival exemption on the overall stock is not possible.  

There  is  no  information  provided  on  catch  rates  or  expected  length 
frequencies  of  sole  for  areas  26E7  and  26E8  or  the  wider  7e  area. 
Therefore, it is not clear to what extent is the impact of fishing on ≤MCRS 
sole. It is stated that there is a low catch rate of  undersize d sole but  no 
indication of the amount or percentage. 

The  supporting  report  is  presented  in  English  and French, however, the 
French report is over twice the number of pages of the English version. A 
full  translation  is  welcomed  because  it  allows  a  more  comprehensive 
evaluation of the request and information provided. 

Supplementary Information was provided by the NWW Group: 

France 

35 

35 

 
 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

Catch composition 

France indicates it is likely that the catch composition has an effect on t he 
differed survival rate, but the SUMO report does evaluate this, as it focuses 
on vitality and not differences in survivability.  

The SUMO report indicates a positive correlation between t he c atching of  
spider  crabs  and  the  vitality via the RAMP score: when spider crabs are 
numerous, less sole specimens tend to deliver strong reflex. However, it  is 
not  further  explained,  and  a  more  comprehensive  analysis  would  be 
necessary  to  elaborate  further  on  this  point  (see  the  complementary 
document submitted for this exemption request).  

Additionally,  this  correlation  does  not  undermine  the  excellent  results 
observed, as the catch composition is not the sole variable influenc ing t he 
survival rate. Considering the multi-factor aspects affecting the vitality, it is 
not possible to conclude on this point.  

Survival estimates 

The  SUMO  report  only  presents  results  for  vitality  index  or  immediate 
survival rate, which is of 99,1% overall for all the soles, regardless of t heir 
vitality scores. No survival rates were presented, as if falls out of the scope 
of the vitality study. 

Regarding longer-term survivability however, comparisons are drawn in the 
discussion with other studies that supported the exemptions requests in the 
Eastern  Chanel  and  the  North  Sea  (Randall  et  al.  in  2017  and  Ribeiro 
Santos et al. in 2016).  

Nursery Areas 

Regarding the conditions associated with the exemption, the group indeed 
noted the concerns raised previously by STECF. As a result, the JR suggests 
that the new exemption should be added as a new point under art ic le 4 of  
the current delegated, and not by amending a separate sub-art icle t o t his 
exemption.  

The intention was indeed to avoid duplicating the requirements attached t o 
the current exemption in area 7d regarding the depth of the waters and the 
duration of the fishing operations. However, it seemed that  t he c ondit ion 
associated with nursery areas was necessary and driven by common sense 
for the state of the stock.  

Information  remains  limited  in  area  7e  regarding  nursery  areas.  Studies 
have  been  conducted  (CGFS  Ifremer  campaigns  in  2016  and  Nourmont 
campaign  in 2017-19 for the Mont Saint-Michel Bay). While they did not 
define the perimeter of the nursery areas, the reports indic ate import ant  
densities of small soles in the estuary and in the Western part of t he Mont  
Saint-Michel Bay.   

In practice, a simplification of the rules associated with the exempt ion w ill 
foster clarity and acceptability by the sector. 

Information from other Member States  

In practice, the exemption is very likely to be used by French vessels only 
as it will only apply to small vessels under 12m, operating very close to the 
shore.  

In addition, the geographical scope remains limited, as it will cover area 7e 
only,  where  the  basic  regulation  (EU)  1380/2013  does  not  provide  for 
historical rights for fleets operating under other EU flags. The ac cess f rom 
Jersey vessels should in addition be very limited.  

Finally,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  United  Kingdom  introduced  a similar 

36 

36 

 
exemption  via  the  Sea  Fisheries  (Amendment  etc.)  (No.2)  Regulations 
2021. 

The impact of other vessels fishing in the area 

The  SUMO  report  focuses  on  certain  statistical  rectangles,  that  are 
considered as representative of the fishery. Indeed, the fishing ef f ort and 
the sole catches are in practice focused in t he t w o rec tangles 26E7 and 
26E8,  that concentrate the fishing effort for bottom trawlers under 18m 
targeting  demersal  species  and  cephalopods  in  Western  Channel.  Sole 
catches in the rest of area 7e are very limited. The complement ary report  
further elaborates on this point.  

Days at sea and fishing effort data 

The number of days indicated in the annex cover the days at sea for French 
vessels  <18m  operating  with  OTB, OTT and PTB, knowing that OTT and 
OTB are marginal  on the segment of vessels <12m  in this area. 

Catches of sole ≤MCRS sole.  

The data analysis of sole catches in the fishery is still on-going and w ill  be 
provided as soon as possible. 

France also indicated that a fairly exhaustive translation of  t he report in 
English was provided. After cross-checking the two versions, it  appears a 
few  elements  were  missed  out.  A  translation  of  these final precisions is 
added in annex to this document. 

Reviewer’s  comments:  Reviewer  acknowledges  NWW  Group  for  the 
comprehensive  clarification  as  a  response  to  EWG  22-05  concerns and 
additional information, provided including complementary translations from  
the French Report of Obsmer Programme.  This additional inform ation has 
responded  to  many  of  the  queries  raised  by  EWG  22-05,  particularly 
relating to the scope of the exemption. The exem ption w ould appear  t o 
cover only relatively small catches of sole and therefore the overall im pac t 
on the sole stock in 7e is probably relatively low. The estimates from other 
studies are noted as is the inclusion of a similar exemption f or UK vessels 

37 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
in UK waters. However, the weaknesses in the survival estimates pr ovided 
remain in that they are based on vitality observations r at her t han dir ect 
survival estimates and the issues around the catch composition.    

STECF 
Comments 

STECF  acknowledges  the  significant  amount  of 
information  and 
clarifications  received  in  relation  to  this  exemption.  STECF  notes  the 
weaknesses  identified  by  EWG  22-05  in  relation  to  the  vitality  data 
provided,  while  acknowledging  that  the  level  of discards in the rele vant 
fishery is very low. 

Technical Measures 

Exemption 

Joint Recommendation to allow dual codend, an existing Technical Measure, 
to be used until end of December 2022 

Main 
findings 
of EWG 22-05 

The  findings  of  EWG  19-08  that  the  principle  of  the  dual  codend  to 
vertically separate catch into two codends where differential selection c an 
take place has the potential to reduce bycatch of unwant ed species w hile 
maintaining catches of target species are still valid.  

Additional  information  has  been  provided  in  the  JR  relating  to  two  new 
trials. The first trial was carried out on a simplified self-sampling basis due 
to  Covid-19  restrictions.  Results  are  confined  to  mean  weights  of  total 
catches retained with each gear. The results indicate that compared with an 
80 mm  codend with 300 mm  SMP the dual codend retains: 

  More Nephrops and more wanted fish (> MCRS hake, monkfish, 

pollack, flatfish and other commercial species) 

  Less Nephrops, gurnard and lesser spotted dogfish  

  No difference in unwanted catches (< MCRS fish and non-
commercial species combined) between the two gears 

The simplified self-sampling protocol employed limits the inference that can 
be made but suggests that the dual codend and t he 80 mm  c odend w it h 
300 mm  SMP are equally selective for unwanted catches. The 300 mm  SMP 
tested  during  this  trial  is  considerably  larger  than  the  120  mm  SMP 
specified in point 1.2 and likely to be more selective. 

The results of the second trial provide information on the relative selectivity 
of a T90 90 mm  codend and an 80 mm  codend fitted with a 120 mm  SMP 
in a twin trawl fishery targeting fish. The results indic ate t hat t he 90 mm 
T90 mesh codend retained: 

  Less whiting of all sizes, < MCRS haddock and < MCRS cod 

  More >  MCRS hake, >  MCRS megrim,  monkfish, plaice of all sizes 

and lemon sole of all sizes 

The inference that can be made from this trial is limited to fish species. The 
results suggest improved selectivity for undersized whit ing, haddock and 
cod and reduced selectivity for undersize plaice and lemon sole. 

No supporting evidence is provided for the recommendation to increase the 
mesh size of the uppermost T90 codend from 90 mm  to 100 mm.  Evidenc e 
has been provided to EWG 19-08 and EWG 22-05 that the dual c odend is 
very effective at sorting fish in to the uppermost codend. Implementing one 
of  the  gear  options  in  point  13.1  in  the  uppermost  codend  of  the  dual 
codend  would  align  with the technical measures for targeting fish in the 
area. It is noted that the NWW JR recommends that the mesh size of  t he 

38 

38 

 
to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

T90 codend should be increased 100 mm. 

No supplementary information provided 

STECF acknowledges the progress with trials carried out to assess the 
effects of using the dual codend gear and agrees with the interpretation of 
the results provided by the EWG 22-05. 

Joint Recommendation to include T90 100 mm  on the basis of  equivalent  
selectivity with T0 120 mm   

findings 
Main 
of EWG 22-05 

The  observations by STECF PLEN 21-05 that the analysis carried out by 
Ireland  shows  that  the  abundance  was  highly  variable  between  hauls 
remains valid in the new information provided with the JR. Low abundance 
was evident in numerous hauls for cod, haddock and whiting.  

The  use  of  the  catch  comparison  method  in  the  Irish  studies  isis  a 
reasonable approach, given the objective of the t rials w as t o assess t he 
differences  in  catches  between  the  alternative  gear  (T90 100 mm) and 
baseline gear (T0 120mm). 

The analysis provided indicates that the main benefit of the T90 100 mm  in 
the  Irish  Sea  whitefish  fishery  was  a  considerable  reduction  in  <MCRS 
haddock.  

The  T90  100  mm  codend  caught  substantially  more  flatfish  species 
compared  with  the T0 120 mm. There was minimal difference in catches 
between the two gears for whiting. The difference in c od c atch w as also 
negligible across all size classes, reflecting t he st ock st ate of  c od in t he 
Irish  Sea  where  the  experiments  were  carried  out.  No  inference can be 
made  for  cod  and  whiting,  but  this  does  not  mean  that t his gear is not 
selective, more that there were not enough of these encountered during 
the trials to allow for an analysis. 

Notwithstanding  this,  the  data  provided  is  still  limited  in  terms  of  the 
number  of  hauls.  More  robust  selectivity  and/or catch comparison trials 
would  be  needed  to  fully  conclude the outcomes of the supporting Irish 
studies and in particular for cod and whiting. 

No Supplementary Information was provided 

STECF  agrees  with  the  observations  of  EWG  22-05  and  notes  the 
limitations  of  the  additional  information  provided  that  has  not  fully 
addressed the issues around equivalent selectivity for cod and whiting.  

to 

Supplementary 
information 
provided 
the 
Commission 
post  EWG  22-
05 

STECF 
Comments  

Table  1c.  Main  findings of the STECF EWG 22-05, summary of additional information received 
relating to exemptions presented and Reviewer’s Comments: SWW. 

39 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
De minimis 

Exemption 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

Horse mackerel caught by vessels using beam t raw ls, bot t om t raw ls 
and seines in ICES subareas 8 and 9 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided in 
2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  re-examined  the  Spanish  study  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21- 05 
observed  that  the  economic  information  provided  on  impacts  of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of losses f or 
the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05  requested 
more  information  on  the  methodology  of  the calculation and the data 
used as the opportunity costs cannot be put into context of  t he overall 
economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional inf ormat ion 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05.  

Updated catch data has been provided by F ranc e f or 2020, Spain and 
Belgium  for  2021 but not by Portugal. The implications of granting the 
proposed  exemption with regard to the fishery and species concerned 
cannot therefore be quantified due to a lack of catch data per gear, year 
and  for  all  Member  States.  Nevertheless,  the  information provided by 
France  and  Spain  shows  relatively  low  rates  of  discards  (i.e.,  
OTB_MPD_>=55  metier targeting horse mackerel had a discard rate of 
1%  in  2021)  for  some  fisheries  but  quite  high  discard  rates  in  others 
(i.e., French demersal trawlers have a discard rate of 88% in 2020).  

EWG  21-05  highlighted  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  through 
improvements in selectivity is difficult in these fisheries given many are 
mixed  fisheries  and  notes the results from the Spanish studies carried 
out in these fisheries which show quite high losses of commercial c atch. 
Nonetheless, implementing the most promising of these gears may help 
to address the issue of reducing discard rates for horse mac kerel in  t he 
longer term, particularly in those fisheries were discards rates are high. 
This observation remains relevant for this exemption. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05 that the implic at ions 
of  granting  the  proposed  exemption  with  regard  to  the  fishery  and 
species concerned cannot be fully quantified due to a lack of c at ch dat a 
per gear, year and for all Member States involved in fishery. 

 STECF  acknowledges  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  through 
improvements in selectivity is difficult in these fisheries given many are 
mixed  fisheries  and  notes  that  the  results  from  the  Spanish  studies 
carried out in these fisheries which show quite high losses of commerc ial 
catch when improving the gear selectivity. 

STECF  reiterates  the  past  conclusion  of  EWGs  that  efforts should be 
focused on reducing the level of unwanted catches of horse mac kerel in 
the fisheries with the highest volumes of unwanted catches currently as 
identified by EWG 21-05. 

Exemption 

Horse mackerel by vessels using gillnets in ICES subareas 8, 9 and 10 
and CECAF zones 34.1.1, 34.1.2, 34.2.0 

40 

40 

 
Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided in 
2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  re-examined  the  Spanish  study  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21- 05 
observed  that  the  economic  information  provided  on  impacts  of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of losses f or 
the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05  requested 
more  information  on  the  methodology  of  the calculation and the data 
used as the opportunity costs cannot be put into context of  t he overall 
economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional inf ormat ion 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05.  

Limited updated catch data has been provided by France f or 2020, and 
no data from Spain or Portugal. France reports on a low horse mac kerel 
discard  rate  for  two  out  of  six  metiers  but  the  rate  is  calculated  in 
relation to total metier catches and not to horse mackerel catches, which 
if used may increase the discard rate significantly.  

Therefore, no assessment of the implications of grant ing t he proposed 
exemption with regard to the fishery and species can be made due to the 
limited data provided by the Member States. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF notes that only France has provided updated catch information t o 
support  the  exemption  and  therefore,  STECF  cannot  assess  the 
implications  of  granting  the  proposed  exemption  with  regard  to  the 
fishery and species. 

Exemption 

Mackerel  caught  by  vessels  using  beam  trawls,  bottom  trawls  and 
seines) in ICES subareas 8 and 9 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided in 
2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  has  re-examined  the  Spanish  study  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21- 05 
observed  that  the  economic  information  provided  on  impacts  of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of losses f or 
the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05  requested 
more  information  on  the  methodology  of  the calculation and the data 
used as the opportunity costs cannot be put into context of  t he overall 
economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional inf ormat ion 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05.  

Updated  catch  data  has  only  been  provided by Spain and Belgium for 
2021.  Therefore, the implications of granting the proposed exempt ion 
with regard to the fishery and species concerned c annot be quant if ied 
due to a lack of catch data per gear, year and for all Member States.  

Nevertheless,  the  information  provided  by  Spain  shows  relatively  low 
rate of discards (i.e., OTB_MPD_>=55 metier targeting mac kerel had a 
discard rate of 0.2% in 2021) for some fisheries but quit e high disc ard 
rates in others (i.e., OTB_>70 metier has a mackerel discard rate of 82% 
in 2021).  

EWG  21-05  highlighted  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  through 
improvements in selectivity is difficult in these fisheries given many are 
mixed  fisheries  and  notes  the  results  from  the  French  and  Spanish 

41 

41 

 
Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

studies  carried  out  in  these  fisheries  which  show  quite  high losses of 
commercial  catch.  Nonetheless,  implementing  the  most  promising  of 
these gears may help to address the issue of reducing disc ard rat es f or 
mackerel in the longer term. Focus should be on those fisheries with t he 
highest  volumes  of  mackerel  discards.  EWG  22-05  reiterates  this 
observation which remains relevant for this exemption. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05 that the implic at ions 
of  granting  the  proposed  exemption  with  regard  to  the  fishery  and 
species concerned cannot be fully quantified due to a lack of c at ch dat a 
per gear, year and for all Member States involved in fishery. 

STECF  acknowledges  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  through 
improvements in selectivity is difficult in these fisheries given many are 
mixed  fisheries  and  notes  that  the  results  from  the  Spanish  studies 
carried out in these fisheries which show quite high losses of commerc ial 
catch when improving the gear selectivity. 

STECF  reiterates  the  past  conclusion  of  EWGs  that  efforts should be 
focused on reducing the level of unwanted c atches of  mac kerel in t he 
fisheries  with  the  highest  volumes  of  unwanted  catches  currently  as 
identified by EWG 21-05. 

Exemption 

Mackerel  by  vessels  using  gillnets  in  ICES  subareas 8 and 9 and and 
CECAF zones 34.1.1, 34.1.2, 34.2.0 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided in 
2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  has  re-examined  the  Spanish  study  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21- 05 
observed  that  the  economic  information  provided  on  impacts  of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of losses f or 
the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05  requested 
more  information  on  the  methodology  of  the calculation and the data 
used as the opportunity costs cannot be put into context of  t he overall 
economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional inf ormat ion 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05.  

Limited updated catch data has been provided by France f or 2020, and 
no data from Spain or Portugal. France reports a low  mac kerel disc ard 
rate for three out of six metiers but the rate is calculated in relat ion t o  
total metier catches and not to mackerel catches, w hic h if  used w ould 
increase  the  discard  rate  significantly.  This  is  similar  to last year and 
suggest discarding of mackerel is low in gillnet fisheries.  

No assessment of the implications of granting the proposed exempt ion 
with regard to the fishery and species can be made due t o t he limit ed 
data provided by the Member States. The observations of EWG 21-05 f or 
this exemption remain relevant. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

42 

42 

 
STECF 
Comments 

STECF  notes  that  only  France  provided updated catch information to 
support  the  exemption  and  therefore  STECF  cannot  assess  the 
implications  of  granting  the  proposed  exemption  with  regard  to  the 
fishery and species. However, STECF does note t he catch inf ormat ion 
indicates  that  discards  of  mackerel  in  these  fisheries  are  low  and 
therefore the impact of the exemption is likely to be low. 

Exemption 

Megrim caught with bottom trawls, seines & beam trawls in ICES areas 
8 & 9 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

Updated catch data has been provided by France for 2020 and Spain and 
Belgium  for 2021 but not for Portugal. The implications of  grant ing t he 
proposed  exemption with regard to the fishery and species conc erned 
cannot therefore be quantified due to a lack of catch data per gear, year 
and for all Member States. No additional information on the methodology 
and data was provided to EWG 22-05. 

The  information  provided  by  Spain  shows  discards  rates  of  18.9%  in 
ICES subareas 8abd and 11.8% in ICES subareas 8c and 9a f or megrim 
in 2021. The information provided by Belgium  shows relatively low  rat e 
of discards for beam-trawls targeting megrim in subarea 8ab, estimating 
the  discard  rate  of  2.14%  (905  kg).  The  previous  catch  information 
provided for beam trawlers referred to total landings of  47 t onnes w it h 
an unwanted catch of 0.26 tonnes, but relative to subarea 8 (EWG 21 -
05,  Annex  3).  Generally,  discard  rates  vary  considerably  between 
metiers. 

EWG  21-05  highlighted  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  through 
improvements in selectivity is difficult in these fisheries given many are 
mixed  fisheries  and  notes the results from the Spanish studies carried 
out in these fisheries which show quite high losses of commercial c atc h. 
EWG  22-05  reiterates this observation which remains relevant for this 
exemption. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF notes that the volume of discards reported f or 2021 in  some of  
the  relevant  fisheries  are  high  and  likely  to  exceed  the  level  of  de 
minimis  volume granted. This suggests discarding over and above the de 
minimis  exemption is likely to be occurring.  Efforts should be focused on 
reducing the level of unwanted catches of megrim  in those fisheries w it h 
the highest volumes of unwanted catches currently as identified by EWG 
22-05. 

Exemption 

Megrim caught by vessels using gillnets in ICES subareas 8 and 9 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided in 
2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  has  re-examined  the  Spanish  study  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21- 05 
observed  that  the  economic  information  provided  on  impacts  of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of losses f or 
the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05  requested 
more  information  on  the  methodology  of  the calculation and the data 
used as the opportunity costs cannot be put into context of  t he overall 
economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional inf ormat ion 

43 

43 

 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05.  

Updated  catch  data  has  been  provided  by  Spain  for 2021 and limited 
data France for 2020. No data has been provided by Port ugal. Belgium 
has no gillnet fisheries in subareas 8 and 9. The information provided by 
Spain and France shows that discard rates for megrim  in gillnet fisheries 
are negligible.   

No  new  assessment  of  the  implications  of  granting  the  proposed 
exemption with regard to the fishery and species can be made due to the 
limited  data provided by the Member States, but as observed by EWG 
21-05 the low level of megrim  discards in gillnet fisheries indic at es t he 
impact  of  this  exemption  on  the  megrim stock is likely to be low. This 
observation still remains relevant. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF notes that only France has provided updated catch information t o 
support and therefore STECF cannot assess the implications of  grant ing 
the proposed exemption with regard to the fishery and species. However, 
the  information  that  has  been  provided suggest discards of megrim in 
the  relevant  fisheries  are  negligible  and  therefore  the  impact  of 
exemption is likely to be low. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

Anglerfish  caught  with  bottom  trawls,  seines  &  beam  trawls  in ICES 
areas 8 & 9 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided in 
2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  has  re-examined  the  Spanish  study,  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21- 05 
observed  that  the  economic  information  provided  on  impacts  of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of losses f o r 
the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05  requested 
more  information  on  the  methodology  of  the calculation and the data 
used as the opportunity costs cannot be put into context of  t he overall 
economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional inf ormat ion 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05.  

Updated catch data has been provided by France for 2020 and by Spain 
and Belgium  for 2021, but not for Portugal. However, the implications of  
granting the proposed exemption wit h regard to the fishery and spec ies 
concerned cannot be quantified due to a lack of consistent catch data per 
gear, year and for all Member States.  

Nevertheless, EWG 22-05 notes that the information provided by France, 
Spain and Belgium  shows relatively low rate of discards for most fisheries 
(i.e., OTB_DEF_≥55_0_0 (Spain) had a discard rate of 0.2% in 2021 and 
Belgium  beam  trawls  (TBB)  had  a  discard  rate  of  0.69%), with higher 
discard rates on others (i.e., French demersal trawls have a discard rat e 
of 30% in 2020).  

EWG  21-05  highlighted  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  through 
improvements in selectivity is difficult in these fisheries given many are 
mixed  fisheries  and  notes the results from the Spanish studies carried 
out in these fisheries which show quite high losses of commercial c atch. 
This  is  particularly  the  case  for  anglerfish  given its morphology which 
make  improving  selectivity  specifically  for  anglerfish  impractical.  EWG 

44 

44 

 
Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

22-05  reiterates  these  observations  which  remain  relevant  for  this 
exemption. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05. STECF notes that f or 
many metiers, discarding of anglerfish seems low but there are several 
metiers  (i.e.,  French  demersal  trawl  fisheries)  where  the discards are 
much higher (~30%). 

STECF  observes  that  as  highlighted  by  EWG  22-05  that reducing the 
discard  rates  through  improvements  in  selectivity  is  difficult  in  these 
fisheries given many are mixed  fisheries. This is particularly the case f or 
anglerfish  given  its  morphology  which  make  improving  selectivity 
specifically for anglerfish impractical.  

Exemption 

Anglerfish caught by vessels using gillnets in ICES subareas 8 and 9 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided in 
2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  has  re-examined  the  Spanish  study,  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21- 05 
observed  that  the  economic  information  provided  on  impacts  of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of losses f or 
the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05  requested 
more  information  on  the  methodology  of  the calculation and the data 
used as the opportunity costs cannot be put into context of  t he overall 
economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional inf ormat ion 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05.  

Limited updated catch data has been provided by France f or 2020, and 
no  data  for  Spain  and  Portugal.  Belgium  has  no  gillnet  fisheries  in 
subareas 8 and 9. The information provided by France shows that discard 
rates are ranging between 2-11% for gillnets.   

No assessment of the implications of granting the proposed exempt ion 
with regard to the fishery and species can be made due t o t he limit ed 
data provided by the Member States. The observations of  EWG 21 - 05 
remain relevant for this exemption. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF  notes  that  only  France  provided updated catch information to 
support the exemption and therefore, cannot assess the implic at ions of  
granting the proposed exemption with regard to the fishery and spec ies. 
However,  STECF  notes  the  catch  information  provided  indicates 
discarding of anglerfish is low in most gillnet fisheries. 

Exemption 

Whiting -by vessels using bottom trawls, seines & beam traw ls in ICES 
subarea 8 

Main  findings  of  The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided in 
2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  has  re-examined  the  Spanish  study  and 

45 

45 

 
EWG 22-05 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21- 05 
observed  that  the  economic  information  provided  on  impacts  of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of losses f or 
the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05  requested 
more  information  on  the  methodology  of  the calculation and the data 
used as the opportunity costs cannot be put into context  of  t he overall 
economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional inf ormat ion 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05.  

Updated catch data was provided by Belgium for 2021 and by France f or 
2019 and 2020. Catch data on whiting was not  provided by Spain and 
Portugal. Therefore, the implications of granting the proposed exemption 
with  regard  to  the  fishery  and  species  concerned  cannot  be  fully 
quantified due to a lack of catch data per gear, year and for all  Member 
States. 

Nonetheless,  the  information  provided  by  France shows relatively low 
rates  of  discards  (i.e.,  3.8%  in  2019  for  bottom  trawls  targeting 
demersal species and cephalopods), while Belgium reported zero disc ard 
rates on whiting.   

Given that improving the selectivity of whit ing in towed gears has been 
shown to be technically possible through the use of square mesh panels 
or other selectivity devices, implementing effective gear modifications t o 
reduce whiting discards is encouraged. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF  notes  that  discarding  of  whiting  seems  relatively  low  in  most 
fisheries.  However,  STECF  agrees  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  in 
fisheries  with  highest  discard  rates  should  remain  the  priority.  In this 
regard, STECF agrees with EWG 22-05 that improving the selectivity f or 
whiting  in  trawl  fisheries  is  technically  feasible  and  effective  gear 
modifications already exist that could be applied in the relevant fisheries.  

Exemption 

Whiting caught by vessels using gillnets in ICES subarea 8 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided in 
2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  has  re-examined  the  Spanish  study  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21- 05 
observed  that  the  economic  information  provided  on  impacts  of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of losses f or 
the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05  requested 
more  information  on  the  methodology  of  the calculation and the data 
used as the opportunity costs cannot be put into context of  t he overall 
economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional inf ormat ion 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05.  

Limited updated catch data has been provided by France, based on dat a 
for  the  period  2013-2016.  No  data  has  been  provided  for  Spain  and 
Portugal.  Belgium  has  no  gillnet  fisheries  in  ICES  subarea  8.    No 
assessment of the implications of granting the proposed exemption w it h 
regard to the fishery and species can be made due t o t he limit ed  dat a 
provided by the Member States.  

However, based on the observations of EWG 21-05 it  is  likely  t hat  t he 
discards of whiting from gillnet fisheries are very low and theref ore, t he 

46 

46 

 
Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

impact of the exemption on the whiting stock is likely to be negligible.  

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05 and given the limit ed 
catch data and supporting information provided, no assessment of  t he 
impact  of  the  exemption  can  be  made.  Indications  from  previous 
evaluations suggest catches and discards of whiting in gillnet  f isheries 
are very low. 

Exemption 

Red Sea Bream caught by vessels using bottom trawls, seines & beam 
trawls in 9a 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

No new information has been provided so no evaluation can be made and 
the conclusions of EWG 20-04 and EWG 21-05 remain relevant. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05. 

Sole caught by vessels using bottom -trawls, seines and beam t raw ls in 
9a 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Very limited new information has been provided so no evaluation c an be 
made  and  the  conclusions  of  EWG  20-04  and  EWG  21-05  are  still 
relevant. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05. 

Anchovy caught by vessels using beam trawls, bottom trawls and seines 
in ICES subareas 8 and 9 

The supporting information on economic impact s was already provided in 
2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  has  re-examined  the  Spanish  study  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21- 05 
observed  that  the  economic  information  provided  on  impacts  of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of losses f or 
the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05  requested 
more  information  on  the  methodology  of  the calculation and the data 
used as the opportunity costs cannot be put into context of  t he overall 
economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional inf ormat ion 
on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05.  

47 

47 

 
Limited catch information has been supplied to support this exempt ion. 
Belgium  reported  no  catch  of  anchovy  for  2021,  only  frequency  of 
spec ies occurrence has been provided by France for 2020 and no data by 
Spain and Portugal.  

Therefore,  the  implications  of  granting  the  proposed  exemption  with 
regard to the fishery and species concerned cannot be quantified due t o 
a  lack  of  catch  data  per  gear,  year  and  for  all  Member  States.  The 
observations of EWG 21-05 remain relevant for this exemption that given 
the likely low level of catch, the impact of this exemption on the anchovy 
stock is likely to be low. 

 No Supplementary information was provided. 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05 and given the limit ed 
catch data and supporting information provided, no assessment of  t he 
impact  of  the  exemption  can  be  made.  Indications  from  previous 
evaluations  suggest  catches  and  discards  of  anchovy in the relevant 
fisheries are very low. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

High Survivability 

Exemption 

Skates and rays (Rajiformes) caught with all gears in ICES subareas 8 
and 9  

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

No new survival data has been presented. Survival dat a provided f rom 
previous  projects  is  valuable  but  commented  on  by  EWG  in  previous 
years.  

The SUMARIS project provided survival estimates for blonde, thornback, 
undulate  and  spotted  ray  species.  SWW  Annex  B  noted  that  the 
conclusions  of  the  SUMARIS  report  show  good  survivability  for  the 
species examined during the study.  

In conjunction with FROM Nord, a second phase of the project is planned 
for  2022/2023.  This  will  entail  a  survivability  study  of  thornback rays 
caught with Danish seines. It is a 9- month projec t  c arried out  by t he 
FROM  Nord,  a  French  Producer  Organisations,  as  part  of  its  2022 
production and marketing plan (PPC). In the context of  support ing t he 
exemption of skates and rays from t he landing obligation, this study w ill 
also provide additional elements to the SUMARiS project, w hich did not  
examine the Danish seine. 

Two  Portuguese  projects  were  mentioned  in  Annex A, but the results 
from these projects were not conclusive and therefore t here is not hing 
new to report. It is noted that the SURF project, w hich ended in 2020, 
and which focused on the survival of the Cuckoo ray, will be extended in 
2022  (date  will  be  communicated  soon).  This  extension  of  the  SURF 
project  is  intended  to  increase  scientific  knowledge  about  survival of 
cuckoo ray. It will take place at the junction between the Bay of  Bisc ay 
and the Celtic Sea and will be led by IFREMER. The f irst  result s w ill be 
available in 2023.  

The  Portuguese  roadmap  noted  that  in  the  near  f uture,  the  plan  for 
skates  and  ray  survivability  experiments  needs  to  be  revised  and  is 
dependent  on  availability  of  adequate  facilities  for  these  research 

48 

48 

 
 
 
 
experiments. Further work is required to increase knowledge of  disc ard 
survival for skates and rays in each fishery at various t imes during t he 
year. 

As  for  cuckoo  ray, the information provided in the past and additional 
catch data provided to support the JR show quite high disc ard rat es f or 
some ray species, which could equate to high levels of discard mort alit y 
associated with this exemption if the survival rates are low. However, the 
catch  information  provided  is  incomplete  and  filling  the  gaps in catch 
data  for ray species should be prioritised to allow a full assessment of 
this exemption on the relevant species. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF  agrees  with  the  observations  of  EWG  22-05  and  agrees  that 
Member States should be encouraged to look at improving catch data for 
the different species as this data is lacking in many cases.  

STECF also encourages Member States use their joint scientific c apacity 
to compile and analyse previous and new data in a more systematic w ay 
to  assist  future  assessment  of  the  exemptions  covered  under  the 
roadmap. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

Exemption 

Red seabream caught by vessels using the artisanal gear vor acera  in 
ICES division 9a and with hooks and lines in ICES subareas 8 and 10 and 
ICES division 9a 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

No new information has been provided but new studies are planned t o 
address issues raised by STECF EWG 19-08.  The new experiment s aim 
to estimate the survival rates based on captive observations and during a 
longer  observation  period  in  line  with  recommendations  from  ICES 
WKMEDS. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF  agrees  with  observations  of  EWG  22-05.  The  additional 
survivability  experiments  provided  should  help  to  provided  robust 
survival estimates from the relevant fishery. 

Table  1d.  Main  findings of the STECF EWG 22-05, summary of additional information received 
relating to exemptions presented and Reviewer’s Comments: Baltic Sea 

High Survivability 

Exemption 

Plaice  ≤MCRS  caught  in  Gillnets,  trammel  nets,  Danish  and  Scottish 
seines, and certain trawls from 1st Nov to 30th Apr in ICES subdivisions 
22–32 

49 

49 

 
 
 
 
Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

As  for  the  beam  trawl  fisheries  in  the  North  Sea  and  NWW,  the main 
motivation  for  this  exemption  appears  to  be  to  mitigate  against  the 
economic  costs  of  landing  high  volumes  of  unwanted  plaice.  The 
justification for this exemption is based on estimates for plaice survival, 
which  are  at  least  as  reliable  as  those  available  for  plaice  in  other 
fisheries.  However,  there  are  caveats  relating  to  their  robustness  as 
detailed above that should be addressed. 

Responding to the STECF PLEN 19-03, the supporting inf ormat ion t hat  
fishing  practices  for  gillnets  and  trammel  nets  are  comparable  but 
suggest that entanglement in gillnets may be different t o t rammels but  
do  not  explain  how  this  might  impact  on  survival.  It  is  stated  in  the 
supporting document that in gillnet fisheries, the fish are retained by t he 
gills  or  large  parts  of  the  body  whereas  in  trammel  nets  the  fish  are 
entangled in a pocket of netting. Whether the difference in retention has 
an impact on survival should be explored further. 

For Annex 3 and 5, the mean size of plaice was 33 cm (range 22–40 c m) 
although the exemption request is for plaice ≤MCRS (25 cm). It appears 
that most of the fish caught in the trammel nets were above MCRS w it h 
plaice  ≤MCRS  caught  in  only  3  of  the  13  fleets  of  nets  from  which 
survival estimates were derived. It is unsure what impac t  t he c atching 
process  would  have  on  smaller  fish, but due to the way trammel nets 
catch,  smaller  fish are likely to be entangled more by the gills as they 
attempt to pass through the meshes. 

For  the  trawl  and  seine  part  of  the  exemption,  there  is  a  limited 
description of the codends used, for example, with no information on t he 
mesh  sizes  used.  Information  on  the  mesh  sizes  would  be  useful 
considering there are different mesh size regulations in subdivisions 22 
and 23 compared to the rest of the Baltic region. Baseline mesh sizes are 
at least 120 mm  (for T90) and at least 105 mm  fitted with a Bacoma exit  
window  of  120mm,  with  a  derogation  in  subdivisions  22  and  23  of  at 
least  90  mm  when  directed  fishing  for  flatfish  (Regulation  (EU) 
2019/1241).  Codend  mesh  size  and  construction  is  likely  to  have  an 
impact on survival, particularly for small plaice. 

Additionally, there are some concerns over the justification t o t runcate 
the observation period to ten days (due to an extreme c old event ) and 
whether this did bias the survival estimates. This is considered important 
given the survival estimates are higher than estimates from other t rials.  
In  the  supporting  document  provided  by  LIFE,  it  is  stated  that  the 
temperatures in 2021 were similar  to annual temperatures experienced 
since 2010.  

No information on catch rates has been provided. The expected lengt h 
frequencies are not discussed for any of the gears, and it is not  c lear t o 
what  extent  the  impact  would  be  on  ≤MCRS  plaice  catches  for  the 
different gears. The data presented is from very specific areas within t he 
subdivisions  and  no  information  is  presented  on  how  these  areas 
compare to the rest of the subdivisions, accepting that 70% of the plaic e 
catches come from subdivisions 22-23, where the trials were carried out.  

It  is  difficult  to  comment  on  how  this  exemption  will  impact  on  cod 
stocks. It is unlikely the exemption itself would have any impacts unless 
in  granting  it,  this  led  to  an  increase  in  fishing  ef fort  for  plaice  and 
thereby  potentially  increasing  cod  catches  in  the  fishery  as  a whole. 
Further information on the cod and plaice catches and discards (f rom all 
gears) would be required to make any assessment. The market situation 
for plaice would also be important as if targeted fisheries for plaice w ere 
seen as viable, then there would be an incentive to increase effort.  

50 

50 

 
Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

Additionally,  for  trawl  fisheries,  EWG  22-05  understands  that specific 
legislated gears that reduce cod catches while allowing flatfi sh f isheries 
to  continue  are  due  to  be  introduced  into  legislation.  However,  no 
information on the likely uptake of these gears. The BALTFISH High Level 
Group  request  that  details  of  cod  catches  and bycatches from these 
gears should be recorded separately from catches taken by other fishing 
gears.  This  would  be  especially  important  in  relation  to this proposed 
exemption  as  there are mesh size increases proposed (for trawls) and 
their impact on ≤MCRS fish needs to be evaluated further. 

Only data from the Danish fleet involved in the fisheries is provided w it h 
no information for other fleets that may avail of the exemption submitted 
with the request. It is understood Denmark has around 72% of the t ot al 
TAC. 

EWG 22-05 notes that for Annex 6: The request is for subdivisions 22–25 
but  the  overall  request  (from  BALTFISH  JR)  is  for subdivisions 22–32. 
Clarification is needed as to the area intended to be covered. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF  acknowledges  the  significant  amount  of  information  and 
clarifications  received  in  relation  to  this  exemption.  STECF  notes  the 
weaknesses identified by EWG 22-05 in relation to the survivabilit y dat a 
provided and the limitations of the catch data. Such weaknesses exist for 
the high survivability exemptions for other plaice stocks in other regions.  

STECF observes the exemptions for the Baltic are very muc h similar  t o 
those  for  plaice  in  the North Sea and NWW in that they are based on 
variable  survival  rates  with  relatively  high  discard  rates  in  specific 
fisheries.  Accounting  for  dead  discards  in  the  stock  assessments  for 
plaice  will  be  very  important  if  this  exemption  were  to  be  granted  to 
ensure fishing mortality is accurately estimated. 

STECF agrees with EWG 22-05 that it is difficult to comment on how  t his 
exemption will impact on cod stocks. STECF acknowledges it  is unlikely 
the exemption itself would have any impacts unless in grant ing it , t his 
led  to  an  increase  in  fishing  effort  for  plaice  and  thereby  potentially 
increasing cod catches in the fishery as a whole. Further inf ormat ion on 
the  cod  and  plaice  catches  and  discards  (from  all  gears)  would  be 
required to make any assessment. The market situation for plaice w ould 
also be important as if targeted fisheries for plaice were seen as viable, 
then there would be an incentive to increase effort.  

Table  1e.  Main  findings of the STECF EWG 22-05, summary of additional information received 
relating to exemptions presented and Reviewer’s Comments: South-eastern Mediterranean. 

De minimis 

Exemption 

Anchovy, Sardine, Mackerel and Horse Mackerel, up to a maximum 
of 5% of the total annual catches by vessels using bottom trawls in the 
South-Eastern Mediterranean Sea 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Some additional information has been provided, relative to the previous 
EWG assessments of this exemption. However, the previous assessments 

51 

51 

 
 
 
by EWG 19-08 and 21-05 remain relevant.  

The methodology for calculating the discard ratio differs among c ountries 
(i.e., for Cyprus and Malta it is the ratio between discards (<MCRS) and 
total  catch,  while  for  Greece  and  Italy  it  is  the  ratio  between  total 
discards (both <MCRS and >MCRS) and total catch).  

Additionally, there is a weakness in the combined de minimis  approac h. 
Accepting that the combined discards ratio for all species covered by t he 
exemption is low for some species, the proport ion of  t he c atch t hat is 
discarded may be high. 

While estimates of the potential increase in costs of handling unw ant e d 
catches  ashore  are  provided,  there  is  no  way  to  objectively  judge 
whether  such  estimates  amount  to  disproportionate  costs.  The 
arguments are generic and/or applied to an “average” vessel, and more 
detailed information is necessary. However, EWG 22 - 05 ac know ledges 
that  the  recent  great  increase  in fuel costs has worsened the overall 
situation. 

Updated  catch  data  has  been  provided  by  the  SUDESTMED  group. 
However,  the  information  is  sporadic,  for  different  years  and  not 
consistently  presented.  Therefore,  the  implications  of  granting  the 
proposed  exemption with regard to the fishery and species concerned 
cannot be quantified due to these data issues, not ing t hat apart f rom 
Italy the reported discard rates are relatively low. 

EWG  22-05 notes that for the reduct ion of discards, SUDESTMED HLG 
considers a key factor the effects of management measures relat ed t o 
the  introduction  of  the  Recommendation  GFCM/42/2018/5  on  a 
multiannual  management  plan  for  bottom  trawl  fisheries  exploiting 
demersal stocks in the Strait of Sicily (geographical subareas 12 t o 16), 
establishing  3  FRAs  as  permanent  closures  for  demersal  fisheries. 
Additionally,  since  2019 Italy has reduced the fishing effort of bottom 
trawlers in GSAs 16 and 19. EWG 22-05 considers that these measures 
are  mostly  aimed  at protecting juveniles and/or spawners of demersal 
species. However, EWG 22-05 acknowledges that a general reduc tion of  
the fishing effort of bottom trawl would likely also decrease t he amount  
of bycatch of small pelagics. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

The following Supplementary information was provided by SUDEST MED 
Group (an updated Annex A): 

1.  Description of fisheries for which de minimis  exemptions are 

requested in SUDESTMED area (Cyprus, Greece, Malta, It aly). 

2.  Considerations about the scientific knowledge related to the 

application of the “landing obligation” and to the continuation of 
the de minimis  exemption for small pelagic by catch of trawl 
fisheries in the Mediterranean – Italian case SUDESTMED area. 

The  SUDESTMED  HLG  highlighted  that  new  data  and  information  has 
been  provided.  In  the  supporting  documents  accompanying  the 
SUDESTMED draft Joint Recommendation described measures already in 
place and some different aspects considered very relevant t o mit igat e 
the impact of OTB metier on the bycatch of small pelagic species under 
MCRS. These include: 

The overall reduction of fishing effort since 2019 -  14% in  GSA 16 and 
25%  in  GSA  19  –  which  the  SUDESTMED  group  consider  beneficial to 
reducing the by-catch of species including small pelagic species c overed 

52 

52 

 
by this exemption. 

1.  The  temporary  cessation  of  fishing  activities,  for  at  least  30 
continuous  days,  during  the  late  summer/autumn,  which  is 
expected to be beneficial in reducing bycatch of species including  
the  small  pelagics.  Such  consideration  is  supported  by  GAM 
modelling in MedBLand (GSA 19).  The last quarter is signif ic ant  
in  terms  of  increased  discards  for  the  species  more subject to 
discarding, such as Trachurus spp. 

2.  The  establishment  of 3 FRAs in the Strait of Sicily (2 in GSA 16 
and  1  in  GSA  15)  as  permanent  closure  for  demersal  fisheries, 
including  fully  closed  areas  and  buffer  zones  as  well  as  MCRS 
measures are expected to produce positive ef f ects f or reduc ing 
discards of target demersal stocks and consequently of  by -catch 
species, including small pelagics, at least for t he f raction of  t he 
catch below the MCRS. 

3.  The evaluation of the impact of the derogation already granted on 
the discards such as Trachurus spp., was evaluated and a slight  
reduction  was  observed  in  GSA  19 with a stronger decline was 
reported in GSA 16. 

4.  It was considered that the impact of disproport ionate c osts, as 
evaluated in the previous year, has not significantly changed over 
time. However, it is now the case that the sharp increase of  f uel 
costs will reduce incomes significantly and therefore deteriorating 
the profitability of the fleets further. 

Reviewer’s comment: Reviewer acknowledges the updat ed inf or mation 
provided by the SUDESTMED. However, the reviewer has the opinion that 
this does not materially affect the main findings of EWG 22-05. 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05.   ST ECF not es t hat 
there is no way to objectively judge whether potential increase in c ost s 
of handling unwanted catches ashore amount to disproportionate c osts. 
The arguments are generic and/or applied to an “average” vessel, and 
more detailed information is necessary. 

STECF notes the difficulties associated with the rise in f uel pric es t hat  
have  impacted  significantly  on  the  profitability  of  the relevant fleets. 
Acknowledging  these  difficulties  are  real,  STECF nonetheless observe 
they  have  only  indirect  links  with  the  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation. 

STECF 
Comments 

Table  1f.  Main  findings  of  the  STECF EWG 21-05, summary of additional information received 
relating to exemptions presented and Reviewer’s Comments: Western Mediterranean. 

High Survivability 

Exemption 

Scallop (Pecten jacobaeus), Carpet clams (Venerupis spp.), and Venus 
shells  (Venus  spp.)  below  the  minimum  conservation  reference  size 
caught with mechanised dredges in the Western Mediterranean 

Main  findings  of  The supporting information pertaining Pecten jacobaeus suggest f urt her 
investigation on the survivability of this species caught w it h dredges in 

53 

53 

 
 
EWG 22-05 

the Western Mediterranean Sea, also considering the potential effects of  
such gears in the swimming  ability of this bivalve.  

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

No  scientific  evidence  to  support  the  request  based  on  the  high 
survivability of the carpet clams (Venerupis spp.) has been provided and 
thus no further evaluation of the proposed exemption is possible. 

The supporting information provided for Venus shells (Venus spp) does 
provide robust high survivability estimates for this species harvested by 
hydraulic dredges. Several caveats are noted, principally t he est imat es 
are from a different area (e.g., Adriatic Sea). 

The following study was provided as supplementary information:    

Jenkins, S.R. And Brand, A.R. 2001. The effect of dredge capture on t he 
escape response of the great scallop, Pecten maximus  implic at ions f or 
the  survival  of  undersized  discards.  Journal  of  Experimental  Marine 
Biology and Ecology 266:33–50. 

Reviewer’s  comments:    The  subject  of  the  paper  Jenkins  and  Brand 
(2001)  is  Pecten  maximus  (a  cogenus  of  P.  jacobaeus)  caught  with 
dredges  in  the  Irish  Sea.  The  study demonstrated a reduction in the 
swimming ability in captured undersized scallops. These dat a, t ogether  
with numerous studies of predator aggregation t o disc ar ded m ater ial, 
indicated  that  there  is  a  potential  for  high  levels  of  mortality  in 
undersized  discards  of  P.  maximus  and  in  impacted  but  uncaptured 
individuals.  Related  to  EWG  22-05,  these  results suggest the need to 
investigate the survivability of P. jacobaeus caught wit h dr edges in t he 
Western Mediterranean Sea, also considering the potential effects of such 
gears in the swimming ability of this bivalve. 

The additional information does not affect the main findings of  EWG  22 -
05. 

STECF 
Comments 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05. 

Table  1g.  Main  findings of the STECF EWG 22-05, summary of additional information received 
relating to exemptions presented and Reviewer’s Comments: Adriatic 

De minimis 

Exemption 

Anchovy, Sardine, Mackerel and Horse Mackerel, up to a maximum 
of 5% of the total annual catches by vessels using bottom trawls in the 
Adriatic Sea 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

The supporting information and the basis for the exemption provided by 
Croatia,  Italy  and  Slovenia  are  not  different  from  those  presented 
previously to EWG 21-05. Therefore, the observations from EWG 21 - 05 
remain relevant. 

Regarding,  Italy  the  estimated  combined  discard  rate  (small  pelagic 
species) corresponds to 53.1% in GSA17. Consequently, the de minimis 
volume is likely to cover only a proportion of the discards. Ways t o deal 
with or reduce the residual unwanted catches have not  been provided. 
For Croatia and Slovenia value of combined discards are much lower and 
typically less than 5%.  

As  regards  disproportionate  costs,  the  supporting  information  is  still 
based on documents provided in previous EWG and c onsequently EWG 
22-05 can only reaffirm the same considerations. However, EWG 22 - 05 

54 

54 

 
 
acknowledges that the recent great increase in fuel costs has w orsened 
the overall situation.  

The  results  coming  from  the  IMPLEMED  project  regarding  the  use  of 
selectivity devices, such as grids and T90 panels, in bot t om t raw l net s 
while  interesting  are not necessarily relevant for this exemption. If on 
one  hand  there  are  improvements  in the selectivity for some species, 
such as European hake, on the other hand, there are possible ec onomic  
losses due to the reduction of catches of red mullet and deep-water rose 
shrimp  of  commercial  size.  Further  investigation  on  these  selectivity 
devices  is  needed to find a compromise between improving selectivity 
and minimising  economic losses. 

introduction 

EWG  22-05  notes  that  for  the  reduction  of  discards,  ADRIATICA  HLG 
considers a key factor the effects of management measures relat ed t o 
the 
in  the  Adriatic  Sea  of  the  Recommendation 
GFCM/44/2021/1  that  establishes  a  fishing  effort  regime  for  key 
demersal  stocks  in  GSAs  17  and  18  and  the  closure  of  coastal  strip 
(within  6  nautical  miles) or alternatively 30 continuous days of fishing 
ban,  in  addition  to  existing  FRAs  and  the  establishment of new FRAs. 
EWG  22-05  considers  that  these  measures  are  mostly  aimed  at 
protecting juveniles and/or spawners of demersal species. However, EWG 
22-05  acknowledges  that  a  general  reduction  of  the  fishing  effort  of 
bottom trawl would likely also decrease the amount of bycatch of  small 
pelagics. 

EWG 22-05 notes that in Adriatica JR, page 6 the follow ing sent ence is 
reported: Croatia, Italy and Slovenia recommend the continuation of t he 
following exemption already granted in amended Commission delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2020/4  up  to 0.5% of total annual catches of pelagic 
species  (Anchovy,  Sardine,  Mackerel,  Horse  mackerel)  under  landing 
obligation according to Table. 

This sentence contains two aspect that should be c larif y ; t he f irst  one 
regards the delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/4 that is no longer in forc e; 
the  second  relates  to  the  de  minimis  request  of  0.5%,  which  it  is 
assumed should be 5%.  

The following Supplementary information was provided: 

Slovenia: 

In Slovenia, the disproportionate costs of handling discards remain high 
considering  the  continued  low  quantities  of  landings.  In  2021,  total 
landings in Slovenia decreased in comparison to the previous year, f rom 
155 tonnes in 2020 to only about 106 tonnes in 2021 (i.e., a decrease in 
landings in comparison to 2020 of 31,6 %). 

Thus,  the  Slovenian  fisheries  sector  continues  to  be  very  small. 
Considering the low quantities of landings in general, and the small  size 
of fishing vessels (an overwhelming majority of Slovenian fishing vessels 
are  below 15 m of length), requirements connected to the handling of 
discards on board and on land would demand additional resourc es. T his 
would include additional space and equipment on board, additional crew , 
and  appropriate  facilities  in  ports  to  handle  discards,  as any discards 
need to be handled appropriately with regard to EU Directives in the field 
of hygiene. However, due to the small size of Slovenian fishing vess els, 
small  daily,  monthly,  and  annual  catches  and  thus  small  profits,  it  is 
impossible to arrange for the necessary additional equipment , f acilit ies 
and human resources needed for handling unwant ed c atches if  t he de 
minimis  exemption was not in place. 

Thus, Slovenia would like to ask STECF to also consider the small size of  

55 

55 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

 
fisheries sectors, fishing vessels, and small local fishing ports as w ell as 
implications  when  considering  the  necessity  of 
socio-economic 
appropriate de minimis  exemptions. In this light, it would be appropriat e 
to consider the lowest threshold or quantity of landings, above which the 
landing obligation would apply. Those fisheries sectors or f isheries t hat  
are  below  such  a  minimum  threshold  should  be  exempted  from  the 
landing obligation. 

Such  provisions  already exist in EU legislation. The DCF contains such 
threshold  and  Member  States  with landings below 200 tonnes are not 
obliged  to  collect  biological  data  (Commission  Implementing  Decision 
(EU)  2021/1168  of  27  April  2021  establishing  the  list  of  mandatory 
research surveys at sea and thresholds as part of the multiannual Union 
programme  for  the collection and management of data in the fisheries 
and aquaculture sectors from 2022). It would be important if the ST ECF  
could consider such a threshold also in the case of the landing obligation. 

Italy 

Italy considers the overall reduction of fishing effort since 2019 - 24%  in 
GSA  17  and  18  -  is  beneficial  in  reducing  the  by-catch  of  species, 
including small pelagics covered by this exemption. Italy also highlight s 
those  recent evaluations have shown a decreasing in discard ratio for 
Trachurus in GSA 18. 

Other  measures  considered beneficial to reducing discards of bycatch 
species include: 

  The temporary cessation of the fishing activities in the territorial 

waters (12 nautical miles) for at least 30 continuous days  

  The consecutive further temporary cessation within 6 nautical 

miles during the late summer/autumn until December.  

  The reduction of the working days during the week (supported by 
GAM modelling  in MedBLand, as the last quarter is significant in 
terms of increased discards for the species more subject to 
discarding, as Trachurus spp). 

  The establishment of the Jabuka/Pomo Pit FRA (which covers an 

area equivalent to 2-3% of the Adriatic Sea). 

  The establishment of the no-take zone to protect juveniles in the 

Central Adriatic (equivalent to 1% of the area of the Adriatic Sea. 

Italy considers that the impact of disproportionate costs, as evaluated in 
the previous year, has not significantly changed over time. However, it is 
now the case that the sharp increase of fuel costs w ill reduc e inc omes 
significantly  and  therefore  deteriorating  the  profitability  of  the  fleets 
further. 

Finally,  considering  that  the  change  of  the  mesh  size  towards  a 
significant increase (e.g., 50 mm  open square mesh) for certain fisheries 
or  depth  ranges  may  be  economically  unsustainable  (STECF  21-13), 
further investigation of the selectivity devices, tested (e.g. IMPLEMED), 
could be envisaged. 

Croatia 

Croatia highlights that after a period of stability of fuel, prices during t he 
period 2019-2021 (0.68 EUR in 2019, 0.53 EUR in 2020 and 0.72 EUR  in 
2021), as in the rest of the Europe, the price of fuel increased by 100% 

56 

56 

 
in 2022 and currently amounts to a record high 1.25 EUR  per  lit re. T his 
has significantly increased the overall operational costs, decreased t he 
revenue  and  jeopardised  the  sustainability  of  the  fishing  fleet.  Fuel 
accounts for 48% of the total operational costs of this fleet in the period 
before  the  fuel  crisis, while in 2022, as per a preliminary analysis, fuel 
makes up 80-90% of the operational costs.  Croatia st resses t hat t he 
current situation cannot support any additional activity w hich does not  
bring  any  revenue  or  added  value  and  only  consumes  time  and 
decreases effectiveness of the crew. 

for 

facilities 

the  necessary  storage 

Landing  infrastructure  has  been  one  of  the  weakest  elements  in  the 
overall fisheries sector in Croatia and more significant investment s int o 
this component began with the implementation of the EMFF. Signif icant 
amount  of  EMFF  fund  was  directed  to  improving  of  the  landing 
infrastructure, and particular attention was given also t o equipping t he 
landing  places  with 
full 
implementation of the landing obligation. Given the fac t t hat t hese are 
very  complex  and  lengthy  projects,  at  the  moment  there  are  no 
preconditions  for  systematic  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation 
along the Croatian coastline from infrastructural perspective. T hus f ar, 
only  one  project  has  been  finalised  (Split  Dalmatia  County  –  port  of 
Brižine)  –  which  is  the  key  landing  place  for  this  part  of  the  middle 
Dalmatia. It is equipped with storage facilities. Three more projec t s are 
close  to  finalisation  (Zadar  County  –  port  of  Gaženica  and  Lamjana 
(island  of  Ugljan)  and  in  Primorje-Gorski Kotar County – Rab (island of 
Rab)) while the remaining 9 projects are in the pipeline. For comparison, 
in  2021,  bottom  trawls  in  Croatia  landed  their  catches  in  153 landing 
places.  There  is  still  no  organised  system  in  place  for  collecting  t he 
catches not intended for human consumption, nor is t here a dedic at ed 
market  (factory  for  fish  meal production is planned during the current 
programming  period 2021-2027). 

In 2021, bottom trawls in Croatia landed their catch in 153 landing sit es 
of  which  30%  are  located  on  the  islands  where  a  36%  of  the  total 
catches  from  bottom  trawls  are  landed.  In  average,  there  were  3.6 
landings per week with the majority of landing places having less t han 5 
landings per week, and only 11 of them with more than 10 lan dings per 
week.  In general, the 7 most frequent landing places cover 25% of all 
bottom trawl landings.  

When  observing  the landed quantities per vessels and single landings, 
calculation  was  made  to estimate the possible landed discard of small 
pelagics from the OTB fleet based on the average recorded disc ard rat e 
of  3.75%  (period  2018-20).  On  average,  landed  discard  per  landing 
place  per  one  week,  varied  from  296kg  to  0.2kg,  with  an  average  of 
22kg. However, similarly as for the number of landings in the majority of  
landing places, the volume of landed discard per week would be less than 
1%  and  30  kg  per  week  (123  of them), while 13 landing places would 
account for 50% of landed discards.  

At the level of the single vessel, in one fishing trip, the estimated volume 
of landed discard would be 6.4 kg. It is clear that due to the high number 
of landing places along the coast and in the islands, as at the same t ime 
small  volume  of  possible 
it  would  be  highly 
disproportional to have a scheme to collected, transport and destroy t he 
landed discards.  

landed  discard, 

Reviewer’s comments: 

Reviewer  acknowledges  the  additional  information  to  support  the 
exemption provided by Slovenia, Italy and Croatia. 

57 

57 

 
However, no information has been provided concerning the de minimis % 
requested  (i.e.,  in  Adriatica  JR  the  request  was:  “Croatia,  Italy  and 
Slovenia recommend the continuation of the following exemption already 
granted in amended Commission delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/4 up to 
0.5%  of  total  annual  catches  of  pelagic  spec ies  (Anchovy,  Sardine, 
Mackerel, Horse mackerel) under landing obligation ac cor ding t o T able 
1”. The doubt remains if this is really 0.5% or 5%. 

Comments  to  additional  information  provided  by  Slovenia,  Italy  and 
Croatia. 

Slovenia:  no  additional  documents  have  been  provided.  Information 
regarding a decreasing trend of discards from 2020 to 2021 (i.e., f r om  
155  to  102  tons)  has  been  provided.    The  request  is  still  based  on 
disproportionate costs. In addition, Slovenia asks STECF to consider t he 
fact that, according to DCF, MS with landings below 200 tonnes ar e not  
obliged  to collect biological data. On this view, EWG 22-05 is not sure 
this information could affect the exemption request for de minimis. 

Italy: No additional documents have been provided by It aly.  Basic ally , 
this additional information reflects in a more detailed way w hat alr eady 
provided by ADRIATICA. 

Croatia: Basically, the information provided by Cr oatia m ostly r ef lects 
what has been already provided during the last two LO EWGs (21-05 and 
22-05). This time, in addition, reference to an increase of the fuel pr ic es 
has been made. The overall request continues t o be m ostly based on 
disproportionate costs. 

STECF agrees with the observations of EWG 22-05.   ST ECF not es t hat 
there is no way to objectively judge whether potential increase in c ost s 
of handling unwanted catches ashore amount to disproportionate c osts. 
The arguments are generic and/or applied to an “average” vessel, and 
more detailed information is necessary. 

STECF notes the difficulties associated with the rise in f uel pric es t hat  
have  impacted  significantly  on  the  profitability  of  the relevant fleets. 
Acknowledging these difficulties are real STECF nonetheless observe they 
have only indirect links with the implementation of the landing obligation. 

STECF  observes  that  the  request  from  Slovenia  regarding  the 
introduction of thresholds under which the landing obligation should not  
apply is a policy issue that should be addressed to DGMARE.  

STECF 
Comments 

Table  1g.  Main  findings of the STECF EWG 22-05, summary of additional information received 
relating to exemptions presented and Reviewer’s Comments: Black Sea 

High Survivability 

Exemption 

Turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) caught with bottom-set gillnets (GNS) 
in the Black Sea (GSA29) 

Main  findings  of 
EWG 22-05 

Data  provided  by  Bulgaria  and  Romania  are  valuable  because  they 
represent the first attempt of assessing survival of  t urbot c aught w it h 
gillnets  in  the  Black  Sea,  albeit  based  on  vitality  estimates.  V itality 
assessments  do  not,  by  themselves,  generate  an  absolute  survival 
estimate, but can quantify “at-vessel” or “immediate” mort alit y levels. 
When  correlated  with  a  likelihood  of  survival  at  vitality  (derived  from 
tagging or captive observation methods), a vitality index can be used as 
a proxy for survival. Moreover, following the ICES guidelines, vit alit y is 
typically  quantified  by  measuring  characteristics  of  individual  animals 

58 

58 

 
 
such  as  activity,  responsiveness,  reflex  impairment,  and  injury. 
Therefore, in future studies it would be highly recommended to follow the 
methodologies described in the ICES guidelines. 

However, based on the supporting information presented, along with t he 
fishery  information  provided  last  year  to  EWG  21-05,  it  seems  that 
discarding of turbot is negligible/absent in this fishery. Theref ore, w hile 
the exemption itself is likely to have low impact, it is not altogether clear 
why it is needed. 

No Supplementary information was provided 

STECF  agrees  with  the  observations  of  the  EWG  22-05.  STECF 
acknowledges that the efforts made by Romania and Bulgaria to provide 
supporting information and catch data which is seen as a positive step.    

STECF notes the weaknesses identified by EWG 22-05 in relat ion t o t he 
vitality data provided, while acknowledging that the level of  disc ards in 
the relevant fishery is very low. 

Supplementary 
information 
provided  to  the 
Commission  post 
EWG 22-05 

STECF 
Comments 

STECF conclusions 

STECF endorses the observations and main findings of the EWG 22-05. Based on suc h f indings 
STECF concludes that many of its previous conclusions remain valid and where appropriat e are 
included in the conclusions below. 

General conclusions 

  The role of STECF EWGs set up to evaluate Joint Recommendations remains t o evaluat e 
the scientific rigor and robustness of the underpinning information supplied by Member 
States  to  support  the  main  elements  of  Joint  Recommendations.  The  EWG  or  STECF 
cannot adjudicate on whether exemptions should be accepted or not. 

  The avoidance of unwanted catch through improved selectivity or other means should be 
the  primary  focus  in  implementing  the  landing  obligation.  While  recognising  that 
modifying selectivity can result in some reduction in revenue, such loss in revenue should 
be  viewed  in  the  broader  context of medium-term gains in stocks from an increase in 
selectivity,  the  reduced  risk  of choke events and better utilization of quota to land a 
higher proportion of more valuable catch. 

  The quality of submissions to support the exemptions has generally improved sinc e t he 
first JR’s were submitted in 2014. However, there are cases in the 202 2 JRs w here t he 
supporting information does not contain any new information.  For some exempt ions, no 
information has been provided at all. This has meant that for many exemptions, the EWG 
has not been able to carry out any meaningful evaluation and the previous observations 
from STECF remain valid. 

  The quality and consistency of catch data provided to support exempt ions in 2022 has 
been quite limited for many exemptions. Data has covered different years, f or different or 
wider areas than covered by the exemption and in different formats. STECF acknowledges 
that Covid-19 has meant data collection has been challenging. However, having s uch data 
is important to understand the relationship between the de minimis  volume request ed , 
the actual level of unwanted catches to put the proposed exemption in the context of t he 
fishery and also the state of the stock for which the exemption is covering. This  allows an 
assessment as to whether risk of the exemption to the relevant  st ocks c overed by t he 

59 

59 

 
 
 
 
exemption is minimal. 

  Weaknesses remain in the collection of catch documentation data. If t he dat a sit uation 
does  not  improve and the true quantities being caught as reported do not reflect the 
actual removals, it will likely have a significant impact on the quality of scientif ic advice 
and  may  compromise  the  achievement  of  the  MSY  objective.  This  potential  for  this 
discrepancy is higher for de minimis than high survival exemptions bec ause t he actual 
discard amount may be subst antially higher than the permitted de minimis  amount . F or 
several  high  survival  exemptions,  this  risk  has  been  mitigated  to  some  extent  by 
deducting the estimated dead discards associated with t he exempt ions f rom t he t ot al 
allowable quota prior to allocation. However, this is not the case for all st oc ks c urrently 
covered by a high survivability exemption. 

  The intention of DGMARE to carry out a full review of the exemptions that are in plac e is 
timely. Such a review would help to determine whether they need to be amended or are 
still  required  given  likely  changes in catch patterns, gears used, vessels involved and 
uptake. In initiating such a review, however, STECF stresses it is vital that Member States 
and the Advisory Councils understand what information is needed to support this review  
and allow STECF carry out a meaningful evaluation. 

  The CFP review provides an opportunity to consider the landing obligat ion and w ays t o 
improve implementation. In this context, reviewing the process of evaluating exemptions  
would be helpful for STECF in addition to reviewing the exemptions themselves. 

Conclusions on de minimis exemptions 

  Under Article 15 of the CFP Basic regulation Member States have a legal requirement  t o 
record all catches discarded under de minimis  exemptions. However, in many  c ases t his 
information is still lacking from the supporting information provided by Member States as 
evidenced by the limitations of data contained in the FDI database. 

  For many exemptions, the relationship between the de minimis volume requested and the 
level  of  unwanted  catches  is  unclear  from  the  information  provided  to  support  the 
exemption. In some cases, the de minimis volume covers 100% of the unwanted catches, 
usually in fisheries where the levels of unwanted catch are small. In other c ases, t he de 
minimis  volume  covers only a small part of the unwanted catches and the supporting 
information  should  contain  indications  on  the  measures  to  be  taken  to  reduce  these 
residual unwanted catches. 

  The  case  for  de  minimis  should  not  be  improved  by  having  high  levels  of  unwanted 
catches, and therefore high handling costs, where the incentive t o improve selec t ivit y 
should be maintained. Improving selectivity or avoidance methods to reduce the catches 
of unwanted catches should be the priority. 

  Judging at which level costs are disproportionate because t here is no w ay of  assessing 
objectively what level of costs constitutes disproportionate remains challenging. F or t his 
reason,  in  assessing  de  minimis  exemptions,  the  relationship  between  the  de  minimis 
volume, the actual level of unwanted catches and the overall status of the stocks involved 
has been the focus of the assessments. 

  Testing gears to improve the selectivity for low value stocks or in circumstances where the 
level of discards is very low is challenging. Prior to the landing obligat ion suc h c atches 
were always discarded due to their low market value. Diverting scarce research f unds t o 
specifically  investigate  selectivity  for  such  species is not really an option. Therefore, 
improving  selectivity  in  such  circumstances  is  only  going  to  be  delivered  as  a 
consequence of using selective gears designed to reduce unwanted catches of  dif f erent 
target species. For instance, the use of square mesh panels in gadoid fisheries may lead 
to a reduction in boarfish or greater silver smelt catches. 

Conclusions on high survivability exemptions 

60 

60 

 
 
 
  Assessing what constitutes high survivability is still complicated by t he limit ed evidenc e 
and the variability in the available estimates. Many factors can affect survival, but  t hese 
are not well understood. This makes assessment of requests for survivability complex as 
many factors need to be considered. 

  Survivability should be considered in the context of the discard rate for the fishery seeking 
an exemption. Medium survival rates in high discarding fisheries still lead to high disc ard 
mortality  rates.  STECF  has  previously  concluded  (STECF  PLEN  19-02)  that  unless 
surviving  discards  are  accounted  for  in  stock  assessments  when  dead  discards  are 
accounted  for  in  TAC  setting,  where survivability exemptions are in place, the actual 
fishing  mortality  will  not  match  the  agreed  catch  level.  This  should  continue  to  be 
discussed in the assessment forums for stocks with survival exemptions.  

  Gaps in the evidence provided remain on conditions of the relevant f isheries (gear use, 
haul duration, seasonality, areas etc.) and catch data for all Member St at es t o provide 
context  for  this  exemption.  Such  information  is  crucial  in  order  to  assess  the 
representativeness of the different reported survival rates and to be able t o assess t he 
effects of the exemption on the different stocks. 

Conclusions on technical measures 

  Despite many experiments to test selective gears, there are still relatively few examples of  
such  gears  being  incorporated  into  the  JRs  submitted.  Where  there  is  no  specific 
legislation  making  the  use  of  selective  gears  mandatory,  uptake  of  selective  gears 
remains extremely low even in fisheries where unwanted catches remain high.  

  Strengthening the linkage of exemptions to the use of selective gears as is t he c ase f or 
several  exemptions (e.g., de minimis exemptions for whiting and haddock in the Celtic 
Sea;  Common  sole  in  the  beam  trawl  fisheries  in  the  North  Sea  and  NWW;  High 
survivability  exemptions  for  Nephrops  in  North  Sea  and  NWW)  would  provide  greater 
confidence that the exemption is not just a means to maintain “business as usual” in  t he 
relevant fishery. 

  There  are  indications  of  various  experiments  with  lights  to reduce unwanted catches. 
Consolidating the findings into one review would be helpful to understand whether using 
lights  has  potential  to  reduce  unwanted  catches  and  for  which species and in which 
fisheries.  

Conclusions on the impact of the landing obligation 

  Conducting an ex-post analysis of the economic implication of the landing obligation would 
be timely. This should aim to explore and explain the reasons for the lack of real impac t s 
and to contrast the results with the ex-ante literature showing impac t s w ould be likely. 
This should also include possible ways to mitigate short-term losses wit hout rec ourse t o 
flexibility mechanisms or exemptions from the general rules. The aim should be t o allow  
the sector to be able to cope with the short -term losses to realise the mid -  t o long- t erm 
gains that could be accrued.  

61 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contact details of STECF members 

1  -  Information  on  STECF  members’  affiliations  is  displayed  for information only. In any case, 
Members of the STECF shall act independently. In the context of the STECF work, the commit t ee 
members do not represent the institutions/bodies they are affiliated to in their daily jobs. ST ECF  
members  also  declare  at  each  meeting  of  the  STECF  and  of  its  Expert  Working  Groups  any 
specific interest which might be considered prejudicial to their independence in relatio n to specific 
items on the agenda. These declarations are displayed on the public meeting’s website if expert s 
explicitly  authorized  the  JRC  to  do  so  in  accordance  with  EU  legislation  on the protection of 
personnel data. For more information: http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/adm-declarations 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Abella, J. Alvaro 

Independent consultant 

Bastardie, Francois 

Technical University of Denmark, 
National  Institute  of  Aquatic 
Resources 
(DTU-AQUA), 
Kemitorvet,  2800  Kgs.  Lyngby, 
Denmark 

aabellafisheries@gmail.co
m 

fba@aqua.dtu.dk  

Borges, Lisa 

FishFix, Lisbon, Portugal 

info@fishfix.eu 

Casey, John 

Independent consultant 

blindlemoncasey@gmail.c
om  

Catchpole, Thomas 

CEFAS  Lowestoft  Laboratory, 
Pakefield 
Lowestoft, 
Road, 
Suffolk, UK, NR33  0HT 

thomas.catchpole@cefas.c
o.uk  

Damalas, Dimitrios 

Daskalov, Georgi 

Döring, Ralf (vice-chair) 

shark@hcmr.gr 

Georgi.m.daskalov@gmail
.com 

ralf.doering@thuenen.de 

for  Marine 
Hellenic  Centre 
Research,  Institute  of  Marine 
Biological  Resources  &  Inland 
Waters, 
Vouliagmenis 
Avenue,  Argyroupolis,  16452, 
Athens, Greece 

576 

Laboratory  of  Marine  Ecology, 
Institute  of  Biodiversity  and 
Ecosystem  Research,  Bulgarian 
Academy of Sciences 

Thünen Institute [TI-SF] Federal 
Research 
for  Rural 
Institute 
Areas,  Forestry  and  Fisheries, 
Institute  of  Sea  Fisheries, 
Economic analyses Herwigstrasse 
31,  D-27572 
Bremerhaven, 
Germany 

Gascuel, Didier  

AGROCAMPUS  OUEST,  65  Route 
de  Saint  Brieuc,  CS  84215,  F-
35042 RENNES Cedex, France 

Didier.Gascuel@agrocamp
us-ouest.fr 

62 

62 

 
 
 
Name 

Grati, Fabio 

Affiliation1 

Email 

fabio.grati@cnr.it  

Institute 

National  Research Council (CNR) 
Biological 
– 
Resources 
Marine 
Biotechnologies  (IRBIM),  L.go 
Fiera  della  Pesca,  2,  60125, 
Ancona, Italy  

for 
and 

Ibaibarriaga, Leire  

AZTI.  Marine  Research  Unit. 
Txatxarramendi  Ugartea  z/g.  E-
48395 Sukarrieta, Bizkaia. Spain. 

libaibarriaga@azti.es  

Jung, Armelle 

Knittweis, Leyla 

Kraak, Sarah  

Ligas, Alessandro 

Martin, Paloma  

Motova, Arina  

Moutopoulos, Dimitrios 

Nord, Jenny  

Prellezo, Raúl  

DRDH,  Techopôle  Brest-Iroise, 
BLP  15  rue  Dumont  d’Urville, 
Plouzane, France 

armelle.jung@desrequinse
tdeshommes.org  

Biology, 
Department 
University  of  Malta,  Msida,  MSD 
2080, Malta 

of 

Leyla.knittweis@um.edu.
mt  

Thünen  Institute  of  Baltic  Sea 
Fsheries,  Alter  Hafen  Süd  2, 
18069 Rostock, Germany.  

CIBM  Consorzio  per  il  Centro 
Interuniversitario 
di  Biologia 
Marina ed Ecologia Applic ata “G. 
Bacci”,  Viale  N.  Sauro  4,  57128 
Livorno, Italy 

CSIC  Instituto  de  Ciencias  del 
Mar  Passeig  Marítim,  37-49, 
08003 Barcelona, Spain 

sarah.kraak@thuenen.de 

ligas@cibm.it 

paloma@icm.csic.es 

Sea  Fish  Industry  Authority,  18 
Logie  Mill,  Logie  Green  Road, 
Edinburgh EH7 4HS, U.K 

arina.motova@seafish.co.
uk 

Animal 
Department 
Production, 
& 
Aquaculture, University of Patras, 
Rio-Patras, 26400, Greece 

of 
Fisheries 

dmoutopo@teimes.gr 

The  Swedish  Agency  for  Marine 
and Water Management (SwAM)  

Jenny.nord@havochvatten
.se 

AZTI  -Unidad  de  Investigación 
Marina,  Txatxarramendi  Ugartea 
z/g  48395  Sukarrieta  (Bizkaia), 
Spain 

rprellezo@azti.es 

O’Neill, Barry 

DTU Aqua, Willemoesvej 2, 9850 
Hirtshals, Denmark 

barone@aqua.dtu.dk  

63 

63 

 
 
 
  
Name 

Raid, Tiit  

Affiliation1 

Email 

Estonian 
Institute, 
Marine 
University of Tartu, Mäealuse 14, 
Tallinn, EE-126, Estonia 

Tiit.raid@gmail.com  

Rihan,  Dominic 
chair) 

(vice-

Sampedro, Paz 

Somarakis, Stylianos  

Stransky, Christoph  

BIM, 
Laoghaire, Co Dublin, Ireland 

Crofton 

Road,  Dun 

Institute 

Spanish 
of 
Oceanography,  Center  of  A 
Coruña, Paseo Alcalde F rancisco 
Vázquez,  10,  15001  A  Coruña, 
Spain 

Institute  of  Marine  Biological 
Resources  and  Inland  Waters 
(IMBRIW),  Hellenic  Centre  of 
Marine 
(HCMR), 
Research 
Thalassocosmos  Gournes,  P.O. 
Box  2214,  Heraklion  71003, 
Crete, Greece 

Thünen Institute [TI-SF] Federal 
Research 
for  Rural 
Institute 
Areas,  Forestry  and  Fisheries, 
Institute 
Sea 
Fisheries, Herwigstrasse  31,  D-
27572 Bremerhaven, Germany 

of 

Dominic.Rihan@bim.ie  

paz.sampedro@ieo.es  

somarak@hcmr. gr 

christoph.stransky@thuen
en.de 

Ulrich, Clara (chair) 

IFREMER, France 

Clara.Ulrich@ifremer.fr  

Uriarte, Andres 

Valentinsson, Daniel 

van Hoof, Luc  

Gestión 

AZTI. 
pesquera 
sostenible.  Sustainable  fisheries 
management. 
Arrantza 
kudeaketa  jasangarria,  Herrera 
Kaia  -  Portualdea  z/g.  E-20110 
Pasaia – GIPUZKOA (Spain) 

Swedish University of Agricultural 
Sciences  (SLU),  Department  of 
Aquatic Resources, Turistgatan 5, 
SE-45330, Lysekil, Sweden 

Wageningen  Marine  Research 
Haringkade  1,  Ijmuiden,  The 
Netherlands 

auriarte@azti.es 

daniel.valentinsson@slu.s
e 

Luc.vanhoof@wur.nl 

Vanhee, Willy  

Independent consultant 

wvanhee@telenet.be 

Villasante, Sebastian 

of  Santiago  de 
University 
Compostela, 
de 
Compostela,  A  Coruña,  Spain, 
Department of Applied Economics 

Santiago 

sebastian.villasante@usc.
es 

64 

64 

 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Vrgoc, Nedo 

Institute  of  Oceanography  and 
Fisheries,  Split,  Setaliste  Ivana 
Mestrovica  63,  21000  Split, 
Croatia 

vrgoc@izor.hr 

65 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXPERT WORKING  GROUP  EWG-22-05 REPORT 

REPORT TO THE STECF 

EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON  
Evaluation of Joint Recommendations on the 
landing obligation and on Technical Measures 
Regulation (EWG-22-05) 

Virtual meeting, 16-20 May 2022 

This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the STECF and the 
European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission’s 
future policy in this area 

66 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

Joint Recommendations on the landing obligation (exemptions) 
After consulting the relevant Advisory Councils, Member States cooperating at  sea -basin level 
may provide the Commission with joint recommendations requesting exemptions from the landing 
obligation.  Where  the  STECF’s  advice  is  positive,  the  Commission  adopts  delegated  acts 
implementing these joint recommendations into EU law, in accordance with Art icle 15(6) of  t he 
Common  Fisheries Policy3 (CFP). Where there is no multiannual plan for the fishery in quest ion, 
article  15(6)  of the CFP empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts laying down  on a 
temporary basis specific discard plans containing the exemptions. The six potential elements that 
can be contained in a discard plan are the following:  

  Definitions of fisheries and species  
  Provisions for survivability exemptions  
  Provisions for de minimis  exemptions  
  The fixation of minimum  conservation reference sizes  
  Additional technical measures needed to implement the landing obligation; and  
  The documentation of catches.  

The temporary discard plans under Article 15(6) with a maximum  of 6 years have expired in 2020 
or will expire in 2021 and have been or should be replaced by provisions adopt ed under art ic le 
15(5) and specified in multiannual plans. Under the existing multiannual plans, provisions 4 specify 
that  the  Commission  is  empowered  to  adopt  delegated  acts  following  Article  18  of  the  CFP 
(Regionalisation procedure). Currently, most of the delegated regulations specifying the details of  
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  have  been  adopted  by  the  Commission  under  the 
existing multiannual plans (Western Waters, the North Sea and Baltic).  

In 2022, the discard plan for turbot fisheries in the Black Sea will expire as well as the Delegat ed 
Regulation regarding the derogation for the MCRS of Venus shells (Venus spp.) For this year and 
EWG, there are nine joint recommendations to be expected, see annex 1 for more  det ail but  in 
summary: 

10)Landing obligation - Joint recommendation Western Waters. Discard plan valid until 2023. 
One  exemption  requiring  additional  information,  plus  several  extension  requests  for 
exemptions  granted  until  the  31st  of  December  2022,  and  (possibly)  two  new  high 
survivability derogations 

11)Landing obligation – joint recommendation North Sea. Valid until 2023 so only exemptions 

requiring additional information +  one request for a new exemption 

12)Landing  obligation  –  joint  recommendations  Southwestern  waters.  Valid  only  2023 

exemptions requiring additional information. 

3  Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, 
amending  Council  Regulations  (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and  (EC) 
No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22. 

4  Article  13,  Regulation (EU) 2019/472 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for stocks fi shed 
in  the  Western  Waters  and  adjacent  waters,  and  for  fisheries  exploiting  those  stocks,  amending  Regulations  (EU)  2016/1139  and   (EU) 
2018/973,  and  repealing  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  811/2004,  (EC)  No  2166/2005,  (EC)  No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007 and (EC)  No 
1300/2008 

4  Article  11,  Regulation  (EU) 2018/973 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 establishing  a multiannual plan for demersal stocks 
in  the  North  Sea  and  the  fisheries  exploiting  those  stocks, specifying details of the implementation of the landing obligatio n in the North Sea 
and repealing  Council Regulations (EC) No 676/2007 and (EC) No 1342/2008 

4  Article  7,  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1139  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  6  July  2016 establishing a multiannual  plan for the stocks of 
cod,  herring  and  sprat  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  the  fisheries  exploiting  those  stocks,  amending  Council  Regul ation  (EC)  No  2187/2005  and 
repealing  Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 

4  Article  14,  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1022  of  the  European  Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries 

exploiting demersal  stocks in the western  Mediterranean  Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 

67 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                              
13)Landing obligation – joint recommendation high survival exemption for plaice in the Balt ic  

Sea. New exemption. 

14)Landing obligation – joint recommendation turbot fisheries Black Sea. Valid until 2022. 
15)Landing obligation – joint recommendation demersal fisheries Western Mediterranean Sea. 
Valid  until  2024  so  only  exemptions  requiring  additional  information;  will  include  high 
survivability exemption request for Venus Shell 

16)Landing  obligation  – 

fisheries  south-eastern 
Mediterranean.  Valid  until  2024  so  only  de  minimis  exemptions  requiring  additional 
information (bycatch of small pelagics in demersal trawl fisheries) 

recommendation  demersal 

joint 

17)Landing  obligation  –  joint  recommendation  demersal  fisheries  Adriatic  Sea.  Valid  until 
2024  so  only  de  minimis  exemptions  requiring  additional  information  (bycatch  of  small 
pelagics in demersal trawl fisheries) 

18)Technical Measures – joint recommendation from NWW 

The  STECF  has  reviewed  the  joint  recommendations  prepared  by  the  regional  groups  of  MS 
annually since 2014-2018 on fisheries subject to the landing obligation in the subsequent year. 
The implementation of the landing obligation has entered fully into force as of  1 January 2019. 
STECF is requested through this working group to review and evaluate the Member St ates’ joint  
recommendations requesting either additional or continued (with additional scientific informat ion 
as requested by STECF) exemptions for >2023.  

Joint Recommendations on Technical Measures (Regulation) 
All amendments, supplements, repeal or derogations from technical measures will be based upon 
Article  15  of  the  Technical  Measures Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/1241). The entry into 
force of this Regulation resulted in the introduction of the process of regionalization in numerous 
fields as far as technical measures are concerned. In this process, t he regional groups should 
develop joint recommendations t hat would need to go through the STECF in order t o assess t o 
what extent the recommendation proposed goes in line with achieving the objectives set out  in 
the Regulation.  

Main elements of the joint recommendations to be considered by STECF  

Landing obligation - de Minimis and High Survivability  
The main elements that STECF should continue to evaluate are the additional exemptions f or de  
minimis or on the basis of high survivability for species subject to the landing obligation.  

In addition to any new exemptions, STECF should also review additional information supplied t o 
support  several  of  the  exemptions  granted  for  2022  but  with  the  provision  that the Member 
States concerned should submit further data to the Commission by 1 May 2022 to allow STECF to 
further assess these particular exemptions.  

Technical measures 
One joint recommendation from Italy regarding derogation of the MCRS of Venus shells (Venus 
spp.)  has  been  already  assessed in STECF PLEN 22-01. No joint recommendation on directed 
fishing is expected to be submitted. Any submitted joint recommendations on technical measures 
cover (one of) the following:  

  Measures  modifying  the  size  and  characteristics  of  fishing  gear  that  MS  may  wish  to 
implement in certain areas to increase selectivity and decrease the negative effects of  t he 
activity in the environment 

  Minimum  Conservation References Sizes for recreational fisheries 
  Mitigation measures for bycatch of certain sensitive species, suc h as c etaceans or sea 

birds 

  Definition  of  the  directed  fisheries  for  each  species  and  sea  basin,  with  a  deadline  of 

August 2020. 

68 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.1 

Terms of Reference for EWG-22-05 

Based on the previous evaluations of the STECF, the Ad-hoc c ontract 19- 01 on t emporary de 
minimis exemptions, the joint recommendations that will be submitted by Member States regional 
groups (see annex), the following draft terms of reference are proposed:  

STECF is requested to:  

Review  the  supporting  documentation  underpinning  exemptions  on  the  basis  of  high 

1. 
survivability in respect of:  

a.    Exemptions agreed for 2022 on the basis of high survivability where there was a requirement 
for further information to be supplied by 1 May 2022. In such cases, ST ECF  should assess t he 
quality of the information supplied and, where possible, provide a qualitative assessm ent of  t he 
ongoing efforts to address the needs for further information identified by STECF last year  

b.    New exemptions based on high survivability. In data poor situations, assess w hat f ur ther 
supporting  information  may  be  available  and  how  t his  could  be  supplied  in  the future (e.g., 
survival studies, tagging experiments).  

2. 
Review  the  supporting  documentation  (biological,  technical  and/or  economic)  for  de 
minimis exemptions on the basis that either increasing selectivity is very difficult t o achieve, or  
to avoid handling unwanted catches would create disproportionate cost in respect of:  

a.    The de minimis exemptions agreed for 2022 where t here w as a r equir ement f or f ur ther 
information to be supplied by 1 May 2022. In such cases, STECF should assess the quality of  t he 
information supplied and, where possible, provide a qualitative assessment of the ongoing efforts 
to address the needs for further information identified by STECF last year 

b.        New  de  minimis  exemptions.  In  data  poor  situations,  assess  what  further  supporting 
information  may  be  available  and how this could be supplied in the future (e.g. discard data 
collection, selectivity studies).  

As joint recommendations might be submitted on the basis of the Technic al Me asure s 
Regulation (TMR) and they will be reviewed in this same EWG, STECF is also reque sted 
to: 

On directed fishing definition, no joint recommendation is expected to be submitted for the NWW, 
the NS and SWW. Therefore, this evaluation is not included in this ToR.  

3) For any joint recommendations submitted on the elements of the TMR, the STECF is requested 
to: 

a.  Review  whether  there  is  sufficient  information  to  support  proposed  minimum 
conservation reference size(s) that deviate from existing minimum landing sizes, and w het her 
they are consistent with the objective of ensuring the protection of juveniles; as w ell t aken int o 
account Article 15(5) of the TMR stating mesh size specifications shall not lead to a deterioration 
of selectivity standards. 

b. Review the supporting documentation provided for technical m easures aim ed at  inc reasing 
gear  selectivity  for  reducing  or,  as  far  as  possible,  eliminating  unwanted  catches  including 
reducing fishing mortality on stocks in need of remedial measures for rebuilding biom ass. T his 
should  include,  if  relevant,  an  indication  of  where  further  selectivity  is  currently  difficult to 
achieve in a specific fishery, given the current state of technological developments.  

69 

69 

 
 
 
 
4)  Additionally, the STECF is requested to review the findings of the adhoc contract linked to this 
EWG ‘Summary  of information on possible socio-economic impact of the implement at ion of  t he 
landing obligation’, to be submitted by the selected expert by 11.05.2022 

STECF noted (22-01) that they may be able to, for example, provide som e updat ed lit er ature 
review of reports and publications of the socioeconomic impacts of the landing obligation, as w ell 
as providing a comprehensive overview on model-based conclusions from different scenarios and 
fisheries of implementing the landing obligation. That review could be performed through an ad -
hoc  contract,  and  later  summarised  and  included  in  the  next  EWG  dealing  with  the  landing 
obligation through a specific ToR for this group. This specific ad-hoc contract f ollow s up t o t he 
above suggestion. As there is no or only very limited information on the socio-economic impacts, 
the STECF suggested to provide a summary of information from literature or research projects as 
background document to be included in the ToR of the upcoming STECF EWG 22-05. This ad hoc  
contract should provide the group with some background information on the available information 
on possible socio-economic impacts of the landing obligation, linked to the c ont ent of  t he joint  
recommendations evaluated -specifically the de minimis exemptions. 

70 

70 

 
2 

MA IN ELEMENTS  OF THE DISCA RD PLA NS 

Based  on  the  terms  of  reference,  EWG  22-05  considered  multiple  existing  exemptions  for de 
minimis and high survivability which were granted on a temporary basis for one year f or w hic h, 
the Commission requested additional information from Member States. A limited number  of  new  
requests for de minimis and high survivability exemptions were also received.  

For the Mediterranean, three Joint Recommendations were submitted by the dif f erent regional 
groups  (SUDESTMED,  PESCAMED  and  ADRIATICA);  SUDESTMED  and  ADRIATIC  submitted 
additional supporting information relating to de minimis exemptions for pelagic spec ies c aught 
as  bycatch  in  demersal  fisheries  and  PESCAMED  for  high  survivability in dredge fisheries  for 
scallops and clams. A request for a high survivability exemption for turbot in the Black Sea w as 
also submitted by Romania and Bulgaria.  

EWG 22-05 also considered a Joint Recommendations on regional technical measures rec eived 
from  the  NWW.  This  was  in  the  context  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1241  which  establishes  a 
framework for technical measures for the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of 
marine ecosystems. Article 15 of this Regulation and corresponding annexes put in place technical 
measures at regional level and include an empowerment for the Commission to adopt delegat ed 
acts to amend, supplement, repeal or derogate from those technical measures. These delegated 
acts are based on Joint Recommendations submitted by Member States  concerned, in accordance 
with the regionalisation procedure described in Article 18 of the CFP.  

The number of exemptions proposed in the JRs for evaluation by EWG 22- 05 w as c omparable 
with  the  previous  submissions  in  2021  (EWG  21-05,  STECF  PLEN  21-02).  The  number  of 
individual exemptions proposed for introduction or continuation in 2022 was 49 compared w it h 
58 for 2021.  

Table 2.2.1 Number of recommendations by type and region evaluated by EWG 22-05  

De minimis 
exemptions  High Survivability exemptions  Technical Measures 

4 

4 

2 

1 

3 

1 

15 

1 

1 

Region 

NWW 

North Sea 

SWW 

BA LTIC 

PESCA MED 

SUDESTMED 

A DRIATIC 

BLA CK SEA  

10 

8 

13 

1 

1 

Total 

33 

71 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

EWG 22-05 OBSERVA TIONS 

Following from previous EWGs (EWGs 15-10, 16-10, 17-08, 18-06, 19-08, 20- 04 and 21- 05 as 
well as STECF PLEN 14-02 and 19-02) set up to evaluate the Joint Recommendations, STECF has 
repeatedly made some general observations relating to the Joint Recommendations submitted by 
the Regional Groups of Member States. Many of these remain valid. EWG 22-05 has split  t hese 
into general observations; observations relating to de minimis exemptions; observations relat ing 
to high survivability exemptions; and observations on technical measures. 

3.1  General Observations 

  As  in  2021,  EWG  22-05  recognises  that  for  2022  the  restrictions  imposed  due  to  the 
coronavirus pandemic created additional challenges to Regional Groups, t he Commission 
and the STECF in the preparation of proposals and supporting informat ion, as w ell as in 
the  collation  and  review  of  joint  recommendations. EWG 22-05 acknowledges this has 
severely limited the ability of the Member States to collect catch data as well as hindering 
research  work  to  support  exemptions and the testing of gear modifications to improve 
selectivity. 

  Additionally, in 2021 and 2022, EWG 22-05 recognises that the c onditions of  t he T rade 
and  Cooperation  Agreement  between  the  EU  and  UK  has  introduced  new  access 
arrangements to UK waters as well as different measures for Union vessels operating in 
UK waters. These new measures and arrangements have created f urt her dif f ic ulties f or 
Member States and the fishing industry in the implementation of the landing obligation.  

  EWG  22-05  reiterates  that  the  role of the EWG and any future STECF EWGs set up to 
evaluate  joint recommendations, should continue to be the evaluation of the scientific 
rigour  and  robustness of the underpinning information supplied by Member States. The 
EWG does not adjudicate on whether exemptions should be accepted or not. This remains 
the remit of DG MARE. 

  EWG 22-05 reiterates that the avoidance of unwanted catch through improved selec tivity 
or other means should be the primary focus in implementing the landing obligat ion. EWG 
22-05 recognizes that modifying selectivity can result in some reduction in revenue, b ut  
these should be viewed in the broader context of medium-term gains in  st oc ks and t he 
risk of choke events and the utilisation of quota to land low value catches. 

  EWG 22-05 recognises the progress made in supplying supporting inf ormat ion t o just if y 
exemptions and the volume of work that has been carried out to generate this information. 
However,  EWG  22-05  notes  that  for  the  2022  JR’s,  there  are  many  cases  where  the 
information  and  data  supplied  is  generic  with  the  justifications  based  on  information 
previously submitted. For some exemptions no supporting information has been provided 
at all. This makes providing a meaningful evaluation of the exemptions challenging and, in 
such cases, the previous observations of STECF remain relevant. 

  EWG 22-05 notes that the catch information presented to support many exemptions  lac ks 
consistency. In many cases it relates to different years, much wider areas than covered by 
the exemption or is not presented as absolute estimates but  as perc entages of  overall 
catch information for the relevant fishery. Therefore, EWG 22-05 reit erat es t he need t o 
improve the quality and consistency of catch data provided to support exempt ions. Suc h 
data is important to understand the relationship between the level of  pot ential disc ards 
under the requested exemptions and the actual level of unwanted catches in the relevant  
fishery and for the relevant stocks. This will allow STECF to make an assessment as to the 
level of risk of allowing discarding under exemptions will potentially have on the st atus of  
the stock or stocks involved. 

  EWG  22-05  notes  that  the  weaknesses  in the collection of catch documentation data 
consistently  reported  remain.  If  the  data  situation  does  not  improve  and  the  true 
quantities being caught as reported do not reflect the actual removals, it will likely  have a 
significant impact on the quality of scientific advice and may compromise the achievement  
of the MSY objective. The potential for this discrepancy is higher for de minimis  t han high 
survival exemptions because the actual discard amount may be substantially higher t han 

72 

72 

 
the  permitted  de  minimis  volume.  For  high  survival  exemptions,  this  risk  has  been 
mitigated to some extent by deducting the estimated dead discards associated w it h t he 
exemptions from the total allowable quota prior to allocation.  

  EWG 22-05 acknowledges that the use of CCTV and Remote Electronic Monit oring (REM) 
has  been  given  new  impetus, particularly in the North Sea with pilot studies in several 
fisheries. STECF recognises this technology provides a more effective way to monit or t he 
landing obligation and to generate catch evidence for science and compliance. 

  EWG  22-05  notes  that  many  of  the  existing  discard  plans  expire  at  the  end  of  2023, 
meaning  these exemptions will no longer apply unless renewed. In this context, STECF 
welcomes the intention of DGMARE to carry out a full review of the exemptions that are in 
place.  Such  a  review  would  help  to  determine  whether  the   exemptions  need  to  be 
amended or are still required given likely changes in catch patterns, gears used, vessels 
involved and uptake. However, in initiating such a review, EWG 22-05 stresses it  is vit al 
that Member States and the Advisory Councils understand what information is needed t o 
support this review and allow EWG 22-05 carry out a meaningful evaluation. 

3.2  Observations on de minimis exemptions 

  EWG 22-05 observes under Article 15 of the CFP Basic Regulation, Member States have a 
legal requirement to record all catches discarded under de minimis  exemptions. However, 
EWG  22-05  notes  that  in  many  cases  this  information  is  lacking  from  the  supporting 
information provided by Member States as evidenced by the limitations of the discard data 
contained in the FDI database. 

  EWG 22-05 notes for many exemptions the relationship between the de m inim is volume 
requested and the level of unwanted catches is unclear from the information provided t o 
support  the  exemption.  In  some  cases,  the  de  minimis  volume  covers  100%  of  the 
unwanted catches, usually in fisheries where the levels of unwant ed c atch are small. In 
other cases, the de minimis volume covers only a small part of the unwanted catches but  
the supporting information does not contain any indication of the measures to be taken t o 
reduce these residual unwanted catches. 

  EWG  22-05  acknowledges  the  substantial effort made by the Member State Groups to 
provide information and analyses on disproportionate costs since the int roduction of  t he 
landing  obligation.  However,  as  advised  by  STECF  in  2021,  given  the  difficulties  in 
assessing what level of costs is disproportionate, it would be more informative for Member 
States  to  describe  the  relationship  between  the de minimis volume requested and the 
actual level of unwanted catches This helps put the proposed exemption in the cont ext  of  
the fishery and the state of the stock(s) for which the exemption is covering. It provides a 
basis for STECF to assess the risk of the exemption on the relevant stocks covered by t he 
exemption. To  support  this,  EWG 22-05 considers that information to define the fleets 
impacted along with a clear description of the problem is required. Referenc ing previous 
economic data demonstrating the level of increased costs because of having to handle and 
store unwanted catches on board is useful. EWG 22-05 acknowledges the efforts made by 
several Member States groups to follow this approach in 2022, noting the limit at ions and 
inconsistencies in the catch information made available in many cases. 

  EWG  22-05  further  observes  that  EWG  21-05  requested  more  information  on  the 
methodology of the calculation of the economic impact assessment provided in 2020 and 
2021 to support many of the de minimis  exemptions in Southwestern waters. However, no 
additional information on the methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05 meaning 
the  outcomes  of  this  study  cannot  be  fully  assessed  in  the  context  of  assessing  the 
impacts of the landing obligation. 

  EWG 22-05 notes that Member States have continued to use a variety of ways to calculate 
de  minimis  volumes.  In  most  cases  for  single  species  de  minimis  exemptions,  a 
percentage (e.g., 5% or 7%) has been applied to the c atches of  t he relevant species. 
However, for several fisheries where the intention is to discard 100% of the catches (e.g. , 
boarfish in the NWW and whiting bycatch in demersal beam trawl fisheries the North Sea), 
catches from the entire fishery or for different species have been used as the basis for t he 
calculation.  EWG  22-05  has  commented  on  this  approach  in  the  relevant  exemption 

73 

73 

 
requests. However, the EWG cannot adjudicate whether this is a c orrect interpretation of  
Article 15 of the CFP Basic Regulation. 

  EWG 22-05 reiterates that in some cases where the unwanted catch of species subject t o 
the Landing Obligation are substantial, granting a de minimis of 5- 7% of  t he c atches of  
such  species  will  have little, most likely an unmeasurable effect on their overall fishing 
mortality and only a marginal  effect on the ability of the vessels c oncerned t o c ontinue 
fishing legally. It is likely that granting an exemption to discard 5%, will  ac hieve lit t le in 
terms of mitigating the costs of landing the other 95% of the unwanted catch. 

  EWG  22-05  reiterates  that  de  minimis  exemptions  can  provide an incentive for vessel 
operators  to  continue  discarding  unwanted  catches  at  sea  and  only  retain  unwanted 
catches on board if they are inspected on hauling, or to bring only permit t ed de m inim is  
quantities ashore on landing. 

  EWG 22-05 has identified areas where there are limitations in the information presented or 
the  methodologies  used  and, in some cases, where there  are inconsistences. In these 
cases, further clarification may be required. Where evidence is presented and show s t hat 
for example increasing selectivity results in losses of marketable fish, then t his is not ed, 
but whether this constitutes a technical difficulty is not  somet hing t hat  c an be readily 
answered by the EWG. Inevitably, improvements in selectivity result  in some degree of  
loss, and therefore some reduction in revenue. However, these should be view ed in t he 
broader context of medium-term gains in stocks and in the absence of  improvement s in 
selectivity, would the fishery be worse of in comparison due to choke effects and utilisation 
of quota for fish that have little or no value. 

  EWG 22-05 notes that for many de minimis  exemptions, particularly in SWW and NWW, 
the number of vessels that potentially could avail of this exemption is large ; the exemption 
covers  fisheries  where  different  gears  are  used  during  the  same  fishing  trip;  or  the 
exemption covers a very wide area. This means that the monitoring of discards under t he 
exemption is potentially challenging given that in these cases the volume of  disc ards per 
vessels is likely to be very low.  

  EWG  22-05  observes  as  in  previous  years,  the  de  minimis  exemptions  in  the 
Mediterranean are based on generic  justifications relating to improvements in selec tivit y 
being  difficult  to  achieve  as  well as disproportionate costs of handling such unwnated 
catches ashore. While there are indications that considerable selectivity work is ongoing, 
this has not translated into any concrete actions to date, other than actions undert aken 
put in place under other legislation (e.g., West Med Management Plan). 

3.3   Observations on high survivability exemptions 

  EWG  22-05  notes  that  limited  new  survivability  studies  have  been  carrie d  out  in 
2021/2022  presumably  due  to  Covid-19.  EWG  22-05  reiterates  that  assessing  what 
constitutes  high  survivability  remains problematic, which is made more complex by the 
limited  information  available  and the variability in the available survival estima tes. This 
means that judging the representativeness of individual or limited studies as an indic at or 
of discard survival across an entire fishery is difficult given the range of  f ac tors t hat c an 
influence survival and how they may vary in time even within a fishery. Examples of this in 
the latest JRs include the exemptions for bivalve mollusc species in the Mediterranean and 
skates and rays in NWW, SWW and the North Sea. 

  EWG  22-05  observes  that  vitality  data  in  some  cases  is  used to support high survival 
proposals.  This  is  due  to  the  relative  ease  and  low  cost  of  collecting  this  evidence 
compared with direct discard survival observations. Information on the health condition of  
fish  at  the  point  of  release  provides  useful  information  on  the  survival  potential  of 
discards. However, the proportion of fish alive at the point of release does not constitute a 
valid survival estimate due to the mortalities that are known to occ ur post -release. T he 
relationship  between  health  condition  and  survival  probability  can  be   established  by 
collecting survival estimates and vitality data in combination. Studies have demonstrated, 
within a fishery, fish assessed at different vitalities have signif ic antly dif f erent survival 
probabilities,  and  therefore  vitality  from  a  wider  sample  can  be  used  as  a  proxy  for 
survival.  However,  the  relationship  between  assessed  vitality  and  survival  probability 

74 

74 

 
varies  between  fisheries  and  studies  for  the  same  species.  There  is  still  insufficient 
evidence to use vitality as a proxy for survival, outside of the fisheries f rom w hic h t hese 
relationships have been generated, to provide discard survival estimates with meaningf ul 
levels of confidence. 

  EWG 22-05 observes that to date, survival and discard evidence and fleet  inf ormat ion is 
reported in a rather incoherent way that hindered assessment by the EWG. A case in point  
being skates and rays. Gaps remain in the evidence provided on conditions of the relevant 
fisheries (gear use, haul duration, seasonality, areas etc.) and catch data f or all Member 
States  to provide context for these exemptions. Such information is crucial in order to 
assess the representativeness of the different reported survival rat es and t o be able t o 
assess the effects of the exemption on the different ray stocks.  

  EWG 22-05 notes that several existing exemptions for plaice and sole continue to be linked 
to conditions such as restricting the exemption to fishing to certain depths, tow durat ions 
and to specific groups of vessels or specified selective gears. Such condit ions have been 
included in a new exemption for sole in NWW. While these factors may influence survival, 
there is no evidence of these conditionalities being applied by Member States. In prac t ice 
controlling and enforcing such measures to any degree will be challenging. A balanc e is 
needed between extrapolating the survival evidence from the conditions observed in t he 
studies, and the practical considerations of enforcing and complying w it h t he regulat ed 
measures. 

  EWG 22-05 notes that several survivability exemptions – plaice and rays and skates – are 
linked  to  roadmaps  setting  out  work  planned  to  develop  survival  estimates  and 
accompanying measures to increase survivability. There has been a positive response t o 
the  roadmaps  and  most  of  the  new  research  provided  is  relate d  to  the  roadmaps. 
However, EWG 22-05 reiterates that further clarity on the objectives f or t he roadmap is 
needed in order to facilitate an evaluation along with a timetable for the completion.  EWG 
22-05 would also encourage Member States to use their joint scientific capacity to compile 
and analyse previous and new data in a more systematic way to assist future EWGs assess 
the exemptions covered under the roadmap. 

 

EWG 22-05 reiterates the need to consider survivability in t he c ont ext  of  t he discard 
rate  for  the  fishery  seeking  an  exemption  (STECF  17-02),  highlighting  that  medium 
survival rates in high discarding fisheries still lead to high discard mortality rat es. ST ECF 
has also previously concluded (STECF 19-02) that unless surviving and dead disc ards are  
accounted for in stock assessments are accounted for in TAC setting, where survivabilit y 
exemptions are in place, the actual fishing mortality will not match the agreed catch level. 
EWG  22-05 reiterates the need for this to continue to be discussed in the  assessment 
forums for stocks with survival exemptions. 

3.4   Observations on technical measures 

 

EWG  22-05  notes  despite  many  experiments  to  test  selective  gears,  there  are  still 
relatively few examples of such gears being incorporated into the JRs submit t ed. W here 
there  is  no  specific legislation making the use of selective gears mandatory, uptake of 
selective gears remains extremely low even in fisheries where unwanted c atches remain 
high.  

  EWG 22-05 reiterates that while extensive work has been carried out  on  selec t ivity, f or 
some regions, this work has been uncoordinated and not necessarily targeted at the right  
fisheries. A review of the work completed to identify what works and what does not, along 
with detailing the gaps in knowledge would help to channel further experiment s int o t he 
appropriate fisheries.  

  EWG 22-05 notes that while in previous years some exemptions were predic ated on t he 
use of selective gears, no such exemptions where there was such a requirement  inc luded 
in the exemption have been proposed for 2020 or 2021. 

  EWG  22-05 notes it is important to strengthen the linkage of exemptions to the use of 
selective gears as is the case for several existing exemptions. This would provide great er 
confidence that the exemption is not just a means to maintain “business as usual” in  t he 

75 

75 

 
relevant  fishery  and  that  improvements  in  selectivity  are  being  given  derious 
consideration. 

  EWG  22-05  acknowledges  there  are  indications  of  various  experiments  with  lights  to 
reduce  unwanted  catches.  Consolidating  the  findings  of  these  experiments  into  one 
review  would  be  helpful  to  understand  whether  using  lights  has  potential  to  reduce 
unwanted catches, for which species and in which fisheries.  

4 

EVA LUA TION OF REGIONA L JOINT RECOMMENDA TIONS 

4.1   Structure of Advice – de minimis exemptions 

In  assessing  each  of  the  de  minimis  exemptions  requested,  EWG  22-05  has  based  their 
evaluation on the following three elements as described in STECF PLEN 20-04: 

1.  Information based on the STECF template that defines the fisheries involved. T his s hould 
include the number of vessels; relevant catch data; indicative discard rates; and estimated 
volumes of de minimis requested. 

2.  Explanation why the de minimis exemption is needed, putting it in the context of the level 
of unwanted catches in the fishery. This demonstrates whether the exemption is required 
to cover residual unwanted catches following improvements in selectivity, as a “stop-gap” 
while  further  selectivity  or  avoidance  measures  are  developed  or  to  reduce 
disproportionate costs from handling and sorting unwanted catches on board. 

3.  The scientific evidence that underpins the exemption, including a summary  of the relevant  

supporting studies and experiments in the JR as well as plans for future work.  

EWG  16-06  provided  a  template  for  provision  of  information  relating  to  the  fisheries  for  de 
minimis  exemptions  and  for  survivability  exemptions  (See Annex I).  Very few Member States 
have used these templates in their JRs in 2022. However, providing dat a in a harmonised w ay 
greatly helps the evaluation process. 

Regarding the underpinning information for de minimis exemptions, EWG 22-05 has based t heir 
observations on the approaches of previous STECF evaluations of the JRs as well as t he general 
principles  described  by  STECF  PLEN  19-01  on  the  development  of  criteria  for  reviewing  de 
minimis requests. Additionally, in relation to disproportionate costs, EWG 22-05 has c onsidered 
the  observations  and  conclusions  of  STECF PLEN 21-01 that highlighted that regional groups 
should support requests for exemptions c onsidering the following: 

  Description of the problem – Why are the costs considered disproportionate.  
  Why is selectivity hard to improve? 
  The fleets and fishery involved – needs to include information for all Member St at es and 

include best available catch (landings plus discards) data 

  Justification and supporting information – summary  of relevant studies carried out  
 

Impact/risk of the exemption in the context of the fishery – showing the risk  of  grant ing 
the exemption in the overall context of the fishery regarding by catch species is low. 

PLEN  21-01  also  highlighted  that  a  reasonable  estimate  where  possible  backed  by  available 
economic data would be beneficial. The types of data needed ideally would include:  

  Characteristics of the vessels involved in the fishery,  

  Estimates of working time per day for handling the bycatch or necessary storage capacity,  

  Necessity for an extra person on board to handle the bycatch (may be not possible due t o 

safety regulations),  

 

Information  on  cost  structure  and  revenues  (specified  for  the  respective  fisheries  or 
specific  information  about  seasonality  of  the  activities  of  the  fleet  involved  in  case 
exemptions are requested for specific times of the year) of involved fleet segment s (e.g. , 
personal costs compared to revenue, etc.).  

76 

76 

 
4.2  Structure of Advice – high survivability 

In  the  case  of  high  survivability  exemptions,  EWG  21-05  has  provided  advice  based  on  the 
following elements (see also Annex I): 

1.  Exemption status  
2.  Survival evidence 
3.  Fishery context 
4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 
5.  Additional evidence and work planned 

As there were few new survival studies, EWG 22-05 has not used the critical review  f ramew ork 
developed by ICES Workshop on Methods for Estimating Discard Survival (WKMEDS) on how  t o 
conduct  discard  survival  assessments  to  assess  the  survival  data  provided  to  support  the 
exemptions. However, EWG 22-05 reiterates this is a useful framework that allows review  of  t he 
reliability of survival estimates derived from survival experiments. The template used is show n in 
Annex  II. There are more details on the critical review process available in the ICES WKMEDS 
meeting reports (ICES, 2016). 

4.3  Survivability of skates and rays – General considerations 

EWG 22-05 observes that the new information provided for 2021, in combination with the further 
studies  planned will greatly increase the knowledge on the survival of skates and rays across 
species, gears and regions. 

EWG 22-05 notes that there is further evidence that survival experiments carried out  show  t hat 
for several ray species (e.g., cuckoo ray), mortalities are protracted suggesting that keeping rays 
in captivity may risk underestimat ing survival in captive trials. This requires further investigation 
to confirm this is the case. 

EWG 22-05 highlights that in the absence of complete fishery inf ormat ion on t he c atches and 
discards  of the skate and ray species covered under this inclusive exemption, and the fishing 
conditions  by all vessels to which these exemptions apply, the representativeness of survival 
evidence and the implications for these stocks cannot be fully assessed. EWG 22-05 observes that 
Member States should make efforts to improve catch data for skates and rays , not  only in t he 
context of the landing obligation but also for wider management.  

EWG 22-05 noted that skate and ray survival rates can be highly variable bet w een species and 
fisheries. EWG 22-05 notes that the new estimates provided from the NWW group are similar  t o 
previous  estimates survival and is much lower (range between 14-23%) than other larger ray 
species. This is of particular concern, given that the limited discard data provided t o EWG 2 2- 05 
suggests that discards are quite high (range between 27-39%). 

EWG 22-05 reiterates that to enable more efficient evaluations and ensure that all new evidence 
is utilised fully, regional groups should report in the context of the agreed roadmap. T his should 
detail progress against the three main tasks: i) quantifying catches and discards per spec ies and 
métier; ii) generating new discard survival evidence; and iii) stakeholder led adoption of codes of  
best practice to maximize discard survival. 

4.4   Survivability of plaice – General considerations 

EWG 22-05 acknowledges that since 2019, progress has been made in increasing the know ledge 
of plaice survivability. Additionally, considerable work has begun in the Nort h Sea and NWW on 
the   estimation of catch volumes and composition, by development of systems and protocols f or 
self-reporting  and  automated  video  analysis.  Research on ways to improve selectivity is also 
ongoing.  No  concrete results have been presented to date, but the preliminary findings seem 
encouraging for some of the gear modifications tested.  

EWG 22-05 reiterates the observations of EWG 18-06, 19-08, 20-04 and 21-05 that the evidence 
submitted to support survival exemptions for plaice highlights that survivabilit y in most  of  t he 
fisheries  for  which exemptions are in place is affected by many factors and is highly variable. 
STECF has previously noted that given the relatively high estimated discard rates and relat ively 
low survival rates in some fisheries, it is likely that significant quantities of plaice discarded may 
not survive. This remains the case. 

77 

77 

 
For  the  latest  JRs  assessed  by  EWG  22-05,  Member  States  have  proposed  one  new  plaice 
exemption for the Baltic Sea. With these exemptions granted, it effectively means that almost  all 
plaice catches in otter trawl, seine net and beam trawl fisheries in NWW, the Nort h Sea  and t he 
Baltic are covered by a high survivability exemption. EWG 22-05 restates that the motivation f or 
the proposed work is to mitigate against the economic costs of landing high volumes of unwanted 
plaice. It is further noted that for beam trawlers, the justification for survivability exempt ion f or 
plaice  continues  to  be  based  on  the  potential  for  improving  survival  and  selectivity,  but  on 
variable estimates of survival. 

For  high  survivability  exemptions,  STECF  has  previously  emphasised  the  need  to  consider 
estimates of survivability in the context of the discard rate for the fishery seeking an exempt ion 
(STECF 17-02). It has been highlighted that medium survival rates in high  disc arding f isheries 
still lead to high discard mortality rates. STECF note that unless surviving discards are accounted 
for in stock assessments and dead discards are accounted for in TAC setting w hen survivabilit y 
exemptions are in place, the actual fishing mortality will not match the agreed catch level. EWG 
22-05 reiterates that introducing discard survival estimates is something which should continue to 
be  discussed  in  the  assessment  forums  for  more  stocks  and  especially  plaice,  given  the 
proliferation of exemptions. 

For the exemptions for beam trawls in the North Sea and NWW, EWG 22- 05 observes t hat t he 
current  survival  estimates  are  still  highly  variable and only relevant for the larger beam trawl 
vessels. No new information has been provided for smaller vessels with less than 221KW engine 
power  since  the  exemptions  were  put  in  place.  There  is  also  only  limited  and  inconclusive 
information on the effectiveness of the Flip-up rope and the Benthic Release Panel t o improve 
survivability.  The use of these devices is specified in the Delegated Act as a condition of the 
exemption. However, if these devices are not effective in increasing survivability, then t he value 
of making  them a condition of the exemption is questionable even though they may have ot her 
benefits not related to survivability.  

5 

NORTH SEA – OVERVIEW OF JOINT RECOMMENDA TIONS 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2440 established a discard plan for ce rtain demersal 
fisheries  in  the  North  Sea  and  in  Union  waters  of  ICES  Division  2a.  Based  on  new  Joint 
Recommendations for the North Sea submitted by the regional group of Member States this plan 
has  been  updated  several  times,  most  recently  by  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2020/2014 as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2062. 

Additionally, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014 established a discard plan f or 
certain  small  pelagic  fisheries  and  fisheries  for industrial purposes in the North Sea. This was 
amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/189, which extended the exempt ions 
established under the original discard plan, while also adding some additional exemptions. T hese 
exemptions relating to pelagic fisheries were assessed by EWG 22-05. 

In 2022, a Joint Recommendation has been submitted by the Member States. This c onsolidates 
the main elements of Regulation (EU) 2020/2014. It provides additional information on twelve of  
the  existing  exemptions,  both  de  minimis  and  high  survivability.  One  request  for  a  new  de 
minimis  exemption is included.  

It should be noted that the discard plan in its entirety expires at the end of 2023. Therefore, all of 
the exemptions, other than several exemptions with an expiry date at t he end of  2022, w ill  no 
longer apply after 2023 pending the submission of a new discard plan by the Scheveningen Group 
in 2023. 

The  main  elements  of  these  JR’s  and  which  of  these  have been assessed by EWG 22-05 are 
summarised in table 5.1. 

Table 5.1 Main elements of the Joint Recommendations submitted for the North Sea 

Elements 

Pelagic or Demersal 
discard plan 

Status and relevant 
Article in current 
discard plan 

Assessment by 
EWG 22-05 with 
relevant Annexes 

78 

78 

 
 
De minimis 

Demersal 

Common  sole caught with 
gillnets and trammel nets 
in  in  Union  waters  of 
ICES divisions 2a and 3a, 
and ICES subarea 4 

in JR 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Existing and 
unchanged  

Article 11(1) 

Existing and 
unchanged  

Article 11(2) 

Existing and 
unchanged  

Article 11(3) 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Common  sole  caught  by 
beam trawls with a mesh 
size  of  80-119mm  with 
increased  mesh  sizes  in 
the  extension  of  the 
beam 
ICES 
subarea 4 

trawl 

in 

Sole, 
cod,  haddock, 
saithe,  whiting  and hake 
caught  in  the  Nephrops 
fishery  using  bottom 
trawls  with  a  mesh  size 
equal to or larger than 70 
mm  equipped  with  a 
species-selective  grid  in 
Union  waters  of  ICES 
division 3a 

plaice, 

Sole,  haddock,  whiting, 
saithe, 
cod, 
herring,  Norway  pout, 
greater  silver  smelt  and 
blue whiting below MCRS 
caught  in  the  Pandalus 
fishery  using  bottom 
trawls  with  a  mesh  size 
equal to or larger than 35 
mm  equipped  with  a 
species  selective  grid, 
and  with  unblocked  fish 
outlet, in Union waters of  
ICES division 3a 

Whiting  below  MCRS 
caught  in  bottom  trawls 
90-119mm  with  SELTRA 
panels and bottom trawls 
with  a  mesh  size  of 
120mm  and  above 
in 
Union  waters  of  ICES 
division in 3a 

Bycatch  of  plaice  below 
MCRS  in fisheries c aught 
in  the  Nephrops  trawl 
fishery  with  a  mesh  size 
≥  80-99mm  with  a 

Demersal 

Existing and 
unchanged  

Article 11(4) 

Not assessed 

Demersal 

Existing and 
unchanged  

Article 11(5) 

Not assessed 

Demersal 

Existing and 
unchanged  

Article 11(6) 

Not assessed 

79 

79 

 
SEPNEP  in  ICES  subarea 
4  

All fish species caught in 
the  Brown shrimp fishery 
in 
using  beam 
Union  waters  of  ICES 
divisions 4b and 4c: 

trawls 

Ling  below  MCRS caught 
using bottom trawls w it h 
a  mesh  size  equal  to  or 
greater  than  120  mm  in 
Union  waters  of  ICES 
subarea 4 

Whiting  below  MCRS 
caught in mixed demersal 
fisheries by vessels using 
bottom  trawls  or  seines 
with a mesh size of 70-99 
mm  in  Union  waters  of 
ICES  divisions  4a and 4b

Bycatch  of 
industrial 
species  caught  using 
bottom trawls, seines and 
in  ICES 
beam 
subarea 4 

trawls 

Ling  below  MCRS caught 
using  longlines  in  ICES 
subarea 4 

Horse  mackerel  caught 
trawls, 
using  bottom 
seines  and  beam  trawls 
with a mesh size between 
80  and  99  mm  in  ICES 
subarea 4 

Mackerel  caught  using 
bottom trawls, seines and 
beam trawls with a mesh 
size  between  80  and  99 
mm  in ICES subarea 4 

Mackerel, 
horse 
mackerel,  herring  and 
whiting  in  the  pelagic 
fishery  carried  out  by 
pelagic trawlers up t o 25 
meters  in  ICES  area  4b 
and c south of 54 degrees 
north  

Demersal 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Pelagic  

80 

80 

Existing and 
unchanged  

Article 11(7) 

Existing and 
unchanged  

Article 11(8) 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Existing and 
unchanged 

Article 11(10) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Existing and 
unchanged  
Article 11(13) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 11(14) 

Existing and 
unchanged  
Article 11(15) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Existing and 
unchanged  

Article 11(16) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 11(12) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

 
 
 
  
 
 
Blue  whiting  caught  by 
industrial pelagic trawlers 
in ICES subarea 4 

Northern  prawn  caught 
with demersal trawls and 
seines  using  mesh  sizes 
above  70mm 
in  ICES 
division 3a and subarea 4 

Whiting  below  MCRS  in 
demersal  mixed  fisheries 
using beam trawls wit h a 
mesh  size  of  80-119 mm 
in  Union  waters  of  ICES 
subarea 4 

in 

Cod  and  whiting  below 
MCRS  caught 
the 
mixed  demersal  fishery 
using  bottom  trawls  or 
seines  of  mesh  size  70-
99 mm  in Union waters of 
ICES division 4c  

Nephrops  caught  with 
pots; bottom trawls w it h 
a cod-end larger than 80 
mm  or  a  cod-end  with  a 
mesh  size  of  at  least  70 
mm  equipped  with  a 
species selective grid; or 
a  cod-end of at least 35 
mm  equipped  with  a 
species  selective  grid  in 
Union  waters  of  ICES 
divisions  2a,  3a  and 
subarea 4 

sole 

below 
Common 
MCRS caught with bottom 
trawls  with  a  cod  end 
mesh  size  of  80-99  mm 
in ICES division 4c  

Fish bycatch in pot s and 
fyke nets in Union waters 
of  ICES  division  3a  and 
ICES subarea 4 

Plaice  caught  with nets; 
Danish  seines;  bottom 
trawls with a mesh size of 
at least 120 mm  in winter 
months 
1 
November  to  30  April)  in 

(from 

Pelagic  

Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 11(17) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Demersal 

New exemption 

Assessed based on 
new information  

Demersal 

Demersal 

Expiry date end of 
2021 

Article 11(9) 

Not assessed 

Expiry date end of 
2021 

Article 11(11) 

Not assessed 

High Survivability 

Demersal 

Existing  

Article 3 

Not assessed 

Existing 

Article 4  

Existing 

Article 5  

Existing 

Article 6 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Demersal 

81 

81 

 
 
  
Union  waters  of  ICES 
division 3a and subarea 4 

Plaice 
below  MCRS 
caught with beam t raw ls 
with  a  mesh  of  80-
119mm  in  Union  waters 
of  ICES  division  2a  and 
ICES subarea 4 

Turbot caught with trawls 
with  a  cod  end  larger 
than  80mm 
ICES 
subarea 4 

in 

and 

rays 
Skates 
(Rajiformes) caught w it h 
all  gears 
in  Union 
in 
waters  of  ICES  divisions 
2a, 3a and subarea 4) 

Mackerel  and  herring 
caught with purse seines 
under  certain  conditions 
in  ICES  division  3a  and 
subarea 4 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Pelagic  

Annual based on 
information provided 
by 1 May every year 
Article 7 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Annual based on 
information provided 
by 1 May every year 
with expiry date at the 
end of 2022 

Article 8 

Annual based on 
information provided 
by 1 May every year 
Article 9 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Existing 

Article 10 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

5.1  De minimis exemptions 

A  summary  of  the  fishery  information  applicable  to  the  proposed  new  or  revised  de  minimis 
exemptions is provided in Table 6.1.1.  

Table 6.1.1 Summary of de minimis  exemptions submitted as part of the NWW Joint 
Recommendations (restricted to new or revised exemptions). 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Whiting  below  MRCS 
caught  in  the  mixed 
demersal  fisheries  by 
vessels  using  bottom 
trawls  or  seines  in 
ICES  divisions  4a  and 
4b  which  shall  not 
exceed  4  %  of  the 
total annual catches of 
whiting 
Article 
– 
11(10)  of  Regulation 
(EU) No 2020/2014. 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until  31 
December  2022  (Article  11  (10)  of  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2014).  

Prior  to  2021,  the  exemption  was  granted  under  article  10(f)  of 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/2238.  This  exemption  was  prolonged  for  the 
years 2021 and 2022 on the basis of Article 11(10) of Regulation (EU) 
No 2020/2014. 

The  JR  requests  the  continuation  of  this  de  minimis  exemption  for 
2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated catch data and fishery information has been provided by t he 
Scheveningen  Group  for  France  and  Germany.  German  landings  in 
2020  were  39.2  tonnes  and  2.3  tonnes  in  2021  based  on  logbook 
data. Germany did not conduct any on board observer t rips in 2020  
and  2021  due  to  Covid.  Germany  reports  that  it  did  not  use  the 
exemption in 2020 or 2021. 

82 

82 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
France provided information for bottom trawlers and seiners operating 
in  ICES  divisions  4b,  4c  and  7d,  7e  and  7g.  According  to  the  JR, 
France had a total of 162 bott om trawlers (114 < 18m  and 48 > 18m) 
operating  in  the  Southern  North  Sea  and  Eastern Channel in 2019. 
The Danish seine fleet comprises 12 vessels. Both fleets t arget a mix 
of high value non-quota species (red mullet, cephalopods) and low er 
value  whiting  and  rays.  The  catch  data  provided  is  limited  due  to 
Covid  and  Brexit.  According to the data provided in the JR, in 2019 
the two French fleets had total catches 24,277 tonnes with discards of  
9393  tonnes.  Whiting        discards  were  3,945  tonnes  or  42%  of 
discards.  The data provided relates to ICES divisions 4b, 4c  and 7d, 
7e and 7g and therefore covers a wider area than the area def ined in 
the exemption. Based on logbook data for 2021, the JR also report s 
that  estimated  total  French  whiting  catches  from  4a  and  4b  were 
59.62 tonnes with discards of 0.3 tonnes or 0.6 %.  

No information is provided for other Member States, but it is assumed 
they do not avail of this exemption. 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The  justification  is  unclear  in  the  JR,  but  EWG  22-05 assumes it is 
unchanged from 2019 and 2020 (as assessed by EWG 19-08 and EWG 
20-04)  on  the  grounds  of  disproportionate  costs  due  to  handling 
unwanted  catches  and  on  difficulties  to  achieve  improvements  in 
selectivity in these fisheries.  

The JR notes that new technical measures were implement ed due t o 
Brexit.  UK  Legislation  requires  vessels fishing in British fishery limits 
of ICES IIa south of 64° north latitude and east of 4° west  longit ude 
(Norwegian Sea), of ICES VI (West of Scotland) or of ICES IV (Nort h 
Sea),  must  use  a  square-mesh  panel of not less than 90 mm when 
fishing  with  a  mesh  size  in  the  range  70 to 119mm. The JR reports 
French  vessels  operat ing  both  in  EU  and  UK  waters,  keep  this 
selectivity device installed when fishing in EU waters. No inf ormat ion 
is  available  on  the  effectiveness  of  this  gear  modification  in  the 
relevant fisheries. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

The  JR  reports on a study carried out by France called SELUX. The 
project is focusing on artisanal trawlers operating in the Sout h of  t he 
North Sea and in the English Channel and targeting demersal species. 
Two types of light devices were tested: the Brezglow and the PISCES, 
and  each  with  different  conditions  (day/night, seasons, flashing or 
not).  The  behaviour  of  horse-mackerel,  mackerel  and  whiting  was 
observed, and the results showed that whiting and mac kerel t end t o 
behave  in  a  light-averse  manner.  The  JR  indicates  that  other 
configurations  of  lights  could  be  tested  in  the  future,  although  no 
detail is provided.  

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Limited  new  information  has  been  provided  other  than  partial 
information  on  catches  and fleets. This information does not relate 
solely to the area covered by this exemption but a much w ider area. 
The majority of the catches in the fisheries appears t o be f rom ICES 
division  4c  and  7d.    In  this  regard,  the  impact  of  this  exemption 
cannot be assessed and the previous observations made by EWG  19 -

83 

83 

 
 
 
 
08 and 20-04 remain relevant. 

Additionally, estimates of discards reported in logbooks are provided. 
However, these estimates show very low catches and discards, w hen 
compared  to  the  catch  information  provided  for 2019 which shows 
high catches and discards of whiting. Theref ore, it  is not  c lear how  
reliable these estimates are of catches and discards, noting the issues 
with  deploying  on  board  observers  due  to  Covid  has  limited  data 
collection. 

Catch  information  suggests  the  discarding in these fisheries is high 
with nearly 4,000 tonnes of whiting discarded in 2019. Noting the data 
refers  to  a  much  wider  area,  nonetheless  it  would  seem  the  de 
minimis  catch requested covers only a part of the unwanted catches in 
the fisheries and improving selectivity in the fisheries should remain 
the priority. 

The information on fish behaviour to light opens new possibilit ies f or 
selectivity trials and further work is encouraged. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Mackerel, 
horse 
mackerel,  herring 
and  whiting  in  the 
pelagic  fishery carried 
out by pelagic trawlers 
up  to  25  meters  in 
ICES  divisions  4b  and 
4c south of 54 degrees 
north  which  shall  not 
exceed 1% of the total 
of 
catches 
these 
in  pelagic 
species 
fisheries 
-  Article 
11.12  of  Regulation 
(EU) No 2020/2014 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until  31 
December  2022.  (Article  11.12  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  2020/2014. 
Prior to 2021, the exemption was already granted under article 3(a) of 
(EU)  delegated  regulation  1395/2014  for  2015  and  2016,  and then 
extended for 2018-2020 under article 3a.  

It  was  re-assessed  by  STECF  (report  20-04)  on  the  basis  of  new 
information submitted and granted until the 31 December 2022.  T he 
JR seeks the continuation of this exemption for 2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated catch data and fishery information has been provided by t he 
Scheveningen Group covering the French fleet involved in the fishery. 
The data mainly relates to 2019, although some data is presented f or 
2020. Information has also been provided for Sweden. However, it  is 
unclear  whether  they  participated  in  the  fishery  covered  by  the 
exemption. Germany indicated it does not participate in this fishery.    

The  exemption  allows  for  the  discarding  of  a  combined quantity of 
mackerel, horse mackerel, herring and whiting, up to 1% of t he t ot al 
annual catches of those species in the pelagic fisheries of  t he F rench 
artisanal  fleet.  The  French  artisanal  pelagic  fishery  comprises  ten 
vessels of under-25m refrigerated vessels, targeting mackerel, herring 
and sardine. It is assumed horse mackerel and whiting are c aught as 
bycatch in the fishery.   

The gears used are pelagic trawls (OTM and PTM). However, different 
gears (OTB) can also be used during a fishing trip. Those fishing t rips 
are  then  considered  as  mixed  trips.  The  exemption  only  covers 
unwanted catches from pelagic trawls. There is separate de minimis 
exemptions under the current Delegated Act for unwanted catches of  
mackerel and horse mackerel in demersal trawl fisheries in t he same 
area,  but  it  is  not  clear  whether  the  same  vessels  avail  of  both 
exemptions.  

According to the catch data presented for herring, mac kerel, h orse 
mackerel  and  whiting,  catches  combined  for  the  French  artisanal 
pelagic  trawlers  in  2019  were  8,357  tonnes.  Thus,  in  2020  a  de 
minimis  of  1%  would  have allowed a maximum volume of discard by 

84 

84 

 
 
 
French vessels using OTM and PTM of 83.57 tonnes. As no dist inc tion 
is made between pelagic and bottom trawls in the ObsMer 2020 dat a, 
it is likely this is an overestimate of the discards from the pelagic trawl 
fishery. The information indicates that the disc ard rat e in t he OT M -
PTM fishery decreased from 2019 to 2020 from 5.8% of total c atches 
in 2019 to 1.2% in 2020.   

Horse  mackerel  and  whiting  would  appear  to  make  up  most  of  the 
unwanted catches in the fishery (66% in 2019 and 99% in 2020). This 
is different to the data presented in 2020 to EWG 20-04 which showed 
whiting was the main species discarded by these vessels. Lit t le or no 
unwanted catches of herring and mackerel are reported. They are tw o 
of the main target species in the fishery.  

The JR states that a 1% de minimis  would offer the flexibilit y needed 
by  artisanal  pelagic  trawlers  to  face  the  variability  of  catch 
composition depending on fishing operation. However, w it hout more 
recent  catch  data  it  is  not  possible  for  EWG  22-05  to  assess  the 
volume of the species combined to which this equates. No estimate of  
the uptake of the de minimis  volume since its’ introduction in 2015 is 
provided. 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification is unchanged from 2020 (as assessed by EWG 20-04) 
on the grounds of disproportionate costs due t o handling unw ant ed 
catches and on difficulties to achieve improvement s in selec t ivit y in 
these fisheries. The JR emphasizes that the economic s of the  landing 
obligation in the OTM artisanal fishery is difficult to approach because 
the fleet activity is generally mixed  with demersal fishing operat ions 
during  the  same fishing trip. References to historic selectivity trials 
and  the  EODE  project  on  disproportionate  costs  previously  made 
available to EWG 19-04 and 20-04 are included as justification. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional work is planned. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Limited  new  information  has  been  provided  other  than  partial 
information on catches and fleets. Therefore, an assessment  of  t he 
impact  of  this  exemption  cannot  be  completed  and  the  previous 
observations made by EWG 19-04 and 20-04 remain relevant. 

The new catch information provided in the JR indic at es in 2019, t he 
estimated discard rate for the OTM-PTM fishery was 5.8%, decreasing 
to 1.2% in 2020. It is not clear if this figure is based on total discards 
from the fishery or just the four species listed under the exemption.  

According to the observer data presented, horse mackerel and whiting 
are  the  main  species  discarding  in  2019  and  2020  (horse  mackerel 
made  up  53%  and  28%  and  whiting  13%  and  71%  respect ively). 
Discards of herring and mackerel are reported to be minimal,  and it  is 
not clear why these species are included in the exemption, if the issue 
is  principally  to  cover  unwanted  catches  of  whiting  and  horse 
mackerel. 

Vessels  availing  of  the  exemption  use  both  pelagic  and  demersal 
trawls  on  the  same  fishing  trips  and  sometimes  on  the  same  day. 
However,  it  is  unclear  how unwanted catches discarded under this 

85 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
exemption can be distinguished from unwanted catches c aught w it h 
bottom trawls without specific control measures in place.  

With respect to difficulties in improving the gear selectivity in F renc h 
artisanal  small  pelagic  fisheries,  the  JR  states  that the low discard 
rates  are  due  to their selective nature and the fact that fishermen 
already  adopt  voluntarily  spatio-temporal  measures  to  avoid 
unwanted  catches.  It  is  not  clear  what  kind  of  spatio-temporal 
avoidance measures are meant here. 

The  justification  for  the  exemption  assumes  that  the  unwanted 
catches  are  insignificant  in  the  pelagic  fisheries  and  options  to 
improve selectivity have been exhausted. Recognising that a chieving 
additional selectivity improvements would be difficult in such fisheries 
and the costs for sorting would be high given the nature of the species 
and  fisheries  involved,  this  c annot  be  fully  assessed  from  the 
information supplied. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Sprat, 
sandeel, 
Norway  pout  and 
blue  whiting  caught 
in  the  demersal  mixed 
fisheries  with  trawls 
and  the  fishery  for 
Northern  prawn 
in 
ICES  division  3a  and 
ICES  subarea  4 which 
shall  not  exceed  a 
combined  quantity  of 
1%  of  sprat,  sandeel, 
Norway  pout and blue 
whiting,  which  shall 
not exceed 1 % of t he 
total annual catches in 
the relevant fisheries - 
Article 
of 
Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2014 

11(13) 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until  31 
December2022  (Article  11  (13)  of  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2014).  

Prior  to  2021,  the  exemption  was  granted  under  Article  10(m)  of 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/2238.  This  exemption  was  prolonged  for  the 
years 2021 and 2022 on the basis of Article 11(13) of Regulation (EU) 
No 2020/2014. 

The  JR  requests  the  continuation  of  this  de  minimis  exemption  for 
2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Detailed  catch  and  fishery  information  has  been  provided  by  the 
Scheveningen  Group  covering  Denmark  and  Sweden  as  the  two 
Member  States  participating  in  the  relevant  mixed  demersal  and 
Northern prawn fisheries. 

The information provided by Denmark and Sweden show  234 Danish 
and  99 Swedish vessels operated in the fisheries in  2021. Based on 
the detailed catch data from the Danish observer sampling program 
the bycatch of the industrial species covered by t he exempt ion w as 
very  low.  The  combined  discards  by  Danish  vessels  in  2021  was 
estimated at 240 tonnes from total combined Danish landings f or t he 
four  industrial  species  of  413,463  tonnes,  representing  a negligible 
discard rate of 0.05 %. The Swedish data shows total catches of  187 
tonnes with the vast majority of these discarded. Overall, c ombining 
the  catches  from  Denmark  and  Sweden  shows  total  catches  of 
413,650 tonnes, with total discards of 428 tonnes equivalent to 0.1%. 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

As in 2019 and 2020, the justification for this exemption assumes that 
handling  of  unwanted  catches  is  regarded  as  uneconomically 
disproportionate given the difficulties in sorting these species from the 
target species. 

In response to the previous STECF advice, the JR states t hat despit e 
the  small  size  of  the  species  covered  by  the  exemption,  some  are 
retained, particularly when the volume of the targeted catch is large. 

86 

86 

 
 
 
 
Due to this, escapement is impeded, and a small number  of  f ish c an 
be  ‘trapped’  in  the  codend  –  regardless  of  the  mesh  size. 
Consequently,  an  increase  in  mesh  size  in  a  fishery  already  using 
meshes that are more than twice those used in the t argeted f ishery 
for the industrial species will have no impact on the bycatch of  t hese 
species but will have negative impact on catches of targeting species. 
The  JR  concludes  that  there  are,  at  present,  no  scientifically 
documented methods to reduce bycatch of industrial species in t hese 
relevant fisheries.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional work is planned. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Additional  documentation  has  been  provided  to  support  the 
continuation  of  this  exemption  in  the  form  of  updated  catch  and 
bycatch information, showing that bycatches of industrial species w as 
very low – 0.1 % in the demersal human consumption fisheries. 

The  JR  has  also  provided  an  explanation  of  why  improvements  in 
selectivity in these fisheries would be difficult to achieve w hich seem 
reasonable. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Ling  below  MCRS 
caught  with  longlines 
in  ICES  subarea  4 
which shall not exceed 
3%  of 
total 
catches of that species 
-  Article  11(14)  of 
Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2014) 

the 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until  31 
December  2022. Prior  to  2021,  the  exemption  was already granted 
under  Article  10(n)  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2238.  This  exemption 
was prolonged for the years 2021 and 2022 on basis of Article 11(14) 
of Regulation (EU) No 2020/2014.  

The  JR  requests  the  continuation  of  this  de  minimis  exemption  for 
2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated c atch data and fishery information has been provided by t he 
Scheveningen Group covering the French fleet which is the only f leet  
operating  in  this  fishery.  The  French  fleet  benefiting  from  the 
exemption is composed of 15 French vessels that operate bot h in t he 
North Sea and in the West of Scotland (ICES subarea 4a and 6a). This 
fleet targets demersal spec ies, mainly hake and ling. The gears used 
are either set longlines or semi-floating longlines. 

The catch data provided relates to 2019 and is taken from the Frenc h 
observer  programme  (OBSMER  2021).  The  data relates to sampling 
from  2  vessels  during  7  fishing  trips.  The  JR  indicates  that  a 
combination  of  factors  including  Covid-19,  Brexit  and  procurement 
limited  the  observations  in  the  fishery  in  2020.  While  the  data 
presented does not give definitive figures on the level of landings and 
discards in the fishery an estimation of 26 tonnes of  ling disc ards in 
the fishery is provided.  

The  Scheveningen Group recommends de minimis exemption for ling 
below MCRS caught by vessels using set longlines (LLS) in subarea 4, 
up to 3% of the total annual catches in 2023. However, without more 
recent  catch  data  it is not possible to assess the volume of ling  to 
which this equates. 

87 

87 

 
 
 
While  not  stated  in  the  JR,  it  is  assumed  no  other  Member  State 
participates in this fishery. 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The  justification  for  the  exemption  is  largely  unchanged from 2019 
and  2020. It is based on longlines being highly selective gears. The 
supporting information indicates that to increase selectivity f urt her is 
not possible without incurring high economic costs. The exempt ion is 
to c over small residual unwanted catches.  

A  short  overview  of  3  projects  -  PASAMER  (2014/2016),  SELPAL 
(2013/2018)  and  RESPAST  (2014/2016)  -  on  longline  fisheries  are 
provided.  These  studies  do  not  focus  on  selectivity  or  ling  but  in 
reducing bycatch of sensitive species in the hake longline fishery.    

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional work is planned in the short -term. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Limited  new  information  has  been  provided  other  than  partial 
information  on  catches  and  fleets  for  2020-2021.  The  previous 
observations made by EWG 19-04 and 20-04 remain relevant.  

Based on the data presented discards of ling are low  in  t he longline 
fishery and the observer data collected from 2019 reports discards of  
26  tonnes. However, while this indicates little impact on the stock, 
without catch information, no assessment can be made.  

The  observations  of  EWG  20-05  that  the  arguments  regarding 
difficulties in improving selectivity are credible given the nature of the 
fisheries and discards covered by the exemption are quite low are st ill 
valid.  However,  the qualitative nature of the information presented 
means  that  the  improvements  of  selectivity,  for  example  through 
increases in hook size would have on the fishery have st ill not  been 
provided.   

With respect to improving the selectivity, the JR provides three st udy 
programmes as examples of studies carried out to reduce unw anted 
by-catch  of  sensitive  species  by  improving  fishing  techniques  in 
longline fisheries. These studies while interesting are not  relevant t o 
this exemption.        

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Horse  mackerel  in 
the  demersal  mixed 
fisheries  with  bottom 
trawls 
ICES 
in 
divisions  4b  and  4c  
which shall not exceed 
the 
6%  of 
total 
catches 
–  Article 
11(15)  of  Regulation 
(EU) 2020/2014 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until  31 
December  2022.Prior  to  2021,  the  exemption  was  already  granted 
under article 10(k) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2238. This exemption was 
prolonged for the years 2021 and 2022 on the basis of Article 11(15) 
of Regulation (EU) No 2020/2014. 

The  JR  requests  the  continuation  of  this  de  minimis  exemption  for 
2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated catch data and fishery information has been provided by t he 
Scheveningen Group covering the French and German fleets. German 

88 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
landings of horse mackerel in 2020 and 2021 were less than 1 t onne  
and Germany reports that it did not use the exemption in either 2020 
or 2021.   

France  provided  information  for  bottom  trawlers  operating  in  ICES 
divisions 4b and 4c. These vessels also fish in 7d.   Ac cording t o t he 
JR,  France  had  a  total  of  159  bottom  trawlers  operating  in  the 
Southern  North  Sea  and  Eastern  Channel  in  2020.  These  vessels 
target  a  mix  of  high  value  non-quota  species  (red  mullet, 
cephalopods) and lower value whiting and rays. They are assumed t o 
be  the  same  vessels  that  avail  of  the  exemption  for  whiting  as 
described above. The catch data provided is limited due to Covid and 
Brexit.  

According to the data provided in the JR, in 2019 the two French fleets 
had total catches 20,773 tonnes with discards of 8475 tonnes. Horse 
mackerel  discards  made  up  around  9%  of  the  total  discards  in the 
fishery.    Based  on  logbook  data  for  2021,  the  JR  also  reports that 
estimated total French horse mackerel catches from 4b  and 4c  w ere 
28.9 tonnes with discards of 1.4 tonnes or 3.6%.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification is unchanged from 2020 (as assessed by EWG 20-04) 
on the grounds of disproportionate costs due t o handling unw ant ed 
catches and on difficulties t o achieve improvement s in selec t ivit y in 
these fisheries. The JR emphasizes that given the mixed nature of t he 
fisheries  and  the  associated  multi-species  catch  composition,  it  is 
difficult to improve selectivity without experiencing signific ant losses 
of marketable catches. References to historic selectivity trials and t he 
EODE project on disproportionate costs previously made available t o 
EWG 19-04 and 20-04 are included as justification (Annex 6.5-6.6).  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

The  JR  provides  information  indicating  that  horse-mackerel  caught 
with  such  demersal  gears  are  usually  damaged,  making  the  fish 
unsellable.  As  a  small  pelagic  species,  horse  mackerel  does  not 
withstand long tow durations. In this regard, the results of a sanit ary 
study conducted in France analysing the deterioration of mackerel and 
horse mackerel with tow duration was submitted in 2021 to ST ECF  t o 
substantiate  a  similar  de  minimis  requests  for  the  Southwestern 
Waters. The JR indicates this study is relevant f or t hese f isheries in 
the North Sea and provide an estimate of the loses that would accrue 
to the relevant French fleets of €3,182,740 per year f rom  having t o 
land  all  catches  of  horse  mackerel.  The  basis  for  this  estimate  is 
partially explained. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Only  limited  new  information  has  been  provided  other  than  partial 
information on catches and fleets.  In this regard, a full assessment of  
the  impact  of  this  exemption  is  not  possible  and  the  previous 
observations made by EWG 19-08 and 20-04 remain relevant. 

Additionally,  the  estimates  of  discards  reported  from  logbooks  are 
very  low  catches  and  discards,  when  compared  to  the  catch 
information  provided  for  2019  which  showed  high  catches  and 
discards  of  horse  mackerel.  Therefore,  it  is  not  clear  how  reliable 
these estimates are of catches and discards, not ing t he issues w it h 

89 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
deploying on board observers due to Covid during 2021. 

The  exemption  request  is  based  on old studies of trawl selectivity, 
which date back to 2017 or earlier. No new selectivity inves t igations 
are reported or planned but it appears none of the gears t ested are 
being used in the fisheries.  

The catch information presented suggests discarding in these fisheries 
is high with nearly 8,500 tonnes discarded in 2019. It would seem t he 
de  minimis  catch  requested  covers  only  a  part  of  the  unwanted 
catches  in  the  fisheries  and  therefore,  improving  selectivity  in  the 
fisheries should remain  the priority. 

The estimates of the costs for landing unwanted horse mac kerel are 
significant.  However,  they  are  based on average discards over the 
period 2013-2016, which may not be representative of the situation in 
the fisheries currently. 

Exemption  

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Mackerel caught with 
bottom trawls in ICES 
divisions 4b and 4c  
which shall not exceed 
6% of the total 
catches – Article 
11(16) of Regulation 
(EU) 2020/2014  

1. Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until  31 
December  2022.  Prior  to  2021,  the  exemption  was  granted  under 
Article  10(l)  of  EU  regulation  2019/2238.  This  exemption  was 
prolonged for the years 2021 and 2022 on the basis of Article 11(16) 
of Regulation (EU) No 2020/2014. 

The  JR  requests  the  continuation  of  this  de  minimis  exemption  for 
2023. 

2.  Fishery context 

Updated catch data and fishery information has been provided by t he 
Scheveningen Group covering principally French vessels. Some limit ed 
data is provided for Germany.  

France  provided  information  for  bottom  trawlers  operating  in  ICES 
divisions 4b and 4c. These vessels also fish in 7d. According to the JR, 
France had a total of 159 bottom trawlers) operating in the Sout hern 
North Sea and Eastern Channel in 2020. These vessels target a mix  of  
high  value  non-quota  species  (red  mullet,  cephalopods)  and  lower 
value whiting and rays. They are assumed to be the same vessels that 
avail  of  the  exemption  for whiting and horse mackerel as described 
above.  

According to the data provided in the JR, in 2019 the two French fleets 
had  total  catches  of  20773  tonnes  with  discards  of  8475  tonnes. 
Mackerel  discards  made  up  around  1%  of  the  total  discards  in the 
fishery.    Based  on  logbook  data  for  2021,  the  JR  also  reports that 
estimated total French mackerel catches from 4b and 4c  w ere 848.6 
tonnes with discards of 3.3 tonnes or 0.4%. Historical data f or 2013-
2016 from the “FDI database” is also presented in t he JR. T his dat a 
indicates that mackerel represented on average approximat ely 0.8% 
of the total TAC species discarded during that period. The proport ion 
of discarded mackerel was 2.7% of the total catch of mackerel.   

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification is unchanged from 2020 (as assessed by EWG 20-04) 
on the grounds of disproportionate costs due t o handling unw ant ed 
catches and on difficulties to achieve improvement s in selec t ivit y in 
these fisheries. The JR emphasizes that given the mixed nature of t he 

90 

90 

 
 
fisheries  and  the  associated  multi-species  catch  composition,  it  is 
difficult to improve selectivity without experiencing signific ant losses 
of marketable catches. References to historic selectivity trials and t he 
EODE project on disproportionate costs previously made available t o 
EWG 19-04 and 20-04 are included as justification (Annex 6.5-6.6).  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional work is planned in the short term. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations 

Only  limited  new  information  has  been  provided  other  than  partial 
information on catches and fleets.  In this regard, a full assessment of  
the  impact  of  this  exemption  is  not  possible  and  the  previous 
observations made by EWG 19-08 and 20-04 remain relevant. 

A  substantial  part  of  the  landings  is  discarded  in  the  fishery 
particularly  by  bottom  trawlers  below  18  m (71%) and above 18 m 
(30-51%). The proportion of discarded mackerel appears to be in t he 
range of 0.2-3% of the total catch of mackerel but what this eq uates 
to in volume terms is unclear. 

The selectivity information from three French study projects gives a 
valuable  insight  to  the  research  aimed  to  reduce  unwanted  by 
introducing various technical measures. However, they are not  new , 
dating  back  to  2017  and  earlier.  It  is  unclear  whether  any  of  the 
selectivity  improvements  tested  have  been  implemented  in  the 
fishery. 

It is accepted that it is difficult to improve selectivity without c ausing 
significant  commercial  losses  for  vessels  fishing  in  such  mixed 
fisheries.  However,  the  data  provided  indicate  that  the  levels  of 
discarding in these fisheries is high and therefore, efforts t o improve 
selectivity should continue. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

in 

the 

Blue  whiting  caught 
industrial 
in 
pelagic 
fishery  by 
vessels  targeting blue 
whiting 
ICES 
subarea  4  which  shall 
not exceed 5 % of t he 
total annual catches of 
blue  whiting  –  Article 
11(17)  of  Regulation 
(EU) 2020/2014 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until  31 
December 2022.  

The  JR  requests  the  continuation  of  this  de  minimis  exemption  for 
2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated catch data and fishery information has been provided by t he 
Scheveningen Group covering principally one French industrial trawler 
targeting blue whiting and processing on board to obtain surimi. Some 
limited  data  is  provided  for  German,  although  the  JR  states  that 
German vessels did not use this exemption in 2020 or 2021.  

Based on logbook data, estimated French blue whiting catches in 2021 
were  2,623.84  tonnes  with  discards  of  63.65  tonnes  or  2.4%.  No 
other catch data is provided.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for this exemption is the same as assessed by ST ECF 

91 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
previously  (EWG  18-06,  19-08,  20-04).  It  relates  to  food  security 
issues  from  damaged  or  undersized  blue  whiting  that  cannot  be 
processed on board and must be discarded. The c ost of  landing and 
handling  damaged  blue  whiting  is  estimated  to  be  uneconomically 
disproportionate. 

The JR provides a description of the process on board t his vessel as 
requested by STECF (EWG 20-04). While the information presented is 
largely  qualitative,  it describes the problem in detail and provides a 
justification for the exemption from several perspectives  relat ing t o 
the disproportionate costs of handling damaged and undersized blue 
whiting on board. As the vessel does not usually ret urn t o port  unt il 
fully loaded, retaining such catch on board would shorten the duration 
of each fishing trip by at least 15%. The vessel would have to make 5 
fishing trips in a year instead of 4 to land the same t ot al c atch. T he 
additional time at sea, estimated that 12 days of  ext ra rout e w ould 
create an extra cost of roughly €180,000 with additional unspec if ied 
costs for handling such unwanted catches.  

The JR also states that there is no way to increase t he selectivity of  
the fishery to avoid unwanted catches. The French vessel uses a 50 
mm  mesh  in  the  codend,  which  is  in  excess  of  the  legal  minimum 
mesh  size.  Using  a  mesh  size  larger  than  50  mm  would  result  in 
significant losses of blue whiting, which are not likely t o survive t he 
escapement process.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No  additional  work  is  planned  in  the  short  term,  although  ways  to 
improve selectivity in the future are not ruled out . 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Limited new catch information specific to catches from ICES subarea 4 
has been provided and therefore, full assessment of the impact of this 
exemption  is  not  possible.  However,  it  is  noted  that the volume of 
unwanted catch of blue whiting compared to the total catch f or 2021 
by  the  industrial  vessel  availing of this exemption is relatively small 
(63  tonnes  or  2.4%)  and  would  have  not  have  any  impact  on  the 
overall blue whiting stock. 

The description of the operation on board the vessel, as w ell as t he  
qualitative  information  provided  to  support  the  assertion  that  the 
costs of handling unwanted catches on board are disproport ionate, 
provide  a  reasonable  justification  for  this  exemption.  However,  no 
assessment as to whether the losses indicated are disproportionate or 
not  is  possible,  having  little  information  on  total  income  or  other 
indicators on the vessel economics. 

Regarding  selectivity,  the vessel is already fishing with a codend in 
excess of the legal minimum  mesh size. Improving selectivity f urt he r 
in the fishery may not be advantageous as it may lead to unaccounted 
mortality  due  to  the  likely  low  survival  of  escaping  blue  whiting as 
indicated in the JR. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Northern  prawn  – 
caught  with  demersal 
seines 
trawls 
and 
sizes 
using  mesh 

1.  Exemption status 

This  is  a  new  exemption,  similar  to  the  existing  one  for  industrial 
species (sprat, sandeel, Norway pout and blue whiting) under Art ic le 
11(13) of Regulation (EU) No 2020/2014).  

92 

92 

 
 
 
3a 
4. 

above  70mm  in  ICES 
and 
division 
subarea 
The 
request  seeks  a  de 
minimis  exemption  for 
bycatch  of  Northern 
prawn 
a 
up 
maximum  of  0,01  % 
of total catches in t his 
fishery.     

to 

Considering that the species covered by the exemption differ from t he 
species  covered  under  article  11(13),  the  Scheveningen  group 
recommends  that  a  separate  exemption  is  included  under  a  new 
Article 11(18).  

2.  Fishery Context 

Detailed  catch  and  fishery  information  has  been  provided  by  the 
Scheveningen  Group  covering  Denmark  and  Sweden  as  the  two 
Member States participating in the relevant fisheries. This exempt ion 
would affect the demersal fishery using gears (OTB, OTM, OT T, PT B, 
PTM, SDN, SPR, SSC, TB, TBN) with mesh sizes above 70mm  in  ICES 
subarea 3a fitted with a sorting grid with a maximum  bar spac ing of  
35mm  or  equivalent  selectivity  device  and  above  80mm  in  ICES 
division 4. 

No detail is provided on the number of vessels involved but based on 
the exemption for industrial species bycatch in the same f isheries, a 
significant  number  of  vessels  (more  than  300)  are  likely  to  benefit 
from this exemption.  

Catch data for the period 2019-2021 were provided. The total landings 
of  Danish  and  Swedish  vessels  by  vessels  subject  to  the  landing 
obligation in 2021 totalled 32,589 tonnes with the estimated disc ards 
of  Northern  prawn,  less  than  1  tonne.  Over the period 2019-2021, 
discards totalled approximately 3.25 tonnes. The request seeks the de 
minimis  exemption up to a maximum  of 0.01 % of total catches in this 
fishery, which for 2021 would amount to 3.21 tonnes. 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

This  exemption  is  requested  on  the  same  basis  as  the  current 
exemption already granted for bycatches of sprat, sandeel, Norw ay 
pout and blue whiting in demersal trawls >80 mm  mesh and Pandalus 
trawls (>35 mm)  with grid and fish retention tunnel in 3a and 4.  

The JR states that despite the small size of Northern prawn, some are 
retained, particularly when the volume of the targeted catch is large. 
Due  to  this,  escapement is impeded, and a small number of prawns 
can  be  trapped’  in  the  codend,  regardless  of  the  mesh  size. 
Consequently,  an  increase  in  mesh  size  in  a  fishery  already  using 
meshes that are more than twice those used in the t argeted f ishery 
for  Northern  prawn  will  have  no  impact  on  the  bycatch  of  these 
species but will have negative impact on catches of targeting species. 
The  JR  concludes  that  there  are,  at  present,  no  scientifically 
documented methods to reduce bycatch of Northern praw n in t hese 
relevant fisheries. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional work is planned. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

The background and the justification of this new exemption are similar 
to  those  presented  by  Scheveningen  group  for  the  combined  de 
minimis  exemption for industrial species. Therefore, the observations 
for that exemption are relevant. 

The current discard volumes reported for all of the fleets is less than 1 
tonne  annually with a discard rate of between 0.002 to 0.023%. In 

93 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the overall context of the fishery, given the discard rates and volumes 
are low, the impact of the exemption is likely t o be minimal.    

The  justification  that  the  catches  are  insignificant  in the demersal 
fisheries and options to improve selectivity have been exhausted are 
not  necessarily  supported  with  quantitative  evidence.      However, 
based  on  the  information  supplied  for  this  exemption  and  for  the 
similar  one  for  industrial  species,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that 
improving  selectivity  further  in  the  fishery  to  reduce  such  a  small 
bycatch is difficult to achieve in practice. 

References 

Balazuc  A.,  Goffier  E.,  Soulet  E.,  Rochet  M.J.,  Leleu  K.,  2016.  EODE  –  Expérimentation  de 
l’Obligation  de  DEbarquement  à  bord  de  chalutiers  de fond artisans de Manche Est et mer du 
Nord, et essais de valorisation des captures non désirées sous quotas communautaires, 136 +  53 
pp. 

Cornou Anne Sophie, Scavinner Marion, Sagan Jonathan, Cloatre Thomas, Dubroca Laurent, Billet  
Norbert (2021). Captures et rejets des métiers de pêche français. Résultats des observations à 
bord des navires de pêche professionnelle en 2019. Obsmer. https://doi.org/10.13155/79198  

Cloâtre  Thomas,  Quinio-Scavinner  Marion,  Sagan  Jonathan,  Dubroca  Laurent,  Biellet  Norbert 
(2022). Captures et rejets des métiers de pêche français. Résultats des observations à bord des 
navires de pêche professionnelle en 2020. Obsmer 

Gauduchon Thibault, Cornou Anne Sophie, Scavinner Marion, Goascoz Nicolas, Dubroca Laurent, 
Billet  Norbert  (2020).  Captures  et  rejets  des  métiers  de  pêche  français.  Résultats  des 
observations  à  bord  des  navires  de  pêche  professionnelle  en  2018.  Obsmer. 
https://doi.org/10.13155/73122  

Leonardi  S.,  Rubin  A.,  Meillat  M.,  Coppin  F.,  Delpech  J-P.,  Morandeau  F.,  Larnaud  P.,  2009. 
Selecmer – Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers – Pêcheries mult ispéc if iques Manche – 
Mer du Nord, 66 +  62 pp. Version septembre 2009 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of  t he Landing 
Obligation Joint Recommendations (STECF-18-06) (2018). Publications Of f ice of  t he European 
Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-79389-9, doi:10.2760/999971, JRC112740 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Evaluation  of  Landing 
Obligation  Joint Recommendations (STECF-19-08). Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-09523-1, doi:10.2760/227428, JRC117511 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  Evaluation  of  Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation (ST ECF -
20-04). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-20383-4, 
doi:10.2760/328463, JRC121260 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  -  Evaluation  of  Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation (ST ECF -
21-05). EUR 28359 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978 -
92-76-40593-1, doi:10.2760/83668, JRC126128. 

Viera A., Meillat M., Coppin F., Delpech J-P., Morandeau F., Gamblin C., 2010. SELECCAB –  Volet  
Artisans - Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers artisanaux travaillant en Manche – Mer du 
Nord de façon à limiter les captures de cabillaud., 61 + 48pp. Version septembre 2010 

Weiller Y., Reecht Y., Vermard Y., Coppin F., Delpech J-P., Morandeau F ., 2014. SELECF ISH – 
Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers artisanaux travaillant en Manc he Est  -  Mer du Nord 
afin de limiter  leurs rejets, 82 +  55pp. Version avril 2014 

94 

94 

 
 
5.2  High survivability exemptions 

A  summary  of  the proposed high survivability exemptions is given in Table 6.2.1. Table 6.2.1. 
Summary of high survivability submitted as part of the North Sea Joint Recommendations. 

Exemption  
Plaice  below  MCRS 
caught  with  80-119 
mm  beam  trawl  gears 
(BT2) in ICES subarea 
4 (beam trawl – Article 
7  of  Regulation  (EU) 
No 2020/2014)  

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

1. Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption with request for additional information. 
Member  States  having  a  direct  management  interest  shall  submit 
every  year,  as  soon  as  possible  and  not  later  than  by  1  May, 
additional scientific information supporting the exemption. 

The  existing  exemption  applies  to  beam  trawlers  equipped  with 
(7.1.a)  the flip-up rope or benthos release panel (BRP) and with an 
engine power of more than 221 kW; or by vessels implement ing t he 
roadmap for Fully Documented Fisheries (FDF). (7.1.b) The exemption 
applies to vessels with an engine power of not more  t han 221 kw  or 
less than 24 m  in length overall, which are constructed t o f ish in t he 
twelve-mile  zone,  if  the  average  trawl  duration  is  less  than ninety 
minutes. 

2.  Fishery context 

Updated information on the beam trawl (BT2) fleets and plaice catches 
in division 2a and subarea 4a for 2021 was provided by Belgium  and 
the Netherlands. A total of 141 vessels participated in the fishery, with 
101 of these Dutch vessels and the other 40 Belgian. The Netherlands 
accounts for almost 94% of reported total catches in t he beam t raw l 
fishery. Total discards of approximately 23,000 tonnes were report ed 
from a total estimated catch of 30,491 tonnes. Reported discard rat es 
were  74%  and  76%  for  Belgium  and  the Netherlands, respectively. 
This  is  a  slight  increase  in  the  discard  rates  observed  in  2020.  No 
information is provided on the volume of discards that are below  t he 
minimum  conservation reference size and therefore covered by this 
exemption.  

3.  Survival evidence 

No  new  survival  evidence  for  plaice  has  been  provided  by  the 
Scheveningen group. The previous estimates of plaice survival (vitality 
and captive studies) relevant for the exemption assessed by ST ECF  
(EWG  20-04,  EWG  21-05  and  references  therein)  remain  the  best 
available  for  the  North  Sea  beam  trawl  fishery.  These  can  be 
summarised as:   

-  Estimates of immediate survival of undersized plaice assessed 
just after being heaved on board, were found to vary bet w een 
60-90% (mean 75%, 66–83%, 95% CI). These estimates were 
based  on  8  trips  during  2019  and  2020  on  Belgium  beam 
trawlers.    Important  to  note  that  these rates should not be 
confused with overall long-term discard survival. 

-  Uhlmann et al. (2016 and 2021) reported that survival of plaice 
discarded  from  Belgian beam trawlers representing the three 
fleet segments was estimated to range between 41–58%, 11–
28%, 2–4% (95 % confidence interval; Kaplan-Meier models) 
for trips of the coastal (≤221 kW), Eurocutter (≤221 kW) and 
>221 kW vessel, respectively. The mean discard survival rat e 
across all sampled trips and vessel segment s w as 21% (EWG 
20-04).  For  pulse  trawlers,  the  discard  survival  estimates 

95 

95 

 
 
 
previously assessed by STECF were 14% (95% CI 11-18%). 

-  Long-term  survival  (Kaplan-Meier  asymptote)  rates  for 
discarded  undersized  plaice  in  the  Celtic  Sea  and  Eastern 
Channel were estimated at between 13% (9%-19%, 95%  CI) 
from  the  summer  trip  (July  2020,  Celtic  Sea),  with 
conventional  trawl  and  51%  (41%-64%,  95%  CI)  from  the 
winter  trip  (December  2020,  Eastern  Channel) with a flip-up 
trawl, and 44%, (35-56%, 95% CI) with a conventional t rawl. 
No  statistically  significant  difference  in  survival  was  found 
trawls.  The 
between  conventional  and 
representativeness of these estimates for the North Sea is not  
clear but are in line with other observations. 

flip-up 

rope 

The estimates provided show high variability betw een t rips w hic h is 
likely due to the differences in the environmental conditions (season, 
area) and fishing operations (catch size/composition, vessel size, gear 
characteristics). Additionally, most of the est imat es are f or vessels 
greater than 221 kw with little survival information for smaller vessels 
with lower engine power, except for those reported in Uhlmann  et  al. 
(2016). It is also noted that based on the Belgian survival researc h, 
the use of the flip-up rope as specified in the current Delegated Act is 
unlikely  to  significantly  improve  both  on-board  and  post-release 
survival probability of discarded plaice, particularly on soft -sediment s 
fishing grounds. This is further discussed in Uhlmann et al. (2021). No 
information  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  Benthic  Release  Panel  in 
improving survival has been reported so no assessment can be made 
whether this gear modification is beneficial or not.  

4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 

No new survival estimates have been provided to EWG 22-05, so t he 
previous  estimates  reported  by  EWG  21-05  and  20-04  remain  the 
most up to date. There are both survival estimates derived from direct 
observation,  and  those  based  on  a  proxy,  using  relationships  from 
other studies between health condition and survival probabilit y. T he 
latest  estimates  based on captive studies are considered robust, if 
highly  variable.    EWG  22-05  considers  these  are  in  line  with  the 
estimates generated by ICES WGMEDS for the North Sea plaice stock, 
whereby  of  the  total  catch  from  the  stock,  an estimated 23% (by 
weight) is made up of dead discards from the beam traw l f leet . T his 
should be considered in the context of the discard rates in the f is hery 
which are in excess of 70%. 

5.  Additional evidence and work planned 

The  Scheveningen  group  has  provided  updated  information  on 
ongoing  research  work  in  Belgium  and  Netherlands  to  support  the 
exemption. The information provided is well-structured and follows the 
original roadmap developed by the Scheveningen group.  

No further research focusing on the survival of plaice is planned and 
the  focus  in  2022  is  on  improving  selectivity  and  increasing 
survivability as well as using REM systems to improve know led ge on 
fishing mortality in beam trawl fisheries.  

The  information  provided  by  the  Netherlands  relates  to  1) 
implementing  a  pilot  Fully  Documented  Fisheries  (FDF)  project  to 
improve the knowledge base on fishing mortality and catch reporting; 
and 2) selectivity trials to reduce fishing mortality of undersize plaic e 
and increasing the chance of survival of discarded plaice.  

96 

96 

 
 
As  reported  in  2020  and  2021  the  Netherlands  has  committed  to 
implementing an FDF pilot project with the aim of delivering ac c urate 
estimations  of  the  complete  catch.  The  latest  report  contains 
information for the work completed in the period Q2 2021 to Q1 2022.  
Nine vessels have been contracted to part icipate and REM syst ems 
have been installed on the vessels and information has been collected 
from  3063  hauls  of  which  2472  have  provided  good  quality 
information. Due to Covid-19 no observer trials to validate the camera 
and self-sampling data have been possible but nonetheless automated 
analysis of the video material collected using a 3D  c amera has been 
carried  out  with  good  results.  Work  on  this  project will continue in 
2022.  

Similarly,  the  Belgian  progress  report  describes  work  continuing  to 
develop species identification software under laboratory conditions, t o 
analyse video footage from EM systems. Species identification with an 
accuracy of 95% for plaice and sole to within 3mm  in length has been 
achieved under laboratory conditions. Installation of  t he systems on 
board  commercial  vessels  is  ongoing,  in  combination  with  a  self -
sampling programme. 

Selectivity  work carried out by the Netherlands that commenced in 
2019 is continuing in 2022. The focus of this work is to develop more 
selective beam trawl designs. According to the support ing report , of  
the  six  different  gear  innovations  to  improve  selectivity  under 
development,  three  have been discontinued - brush footrope, wing 
rakes and rotating brush. The three remaining (selection and esc ape 
panel - speed bump panel, the Tiaki codend and rubber st rands w it h 
ball  heads  combination)  have  been  further  tested  during  2021 and 
early 2022. The speed bump panel is more of a traditional adapt ation 
to better separate plaice from sole. Similarly,  the rubber strands w it h 
ball heads design is an alternative to traditional tickler chains used by 
the  beam  trawl  fleet.    The Tiaki codend work is different in that it 
focuses on the creation of a gentler catching process to inc rease t he 
probability of discards surviving. These three remaining projec t s w ill 
run until Jan 2023. Testing seems to be at an early st age w it h only 
very preliminary  results and observations presented.  

Belgium  also  has  reported  on  ongoing  research  into  technical 
innovations to improve selectivity and survivability of discarded plaic e 
under the “Combituig” Project. This work was carried out in 2021  and 
looked at the use of LED-lights in combination wit h Bent hic  Release 
Panels  to  reduce  the  catch  of  undersized plaice. Testing has been 
carried  out  on  three  research  cruises to date and the results have 
been  encouraged  although  no  detail is provided. Further trips were 
scheduled in the second half of 2021, but no results are report ed f or 
these trials. The conclusion from these trials is that furt her research 
with alternative technologies such as LED-lights is warranted.  

6.  EWG 22-05 Observations 

Since 2019, progress has been made in increasing the know ledge of  
plaice survivability. Additionally, considerable work has begun on t he   
estimation  of  catch  volumes  and  composition,  by  development  of 
systems  and  protocols  for  self-reporting  and  automated  video 
analysis. Research on ways to improve selectivity is also ongoing. No 
concrete  results  have  been  presented  to  date, but the preliminary 
findings seem encouraging for some of the gear modifications tested.  

For  beam  trawlers,  the  justification  for  survivability  exemption  for 

97 

97 

 
 
 
 
plaice continues to be based on the potential for improving  survival 
and selectivity, but this is based on variable estimates of survival.  

The  current  survival  estimates  are  still  highly  variable  and  only 
relevant  for  the  larger  beam  trawl vessels. No new information has 
been provided for smaller vessels with less than 221KW engine pow er 
other than that contained in Uhlmann et al. (2016).  

There  is  also  only  limited  and  inconclusive  information  on  the 
effectiveness  of  the  Flip-up  rope  and the Benthic Release Panel to 
improve  survivability.  The  use  of  these  devices  is  specified  in  the 
Delegated Act as a condition of the exemption. If  t hese devices are 
not effective in increasing survivability, then the value of making them 
a condition of the exemption is questionable even t hough t hey may 
have other benefits not related to survivability.  

The current survival estimates need to be considered in the context of  
the current discard rates reported, which are in excess of  70%. ICES 
advice shows the plaice stock in the North Sea is in  good c ondit ion 
with fishing mortality below Fmsy, Fpa, and Flim, and spawning-stock 
size above MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim.  However, given the survival 
rates  are  in  the  range  of  20-40%  and  the  discard  rates  are  high, 
considerable  volumes  of  plaice  discarded  under  this  exemption  are 
likely not to survive.   

Unless surviving discards are accounted for in stock assessments and 
dead  discards  are  accounted  for  in  TAC  setting  when  survivability 
exemptions are in place, the actual fishing mortality will not match the 
agreed catch level.  

Introducing discard survival estimates should continue to be discussed 
by ICES for more stocks and especially plaice, given the prolif erat ion 
of survival exemptions.  

The observations of EWG 21-05 that there is still a need for clarit y on 
objectives and timelines in respect of the roadmap remains as there is 
still no timetable for the completion of the roadmap. 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

1. Exemption status 

Prior  to  2021,  this  exemption  was  granted  under  Article  2  of 
Regulation (EU) 1395/2014. It was prolonged for the period 2021  and 
2022  under  Article  10  of  Regulation  (EU)  2020/2041.  The 
Scheveningen Group has requested to extend this exemption beyond 
2022. 

The  existing  exemption  applies  to  mackerel  and  herring  caught  in 
purse  seine  fisheries  in  ICES  divisions  2a,  3a  and  subarea  4.  It  is 
accompanied by requirements that: 

a)  the catch is released before a certain percentage of the purse 

seine is closed (‘the point of retrieval’). 

b)  the purse seine gear is fitted with a visible buoy clearly 

marking  the limit for the point of retrieval.  

c)  the vessel and the purse seine gear are equipped with an 

electronic recording and documenting system when, where and 
extent to which the purse seine has been hauled for all fishing 
operations.  

d)  The point of retrieval shall be 80 % closure of the purse seine 
in fisheries for mackerel and it shall be 90 % closure of the 

98 

98 

Exemption  
Mackerel 
and 
herring  in  the  purse 
seine  fisheries in ICES 
divisions  2a,  3a  and 
subarea 4  - Article 10 
of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2014)  

 
 
purse seine in fisheries for herring. 

2.  Fishery context 

No information has been provided on the fishery in t erms of  number 
of vessels involved or on catch and extent of unwanted catches. Based 
on ICES advice approximately 20% of mackerel catches and 45% of  
herring catches come from purse seine fisheries. However, there is no 
information on the breakdown of such catches to Union vessels.    

ICES reports that discarding of mackerel is known to take place (0.9% 
of the total catch in weight in 2020) but is only quantified f or part  of  
the  fisheries  and  not  by  gear  type;  the  proportion  of  the  landings 
covered cannot be calculated.  Partial discard estimates are inc luded 
in the assessment and overall discarding in recent years is assumed 
negligible. ICES also reports that discarding of herring is negligible but 
slipping  is  known  to  occur  in  the  purse  seine  and  pelagic  trawl 
fisheries.  

3.  Survival evidence 

No new survival evidence and estimates have been provided b y t he 
Scheveningen Group and the request for extension of the exemption is 
based  on  the  previous  studies  on  “slipping”  in purse seine fisheries 
submitted to STECF in 2014. These studies found that survival rat es 
depend on the crowding time and the density of fish w it hin t he net , 
which are typically limited in these fisheries. STECF concluded at  t he 
time  that,  assuming  the  results  of  the  survival  studies  are 
representative of survival rates under commercial fishing operat ions, 
the proportion of slipped mackerel surviving would likely be around 70 
%  and would result in much lower densities than the density where 
mortality of herring was observed to increase. 

EWG 22-05 is aware of several papers by Anders et al.   (2019, 2020 
and  2021)  and  Marçalo  et  al.  (2019)  that  are  relevant  to  this 
exemption.  These papers generally confirm the findings of the earlier 
studies  referred  to  in  supporting  the  original  exemption.  However, 
they  also  highlight  that survival is not only related to the crowding 
density but also to the crowding duration, which in practice is diffic ult  
to control. 

4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 

No  new  survival  estimates  have  been  provided  and  without  any 
information on the fishery, EWG 22-05 cannot assess the likely impact  
of this exemption.  Additionally, no information has been provided on 
the  use  of  the  exemption  since  its  introduction  in 2015 other than 
indications in the JR that it has not been used widely to dat e. T he JR 
also states that it is expected that the introduction of CCTV on pelagic  
vessels  in  the  near  future  will  increase  effort  in  the  purse  seine 
fisheries and therefore the use of the exemption. However, t he basis 
for this statement is unclear.  

5.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Other than indications that CCTV will be introduced on pelagic vessels 
in the near future, no other work relevant to this exemption is planned 
according to the JR.  

99 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
6.  EWG 22-05 Observations 

The conclusions of STECF PLEN 14-02 that, the survival est imat es of  
70%  for  mackerel  and  herring  remain  valid.  This  assumes  the 
experiments undertaken on the crowding density effects and crowding 
duration on mackerel and herring mortality referred to in t he original 
JR are representative of the conditions experienced under commerc ial 
purse  seine  fishing  operations.  It  is  also  dependent  on  compliance 
with  the  rules  set  out  in  the  Delegated  Act  regarding  the  point  of 
retrieval  after  which  fish  cannot  be  released  from the purse seine. 
There is no indication that either of these conditions have been met.  

The  assertion  by  the  Scheveningen  group  that  the  introduction of 
CCTV into pelagic fisheries will increase the use of  purse seines and 
therefore the use of the exemption is unclear. T here does not seem 
any obvious linkage between the two. 

Given no new supporting information has been provided and that  t his 
exemption  has  been  in  place  since  2015,  it  should  be  subject to a 
further review as part of the wider review planned for next year. T his 
should assess whether the survival estimates provide are st ill valid, 
the impact of the exemption on the stocks involved and also based on 
uptake, whether it is still required. 

Exemption  

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Turbot  caught  with 
beam 
(TBB) 
trawls 
with  a  cod-end  equal 
to  or 
than 
80mm  in ICES subarea 
-  Article  8  of 
4 
Regulation 
(EU) 
2020/2014 

larger 

1. Exemption status 

Existing  survivability  exemption  granted  in  2019  under  Delegated 
Regulation  EU  2019/2238  and  extended  until  31  December  2022 
under Article 8 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2014.  

The 2022 JR requests the continuation of the survivability exempt ion 
for 2023. 

2.  Fishery context 

Updated catch data and fishery information has been provided by t he 
Netherlands, Belgium and Germany covering the period 2017-2021.  

The JR states that the exemption concerns: 

  102 Dutch vessels 

  31 Belgian vessels  

  13 German  vessels  

These vessels target plaice and sole with beam trawls mainly  in ICES 
divisions 4b and 4c in the southern North Sea. Turbot is a relat ively 
small but economically valuable bycatch in these fisheries.  

Based on 2021 catch data, the Netherlands accounts for almost  90% 
of reported total catches in the beam trawl fishery. Total disc ards of  
approximately 39 tonnes were reported from a total estimat ed c atch 
of 1,643 tonnes. Reported discard rates were 2%, 3% and 5% for t he 
Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, respectively. The German discard 
rate is based on self-sampling so is considered a preliminary figure.  

3.  Survival evidence 

The initial 2019 exemption was based on an estimated 30% survival 
rate of turbot caught using pulse trawls. STECF EWGs 18- 06 and 19-

100 

100 

 
 
 
08  questioned  whether  survival  estimates  generated  from  pulse 
trawling  are  representative  of  the  exempted  beam  trawl  fishery. 
Therefore,  the  2021  JR  of  the  Scheveningen  Group  provided  an 
estimated  survival  rate of between 38 and 75% based on a Belgian 
study  using  Beam  Trawls  in  ICES  subarea  4.  Estimated  long  term 
survival was 75% (3 out of 4 individuals) from the first t rip and 38% 
(5 out of 13) from the second trip. None of the 3 individuals c aught  
with a trawl without a flip-up rope survived compared t o 56% in  t he 
flip-up  trawl.  EWG  21-05  observed  that  the  sample  sizes  were 
insufficient for further analyses into contributing f actors. Previously 
submitted and reviewed documents based on pulse-trawls report ed a 
survival rate of 20-43% (EWG 20-04). No other survival estimates are 
available. 

4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 

No new survival estimates have been provided in the 2022 JR  so t he 
observations of EWG 21-05 regarding the number of observations are 
still relevant. The catch data suggests the quantity of turbot af f ected 
by  this  exemption  is  relatively  low  and  applying  the  survival  rates 
from the Belgian study, the estimated survival rate ranges f rom 14.8 
tonnes  (38  %  survival)  to  29.3  tonnes  (75  %  survival)  from  an 
estimated 39 tonnes of total discards. EWG 22-05 notes t he c aveats 
recorded by EWG 21-05 concerning the small number of observations 
on which the Belgian survival estimates were based. 

5.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No new survival estimates have been provided and no further w ork is 
described in the JR.  

6.  EWG 22-05 Observations 

The Scheveningen Group has provided detailed catch and discard data 
as well as a description of the fisheries by Member St at e involved in 
the  fishery.  This  shows  discards  of  turbot  in  the  fishery are low in 
terms  of  overall  catches,  noting  that  German  and  Belgian  discard 
estimates are based on few observed trips in the beam t raw l f ishery 
which may bias discard estimates.  

Both catches and discards show a decreasing trend in in recent  years 
The reason for the reduction in catch is unclear but may be relat ed t o 
the ban on the use of the pulse trawl.  

The current survival estimates need to be considered in the context of  
the current discard rates reported, which for all of the fleets is around 
2%.  ICES advice shows the turbot stock in the North Sea is in  good 
condition with fishing mortality below Fmsy and spawning-stock size is 
above MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim.   Assuming the survival rat es are 
in the range of 38-75%% and the discard rates and volumes are low , 
the impact of the exemption is likely to be low.   

The observation of EWG 21-05 that a synthesis of available survival 
estimates,  and  characteristics  of  all relevant fisheries is needed to 
assess the consequences of the exemption fully remains valid. 

Exemption  

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Skates  and 
rays 
caught  by  all  gears in 
ICES  divisions  2a  and 

1. Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption with request for additional information. 
Member  States  having  a  direct  management  interest  must  submit 

101 

101 

 
 
 
 
Article 

3a and ICES subarea 4 
of 
- 
Delegated  Regulation 
(EU) No 2020/2014.  

9 

additional scientific information supporting the exempt ion.  By 1 May 
every year. 

2. Fishery context 

Limited  catch  data  for  cuckoo  rays  has  been  provided  by  the 
Scheveningen  group  for  Denmark,  Germany  and  Sweden  for  2021. 
Denmark  reports  total  catches  of  cuckoo  ray  of  24  tonnes  with  9 
tonnes  discarded.   German reports of 2.2 tonnes, all of which were 
discarded, while Sweden reports no catch. 

France  provided  catch  data  from  2019  and  2020  for  blonde  rays, 
undulate rays, cuckoo rays, and thornback rays. T he JR not es t hat 
precaution  need  to  be  taken  with  the  data,  as  it  is  limited  and 
inconsistent  due  to  Covid  and  Brexit.  In  2020,  discard  rates  were 
highest  for  blonde  ray  (12%)  in  bottom  trawls  targeting  demersal 
species and cephalopods in the east of the Eastern Channel and t he 
South of the North Sea by vessels over 18m. 

The  JR  notes that general data could not be provided as it has not 
been analysed yet and needs to be accredited by ICES WGEF  w hic h 
takes place between 14-23 June 2022. If necessary, the data c an be 
transmitted at a later stage to STECF. 

3. Previous survival evidence  

No new survival estimates have been provided. Reference to exist ing 
estimates  collected  under  SUMARIS  project,  Ensure  project,  SURF 
projects are provided as evidence of survivability.  

4. Survival and fishery compatibility 

No new survival estimates (however preliminary results available form 
RAYWATCH project, below) or substantial new information about fleets 
and  fisheries  for all affected Member States have been provided to 
EWG  22-05,  so the previous estimates reported by EWG 21-05 and 
20-04 remain the most up to date. Previous projects provided survival 
data from studies compatible with the specific fisheries. Studies w ere 
conducted  using  protocols  developed  by  ICES  WGMEDS  and  van 
Bogaert et al. 2020 - see EWG 20-04.  

Preliminary results from the RAYWATCH project from several trips and 
hauls of the vitality of individuals has been assessed. T he obs ervers 
scored  an  individual  along  a  four-point  categorical  scale  (A  = 
“excellent”, B =  “good”, C =  “poor”, D = “dead) based on the number 
of injuries and the liveliness of the individual. A total of 40 hauls w ere 
sampled for vitality spread over 6 trips. 998 individuals w ere sc ored 
for vitality of which 518 spotted rays, 199 thornback rays, 99 small 
eyed  ray,  97 cuckoo ray and 69 undulate rays. During the 40 hauls 
only 16 blonde rays were sampled for vitality. In the c oming mont hs 
more effort will be made to try and increase the number of  sampled 
blonde rays if possible.  

For all species combined, 37.9% of the sampled individuals were given 
vitality score A, 27.5% vitality score B and 21.9% vitality score C. The 
average  at  vessel  mortality  for  all  species  combined  is  12.7% 
(=vitality score D). The at vessel mortality is highest for thornback ray 
(27%), followed by spotted ray (12%), cuckoo ray (6%), small  eyed 
ray  (5%)  and  undulate  ray  (1%).  No  immediate  mortalities  were 
observed  for  blonde  ray,  but keep in mind the small sample size. In 
the coming months, factors affecting vitality and at vessel mort alit y 
will be analysed and a prediction of the long-term vitality will be made 

102 

102 

 
 
 
 
using  the  output  and  data  of  the  SUMARiS  project.  Note  vitality 
assessments  only,  no survival estimates from captive monitoring or 
tagging studies are available. 

RAYWATCH project also noted that from the preliminary  data observed 
that  the  Minimum  Landing  Size  (national  measure)  does  not 
guarantee  the reproduction of thornback ray and blonde ray, as an 
L50 of between 666 mm  and 819 mm  was observed. However, lengt h 
frequency data presented in the RAYWATCH road map report (ANNEX 
I) shows that most individuals caught are below the L50. RAY WATCH 
suggested increasing the Minimum Landing Size would be benef ic ial. 
However, this could have a large effect on the fisheries, whic h is w hy 
for example a Maximum  Landing Size might be a good measure. T his 
means that animals above a certain size need to be discarded in order 
to  make  sure  that  the  population  can  still  reproduce.  During  the 
coming months RAYWATCH will investigate the possible management  
measures and seek feedback from stakeholders. 

5. Additional evidence and work planned 

The  Scheveningen  group  has  provided  updated  information  on 
ongoing  research  work  in  Belgium  and  Netherlands  to  support  the 
exemption. The information provided is well-structured and follows the 
original  roadmap  developed  by  the  Scheveningen  group.  Member 
States are currently undertaking projects to add knowledge of skat es 
and rays survival in various fisheries and also improve skates and rays 
population  estimates.  Among  these  is  a  planned  report  of  survival 
estimates for thornback ray, spotted ray and blonde ray in area 4 and 
7d in spring 2023 by the Netherlands.  

The  roadmap  overview  also  reports  on  work  about  stock  identity, 
other biological variables, and improved data collection w it h planned 
reports in 2022-2023. A coordinated effort to improve the know ledge 
base for the different species is a common theme among the roadmap  
partners. This effort focuses on species identification guidelines and 
improved  resolution  in  the  data  collection  for  both  science  and 
industry (for example project Raywatch in Belgium). 

  SUMARIS/  FROM  NORD  (7d)  –  survival  of  thornback  ray  in 

 

Danish seine 
Innorays (4b,4c) - Use of computer images to improve landing 
data;  develop  new  innovative  DNA-method  for  population 
estimates on thornback, spotted and blonde rays. 

  Bridging the knowledge gaps for sharks and rays in t he Nort h 
Sea  (4b,4c,7d)-  thornback,  spotted  and  blonde  rays.  This 
project will look to facilitate the dialogue between stakeholders 
in skate and ray fisheries, conservation, and research on t he 
implementation of the roadmap as part of the High survivability 
exemption for skates and rays caught by all fishing gears.  Per 
comms with dutch scientist the EWG 22-05 is aware t hat  t his 
project includes survival studies on skates and rays species but 
it  is  not clear in what fisheries and when results will become 
available. 

  LIFE-IP (4b,4c) - Improve knowledge on temporal dist ribut ion 
of skates, rays and shark species and provide insight in kinship 
or subpopulations within these species. 

103 

103 

 
 
 
  Maturity and fecundity in data limited stocks (4b,4c) -  Explore 
and evaluate innovative data collection methods to expand and 
consolidate the role of the fishing industry in data collection for 
stock assessments. 

  Raywatch  (7a,d,e,f,g,h)  - Collection of biological, catch and 
vitality data for seven ray species (thornback ray, blonde ray, 
spotted  ray,  undulate  ray,  small  eyed  ray,  sandy  ray  and 
cuckoo  ray  to improve the future NDGP data collection. Also 
plan  to  fill  knowledge  gaps  to  support  the  high  survival 
exemption in the context of the roadmap for rays and skat es. 
However,  the  EWG  22-05  note that all assessments to date 
have been vitality observations with no captive monitoring. 

6. EWG 22-05 Observations 

Significant  new  information  has  been  provided.  This  includes  the 
requested  summary  table  to  provide  a  means  to  differentiate  new 
from  existing  information.    Update  on  the  progress  (projects 
mentioned  above  –  ongoing)  regarding  the  roadmap  was  also 
provided.  However,  catch  data  was  limited  to  several  species  and 
specific gears. Significant gaps in knowledge on catches of some ray s 
remain.  

Further  survival  work  is  planned  for  the  coming  year.  This  should 
provide  better  understanding  of  skates  and  ray  survival  in specific 
fisheries  but  also  note  that  each  species  should  be assessed.  The 
RAYWATCH project will provide species useful vitality observations and 
biological data as preliminary results suggest. However, it  should be 
noted  that  survival  estimates  from  captive  monitoring  or  tagging 
studies would provide important post -release survival data. 

As  highlighted  by  STECF  previously,  Member  States  should  be 
encouraged to use their joint scientific capacity to compile and analyse 
previous  and  new  data  in  a  more  systematic  way  to  assist  future 
assessment of the exemptions covered under the roadmap. 

References 

Anders  N,  Breen  M,  Saltskår  J,  Totland  B,  Øvredal JT, Vold A (2019) Behavioural and welfare 
implications of a new slipping methodology for purse seine fisheries in Norwegian w at ers. PLoS 
One 14: 1–24. e0213031. 

Anders N, Eide I, Lerfall J, Roth B, Breen M (2020) Physiological and flesh quality c onsequences 
of pre-mortem crowding stress in Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). PLoS One 15: 1 –20. 
e0228454 

Anders  N,  Roth  B,  Breen  M  (2021)  Physiological  response  and  survival  of  Atlantic  mackerel 
exposed  to  simulated  purse  seine  crowding  and  release.  Conserv  Physiol  9(1):  coab076; 
doi:10.1093/conphys/coab076. 

Marçalo A, Breen M, Tenningen M, Onandia I, Arregi L, Gonçalves JM (2019) Mitigating slipping -
related  mortality  from  purse  seine  fisheries for small pelagic fish: case studies from European 
Atlantic waters. In The European Landing Obligation. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 297–318. 

O’Neill, F.G.O., Feekings, J., Fryer, R.J., Fauconnet, L., Afonso, P. (2019). Discard avoidance by 
improving  fishing  gear  selectivity:  Helping  the fishing industry help itself. 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.  283–297).  Springer  International  Publishing  AG, 
part of Springer Nature 

104 

104 

 
 
Reid, D.G., Calderwood, J., Afonso, P., Fauconnet, L., Pawlowski, L., Plet -Hansen, K.S., et  al. 
(2019). The best way to reduce discards is by not catching them! In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulric h, S.J  
Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation reducing discards in complex, mult i -  spec ies 
and multi-jurisdictional fisheries (pp. 261–282). Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing AG, 
part of Springer Nature 

Fisheries 

Uhlmann, S. S., Theunynck, R., Ampe, B., Verkempynck, R., Miller, D. C.M., van Marlen, B., van 
der  Reijden,  K.  J.  et  al. 2016b. Overleving doorboomkor gevangen pladijs – Survival of beam-
trawled European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa). ILVO Mededeling 210. Institute for Agric ult ural 
and 
pp.   
(13)  (PDF)  Survival  of  undersized  plaice (Pleuronectes plates sa), sole (Solea solea), and dab 
(Limanda 
from: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313164959_Survival_of_undersized_plaice_Pleuronect
es_platessa_sole_Solea_solea_and_dab_Limanda_limanda_in_North_Sea_pulse-trawl_f isheries  
[accessed May 18 2022]. 

pulse-trawl 

Oostende, 

Research, 

fisheries. 

Available 

limanda) 

Belgium. 

North 

172 

Sea 

in 

Uhlmann,  S.S.,  Theunynck,  R.,  Ampe,  B.,  Desender,  M.,  Soetaert,  M.,  Depestele,  J., 2016a. 
Injury, reflex impairment, and survival of beam-trawled flatfish. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 1244–1254. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv252 

Uhlmann, S.S., Ampe, B., Van Bogaert, N., Vanden Berghe, C., Vanelslander, B., 2021.  F lat f ish 
survivors have tales to tell: Cold seawater and reduced deployment durat ion c ontribut e t o t he 
survival  of  European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)  discarded by Belgian beam trawlers. Fish. 
Res. 240, 105966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2021.105966 

Uhlmann et al., 2021. Effects of catch composition on the fate of European plaice (Pleur onectes 
platessa) discarded from Belgian beam trawlers. Under review with Fisheries Research. 

Van Bogaert, N., Ampe, B., Uhlmann, S., and Torreele, E., 2020. Discard survival est imat es of  
commercially  caught  skates  of  the  North  Sea  and  English  Channel  (Int erreg  programme  No. 
Output O 5.1), Work Package 2. 

6 

NWW – OVERVIEW OF JOINT RECOMMENDA TIONS 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2438 established a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in North-Western Waters (i.e., in Union waters of ICES Area s 5b, 6 and 7). Based on 
new Joint Recommendations for the North-Western Waters submitted by t he regional group of  
Member  States,  this  plan  has  been  updated  several  times,  most  recently  by  Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2015 under the Western Waters Multiannual Plan (2019/472). In 
2022,  a  further  set  of  Joint  Recommendations  has  been  submitted  by  the  Member  States , 
updating and amending the discard plan.  

It should be noted that the discard plan in its entirety expires at the end of 2023. Therefore, all of 
the exemptions, other than several exemptions with an expiry date at t he end of  2022, w ill  no 
longer  apply  after  2023  pending  the  submission  of  a  new  discard  plan  by  the  NWW Group in 
2023. 

The  main  elements  of  these  JR’s  and  those  which  have  been  assessed  by  EWG  22-05  are 
summarised in table 6.1.  

Table 6.1 Main elements of the Joint Recommendations submitted for the NWW  

Elements 

Contained currently 
in pelagic or 
demersal discard 
plan 

Status with relevant 
Article in current 
discard plan 

Assessment by 
EWG 22-05 with 
relevant Annexes 
in JR 

De minimis 

Common  sole  caught  in 
gillnets and trammel net s 
in  ICES  divisions  7d,  7e, 

Demersal 

Existing 

Not Assessed 

Article 13(1b) 

105 

105 

 
 
7f and 7g 

Common  sole caught with 
beam trawls with a mesh 
size  of  80-119mm  with 
increased  mesh  sizes  in 
the 
the  extension  of 
beam 
ICES 
divisions  7d,  7e,  7f,  7g 
and 7h 

trawl 

in 

Fish bycatch below MCRS 
the  Brown  shrimp 
in 
caught  using 
fishery 
beam trawls of mesh size 
<31mm  in  ICES  division 
7a 

Blue whiting caught in the 
industrial  pelagic  trawler 
fishery in ICES division 5b 
and subareas 6 and 7 

Albacore 
using  midwater 
trawls in ICES subarea 7 

tuna  caught 
pair 

Mackerel, 
horse 
mackerel,  herring  and 
whiting caught by pelagic 
trawlers  up to 25 metres 
in  length  overall,  using 
mid-water 
trawls 
targeting mackerel, horse 
mackerel  and  herring  in 
ICES division 7d 

caught  with 
Whiting 
bottom trawls and seines 
with a mesh size equal t o 
or  greater  than  80  mm, 
pelagic  trawls  and  beam 
trawls with a mesh size of 
80-119  mm 
ICES 
division 7b-c and 7e-k 

in 

Haddock  caught  using 
bottom 
trawls,  seines 
greater  than  100m;  with 
catches  comprising  not 
more  than  30  %  Norway 
lobster  and  excluding 
beam  trawls;  with  mesh 
sizes  greater  than  or 
equal to 80 mm  in 7b, 7c  
and 7e to 7k with catches 
comprising  more  than  30 

Demersal 

Existing 

Not Assessed 

Article 13(1c) 

Demersal 

Existing 

Not Assessed 

Article 13(1e) 

Pelagic  

Existing  

Not Assessed 

Article 13(1l) 

Pelagic  

Existing 

Not assessed 

Article 13(1m) 

Pelagic  

Existing 

Not assessed 

Article 13(1n) 

Demersal 

Temporary until end of 
2021 

Article 13(1a) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Demersal 

Existing 

Article 13(1d) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

106 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
%  of  Norway  lobster; 
beam  trawls  using  mesh 
sizes  greater  than  or 
equal to 80 mm  in 7b, 7c  
and 
in 
conjunction with t he use 
of a Flemish panel; 

to  7k 

7e 

Boarfish  caught  using 
bottom  trawls  in  ICES 
divisions 7b-c & 7f-k 

Demersal 

Existing  

Article 13(1f) 

below  MCRS 
Megrim 
caught  using  bottom 
trawls with a mesh size of 
70-99mm 
beam 
trawls with a mesh size of 
80-119mm 
ICES 
subarea 7 

and 

in 

Demersal 

Existing  

Article 13(1g) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

caught 
sole 
Common 
using  beam  trawls  with 
mesh  size  of  80-119mm 
with  a  large  mesh  panel 
in 
ICES  divisions  7a 
extended to include 7j,k 

silver 

Greater 
smelt 
caught  using  bottom 
trawls  with  a  mesh  size 
greater  or  equal 
to 
100mm  in  ICES  division 
5b 
(EU  waters)  and 
subarea 6 

Horse  mackerel  caught 
using  bottom 
trawls, 
seines and beam trawls in 
ICES subarea 6 and ICES 
divisions 7b-7k 

Mackerel  caught  using 
bottom trawls, seines and 
ICES 
beam 
in 
subarea  6  and 
ICES 
divisions 7b-7k 

trawls 

Haddock  below  MCRS 
caught  with  a  mesh  size 
up to 119mm  in the West  
of  Scotland  Nephrops 
fishery in ICES division 6a 

Demersal 

Existing  

Article 13(1h) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Demersal 

Existing  

Article 13(1i) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Demersal 

Existing  

Article 13(1j) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Demersal 

Existing  

Article 13(1k) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Demersal 

Existing  

Article 13(1l) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

High Survivability 

Nephrops  caught  using 
pots,  traps  or  creels  in 

Demersal 

Existing 

Not assessed 

107 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ICES subareas 6 and 7;  

Article 3(1a)  

Nephrops  caught  with 
bottom  trawls  with  a 
mesh  size  equal  to  or 
larger  than  100mm  in 
ICES subarea 7 

Nephrops  caught  using 
bottom  trawls  with  a 
mesh  size of 70-99mm in 
combination  with  highly 
selective  gears  in  ICES 
subarea 7 

Nephrops  caught  using 
bottom  trawls  with  a 
mesh  size  of  80-119mm 
within  12 miles of coasts 
in ICES division 6a 

below 
sole 
Common 
MCRS 
using 
caught 
bottom  trawls  with  cod 
end  mesh  size  of  80-99 
mm  in ICES division VIId  

caught 

Plaice 
trammel  nets 
divisions 7d, 7e, 7f, 7g 

with 
in  ICES 

Plaice 
using 
caught 
bottom  trawls  in  ICES 
divisions 7d, 7e, 7f, 7g 

Plaice caught using seines 
in ICES division VIId 

Plaice 
using 
caught 
Scottish  seines  in  ICES 
divisions 7b-k  

Fish  caught  with  pots, 
traps  and  creels  in  ICES 
subareas 6 and 7 

Mackerel  and  herring 
caught with purse seines 
under  certain  conditions 
in ICES subarea 6 

fishery 

Mackerel  and  herring 
caught  using ring nets in 
the 
targeting 
not 
pelagic 
subject to quotas in ICES 
divisions 7e and 7f 

species 

Demersal 

Existing 

Not assessed 

Article 3(1b)  

Demersal 

Existing  

Not assessed 

Article 3(1c) 

Demersal 

Existing  

Not assessed 

Article 3(1d) 

Demersal 

Existing 

Article 4  

Not assessed 

Demersal 

Existing 

Not assessed 

Article 6(1a)  

Demersal 

Existing  

Not assessed 

Article 61(b) 

Demersal 

Existing  

Not assessed 

Article 6(1e)  

Demersal 

Existing  

Not assessed 

Article 61(f) 

Existing 

Article 7  

Existing  

Article 8 

Existing 

Article 8 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Demersal 

Pelagic  

Pelagic  

108 

108 

 
 
 
 
Skates  and  ray  species 
caught  by  any  gear  in 
ICES subareas VI and VII 

Demersal 

Information for cuckoo 
ray to be provided by 
1 May every year 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Article 5 

Demersal 

Temporary until end of 
2021 

Article 6(1d) 

Re-assessed based 
on existing and 
new information 

Demersal 

New  

Assessed based on 
new information 

Plaice  caught  with  beam 
trawls   by vessels of  t he 
>221kW  segment  fleet 
which use the flip-up rope 
or benthic release panel; 
or vessels, with an engine 
power  of  not  more  than 
221kW; or less than 24m 
in  length  overall  in  ICES 
subarea 7 

Common  Sole 
below 
MCRS caught with bottom 
trawls  by  vessels  less 
than 12m in ICES division 
7e 

6.1  De minimis exemption 

A  summary  of  the  fishery  information  applicable  to  the  proposed  new  or  revised  de  minimis 
exemptions is provided in Table 6.1.1.  

Table 6.1.1 Summary of de minimis  exemptions submitted as part of the NWW Joint 
Recommendations (restricted to new or revised exemptions) 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

caught 

by 
Whiting 
vessels  using  bottom 
trawls,  seines  with  a 
mesh  size  of  equal  or 
greater  than  80mm  and 
beam trawls with a mesh 
size  of  80mm  to  119mm 
in ICES divisions 7b- k up 
to  a  maximum  of  5%  of 
total  catches  -  Article 
13(1a)  of  Delegated 
Regulation 
No 
2020/2015 

(EU) 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing 
December 2022. 

temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until 

The JR requests the continuation of this de minimis  exempt ion f or 
2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated catch data and fishery information has been provided by 
the NWW Group for France and Ireland.  However, no inf ormat ion 
has been provided from Belgium,  Spain and the Netherlands.  

For France, catch data was provided for 2019 and 2020 through the 
Obsmer  sampling  programme.  The  supporting  Annex  provides 
detailed  information  on  the  number  of  fishing  vessels  by 
category/metier in 2019 concerned by the exemption totalling 474 
vessels as follows:  

34  vessels  engaged  in  bottom  trawling  for  crustaceans (shrimp) 
(OTB, OTT) in the Eastern Channel (7d) and the South of the Nort h 
Sea (4c). 

114 vessels <18m  engaged in bottom trawling targeting demersal 
species and cephalopods in the Eastern Channel and t he Sout h of  
the North Sea 

48  vessels  >18m  engaged  in  bottom  trawling targeting demersal 

109 

109 

 
  
 
 
 
 
species and cephalopods in the Eastern Channel and t he Sout h of  
the North Sea 

127 vessels > 18m engaged in bottom trawling targeting demersal 
species in the Celtic Sea, Western Channel and West of Ireland 

12 vessels using seines in the Celtic Sea and the south of the North 
Sea and 122 vessels using pelagic trawls classified as “artisanal” 

17 vessels using beam trawls (BT2).  

The  spatial  distribution  of  the  French  fishing  operations and the 
total  fishing  effort  is  also  provided  by  métier.  Whiting  catches, 
landings and discards data is provided in relative values by met ier, 
but not in absolute values. The proportion of disc ards f or w hit ing 
compared  to  the  total  catches  (in  %)  range  from  1%  to  12.5% 
depending on the year and métier. Although generally t he result s 
show a discard rate of whiting consistent with the 5% exempt ion, 
in some métiers and years the proportion of discards comparted t o 
the total catches is higher than the 5% limit  (e.g. , bot tom t raw ls 
targeting crustaceans, mainly grey shrimp, in the Eastern Channel 
and the south of the North Sea in 2019). 

Ireland provided detailed information about the number of  vessels 
as well as catches and discards in the Celtic Sea, in 2018 and 2019, 
based on Irish sampling data. A total of 141 vessels are concerned: 

76 vessels targeting Nephrops with OTB 

30 vessels targeting whitefish with OTB>100mm 

10 vessels targeting whitefish with OTB 70-99mm 

11 vessels targeting whitefish with SSC 

10 vessels using BT2 

4 vessels using pelagic PTM. 

For Ireland, the discard rate is also very variable depending on t he 
year  and  particularly  the  metier.  High  values  are  observed  for 
whiting caught as by catch with trawl targeting Nephrops (ca 80%) 
and whiting caught as bycatch with beam trawl (ca 50%).  

The  estimated  volume  of  whiting  discarded  is  only  provided  for 
Ireland: 122 tonnes in 2020 and 236 tonnes in 2020. T he highest  
volume  of  whiting  discards  comes  from  OTB>100mm  targeting 
whitefish  and  whiting  (176  tonnes  of  estimated  discards 
2020+2021) and OTB targeting Nephrops (98 tonnes of estimat ed 
discards 2020 and 2021. 

Since  the  exit  of  the  United  Kingdom  from  Europe,  the  fishing 
conditions in areas 7b to 7k are subject to certain UK legislation. 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The  justification  is  largely  unchanged  from  2020  as  previously 
assessed by STECF (EWG 15-10, 17-08, 21-05) on the grounds of  
difficulties to achieve further improvements in selectivity in t hese 
fisheries  over  and  above  technical  measures  already  introduced 
into the fisheries.  

Two  French  programmes  related  to  selectivity  (SELECMER  and 
SELUX), have been conducted, aimed at finding selec t ive devices 
(different square mesh panels and different species selective grids) 
and light devices, to reduce unwanted catches of whiting. However, 

110 

110 

 
 
some of these experiments are preliminary  and only show posit ive 
results for other species such as mackerel. Furthermore, t he t rials 
have shown these devices lead to losses of marketable catch. 

Ireland  has  conducted  several  supporting  selectivity  trials 
comparing different mesh sizes in the codend, modific ation of  t he 
trawl  design  and  the  testing  of  different  devices  (e.g.,  lights, 
bycatch escape corridors, modified “box trawl”). These have mainly 
been in the Nephrops fishery. These trials have provided posit ive 
results  and  further  work  is planned. Furthermore, Irish scientists 
are developing a stock forecasting tool that integrate t he lengt h -
based  results  of  gear  trials  with  existing  age-based  stock 
assessment  models,  which  could  be  used  by  decision  makers  to 
achieve management targets in mixed fisheries.  

The  supporting  information  provided  by  France  and  Ireland 
concludes that there is scientific evidence indic ating t hat f urt her 
increases  in  selectivity  currently are very difficult to achieve for 
whiting in the Celtic Sea, without significant losses of revenue. T he 
scale of these losses has not been analysed fully. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Ireland has indicated that further testing of selective gears is  on-
going. Trials are planned to continue testing selective gears in t he 
Nephrops and whitefish trawl fisheries in the Celtic Sea in 2022 and 
2023. Four different trials are planned testing artificial lights, using 
a  raised  fishing  line  trawl,  a bycatch escape corridor, and a T90 
codend with lastridge ropes.  

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

New information has been provided by France and Ireland but  only 
partial information on catches and fleets. France has only provided 
relative values for the level of unwanted catches. No data has been 
provided  by  other  Member  States  operating  in  NWW.  A  full 
assessment  of  the  impact  of  this  exemption is not possible. The 
previous observations made by EWG 15-10, 17-08, 21- 05 remain 
relevant. 

For  some  métiers  (e.g.,  Nephrops  fishery  in  the  Celtic  Sea  and 
bottom  trawls  targeting  crustaceans,  mainly  grey  shrimp,  in the 
Eastern  Channel  and  the  south  of  the  North  Sea),  the  whiting 
discard  rate  is  likely  to  above  the  5%  de  minimis  requested, 
although in some of the fisheries the volume in the overall c ont ext  
of the whiting stock is relatively low. For other métiers, the disc ard 
rates are relatively low.  

France  and  Ireland  have  continued  to  test  a  range  of  technical 
measures  to  reduce  unwanted  catches  of  whiting  in  particular 
métiers, such as in the Nephrops fishery. The results from some of  
these trials have led to the introduction of more selective gears into 
the  Celtic  Sea,  while  others  have  yielded  positive  indications  in 
reducing  unwanted  catches  of  whiting  but  do  not  appear  to  be 
widely used as yet. 

The whiting (and cod stocks) in the Celtic Sea is currently in a poor 
state according to the latest ICES advice. Therefore, it is import ant  
that  reducing  unwanted  catches  should  remain  a  priority  in  the 
fishery. It is also important that any whiting disc arded under t he 
exemption be fully monitored and recorded. 

111 

111 

 
 
 
Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Haddock  caught  with 
bottom 
trawls,  seines 
with  a  mesh  size  of 
greater  than 100m; with 
catches  comprising  not 
more  than  30  % Norway 
lobster and beam trawls; 
with  mesh  sizes  greater 
than  or  equal  to  80  mm 
in  ICES  divisions  7b,  7c 
and  7e  to  7k  up  to  a 
maximum  of  5%  of  total 
catches  – Article 13(1d) 
of 
(EU) 
2020/2015. 

Regulation 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until  31 
December 2022. 

The JR requests the continuation of this de minimis  exempt ion f or 
2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated catch data and fishery information has been provided by 
the NWW Group for France and Ireland.  However, no inf ormat ion 
has been provided from Belgium,  Spain and the Netherlands.  

Detailed  information  on  the  French  fishing  fleet  using  bottom 
trawls,  beam  trawls  and  Danish Seines in this area is provided in 
the JR. Data is from 2019 and 2020 through the Obsmer observer 
programme  (IFREMER).  The  supporting  Annex  provides  detailed 
information  on  the  number  of  fishing  vessels by category/metier 
(trawl, seine, beam trawl) concerned by the exemption (2019, w as 
approximately 140 vessels, of which the majority (127 vessels) use 
bottom  trawls  targeting  demersal  species  in  the  Celtic  Sea,  the 
western Channel and the Irish Sea. The spatial distribut ion of  t he 
French fishing operations and the total fishing effort is provided by 
métier.  

According  to  the  French  data  observer  program  (Obsmer),  the 
proportion of haddock in the discards in the total catch of the f leet 
covered  by  the  exemption  (bottom  trawlers > 18 m in the Celtic 
Sea, Western Channel and Irish Sea), ranges widely  f rom year t o 
year,  from  0.9%  (2019)  to  4.9%  (2020).  Volumes  of  French 
haddock catches and discards are reported for one of the f isheries 
covered by the exemption in 2019-2020 (bottom trawlers >18m) in 
the Celtic Sea, Western Channel and Irish Sea, with total catch and 
discards  amounting  to  53000  and  16300  tonnes  in  2019 
respectively, and 12600 and 5700 tonnes in 2020 respectively.  

Ireland provided detailed information about the number of  vessels 
as well as catches and discards in the Celtic Sea, in 2018 and 2019, 
based on Irish sampling data. A total of 137 vessels are concerned: 

76 vessels targeting Nephrops with OTB 

30 vessels targeting whitefish with OTB>100mm 

10 vessels targeting whitefish with OTB 70-99mm 

11 vessels targeting whitefish with SSC 

10 vessels using BT2 

The majority (more than 90%) of Irish haddock landings are f rom 
the Irish whitefish trawl and seine vessels > 100mm.  T he disc ard 
rate  is  very  variable  depending  on  the  year  and  particularly  the 
metier. All metiers show average (2020-2021) discard rates above 
the  5%,  with  a  maximum  of  81%  in  2020  the  case  of  Nephrops 
fishery albeit based on low volumes of unwanted catches. Levels of  
haddock  discards  in  these  fisheries  remain  quite  high  despite 
increases  in selectivity in these fisheries. The absolute values of 
discards  for  certain  metiers  such  as  OTB>100mm  targeting 
haddock  and  whitefish are also quite high (1130 tonnes for 2020 
and 2021). 

112 

112 

 
 
 
3.  Basis for the exemption 

The  justification  is  largely  unc hanged  as  previously assessed by 
STECF (EWG 17-08, 20-04, 21-05) on the grounds of difficulties t o 
achieve further improvements in selectivity in these fisheries over 
and above technical measures already introduced into the fisheries.  

The  JR  argues  that  since  haddock  and  cod  are  high-risk  choke 
species  in  the  Celtic  Sea,  granting  a  de  minimis  exemption  will 
provide a buffer against exceeding the haddock and c od T AC and 
hence reduce the risk of an early closures of fisheries.  

French and Irish selectivity t rials 

Two  French  programmes  related  to  selectivity  (CELSELEC  and 
SELUX), have been conducted. The use of the T90 meshing in  t he 
extension  and  codend  yielded  positive  results  regarding  the 
reduction of unwanted haddock catches, without signific ant losses 
of  marketable  catches.  However,  results  with  a  100  mm  square 
mesh cylinder were less convincing. In the SELUX project dif f erent 
light  devices  were  tested  yielded  but  positive  results  were  only 
obtained for mackerel.  

Ireland has also conducted several supporting selectivity t rials t o 
test  ways  to  improve  the  selectivity  in  trawls  and  seines  for 
haddock including artificial lights, bycatch escape corridors and T90 
with  lastridge  ropes. This has built on earlier work carried out by 
Ireland looking a range of selectivity devices, some of  w hic h have 
been brought into technical measures legislation in the Celtic Sea.  

The  supporting  information  provided  by  France  and  Ireland 
concludes that there is scientific evidence indic ating t hat f urt her 
increases  in  selectivity  currently are very difficult to achieve for 
haddock  in  the Celtic Sea, without significant losses of revenue. 
The scale of these losses has not been analysed fully. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Ireland has indicated that further testing of selective gears is on-
going. Trials are planned to continue testing selective gears in t he 
Nephrops and whitefish trawl fisheries in the Celtic Sea in 2022 and 
2023. Four different trials are planned testing artificial lights, using 
a  raised  fishing  line  trawl,  a bycatch escape corridor, and a T90 
codend with lastridge ropes.  

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

New information has been provided by France and Ireland but  only 
partial information on catches and fleets. France has only provided 
relative values for the level of unwanted catches. No data has been 
provided by other Member States operating in NWW. T heref ore, a 
full assessment of the impact of this exemption is not possible. The 
previous  observations  made  by  EWG  17-08, 20-04, 21-05 which 
remain relevant. 

For  some  métiers  (e.g.,  Nephrops  fishery  in  the  Celtic  Sea  and 
beam  trawl  fishery),  the  haddock discard rate is likely to be well 
above  the  5%  de  minimis  requested,  although  in  some  of  the 
fisheries the volume in the overall context of the haddock st ock is 

113 

113 

 
 
 
 
relatively low. For other métiers, the discard rates are relatively low 
although in the mixed demersal fisheries the volumes of unw ant ed 
haddock catches are quite high relatively to the stock size.  

France and Ireland have continued to test and a range of tec hnica l 
measures  to  reduce  unwanted  catches  of  haddock  in  particular 
métiers, such as in the Nephrops fishery. The results from some of  
these trials have led to the introduction of more selective gears into 
the Celtic Sea. 

The haddock stock in the Celtic Sea is currently fished sust ainably 
according  to  the  latest  ICES  advice.  However,  given  the  high 
discard  rates  in  some  fisheries,  it  is  important  that  reducing 
unwanted catches should remain a priority in these f isheries. It  is 
also important that any haddock discarded under the exemption be 
fully monitored and recorded. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Boarfish 
caught  by 
vessels  using  bottom 
trawls  in  ICES  divisions 
7b-c  and  7f-k  up  to  a 
maximum  of  0.5%  of 
that species for all gears 
of 
-Article 
Delegated 
Regulation 
(EU) No 2020/2015. 

13(1) 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until  31 
December  2022  under  Article  13(1),  point  (f)  of  Delegated 
Regulation (EU) No 2020/2015 with amendments in Article 1(4) of  
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2021/2063).  

The JR requests the continuation of this de minimis  exempt ion f or 
2023 and beyond. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated catch and fishery information was provided by t he NWW 
Member States Group. The information provided relates princ ipally 
to Franc e but catch information has been provided for relevant Irish 
fleets. Ireland reports it has not used this exempt ion t o dat e . No 
information is provided by other Member States.  

According  to  the  JR  in  the  French  TR2  fisheries  (mesh  size  80-
99mm),  125  vessels  participated  in  the  fishery  in  2020  and  127 
vessels  in  2019  with  a  length  of  over  18  m.  Based  on  the 
supplementary information, which refers to the FDI dat abase, t he 
vessels operating in ICES 7 b,c,e-k caught 418 845 tonnes of  T AC 
species (average 2013-2016) of which 33 586 tonnes were boarfish 
catches.  Thus,  a  de  minimis  of  0,5%  of  the  catches  of boarfish 
would represent theoretically a maximum  volume of discards of 168 
tonnes.  The  average  discard  rate  for  the  French  bottom  trawl 
fishery operating in 7b-c,e-k areas is 30.8% in 2019 and 45.3% in 
2020.  It  is  unclear  whether  this  relates  to  boarfish  or covers all 
species caught in the fishery. 

The supporting information indicates that the Irish demersal f leet  
OTB_>100  operating  in  the  Celtic  Sea  is  made up of around 120 
vessels.  Estimated  discards  of  boarfish  were  5.6  tonnes in 2020 
and 64.1 tonnes in 2021 were reported, with all of this t reat ed as 
unwanted catch.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is the same as assessed by EWG 
20-04 and 21-05. The JR states that improvements in selec tivit y, 
over and above the measures already to be introduced in the Celtic  
Sea Protection Zone, to avoid the catches of boarfish will be hard to 
achieve  without severe economic impacts on the revenue of  the 

114 

114 

 
 
 
 
boats concerned. A review of recent French selectivity experiment s 
is provided, which describes trials carried out with several different 
selective gears as evidence. However, these are not  new  st udies 
and do not specifically refer to boarfish. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional work is planned in the short -term. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Other than partial information on catches and fleets for 2019-2021, 
only  limited  new  information  has been provided. Therefore, a full 
assessment  of  the  exemption  is  not  possible.  The  previous 
observations made by EWG 19-04 and 20-04 remain relevant. 

Given  the  paucity  of  available  catch  information,  monitoring the 
catches of boarfish in the relevant fleets covered by this exempt ed 
should be encouraged. 

The  supporting  information  indicates  that  the  current  0.5%  de 
minimis  based on bottom trawl catches would not be suf f ic ient t o 
account for the total unwanted catches of boarfish f or t he F rench 
fleet.  France  had  to  swap  in  up  to  84  tonnes  to  cover  boarfish 
unwanted catches in 2021. 

Based on the supporting information, bycatch of boarf ish by Irish 
demersal  vessels  are  very  low  when  taken in the context of the 
Irish demersal fleet operating in the Celtic Sea. They represent less 
than 0.5% of the total Irish boarfish catches. 

Catch  data  and  a  description  of  the  fisheries  of  other  Member 
States  (Spain  and  Belgium)  availing  of  this  exemption  would  be 
helpful although would not materially change the observation t hat 
under  both  the  current  wording  and  the  new  wording,  the 
exemption  covers  only  a  small  portion  of  the  total  unwanted 
catches of boarfish.  

The  observations  of  EWG  20-04  and  21-05  that  the information 
provided  indicates  that  selective  improvement  by  regulatory 
measures to avoid the catches of boarfish will be hard t o ac hieve 
without  severe  economic  impacts  on  the  revenue  of  the  boats 
concerned remain valid. However, the arguments presented in t he 
supporting document are generic. The priority should be to improve 
selectivity to reduce the unwanted catches and therefore, the costs 
for handling such catches, accepting that this should be balanc ed 
against  the  costs  of sorting small quantities of boarfish from the 
other marketable catch. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Greater  silver  smelt 
caught  by  vessels  using 
bottom  trawls  with  a 
mesh size of greater than 
equal  to  100  mm  (TR1) 
in  ICES  division  5b  (EU 
waters) and subarea 6 up 
to a maximum  of 0.6% of 
the  total  catch  of  that 
species  with  all  gears  – 
of 
Article 

13(1i) 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary de minimis  exemption applicable until the 31st of 
December 2022. 

The JR requests the continuation of this de minimis  exempt ion f or 
2023 and beyond. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated catch and fishery information was provided by t he NWW 
Member States Group. The information provided relates princ ipally 
to France but catch information has been provided for relevant Irish 

115 

115 

 
 
 
Regulation 
2020/2015. 

(EU) 

fleets. Ireland reports it has not used this exempt ion t o dat e. No 
information is provided by other Member States.  

Based  on  the FDI data base, European vessels operating in ICES 
subarea  5b  (EU-waters)  and  6  in  the  period  2013-2016,  caught 
401,905 tonnes of TAC species of which 6,170 tonnes were greater 
silver  smelt.  Thus, a de minimis of 0.6% of the catches of great 
silver smelt would theoretically represent a maximum  of  about  37 
tonnes discarded per year (for all European vessels using bot t om 
trawl  in  ICES  subarea  5  and  6),  noting  this  is  old  data.  More 
recently,  (2018-2020) ICES (ICES, 2021) estimated values show 
that 14142 tonnes of greater silver smelt were landed and a further 
397 tonnes or 2.7% discarded.  

French  bottom  trawlers  mostly  target  deep-sea  species  in  ICES 
area  5b,  for  which  greater  silver  smelt  are  one  of  the  by-catch 
species of this fishery. All catches are 100% discarded and F rance 
considers them a potential choke risk for targeted stocks as France 
has a small  quota for greater silver smelt. Catches  represent less 
than 0.1% of the total TAC species catches by all bottom t raw ls in 
this area, and the respective discards amount to 0.01% of the total 
TAC species discards (from statements provided in the support ing 
documentation).  The  discards  of  the  TR1  fleet  (a  subset  of the 
figures above) are smaller. 

Due to the small greater silver smelt TAC, France has had to secure 
swaps of up to 52 tonnes to cover its quota needs, stemming f rom 
the unwanted but so far unavoidable catch. 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is the same as assessed by EWG 
20-04 and relates to improvements in selectivity being very difficult 
to achieve as well as the disproportionate costs for handling small 
amounts of greater silver smelt on board bottom trawlers. 

According  to  the  JR,  it   is  assumed  the  French  fishery  is  very 
selective,  with  maximum  discard  rates  of  any  individual  species 
amounting  to  less  than  2%.  According  to  limited  information 
provided in the JR, selectivity improvement by regulatory measures 
to avoid the catches of greater silver smelt would not be ac hieved 
without severe economic impacts on the revenue of the boats.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional work is planned in the short -term. 

Additionally, no update is provided on the possible widespread use 
of  the  square  mesh  panels  by  Spanish  trawlers,  which  were 
reported  to  EWG  20-04  to  reduce  unwanted  catches  of greater 
silver smelt, among other species.   

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Only limited new information has been provided and is restricted t o 
partial information on catches and fleets for 2019-2021. Therefore, 
a full assessment of the exemption is not possible. 

It is apparent that the unwanted catch of greater silver smelt in the 
relevant mixed-species fisheries is small in volume, wit h nearly all 
of the catches discarded by the EU demersal f leet . Given t he low  
volumes  the  impact  of  the  stock  of the exemption is likely to be 

116 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
low, particularly given recent ICES advice for great er silver smelt  
advising a large increase (213%) in the TAC for this species. 

No  updated  information  has  been  provided  of  the  uptake  of  the 
square mesh panel by Spanish vessels as reported in 2020 and it  is 
not  known  whether  the  square  mesh  panel  is  being used by the 
Spanish fleet. 

Given  the  paucity  of  available  catch  information,  monitoring the 
catches of greater silver smelt in the relevant fleets covered by this 
exempted should be encouraged. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Megrim  below  MCRS 
caught  using  bottom 
trawls  with  a  mesh  size 
of  70-99mm  and  beam 
trawls  with  a  mesh  size 
of  80-119mm  in  ICES 
subarea  7  up 
to  a 
maximum  of  4%  of  the 
total  annual  catches  of 
that  species  –  Article 
13(g)  of  Regulation (EU) 
2020/2015. 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary de minimis  exemption applicable until the 31st of 
December 2022. 

The JR requests the continuation of this de minimis  exempt ion f or 
2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Limited  catch  data  was  only  supplied  by  Ireland.  No  data  was 
provided  by  other  Member  States,  and  it  is  unclear  how  many 
vessels avail of this exemption.  

Ireland  reported  catch  data  for  Nephrops  trawl  fleet,  mixed 
demersal trawl fishery targeting mixed species and the Irish beam 
trawl fleet. According to the JR, the number of vessels involved in 
these fisheries was around 76, 10 and 10 respectively. The landings 
by the Irish fleet consisted of 760.1 t onnes and 859 tonnes in 2020 
and  2021  respectively.  While  estimated unwanted catches were 
154.5 tonnes with a discard date of 32% in 2020 and 623.2 tonnes 
with an estimated discard rate of 31% in 2021.   

3.  Basis for the exemption 

No  new information has been provided so it is assumed the basis 
for  the  exemption  is  the  assessed  by  STECF  in  2019  and  2020 
(EWG 19-08 and 20-05). This relates to the additional costs in crew 
time  and  an  increase  of  space  onboard  for  separate  storage  of 
unwanted catches of megrim  below MCRS.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional work is planned in the short-term. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Only limited catch information has been provided by Ireland and it  
is unclear whether other Member States in NWW intend to use t his 
exemption if extended. 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  information,  no  assessment  of  the 
impact of this exemption on the megrim  stock can be made.  

The earlier assessments by STECF that evidence show ing landing 
unwanted catches has an associated cost, is still not  suf f ic ient t o 
demonstrate those costs are disproportionate.  

Improving selectivity in the relevant fisheries should be the priorit y 
as this will reduce the costs for handling unwanted catches. T his is 
particularly relevant given the limited data provided shows the level 

117 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
of unwanted catches of megrim in Irish fisheries are significant.  

It is not clear why the exemption is proposed to cover the whole of  
ICES  subarea  7  for  beam  trawls  but  is  limited  to  only  certain 
trawlers  operating  in  a  smaller  area  defined  in  the  Fishing 
Opportunities Regulation for 2020 (Celtic Sea Protection Zone). 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Mackerel  caught  by 
vessels  using  bottom 
trawls,  beam  trawls  and 
seine  in  ICES  divisions  6 
and  7b-k  up 
to  a 
maximum  of  3%  of 
megrim  catches by those 
fishing  gears  –  Article 
13(1g) of Regulation (EU) 
2020/2015 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary de minimis  exemption applicable until the 31st of 
December 2022. 

The JR requests the continuation of this de minimis  exempt ion f or 
2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated catch and fishery information was provided by t he NWW 
Member States Group. The information relates principally to France  
but catch information has been provided for relevant  Irish f leet s . 
Ireland reports it makes limited use of the exemption given the low  
level of catches (less than 1% of total catches). No inf ormat ion is 
provided by other Member States.  

The French bottom otter trawlers, operate over a wide area in ICES 
divisions 7b-e, 7g-j and 6a. French Danish seine and beam t raw ls, 
operate mainly in ICES divisions 7e and 7d. According to the JR, in 
total  around  350  French  vessels  potentially  could  avail  of  this 
exemption.  The  metiers  involved  are  largely  the  same  as  those 
described  for  the  whiting,  haddock,  horse mackerel and boarfish 
exemptions as well as for exemptions in the North Sea f or w hit ing 
and pelagic species.  

Partial  c atch  data  is  provided  from  the  French  data  observer 
programme (Obsmer). It shows the total catches for 2019 f or t he 
different metiers covered by the exemption were 104,065 t onnes 
with  41,794  tonnes  of  discards  with  a  discard  rate  of  40%.  
Percentages  by  metier  for  the  proportion  of the total catch and 
discards  that  are  made up of mackerel are provided which range 
between 0-35.8% (highest in the trawl fishery in ICES divisions 6a 
and  6b).  It  is  unclear  why  there  is  such  a  wide  range  of  rates 
between the different metiers. French fleet logbook data shows that 
for 2021, the discard rate under this exemption amounts to 5.1%.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption request by France is t he same 
as provided previously assessed by STECF (EWG 18-06, 19-09, 20-
04).  This  is  based  on  selectivity  improvements  by  regulatory 
measures to avoid the catches of mackerel being very dif f ic ult  t o 
achieve  without severe economic impacts on the revenue of the 
boats concerned, and on the grounds of disproportionate costs due 
to  handling unwanted catches. References to historic selectivity 
trials  (CELESEC  SELECCAB,  SELECMER)  and the EODE project on 
disproportionate costs previously made available to EWG 19-04 and 
20-04 are included as justification.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No  additional  work  is  planned  in  the  short -term  apart  from  the 
continuation of catch sampling. 

118 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Only limited new catch and fishery information has been provided 
by France and Ireland. Some of the information dates back t o t he 
period  2013-2016  and  may  not  be  representative of the current 
situation in the relevant fisheries. Therefore, a full assessment  of  
the  impact  of  this  exemption  is  not  possible  and  the  previous 
observations made by EWG 19-04 and 20-04 remain relevant 

According to the data submitted by France, a substantial part of the 
landings  is  discarded  in  the  fishery (40%) particularly by bottom 
trawlers below 18 m  (71%). However, the proportion of disc arded 
mackerel appears to be quite low in the range of 0.0 - 0.4% of  t he 
total  catch  in  the  fishery  (highest  in  the bottom trawl fishery in 
ICES divisions 6a and 6b).  

The selectivity information from three French study projects gives a 
valuable  insight  to  the  research  aimed  to  reduce  unwanted  by 
introducing  various  technical  measures.  However,  they  are  not 
new, dating back to 2017 and earlier. It is unclear whet her any of  
the selectivity improvements tested have been implemented in  t he 
fishery. 

It  is  acknowledged  that  it  is  difficult  to  improve  selectivity  for 
mackerel without causing significant commercial losses for vessels 
fishing in such mixed fisheries. However, the data provided indicate 
that the levels of discarding in these fisheries is high and therefore, 
efforts to improve selectivity should continue. 

The  Obsmer  document  provided  is  in  French  with  only  a  short 
English summary. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

in 

seines 

Horse mackerel caught 
by  vessels  using  bottom 
trawls  and  beam  trawls 
and 
ICES 
divisions  6  and  7b-k  up 
to  a  maximum  of  3%  of 
megrim  catches by those 
fishing  gears  –  Article 
13(1j) of Regulation (EU) 
2020/2015 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary de minimis  exemption applicable until the 31st of 
December 2022. 

The JR requests the continuation of this de minimis  exempt ion f or 
2023. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated catch and fishery information was provided by t he NWW 
Member States Group. The information relates principally to France 
but catch information has been provided for relevant  Irish f leet s, 
although  Ireland  reports  it  makes  limited  use  of  the  exemption 
given the low level of catches (less than 1% of t ot al c atches). No 
information is provided by other Member States.  

The French bottom otter trawlers, operate over a wide area in ICES 
divisions 7b-e, 7g-j and 6a. French Danish seine and beam t raw ls, 
operate mainly in ICES divisions 7e and 7d. According to the JR, in 
total  around  350  French  vessels  potentially  could  avail  of  this 
exemption.  The  metiers  involved  are  largely  the  same  as  those 
described  for  the  whiting,  haddock,  mackerel  and  boarfish 
exemptions as well as for exemptions in the North Sea f or w hit ing 
and pelagic species.  

Partial  catch  data  is  provided  from  the  French  data  observer 
programme (Obsmer). It shows the total catches for 20 20 f or t he 
different  metiers  covered  by  the  exemption  were 38,973 tonnes 
with  17,998  tonnes  of  discards  with  a  discard  rate  of  46%.  

119 

119 

 
 
Percentages  by  metier  for  the  proportion  of the total catch and 
discards  that  are  made  up of horse mackerel are provided which 
range  between  0.2-6.7%  (highest  in  Danish  seine  fishery).  The 
data provided indicates that almost 100% of horse mackerel caught 
in the fishery are discarded. It is unclear why there is suc h a w ide 
variation in discard rates between metiers.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption request by France is t he same 
as provided previously assessed by STECF (EWG 18-06, 19-09, 20-
04).  This  is  based  on  selectivity  improvements  by  regulatory 
measures to avoid the catches of mackerel being very dif f ic ult  t o 
achieve  without severe economic impacts on the revenue of the 
boats concerned, and on the grounds of disproportionate costs due 
to  handling unwanted catches. References to historic selectivity 
trials  (CELESEC  SELECCAB,  SELECMER)  and the EODE project on 
disproportionate costs previously made available to EWG 19-04 and 
20-04 are included as justification.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

The JR reports on a study carried out by France called SELUX. T he 
project is focusing on artisanal trawlers operating  in t he Sout h of  
the  North Sea and in the English Channel and targeting demersal 
species. Two types of light devices were tested: the Brezglow  and 
the PISCES, and each with different conditions (day/night, seasons, 
flashing  or  not).  The  behaviour of horse-mackerel, mackerel and 
whiting  was  observed,  and  the  results  showed  that  whiting and 
mackerel tend to behave in a light -averse manner. The JR indicates 
that  other  configurations  of  lights could be tested in the future, 
although no detail is provided.  

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Only limited new catch and fishery information has been provided 
by  France  and  Ireland.  Some  of  information  dates  back  to  the 
period  2013-2016  and  may  not  be  representative of the current 
situation in the relevant fisheries. Therefore, a full assessment  of  
the  impact  of  this  exemption  is  not  possible  and  the  previous 
observations made by EWG 19-04 and 20-04 remain relevant.  

According to the French data, a substantial part of t he landings is 
discarded  in  the  fishery  (40%)  particularly  by  bottom  trawlers 
below  18  m  (71%).  The  proportion  of  discarded  horse  mackerel 
appears to be higher than for mackerel in the range of 0.2-6.7% of  
the total catch in the fishery (highest in the Danish seine fishery).  

Close  to  100%  of  horse  mackerel  are  discarded  in  the  fishery. 
Therefore,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  current  de  minimis  volume  will 
cover  all  of  these  unwanted  catches  suggesting  further 
improvements  in  the  fishery  to  improve  selectivity  may  be 
warranted. 

The selectivity information from three French selectivit y projects 
gives a valuable insight to the research aimed to reduce unw anted 
by introducing various technical measures. However, t hey are not  
new, dating back to 2017 and earlier. It is unclear whet her any of  
the selectivity improvements tested have been implemented in  t he 
fishery. The new research using lights is encouraging and should be 

120 

120 

 
 
 
 
continued. 

It is acknowledged that it is difficult to improve selectivity for horse 
mackerel without causing significant commercial losses for vessels 
fishing in such mixed fisheries. However, the data provided indicate 
that the levels of discarding in these fisheries is high and therefore, 
efforts to improve selectivity should continue. 

Continued efforts to improve the overall selectivity of  t he catches 
or  considering  ways  to  improve  the  commercial utilization of the 
unwanted >MCRS horse mackerel catches should be encouraged. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

fishery 

Haddock  <  MCRS  with 
bottom trawls with mesh 
size  up  to  119mm  in 
West of Scotland Norway 
ICES 
lobster 
Division  6a  of  up  to  3% 
of  total  catches  of  that 
species  in  the  fishery  - 
of 
Article 
Regulation 
No 
2020/2015). 

13(1l) 
(EU) 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing 
December 2022  

temporary  de  minimis  exemption  applicable  until 

2.  Fishery Context 

No information is provided 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

This  exemption  mainly  concerns  a  fishery  in  UK  waters  and only 
involves UK vessels. No Union vessels participate in the fishery. No 
information has been provided.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional work planned. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

It  is  apparent  that  this  exemption  is  targeted  at  UK  vessels 
operating in a fishery inside UK  waters. No supporting inf ormat ion 
has  been  provided  for  its  continuation.  Therefore,  as  no  Union 
vessels  participate  in  the  fishery  it  is  unclear  whether  it  is  still 
required. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Common sole caught by 
vessels 
beam 
using 
trawls  (BT2)  80-119mm 
with  Flemish  panel  in 
ICES divisions 7a of up to 
3%  of  total  catches  of 
that species in the fishery 
-  Article  13(1h)  of 
No 
Regulation 
2020/2015) 

(EU) 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary de minimis  exemption applicable until the 31st of 
December 2022. 

The JR requests the continuation of this de minimis  exempt ion f or 
2023. 

Additionally,  the  NWW  Member  States  group  has  requested 
extending this exemption to ICES divisions 7j and 7k. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated  catch  and fishery information has been provided  by the 
NWW  Member  States  group  principally  for  Belgium  with  limited 
catch data provided by Ireland.  

Sole  is  caught,  predominantly,  in  a  mixed  species  (50+ species) 
demersal fishery. The Belgian fleet comprises 65 active (2019) and 
an  additional  10  Irish beam trawl vessels which according to the 
supporting  information  do  not  avail  of  the  exemption.  Plaice 
constitutes a significant by-catch of the EU fleet. Sole catches f rom 

121 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
this  fleet  in  area  7a  amount  to  >13%  of  Belgian  sole  catches 
(targeted),  whereas  in  areas  7j  and  k  they  correspond  to  <2% 
(caught as by-catch). 

Estimated  discards  are  generally  quite  low  (none  to  negligible), 
except for a group of around 30 vessels operat ing in area 7a, f or 
which the discard rate was ~10% in 2020 and 2021. 

The gear is equipped with a Flemish panel, which is comprised of  a 
panel of larger mesh netting, permitting the amount of sole caught  
below  MCRS  to be reduced by 40%. “As such, together with the 
cod-end selectivity, the amount of small sole relative to t he w hole 
sole catch becomes rather low.” This has a concomit ant report ed 
impact of a 16% loss of marketable sole. 

For  area  7a,  the  ICES  (2021a)  assessment  report  states  under 
“Issues  relevant  for  the  advice”  that  “Discards  have  increased 
recently from 3,5% (average 2016–2018) to 10% (average 2018–
2020) and are not currently included in the assessment. ”. T his is 
not fleet-specific, but discards in the same report are attribut ed t o 
beam trawlers (99%) and otter trawlers (1%), and does c ompare 
to the data provided to STECF with this JR. The stock is c urrent ly 
assessed to be fished sustainably. 

As reported in the ICES assessment, for area 7h-k (and not  7j- k), 
the stock is assessed under category 5 (ICES 2021b), and it  lat ely 
received  a  recommendation  for  a  precautionary  TAC  reduction. 
Catches  by  the  beam  trawl  fleet  are  likely  to  be  under  1%. 
Discarding is considered negligible. 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

As  reported  in  the  documentation  provided,  further  increases  in 
selectivity are very difficult to achieve and want to avoid additional 
disproportionate  costs  of  handling  unwanted  catches  (currently 
paying  a  16%  premium  comprised  of  lost  revenue  from  the 
improved selectivity). 

This  request  for prolongation of the exemption for area 7a and a 
request  for  a  new  exemption  for  the  area  7jk  is  in  line  with  the 
existing exemption for sole in areas 7de and 7fgh for the BT2 gear. 
“The NWW group notes that a level playing field should be ensur ed 
across sea basins, especially as those areas are adjacent and of ten 
frequented during the same fishing trip.”. This is reported to consist 
of  the  same  fishery  in  similar  conditions  (cf.  ICES  statement 
(2021b) about the lack of reliability on area reporting).  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Work  is  ongoing  and  new  projects  starting,  with  the  aim  of 
improving  knowledge  on the genetic composition of the targeted 
stock.  Presently  there  are  significant  concerns  with  the  choke 
potential  of  this  stock, but the stock perception may potentially 
change, if the present borders are recognised to be different. 

Further selectivity options are being studied at ILVO (Belgium)  such 
as with the application of light. Options are also being considered to 
organise  the  spatial-temporal  planning  of  the  fishery  based  on 
presence or absence of certain species and population components, 
to further reduce the impact of unwanted catches. 

122 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

The  exemptions  requested are both a temporal and geographical 
extension  of  existing  exemptions.  Partial  catch  and  fleet 
information is provided by Belgium  and Ireland. 

Measures to reduce the unwanted catch of sole have been put  in 
place, notably through the implementation of the legal obligation to 
use “Flemish panels”, as reported in previous STECF report s. T his 
has resulted in the reduction of 40% of the undersized catches, t o 
the extent that according to ICES they are now apparently most ly 
negligible (ICES, 2021 and 2021). The extent to which the F lemish 
panel has contributed to this is unclear. 

There  are  further  plans  in  progress  to improve the knowledge of 
the  stock,  through  genetic  analysis  of  fish  and the validation of 
environmental  DNA  analyses,  that  may  result  in  a  better 
assessment of stock limits and stock size, potentially overcoming 
lack of observers for this fleet. The combined results of  t hese new  
and  ongoing  projects are expected to improve knowledge on the 
stocks that will help to better define the impact of the fisheries and 
therefore focus the impact of management measures suc h as t he 
requested  exemptions  on  the  landing  obligation.  Improved 
knowledge on the stocks involved is expected to allow better spatial 
planning and potentially further reduce unwanted catches. 

The request for a temporal extension of the derogation t o area 7a 
and a spatial extension to area 7jk appears to be reasonable, based 
on  the  low  level  of  catch  and  linkage  to  the  use  of  the  Flemish 
panel.  

It  is  unclear  why  the  JR  requests  a  3% de minimis for 7jk, when 
apparently  the  reported  catch  rates  are  very  low  and  discards 
negligible.   

ICES advice indicates a sudden increase in the discards in area 7a 
for  the  period  2018–2020.  Understanding  why  this  increase  in 
discards  has  occurred  would  be  helpful  given  the  exemption  is 
linked  to  the  use  of  a  selective  gear  and  given  previously  ICES 
reported a decrease in discards of sole in this area. 

References 

Balazuc  A.,  Goffier  E.,  Soulet  E.,  Rochet  M.J.,  Leleu  K.,  2016.  EODE  –  Expérimentation  de 
l’Obligation  de  DEbarquement  à  bord  de  chalutiers  de fond artisans de Manche Est et mer du 
Nord, et essais de valorisation des captures non désirées sous quotas communautaires, 136 +  53 
pp. 

Cornou Anne Sophie, Scavinner Marion, Sagan Jonathan, Cloatre Thomas,  Dubroca Laurent, Billet  
Norbert (2021). Captures et rejets des métiers de pêche français. Résultats des observations à 
bord des navires de pêche professionnelle en 2019. Obsmer. https://doi.org/10.13155/79198  

Cloâtre  Thomas,  Quinio-Scavinner  Marion,  Sagan  Jonathan,  Dubroca  Laurent,  Biellet  Norbert 
(2022). Captures et rejets des métiers de pêche français. Résultats des observations à bord des 
navires de pêche professionnelle en 2020. Obsmer 

Gauduchon Thibault, Cornou Anne Sophie, Scavinner Marion, Goascoz Nicolas, Dubroca Laurent, 
Billet  Norbert  (2020).  Captures  et  rejets  des  métiers  de  pêche  français.  Résultats  des 
observations  à  bord  des  navires  de  pêche  professionnelle  en  2018.  Obsmer. 
https://doi.org/10.13155/73122  

Leonardi  S.,  Rubin  A.,  Meillat  M.,  Coppin  F.,  Delpech  J-P.,  Morandeau  F.,  Larnaud  P.,  2009. 
Selecmer – Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers – Pêcheries mult ispéc if iques Manche – 
Mer du Nord, 66 +  62 pp. Version septembre 2009 

123 

123 

 
Nielsen, E.E., et al., 2009. Population genomics of marine fishes: identifying adaptive variation in 
space and time. Molecular Ecology, 18, 3128-3150 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of  t he Landing 
Obligation Joint Recommendations (STECF-18-06) (2018). Publications Of f ice of  t he European 
Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-79389-9, doi:10.2760/999971, JRC112740 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Evaluation  of  Landing 
Obligation  Joint Recommendations (STECF-19-08). Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-09523-1, doi:10.2760/227428, JRC117511 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  Evaluation  of  Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measure s Regulation (ST ECF-
20-04). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-20383-4, 
doi:10.2760/328463, JRC121260 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  -  Evaluation  of  Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation (ST ECF -
21-05). EUR 28359 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978 -
92-76-40593-1, doi:10.2760/83668, JRC126128. 

Viera A., Meillat M., Coppin F., Delpech J-P., Morandeau F., Gamblin C., 2010. SELECCAB –  Volet  
Artisans - Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers artisanaux travaillant en Manche – Mer du 
Nord de façon à limiter les captures de cabillaud., 61 + 48pp. Version septembre 2010 

Weiller Y., Reecht Y., Vermard Y., Coppin F., Delpech J-P., Morandeau F ., 2014. SELECF ISH – 
Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers artisanaux travaillant en Manc he Est  -  Mer du Nord 
afin de limiter  leurs rejets, 82 +  55pp. Version avril 2014 

6.2  High Survivability exemptions  

A summary of the proposed high survivability exemptions is given in Table 6.2.1.  

Table 6.2.1. Summary of high survivability submitted as part of the NWW Joint Recommendations 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

rays 
Skates  and 
(Rajiformes) caught by 
any fishing gear in t he 
North-Western Waters 
(ICES  subareas  6  and 
7)  –  Article  10  of 
Regulation 
(EU) 
2020/2015 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption with request for additional information. 
Member  States  having  a  direct  management  interest  must  submit 
additional  scientific  information  supporting the exemption by 1 May 
every year. 

Article  10  contains  a  specific  provision  for  cuckoo  ray,  whereby 
Member States must submit, every year as soon as possible and not  
later  than  by 1 May, additional scientific information on cuckoo ray 
catches, cuckoo ray discards and the progress of cuckoo ray vitality or 
survival research in relevant fisheries. 

2.  Fishery context 

For  all  ray  species  that  fall  under this exemption, a comprehensive 
overview of landings and discard quantities of ray spec ies, inc luding 
cuckoo ray (that is of low economic value) is lac king per gear t ype, 
region,  and  member  state  (e.g.,  landings,  discards,  species 
composition, size/sex composition). 

Partial updated discard rates for various ray species were provided by 
France (see Annex B, SWW). 

There  remains  a  gap in the knowledge base relating to the capture 
conditions of the relevant fisheries to link any vitality observations t o 
influencing 
duration, 
(gear 
seasonality/temperature, areas etc.). To comply with the objective of  

attributes 

use, 

haul 

124 

124 

 
 
 
 
the roadmap and to systematically synthesize all relevant evidence in 
a  useful  way,  regional  groups  are  encouraged  to  focus  on  a 
comprehensive  collective  effort  of  all  information  in  line  with  the 
observed knowledge gaps.  

The Irish Sea is a hotspot, both for thornback ray catches and cuckoo 
ray bycatches. Detailed catch statistics and plotted CPUE catches from 
Belgium  suggested that Cuckoo rays were caught-and-discarded year-
round by Belgian trawlers, except for the third quarter where c atches 
were less frequent.  

In the Irish Sea, the maximum  CPUE of 15.3 kg/h was registered and 
where discarding can occur of up to 11 kg/h (highest average CPUEs) 
in the central Irish Sea. 

Discard data for cuckoo ray from France reported last year a disc ard 
rate of 27% is reported for the particular fishery, while 39% disc ards 
are  reported  for  French  bottom  trawls  in  the  Celtic  Sea,  western 
channel and west of Ireland as a whole. No further dat a is provided. 
In Irish trial catches of cuckoo ray were sporadic and comprised only 
1% of total catch. 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

One new study was identified assessing the survival of ot t er -trawled 
cuckoo  ray  from  the  Irish  Sea  as  well as an update of the ongoing 
Raywatch project was provided by Belgium.  

The  various  evidence  from  different  regions  corroborates  earlier 
indications that cuckoo rays display lower survival than ot her, larger 
ray species and that there could be zero survival in some fisheries. At  
first inspection on-board after capture the majority of bottom-trawled 
cuckoo  ray  are  in  a  relatively  good  condition  showing  body 
movements and no or only minor  injuries. Nevertheless, the majorit y 
are  suspected  to  die  after  discarding  (or  when  being  held  in 
confinement).  The  new  evidence  provided  by  an  Irish  study 
demonstrate a lower survival probability of cuckoo ray c ompared t o 
other ray species. It was estimated to range between 11 - 16% w hen 
rays were held in captivity for up to 25 days. These estimat es are in 
line  for  other  otter-trawl  c aught  cuckoo  ray  (14%-23%,  95%  CI; 
estimated from a French study that was provided last year). The ICES 
critical review was applied, and the estimates were considered robust. 
However, the study was limited in scope and restricted to one vessel 
and 39 individuals – operational conditions were representative of t he 
fishery. The survival curves over time showed prot racted mort alit y. 
Not being able to standardise air exposure on board and t imes being 
held  in  water-filled  containers  prior  to  being scored for vit ality can 
potentially  confound impairment scores. The effects of explanatory 
factors  were  explored,  and  capture depth seemed to contribute to 
poor vitality.  

Apart  from  the  Irish  study,  some  preliminary  data  from  the Belgian 
Raywatch project was submitted, which indicated that 97 cuckoo rays 
were  scored  for  vitality  and  6%  were  already  dead  when  on  deck 
(immediate, at-vessel mortality). More specifically, 48% of the cuckoo 
rays  were  given  a  vitality  score  A,  24%  vitality  score  B  and  22% 
vitality  score  C.  How  these  vitality  observations  can  be  linked  to 
survival  observations  without  dedicated  monitoring  for  delayed 
mortality  of  cuckoo  rays  and  how  the  vitality  observations  can be 
brought in relation to operational and environmental variables remains 
unclear. There are also no evaluations provided on how to account f or 

125 

125 

 
 
vitality scoring bias amongst the different at -sea observers involved in 
data collection by for example regularly training them. 

4.  Survival and fisheries compatability 

To be able to estimate the potential impact of the exempt ion on t he 
ray  stocks,  fisheries  landings  and  discard  statistics  are  required 
together  with  available  survival  evidence  per  fishery,  area  and 
Member State. 

5.  Additional evidence and work planned 

There is an ongoing study from Belgium  (Raywatch) w hich is due t o 
conclude in quarter 3 of 2022. The objectives of  t his projec t is t o i) 
collect  of  biological,  catch  and  vitality  data  for  seven  ray  species 
(thornback ray, blonde ray, spotted ray, undulate ray, small eyed ray, 
sandy ray and cuckoo ray in the Western Waters (Ices-areas 7a,f,g,h) 
and  English  Channel  (Ices-areas  7d,e)  to  improve  the future NDGP 
data  collection,  and  ii)  to  fill  knowledge  gaps  to  support  the  high 
survival exemption in the context of the Roadmap for rays and skat es.  

Apart  from  these  projects,  FROM  Nord  in  France  will  start  a  post-
capture survival study for thornback ray for the Danish seine fisheries 
in  2022.  ILVO  (Belgium)will  cooperate  with  FROM  Nord  on  the 
processing and analysis of the data, and this project will c ont inue t o 
deliver insights in post-capture survivability of rays. 

6.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

The additional Irish study has provided further evidence t hat c uckoo 
rays have a lower survival rate compared to other ray spec ies w hile 
reported, but incomplete discard rates are between 27 and 39%. T he  
discard estimates only cover a limited number of fisheries and the true 
extent of unwanted catches of cuckoo rays is not clear. 

It  is  noted  that  survival  experiments  carried  out  have  shown  for 
cuckoo  ray  (as  well  other  ray  species),  mortalities  are  protracted 
suggesting  that  keeping  rays  in  captivity  may  risk underestimating 
survival in captive trials. 

As for cuckoo ray, the information provided in the past and addit ional 
catch data provided to support the JR show quite high disc ard rat es 
for  some  ray  species,  which  could  equate  to  high levels of discard 
mortality associated with this exemption if the survival rates are low . 
However, the catch information provided is incomplete and filling  t he 
gaps in catch data for ray species should be prioritised to allow  a f ull 
assessment of this exemption on the relevant species. 

Exemption  

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Plaice caught in ICES 
to  7g 
divisions  7a 
using  beam 
trawls 
(TBB).  (Article  6.1.c 
and 
of 
6.1.d 
Regulation 
(EU) 
2020/2015)  

1. Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption with request for additional information. 
Member  States  having  a  direct  management  interest  shall  submit 
every  year,  as  soon  as  possible  and  not  later  than  by  1  May, 
additional scientific information supporting the exemption. 

The existing exemption applies to beam trawlers equipped with a f lip -
up  rope  or  benthos  release  panel  (BRP) (6.1.c) and with an engine 
power  of  more  than  221  kW and with an engine power of not more 
than 221 kw or less than 24 min  length overall, which are constructed 
to fish in the twelve-mile zone, if the average t raw l durat ion is less 

126 

126 

 
 
 
 
than ninety minutes (6.1.d). 

2.  Fishery context 

No information has been provided on the fishery in t erms of  number 
of vessels involved or on catch and extent of unwanted c atches. T he 
supporting  information  provides  a  summary  of  the  relevant  ICES 
advice for the plaice stocks covered by this exemption.  

3.  Survival evidence 

No new survival evidence for plaice has been provided by t he NWW 
group. As for the North Sea, the previous estimates of plaice survival 
(vitality and captive studies) relevant for the exemption assessed by 
STECF (EWG 20-04, EWG 21-05 and references therein) remain t he 
best  available  for  the  NWW  beam  trawl  fishery.  These  can  be 
summarised as:   

-  Estimates of immediate survival of undersized plaice assessed 
just after being heaved on board, were found to vary bet w een 
60-90% (mean 75%, 66–83%, 95% CI). These estimates were 
based on from 8 trips during 2019 and 2020 on Belgium  beam 
trawlers.    Important  to  note  that  these rates should not be 
confused with overall long-term discard survival. 

-  Uhlmann et al. (2016 and 2021) reported that survival of plaice 
discarded  from  Belgian beam trawlers representing the three 
fleet segments was estimated to range between 41–58%, 11–
28%, 2–4% (95 % confidence interval; Kaplan-Meier models) 
for trips of the coastal (≤221 kW), Eurocutter (≤221 kW) and 
>221 kW vessel, respectively. The mean discard survival rat e 
across all sampled trips and vessel segment s w a s 21% (EWG 
20-04).  For  pulse  trawlers,  the  discard  survival  estimates 
previously assessed by STECF were 14% (95% CI 11-18%). 

-  Long-term  survival  (Kaplan-Meier  asymptote)  rates  for 
discarded  undersized  plaice  in  the  Celtic  Sea  and  Eastern 
Channel were estaimated  at between 13% (9%-19%, 95% CI) 
from  the  summer  trip  (July  2020,  Celtic  Sea),  with 
conventional  trawl  and  51%  (41%-64%,  95%  CI)  from  the 
winter  trip  (December  2020,  Eastern  Channel) with a flip-up 
trawl, and 44%, (35-56%, 95% CI) with a conventional t rawl. 
No  statistically  significant  difference  in  survival  was  found 
between  conventional  and 
trawls.  The 
representativeness of these estimates for the North Sea is not  
clear but are in line with other observations. 

flip-up 

rope 

The estimates provided show high variability betw een t rips w hic h is 
likely due to the differences in the environmental conditions (season, 
area) and fishing operations (catch size/composition, vessel size, gear 
characteristics). Additionally, most of the est imat es are f or vessels 
greater than 221 kw with little survival information for smaller vessels 
with lower engine power except for those reported in Uhlmann  et  al. 
(2016). It is also noted that based on the Belgian survival researc h, 
the use of the flip-up rope as specified in the current Delegated Act is 
unlikely  to  significantly  improve  both  on-board  and  post-release 
survival probability of discarded plaice, particularly on soft -sediment s 
fishing  grounds.  No information on the effectiveness of  the Benthic 
Release  Panel  in  improving  survival  has  been  reported  so  no 
assessment can be made whether this gear modification is benef ic ial 
or not.  

4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 

127 

127 

 
No new survival estimates have been provided to EWG 22-05, so t he 
previous  estimates  reported  by  EWG  21-05  and  20-04  remain  the 
most up to date. There are both survival estimates derived from direct 
observation,  and  those  based  on  a  proxy,  using  relationships  from 
other studies between health condition and survival probabilit y. T he 
latest  estimates  based on capt ive studies are considered robust, if 
highly  variable.    EWG  22-05  considers  these  are  in  line  with  the 
estimates generated by ICES WGMEDS for the plaice stocks in NWW, 
whereby the estimated dead discards as a % of the t ot al c atch f rom 
beam trawls per stock are as follows: 

Irish Sea (7a)               21-30% 
- 
-  Western Channel (7e)    9-12% 
-  Bristol Channel (7f,g)    18-25% 
-  Celtic Sea south (7hjk)  no estimate available 

This should be considered in the context of t he disc ard rat es in t he 
fishery  which according to ICES estimates are 62% in the Irish Sea 
(Beam trawls make up 48% of the discards); 28% in 7e (Beam traw ls 
make  up  44%  of discards); 52% in 7f,g (Beam trawls make up 10% 
of the discards). For the 7.h,j,k stock, ICES advises t hat discards in 
the beam trawl fishery are negligible. Catches in this area overall were 
only 75 tonnes in total with discards estimated at 36 tonnes.  

5.  Additional evidence and work planned 
The  NWW  group  has  provided  updated  information  on  ongoing 
research  work  in  Belgium  to  support  the  exemption.  No  further 
research focusing on the survival of plaice is planned and the foc us in 
2022 is on improving  selectivity and increasing survivability as well as 
developing species identification, to analyse video f ootage f rom EM 
systems.  

The  Belgian  report  describes  work  continuing  to  develop  species 
identification software under laboratory conditions, t o analyse video 
footage from EM systems. Species identification with an ac curacy of  
95%  for  plaice  and sole to within 3mm in length has been achieved 
under  laboratory  conditions.  Installation  of  the  systems  on  board 
commercial  vessels  is  ongoing,  in  combination  with  a  self -sampling 
programme. 

Belgium  also  has  reported  on  ongoing  research  into  technical 
innovations to improve selectivity and survivability of discarded plaic e 
under the “Combituig” Project. This work was carried out in 2021  and 
looked at the use of LED-lights in combination wit h Bent hic  Release 
Panels  to  reduce  the  catch  of  undersized plaice. Testing has been 
carried  out  on  three  research  cruises to date and the results have 
been  encouraged  although  no  detail is provided. Further trips were 
scheduled in the second half of 2021, but no results are report ed f or 
these trials. The conclusion from these trials is that furt her research 
with alternative technologies such as LED-lights is warranted.  

6.  EWG 22-05 Observations 

Only  supporting  information  has  been  provided  by  Belgium.  Catch 
data  and  fishery  information  is  missing  for  all  Member  States 
operating in the fisheries, making it difficult to assess t he impac t  of  
this exemption on the different plaice stocks. 

128 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Since 2019, progress has been made in increasing the know ledge of  
plaice  survivability.  Additionally,  research  on  ways  to  improve 
selectivity is also ongoing. No concrete results have been presented to 
date, but the preliminary findings seem encouraging for some of  t he 
gear modifications tested.  

The selectivity projects planned by the Netherlands in t he Nort h Sea 
may also be relevant to the beam trawl fishery in  t he Nort hw estern 
waters given the similarities between fisheries. 

For  beam  trawlers,  the  justification  for  survivability  exemption  for 
plaice continues to be based on the potential for improving  survival 
and selectivity, but this based on variable estimat es of  survival. No 
further  trials  to  estimate  survivability  are  currently  planned  in  the 
fishery. 

The  current  survival  estimates  are  still  highly  variable  and  only 
relevant for the larger beam trawl vessels. No inf ormat ion has been 
provided for smaller vessels with less than 221KW engine power other 
than that contained in Uhlmann  et al. (2016).  

There  is  also  only  limited  and  inconclusive  information  on  the 
effectiveness  of  the  Flip-up  rope  and the Benthic Release Panel to 
improve  survivability.  The  use  of  these  devices  is  specif ied  in  the 
Delegated Act as a condition of the exemption. If  t hese devices are 
not effective in increasing survivability, then the value of making them 
a condition of the exemption is questionable even t hough t hey may 
have other benefits not related to survivability.  

The current survival estimates need to be considered in the context of  
the  current  discard  rates  reported,  in  the  various  plaice  stocks  in 
NWW. Discard rates range from negligible in 7hjk to 62% in  t he Irish 
Sea.  

Unless surviving discards are accounted for in stock assessments and 
dead  discards  are  accounted  for  in  TAC  setting  when  survivability 
exemptions are in place, the actual fishing mortality will not match the 
agreed catch level. Currently this is only considered for the Irish Sea 
stock.  

Introducing discard survival estimates should continue to be discussed 
by ICES for more stocks and especially plaice, given the prolif erat ion 
of survival exemptions. 

Exemption  

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Sole  below  MCRS 
common  sole  caught 
by  vessels  under  12m 
using  80-99  mm  otter 
trawl  gears  within  6 
nautical  miles  of  the 
French  coast  in  ICES 
division 7e  

1. Exemption status 

This is a new exemption that seeks to extend the scope of an exist ing 
exemption for sole in ICES division 7d. The existing exemption applies 
to  sole  (Solea  solea)  below  MCRS  caught  in  ICES  division  7d  by 
vessels under 12m long and using otter bottom trawls (OT B), w it hin 
six  nautical  miles  of  the coast but outside identified nursery areas, 
with a cod end mesh size larger than 80mm  – Article 4 of  Regulat ion 
(EU) 2020/2015. 

The request is and extension whereby the new exemption would cover 
catches of undersized sole, caught by vessels under 12m using 80-99 
mm  otter trawl gears within 6 nautical miles of the French coast in 
ICES division 7e. 

This exemption request is a follow-up to a previous request submitted 
in 2019 by the Northwestern Waters group, which was reviewed by 

129 

129 

 
 
PLEN 19-02. 

2.  Fishery context 

No  information  was  provided  on  the  fishery  in  7e.  However,  ICES 
advice for 7e is that sole landings are 1,219 t with ~ 19% f rom ot t er 
trawls and discards of <1 t with 60% attributed to ot ter t raw ls. T he 
sole  catch  from  other  segments  are:  beam  trawls  66%,  gillnets 
~11%, and other gears ~4%. Sole in ICES 7e is an ICES c at egory 1 
stock and can be considered to have a full analytical assessments and 
forecasts. 

Overall, the relevant fleet is an inshore French fleet, c omprising 132 
French  vessels  under  18m  fishing  in  the  Western  Channel  and 
specifically in the Normando-Breton Bay and the Saint-Brieuc Bay. The 
fleet covered by the exemption would amount to ~90 Frenc h vessels 
under 12 m. 

The  vessels  use  an  80–99mm mesh trawl (headlines 12–20 m) with 
mostly  rubber  footropes  but  other  options  (e.g.,  bobbins)  are  also 
used depending on the sediment type.  

No  additional  information  was  provided  on  the  fishing  fleet  in  the 
wider 7e area. 

3.  Survival evidence 

Survival  estimates  for  the  sole  are  based  on  vitality  assessments 
taken  onboard  three  vessels  during  May  to  October.  The  survival 
potential was assessed with several vitality indexes (RAMP and Injury 
scores) and inferred from the immediate survival rate. 

An immediate survival rate of 99.1% was observed for sole caught. All 
undersized  sole  tested  presented  Excellent  (A)  or Good (B) vitality 
scores, noting that 85% of the undersized sole were caught during a 
single fishing trip in the spring. 

A semi-quantitative vitality index (QVI) presented the % of individuals 
in category A = excellent—47.9%, B= good—42.7%; C= poor—8.7%; 
and D=moribund—0.9%.  The delayed survival rate for Category A was 
estimated at 69.4%, no delayed survival rate was given for the ot her 
categories. 

Other  studies Randall et al. (2017) and Ribeiro Santos et al. (2016) 
estimated sole survival from coastal trawlers at 88% for t he East ern 
Channel and 46% for the North Sea, respectively.    

4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 

The  trial  was  completed  in  in  statistical  rectangles  26E7  and 26E8 
during  May  to  October  over  79  fishing  trips  undertaken  by  three 
vessels. Fishing took place in depths of 8–35 m  w it h means of  23 m 
and  9.5  m  for  26E7  and  26E8,  respectively.  Tow  times  were  from 
00:29–03:26  hrs  (mean  01:47  hr) at mean towing speed of 2.6 kts 
(1.34 ms-1). 

In  total  711  (562  in  26E7,  and  149  in  26E8)  sole  were caught and 
assessed;  overall  12%  of  the  sole  were  below  MCRS.  Within  the 
statistical rectangles 26E7 and 26E8 the percentage of  sole c atches 
below MCRS was 2 and 50%, respectively. 

Sorting  times  during the trial were between 5 and 34 min (mean 12 
min)  while commercial fishing practices start the sorting after the net  
is  redeployed  (approximately  after  15  min  from  when  the  catch  is 
emptied from the codend).  

130 

130 

 
 
Catch composition comprised mainly of spider crabs (59%), cuttlefish 
(Sepia officianalis) and squid (Loligo vulgaris) (10%), sole (1%), other 
fish and cephalopods (7%), and the remainder comprised of rocks and 
clam debris, seaweed, and non-commercial invertebrates. 

Data  presented  on  the  fishing  effort  in 7e states that  in 2019, the 
entire  fleet  completed  5895  days at sea in 26E7 and 1514 in 26E8, 
and sole were captured in all but 5 fishing trips. 

The French observer program (Obsmer) data from 2019 show ed t hat 
vessels <18 using bottom trawls to target cephalopods had 0.7% sole 
with 23.1% of these discarded (all undersize). When vessels targeted 
sole  and  cephalopods  the sole represented 7.9% of the catch with 
12.6% of these discarded (90% undersize) 

5.  Additional evidence and work planned 

There  is  a  clear  outline  of  the proposed exemption ‘This exemption 
shall apply in ICES division 7e, within six nautical miles of  t he c oast 
but outside identified nursery areas, to catches of common sole (Solea 
solea)  below  the  minimum  conservation  reference  size  made  using 
OTB with a cod end mesh size larger than 80 mm.  When disc arding, 
common sole shall be released immediately’.  

The  common  sole  in  area  7e  is  a  shared  stock  with  the  UK  and  is 
generally  in  good  shape  with  negligible  discarding,  although  a  6% 
decrease to the TAC in 2022 was recommended due to a dec rease in 
2019 recruitment and biomass. 

No further work was mentioned or planned.  

6.  EWG 22-05 Observations 

PLEN  19-02  STECF  observed  that  a  key  concern  with  a  previous 
request for this exemption was the proportion of the catches made up 
of rays and spider crab compared to the time the survival est imat es 
were  generated.  The  presence  of  these  species  will  negatively 
influence  the  survival  of  discarded  fish  given  their  spikey  or  rough 
morphology  which  can  harm  other  fish.    While  overall  immediate 
survival rates of undersized sole were very good (99.1%), 85%  w ere 
caught  in  a  single  trip  during  spring.  Catches  of  spider  crab  are 
greater  in  the  summer  and  autumn  and  are  likely  to result in lower 
survival. 

A delayed survival rate was only presented for Category A sole, and 
no rates for overall or for the other vitality categories were presented. 
The  delayed  survival  rate  for  Category A was estimated at 69.4%. 
Previous studies reported by Randall et al. (2017) and Ribeiro Sant os 
et al. (2016) estimated sole survival from coastal trawlers at 88% f or 
the Eastern Channel and 46% for the North Sea, respectively. 

While  the  request  states  that  fishing  will  be undertaken outside of 
nursery areas there is no mention of where these areas are loc at ed. 
Additionally,  as  noted  in  PLEN  19-  02,  as  a  general  rule,  where 
exemptions  have  conditions  attached there is no evidence of them 
being  applied  by  Member  States  making  controlling  and  enforcing 
such measures a challenge.  

In the supporting Annex, it is stated the proposed exempt ion w ould 
cover  a  fleet  of  about  90  French  ≤12  m  fishing  vessels.  However, 
there  is  no  information  on  vessels from other nations fishing in this 
area. Additionally, there is no reference to the other areas of 7e where 
≤12  m OTB vessels are likely to target sole. It is important to inc lude 
data on any other vessel fishing in area 7e because they would/should 

131 

131 

 
also be covered by the exemption.  It is not c lear w hat  is meant  by 
the entire fleet in relation to the number of days at  sea in 26E7 and 
26E8—it needs to be made clear if it is just the French fleet and only 
OTB vessels under 12 m  or is it all vessels.  

While the ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort for 7e 
states  that  ~19%  of  sole  is  captured  in  otter  trawls  there  is  no 
indication if other vessel segments catch sole in areas 26E7 and 26E8, 
and therefore the impact of a survival exemption on the overall st oc k 
is not possible. 

There  is no information provided on catch rates or expected length 
frequencies  of  sole  for  areas  26E7  and  26E8  or  the  wider 7e area. 
Therefore,  it  is  not clear to what extent is the impact of fishing on 
≤MCRS sole. It is stated that there is a low catch rat e of  undersized 
sole but no indication of the amount or percentage. 

The  supporting report is presented in English and French, however, 
the  French  report  is over twice the number of pages of the English 
version.  A  full  translation  is  welcomed  because  it  allows  a  more 
comprehensive evaluation of the request and information provided.  

References 

Bart  Ampe,  Noémi  Van  Bogaert,  Els  Torreele,  Sebastian  Uhlmann.  2020.  Discard  survival 
estimates of commercially caught skates of the North Sea and English Channel, Sumaris projec t  
(2020). 

Baulier  Loïc,  Morandeau  Fabien,  Ramonet  Morgane,  Sourget  Quiterie,  Winkler  Joachim. 2021.  
The SURF project: survivability of discarded cuckoo rays (Leucoraja naevus) in F renc h bot tow 
trawl fisheries. Project report.  

Laura Lemey, Klaas Sys, Esteban Torreblanca, Damian Villagra Villanueva, Tim Plevoet s . 2021.  
Interim report II Raywatch: Towards a more extensive and efficient long-term data collection f or 
skates in support of the “Roadmap for rays and skates”. ILVO Report 36pp. 

Morfin Marie, Simon Julien, Morandeau Fabien, Baulier Loïc, Méhault Sonia, Kopp Dorothée. 2019. 
Using  acoustic  telemetry  to  estimate  post -release  survival  of  undulate  ray  Raja  undulata 
(Rajidae) in northeast Altantic, Ocean and Coastal Management, 178(2019) 

Oliver, M., McHugh, M., Murphy, S., Browne, D., and Cosgrove, R. 2019. Post-capture c ondition 
of cuckoo ray in an Irish otter trawl fishery. BIM Fisheries Conservation Report, Marc h 2019. 12 
pp 

Oliver,  M.,  McHugh,  M.,  Murphy,  S.,  Browne,  D.,  and  Cosgrove,  R.  2021.   An  assessment  of 
cuckoo  ray  (Leucoraja  naevus)  survivability  in  an  Irish  otter  trawl  fishery.  BIM  Fisheries 
Conservation report, November 2021.  

OP COBRENORD.  (2022). Rapport d’étude du projet SUMO (SUrvie de la sole en Manc he-Ouest) 
34 p. 

Randall,  P.,  Ribeiro  Santos,  A.,  Firmin,  C.,  O’Sullivan,  H.,  White,  E.,  Catchpole,  T.  (2017). 
Assessing the survival of discarded sole (Solea solea) in an English inshore trawl fishery, P art  of  
the Cefas ASSIST Project, February 2017, Cefas report pp55  

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  61st  Plenary  Meeting 
Report (PLEN-19-02). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN  978 -
92-76-09515-6, doi:10.2760/31279, JRC117461 

Uhlmann, S. S., Theunynck, R., Ampe, B., Verkempynck, R., Miller, D. C.M., van Marlen, B., van 
der  Reijden,  K.  J.  et  al. 2016b. Overleving doorboomkor gevangen pladijs – Survival of beam-
trawled Europeanplaice (Pleuronectes platessa). ILVO Mededeling 210. Instit ute f orAgricultural 
pp.   
and 

Oostende, 

Research, 

Fisheries 

Belgium. 

172 

132 

132 

 
 
limanda) 

(13)  (PDF)  Survival  of  undersized  plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), sole (Solea solea), and dab 
from: 
(Limanda 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313164959_Survival_of_undersized_plaice_Pleuronect
es_platessa_sole_Solea_solea_and_dab_Limanda_limanda_in_North_Sea_pulse-trawl_f isheries  
[accessed May 18 2022]. 

pulse-trawl 

fisheries. 

Available 

North 

Sea 

in 

Uhlmann,  S.S.,  Theunynck,  R.,  Ampe,  B.,  Desender,  M.,  Soetaert,  M.,  Depestele,  J., 2016 a. 
Injury, reflex impairment, and survival of beam-trawled flatfish. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 1244–1254. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv252 

Uhlmann, S.S., Ampe, B., Van Bogaert, N., Vanden Berghe, C., Vanelslander, B., 2021. F lat f ish 
survivors have tales to tell: Cold seawater and reduced deployment durat ion c ontribut e t o t he 
survival  of  European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) discarded by Belgian beam trawlers. Fish. 
Res. 240, 105966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2021.105966 

Uhlmann et al., 2021. Effects of catch composition on the fate of European plaice (Pleuronectes 
platessa) discarded from Belgian beam trawlers. Under review with Fisheries Research. 

6.3  NWW – Technical measures in the Celtic Sea, Irish Sea and West of Scotland  

The NWW Member States submitted a JR covering technical measures f or t he Celt ic  Sea, Irish 
Sea and West of Scotland, containing measures for commercial and recreational fisheries. This JR 
was largely the same as the JR submitted in 2020 and assessed by STECF PLEN 19-02. 

One  new  request  was  made  by  the  NWW  Member  States  in  respect  of  the  NWW  technical 
measures  JR.  This  was  for  the re-instatement of the 100mm T90 gear option in the Irish Sea 
based on information submitted. This was evaluated by EWG 22-05 as follows: 

Technical Measures 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Joint Recommendation 
to  allow  dual  codend, 
an  existing  TM,  to  be 
used  until  end  of 
2022 
December 
Annex 
(Supporting 
from Ireland) 

1.  Exemption status 

This  technical  measure  was  assessed  by  EWG  19-08,  first 
implemented  in  2020  (EU  2019/2239)  and  is  in  place  until  31  July 
2022 (EU 2019/1241 (consolidated)).  

The  current  regulation  (EU)  2019/1241  (consolidated) includes t he 
following condition: 

Member States may allow the use of the dual cod-end until the 
end of December 2022, provided that the technical at tribut es 
of  this  device  result  in  the same or higher selectivity as the 
other gears specified in points 1.2. and 1.3.1 of ANNEX VI, Part 
B.  

The 2022 NWW Joint Recommendation is to extend the use of the dual 
cod-end until the end of December 2022, which represents a 5-mont h 
extension. 

The joint recommendation includes the following new inf ormat ion t o 
support  the  assertion  that the dual codend has the same or higher 
selectivity as the gear in point 1.2 (80 mm  mesh size with eit her 120 
mm  SMP or sorting grid with maximum  35 mm  bar spacing):  

(1)  Results of an Irish Industry-led trial comparing catches with 

the dual codend against an 80 mm  codend fitted with 300 mm 
Square Mesh Panel (SMP).  

(2)  Results of an Irish trial comparing catches with a 90 mm  T90 
codend against an 80 mm  codend with 120 mm  square mesh 
panel (SMP). 

The 

joint  recommendation  also 

includes  the 

following  Irish 

133 

133 

 
 
recommendation, based on consultation with the fishing indust ry, on 
achieving the same or higher selectivity as the gears in point 13.1: 

 

Increasing the mesh size in the in the upper codend of the dual 
codend to a minimum  of 100 mm  T90.  

2.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

The  findings  of EWG 19-08 that the principle of the dual codend to 
vertically separate catch into two codends where differential selection 
can  take  place  has  the  potential  to  reduce  bycatch  of  unwanted 
species while maintaining catches of target species are still valid.  

Additional information has been provided in the JR relating to two new 
trials. The first trial was carried out on a simplified self-sampling basis 
due to Covid-19 restrictions. Results are confined to mean weight s of  
total  catches  retained  with  each  gear.  The  results  indicate  that 
compared with an 80 mm  codend with 300 mm  SMP the dual c odend 
retains: 

  More Nephrops and more wanted fish (> MCRS hake, 

monkfish, pollack, flatfish and other commercial species) 

  Less Nephrops, gurnard and lesser spotted dogfish  

  No difference in unwanted catches (< MCRS fish and non-
commercial species combined) between the two gears 

The  simplified  self-sampling  protocol  employed  limits  the  inference 
that can be made but suggests that the dual codend and t he 80 mm 
codend with 300 mm  SMP are equally selective for unwanted catches. 
The  300  mm SMP tested during this trial is considerably larger than 
the 120 mm  SMP specified in point 1.2 and likely to be more selective. 

The  results  of  the  second  trial  provide  information  on  the  relative 
selectivity of a T90 90 mm  codend and an 80 mm  codend fitted with a 
120 mm  SMP in a twin trawl fishery targeting fish. The results indicate 
that the 90 mm  T90 mesh codend retained: 

  Less whiting of all sizes, < MCRS haddock and < MCRS cod 

  More >  MCRS hake, >  MCRS megrim,  monkfish, plaice of all 

sizes and lemon sole of all sizes 

The  inference  that  can  be  made  from  this  trial  is  limited  to  fish 
species.  The  results  suggest  improved  selectivity  for  undersized 
whiting, haddock and cod and reduced selectivity for undersize plaic e 
and lemon sole. 

No  supporting  evidence  is  provided  for  the  recommendation  to 
increase the mesh size of the uppermost T90 codend from 90 mm  t o 
100 mm.  Evidence has been provided to EWG 19-08 and EWG 22- 05 
that  the  dual  codend  is  very  effective  at  sorting  fish  in  to  the 
uppermost  codend.  Implementing  one  of  the  gear  options  in  point 
13.1 in the uppermost codend of the dual codend would align with the 
technical measures for targeting fish in the area. It is not ed t hat t he 
NWW JR recommends that the mesh size of the T90 codend should be 
increased 100 mm. 

134 

134 

 
 
Technical Measures 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Joint Recommendation 
to  include  T90  100 
mm  on  the  basis  of 
equivalent  selectivity 
with  T0  120  mm 
(Supporting 
Annex 
from Ireland) 

1.  Exemption status 

EWG 22-05 reiterates the assessment by STECF PLEN 21 - 05 f or t he 
NWW  technical  measures  JR  in the use of a 100 mm T90 codend in 
ICES division 7a (Irish Sea). In 2021, it was acknowledged by ST ECF 
PLEN 21-05 that the T90 100 mm  gear configuration of f ers a bet ter 
selection for cod, whiting, and other small gadoids t han t he 1 00 mm 
T0 mesh. But it still remains (statistically) uncertain whether t he T 90 
100  mm  gear  configuration  has  equivalent  selectivity  for  cod  and 
whiting compared to 120 mm  codend mesh size which is the baseline 
gear prescribed in the TM regulations (EU Reg. 2021/2324 amending 
EU Reg. 2019/1241).  

2.  EWG 22-05 observations  

The observations by STECF PLEN 21-05 that the analysis c arried out  
by  Ireland  shows  that  the  abundance  was highly variable between 
hauls remains valid in the new information provided with the JR. L ow  
abundance  was  evident  in  numerous  hauls  for  cod,  haddock  and 
whiting.  

The  use  of  the  catch  comparison  method  in  the  Irish  studies  is  a 
reasonable approach, given the objective of the trials w as t o assess 
the differences in catches between the alternative gear (T90 100 mm) 
and baseline gear (T0 120mm). 

The analysis provided indicates that the main benefit of  t he T 90 100 
mm  in the Irish Sea whitefish fishery was a considerable reduction in 
<MCRS haddock.  

The  T90  100  mm codend caught substantially more flatfish species 
compared  with  the  T0  120  mm.  There  was  minimal  difference  in 
catches between the two gears for whiting. The difference in cod catch 
was also negligible across all size classes, reflecting the stock state of  
cod  in  the  Irish  Sea  where  the  experiments  were  carried  out .  No 
inference  can  be  made  for cod and whiting but this does not mean 
that this gear is not selective, more that  t here w ere not  enough of  
these encountered during the trials to allow for an analysis. 

Notwithstanding this, the data provided is still limited in terms of  t he 
number  of  hauls.  More  robust  selectivity  and/or  catch  comparison 
trials  would  be  needed  to  fully  conclude  the  outcomes  of  the 
supporting Irish studies and in particular for cod and whiting. 

References 

Browne, D., Cosgrove, R., and Tyndall, P. 2016. Assessment of T90 mesh in a fishery t arget ing 
whiting in the Celtic Sea, Irish Sea Fisheries Board (BIM), Fisheries Conservation Report , June 
2016. 8 pp  

Browne et al. 2019. Assessment of a 90 mm  T90 mesh codend, a new gear option for Celt ic  Sea 
whitefish vessels. Irish Sea Fisheries Board (BIM), Fisheries Conservation Report ,  July 2019. 8 
pp.https://bim.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BIM-Assessment-of-a-90-mm-T90-mesh- codend-
report.pdf 

Cosgrove, R., Browne, D., Minto, C., Tyndall, P., Oliver, M., Montgomerie,  M., and Mc Hugh, M. 
2019. A game of two halves: Bycatch reduction in Nephrops mixed fisheries. Fisheries Research,  
210: 31-40. https://bim.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BIM-Game-of-two-halves-published.pdf 

Cosgrove, R., Browne,  D.,  Tyndall, P., McHugh, M., Oliver,  M., Minto, C.,   Burke,   B.,   et   al.  
2016. Assessment of a dual codend with net separator panel in an Irish Nephr ops f ishery. Irish 

135 

135 

 
Sea  Fisheries  Board  (BIM),  Fisheries  Conservation  Report,  December  2016.  12  pp. 
https://bim.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/5987-BIM-Stella-Nova-Trial-Brochure.pdf 

Matthew McHugh, Martin Oliver, Daragh Browne, Cóilín Minto, Ronán Cosgrove. (2019) Benef it s 
of  120  mm  diamond and 100 mm T90 codends in the Celtic and Irish Seas.  Irish Sea Fisheries 
Board  (BIM),  Fisheries  Conservation  Report,  February  2019.  7  pp.  https://bim.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/BIM-8306-Benefits-of-120-mm-diamond-and-100-mm-T90-codends-in-
the-Celtic-and-Irish-Seas.pdf 

Oliver et al., 2021. Assessment of the Dual Codend on the Galway Aran Fishing Grounds.   Irish 
Sea  Fisheries  Board  (BIM),  Fisheries  Conservation  Report,  September  2021.  8  pp.  
https://bim.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BIM-Fisheries-Report-Dual-Codend-  Galw ayAran-
Fishinggrounds.pdf 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  61st  Plenary  Meeting 
Report (PLEN-19-02). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN  978-
92-76-09515-6, doi:10.2760/31279, JRC117461 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Evaluation  of  Landing 
Obligation  Joint Recommendations (STECF-19-08). Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-09523-1, doi:10.2760/227428, JRC117511 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  -  Evaluation  of  Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation (ST ECF -
21-05). EUR 28359 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978 -
92-76-40593-1, doi:10.2760/83668, JRC126128. 

7 

SWW – OVERVIEW OF JOINT RECOMMENDA TIONS 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2439 established a discard plan for certain demersal 
fisheries in South-Western waters (i.e., in Union waters of ICES divisions VIII,  IX, X and CECAF  
areas 34.1.1, 34.1.2, 34.2.0). Based on Joint Recommendations for the Sout h -Western w at ers 
submitted  by  the  regional  group of Member States this plan has  been updated several times, 
most recently by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2015 under the West ern Waters 
Multiannual  Plan  (2019/472).  This  included  exemptions  for  pelagic  fisheries  following  from 
Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  1394/2014  that  established  a  discard  plan for certain 
pelagic fisheries in the SWW.  

Some  of  the  exemptions  included  in  this  Regulation  EU)  2020/2015  were  time  limited,  while 
others were granted based on additional information being submitted annually. For 2022, Member 
States have provided additional scientific information for the relevant  exempt ions w hich have 
been assessed by EWG 22-05.   

The  main  elements  of the new JR and which of these have been assessed by EWG 22-05 are 
summarised in table 7.1. 

Table 7.1 Main elements of the Joint Recommendations submitted for the SWW  

Elements 

Contained currently 
in pelagic or 
demersal discard 
plan 

Status with 
relevant Article in 
current discard 
plan 

Assessment by 
EWG 20-04 with 
relevant Annexes in 
JR 

De minimis 

Hake caught with trawls 
and seines in directed 
fisheries in ICES 
subareas 8 and 9 
Common  sole caught 
with beam trawls and 
bottom trawls in 
directed fishery in ICES 

Demersal 

Demersal 

136 

136 

Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 14(1a) 

Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 14(1b) 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

 
 
 
subareas 8 a,b  

Common  sole caught in 
gillnets and trammel 
nets in ICES subareas 8 
a,b 
Alfonsinos caught by 
hooks and lines in 
division 10 
Blue whiting caught in 
the industrial pelagic 
trawler fishery in ICES 
subarea 8 
Albacore tuna caught 
using midwater pair 
trawls in ICES subarea 7 
Anchovy, mackerel and 
horse mackerel caught 
using midwater trawls in 
the pelagic trawl fishery 
which targets anchovy, 
mackerel and horse 
mackerel in ICES 
division 8  
Horse mackerel, jack 
mackerel and mackerel 
caught using purse 
seines in the fishery 
which targets horse 
mackerel, jack 
mackerel, mackerel and 
anchovy in ICES 
subareas 8,9, 10 VIII, 
IX, X and CECAF 
divisions 34.1.1, 34.1.2, 
34.2.0  

Horse  mackerel  caught 
trawls, 
with  bottom 
seines  and  beam trawls 
in  ICES  subareas  8  and 
9 

Horse  mackerel  caught 
with  gillnets 
in  ICES 
subareas  8,  9  & 10 and 
CECAF  34.1.1,  34.1.2, 
34.2.0 

Mackerel  caught  with 
bottom  trawls,  seines 
and beam trawls in ICES 
subareas 8 and 9 

Mackerel  caught  with 
gillnets in ICES subareas 
8,  9  &  10  and  CECAF 
34.1.1, 34.1.2, 34.2.0 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Pelagic  

Pelagic  

Pelagic  

Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 14(1c) 

Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 14(1d) 
Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 14(1r) 

Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 14(1s) 
Existing and 
unchanged  
Article 14(1t) 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Pelagic  

Existing and 
unchanged  
Article 14(1u) 

Not assessed 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  
Article 14(1e) 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  
Article 14(1f) 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Article 14(1g) 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  
Article 14(1h) 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

137 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
caught  with 
Megrim 
bottom  trawls,  seines 
and beam trawls in ICES 
subareas 8 and 9 

caught  with 
Megrim 
gillnets in ICES subareas 
8 and 9 

Anglerfish  caught  with 
bottom  trawls,  seines 
and beam trawls in ICES 
subareas 8 and 9 

Anglerfish  c aught  with 
gillnets in ICES subareas 
8 and 9 

Whiting  caught  with 
bottom  trawls,  seines 
and beam trawls in ICES 
subarea 8 

Whiting  caught  with 
gillnets  in  ICES subarea 
8 and 9 

Anchovy  caught  with 
bottom  trawls,  seines 
and beam trawls in ICES 
subareas 8 and 9 

Red  Sea  Bream  caught 
trawls, 
with  bottom 
seines  and  beam trawls 
in ICES Division 9a 

Sole caught with bottom 
trawls, seines and beam 
trawls  in  ICES  Division 
9a 

Nephrops caught with 
trawls in ICES subareas 
8 and 9  

Anchovy, 
horse 
mackerel, jack mackerel 
and  mackerel  caught 
using  purse  seines  in 
artisanal  purse  seine 
fisheries 
ICES 
subareas 8 and 9 

in 

Red  seabream  caught 
with  “voracera”  gear  in 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Article 14(1i) 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  
Article 14(1j) 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Article 14(1k) 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  
Article 14(1l) 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Article 14(1m) 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  
Article 14(1n) 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Article 14(1o) 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Article 14(1p) 

Demersal 

Annual information by 
1 May  

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Article 14(1q) 

High survivability 

Demersal 

Pelagic  

Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 9  

Existing and 
unchanged 
Article 12 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

Demersal 

Existing and 
unchanged 

Not assessed 

138 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ICES division 9a 

Article 11  

Red  sea  bream  caught 
with  hooks  and  lines  in 
ICES subarea 10 as w ell 
as division 9a 

Red  seabream  caught 
with  hooks  and  lines  in 
ICES subareas 8 and 9a 

and 

Skates 
rays 
(Rajiformes) caught with 
ICES 
in 
gears 
all 
subareas 8 and 9 

Cuckoo rays caught with 
trammel  nets  in  ICES 
subareas 8 and 9 

Cuckoo rays caught with 
bottom  trawls  in  ICES 
subareas 8 and 9 

Demersal 

Information by 1 May 
2022 
Article 11 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Demersal 

Information by 1 May 
2022 
Article 11 

Information by 1 May 
2022 
Article 10 

Information by 1 May 
2022 

Article 10(4a) 

Information by 1 May 
2022 
Article 10(4b) 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

Re-assessed based on 
new information 

7.1 

 De minimis exemptions 

EWG 22-05 acknowledges that the collection of catch data by the SWW Member States group has 
been severely limited due to difficulties sampling at sea because of Covid-19. However, EWG 22-
05  observes  that  the  catch  data  that  has  been  provided  lacks  consistency  in  the  way  it  is 
presented. It covers different years (i.e., 2020 for France and 2021 for Spain and Belgium)   w it h 
some presented as absolute estimates and other data presented as percentages of overall c atch 
data for the relevant fisheries.   

No  catch  information  has  been  provided  by  Portugal,  except  for  a  summary  regarding  the 
collec tion of scientific information. It states that due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 
no  onboard sampling was performed and thus no data on catches from onboard sampling was 
collected, including discard data. It refers that a new modelling methodology was developed, and 
discard estimates were obtained for 2020 and 2021, but no data is provided. How ever, in EWG 
21-05  it  is  stated  that  the  supporting  annex  from  Portugal  reports  that  the  frequency  of 
occurrence of discards is too low (considered zero discards because such low frequency will result  
in highly biased estimates) or non-existent. 

Additionally, EWG 21-05 requested more information on the methodology of the calculation of the 
economic  impact  assessment  provided  in  2020  and  2021  to  support  many  of  the  de  minimis 
exemptions. EWG 21-05 re-examined the Spanish study and highlighted t hat t he dat a used as 
the opportunity costs c ould not be put into context of the overall economic  perf ormanc e of  t he 
fleet segments. However, no additional information on the methodology and data was provided.  
Further, EWG 21-05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of not grant ing 
the  exemption  indicated  a  comparatively  high  level  of  losses  for  the  vessels  involved  in  this 
fishery but considered this was likely to be an overestimate given the way certain variable c osts 
had been included in the analysis. EWG 21-05 requested more information on the methodology of 
the calculation and the data used as the opportunity c osts c annot be put  int o c ontext of  t he  
overall economic performance of the fleet segments. However, no additional inf ormat ion on t he 
methodology and data was provided to EWG 22-05. 

A combination of these factors has made it difficult for EWG 22-05 to carry out  any meaningf ul 
evaluation of these exemptions. In most cases the findings from previous EWGs and in partic ular 
EWG 21-05 remain relevant.  

139 

139 

 
 
 
 
A summary of the fishery information applicable to the proposed continuation of  t he de minimis 
exemptions (Article 14 points 1(e) to 1 (q)) is provided in Table 7.1.2.1.  

Table 7.1.1 Summary of de minimis  exemptions submitted as part of the SWW Joint 
Recommendations (restricted to new or revised exemptions). 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Horse 
mackerel 
caught  by  vessels 
trawls, 
using  beam 
trawls  and 
bottom 
seines 
ICES 
in 
subareas 8 and 9 of up 
to  a  maximum  of  5% 
of  the  total  annual 
horse 
catches 
mackerel 
the 
specified  fisheries  – 
Article 
of 
Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2015. 

14(1e) 

of 

in 

1.  Exemption Status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2023 but  w it h 
a requirement for additional information to be provided by the 1st May 
every year. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Information for 2020 was provided by France (Annex E) for catch and 
discard  rates  of  horse  mackerel  in  fisheries  employing  beam  and 
bottom trawls in ICES subareas 8 and 9. This data w as c ollected f or 
2020 under the Obsmer programme. The horse mackerel discard rat e 
was  high  around  77%  in  2020  and  were somewhat similar between 
the  gears  reported  (66%  and  88%  for Nephrops OTB and demersal 
trawls,  respectively).  Nephrops  OTB  landed  230  tonnes  of  horse 
mackerel  and  discarded  449  tonnes.  Demersal  trawls  landed  125 
tonnes and discarded 713 tonnes of horse mackerel. However, there is 
no data reported for seines as they were not sampled. 

Spain  provided  catch  data  by  metier  for  2021  which  includes  six 
metiers  using  bottom  trawls  with  catches  of  horse  mackerel  – 
OTB_>70;  OTB_DEF_>=55;  OTB_MPD_>=55;  OTB_MCD_>=55; 
PTB_DEF_>70; PTB_DEF_>55 (Annex D). There was a total of  7, 35, 
33, 122 for otter trawl and 2 and 33 for pair trawl vessels involved in 
these metiers, respectively. In OTB_>70 landings of  horse mac kerel 
were  363  tonnes  in  2021,  while  discarded  catch  was  450  tonnes 
(55%). In OTB_DEF_>=55, landings were 399 tonnes while discarded 
catches were 7 tonnes (2%). In the OTB_MPD_>=55 metier, landings 
of  horse  mackerel  were  1,626  tonnes and discards were 18 tonnes 
(1%). This is a directed fishery for horse mackerel and mac kerel. In 
the OTB_MCD_>=55 landings were 558 tonnes and discards were 254 
tonnes  (31%).  In  the  PTB_DEF_>70  landings  were  17  tonnes  and 
discards  29  tonnes  (63%).  In  the  PTB_DEF_>55  landings  of  horse 
mackerel were 111 tonnes and discards were 67 tonnes (38%). 

In  2021,  no  catches  of  horse  mackerel  were  reported  by  the  six 
Belgian vessels active in these areas. 

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 
summary regarding the collection of scientific information.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time required f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels. 

Spain  has  provided  a  summary  of  all  selectivity  trials  made  by IEO 
that  was  already  presented  in  21-05,  and  a  summary  of  two  new 
selectivity experiments carried out by AZTI in 2021 as well as  result s 
from the SMARTFISH project.  

The studies explored the effect of shortening lastridge ropes on  baka 
otter trawls in Div. 8abd (CASELEM project) and pair traw l operat ing 
in Div. 8c  (MESEDE project). The CASELEM project showed t hat  t he 

140 

140 

 
 
codend  selectivity  of  horse  mackerel  (increase  L50  of 14.56 cm to 
20.74  cm)  and  blue  whiting  was  significantly  improved  when 
shortening  lastridge  ropes,  whereas  the  selectivity  of  hake,  and 
megrim  was not.  

In  addition,  results  from  the  European SMARTFISH project are also 
presented, focusing on using underwater lights on a grid located in the 
codend to modify fish behaviour as a first step to improve selectivity. 
However, the results showed that less than 25% of the individuals of  
all species analysed passed through the grid and were retained in t he 
lower  codend, as well as that no significant differences were found 
when the grid was illuminated. Finally, project SELECLUGO (for metier 
OTB_DEF_>=55)  objective  was  to  assess  the  selectivity  of  the 
regulatory trawl codends used by the commercial fleet  in 2021  t rials.  
The  results  indicate  that  increased  selectivity  in  this  metier  is not 
easily achievable in the short  term. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Spain has further selectivity work planned, namely it will c ont inue t o 
carry out the CASELEM selectivity campaign aimed at  improving  t he 
selectivity of multi-specific fisheries, continue with t rials f oc used on 
trawling  with  doors  and  incorporate  tests  of  fishing  tactics  to 
complement  improvement s  in  selectivity,  start  working  on the new 
H2020  EveryFish  project,  continue  with  the  DESCARSEL  and 
SELECLUGO projects. 

5.  EWG 22-05 observations 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided 
in  2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  re-examined  the  Spanish  study  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21-
05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of  losses 
for  the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05 
requested more information on the methodology of the calculation and 
the data used as the opportunity costs cannot be put int o c ontext  of  
the overall economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided  t o EWG 22-
05.  

Updated catch data has been provided by France for 2020, Spain and 
Belgium  for 2021 but not by Portugal. The implications of granting the 
proposed exemption with regard to the fishery and species concerned 
cannot therefore be quantified due to a lack of c at ch data  per gear, 
year  and  for  all  Member  States.  Nevertheless,  the  information 
provided by France and Spain shows relatively low rat e s of  disc ards 
(i.e., OTB_MPD_>=55 metier targeting horse mackerel had a disc ard 
rate of 1% in 2021) for some fisheries but quite high discard rat es in 
others (i.e., French demersal trawlers have a discard rat e of  88% in 
2020).  

EWG  21-05  highlighted  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  through 
improvements  in selectivity is difficult in these fisheries given many 
are  mixed  fisheries  and  notes  the  results  from  the  Spanish studies 
carried  out  in  these  fisheries  which  show  quite  high  losses  of 
commercial catch. Nonetheless, implementing the most promising  of  
these gears may help to address the issue of reducing disc ard rat es 
for  horse  mackerel in the longer term, particularly in those fisheries 
were  discards  rates  are high. This observation remains relevant for 
this exemption. 

141 

141 

 
Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Horse 
mackerel 
caught  by  vessels 
using  gillnets  in  ICES 
subareas  8  and  9 and 
CECAF  zones  34.1.1 
up  to  a  maximum  of 
3% of the total annual 
horse 
catches 
the 
mackerel 
specified 
fisheries  - 
Article 14 point 1(f ) of  
Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2015). 

of 

in 

1.  Exemption Status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2023 but  w it h 
a requirement for additional information to be provided by the 1st May 
every year. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Information  for  2020 is provided by France (Annex E) on catch and 
discard rates of horse mackerel in fisheries employing gillnets in ICES 
subareas 8 and 9. This was collected under t he Obsmer programme  
for  2020.  However,  France  lists  six  metiers  deploying  gillnets  but 
reports total catch, landings and discards for two groups of combined 
metiers, while percentages of catch and discarded horse mackerel are 
only  presented  for  two  specific  metiers,  one  for  each  group  of 
combined  metiers.  Furthermore,  percentages  of  horse  mackerel 
discarded are given in relation of the metier total catch, w hile t he de 
minimis  percentage  should  be  calculated  in  relation  to  total  horse 
mackerel catch. Therefore, these data limitations preclude an analysis 
of the French data. 

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Spain  for  the  metiers 
using gillnets and trammel nets - GNS_DEF_80-99; GNS_DEF _>=100 
(Annex  C).  There  was  only  a  report  of  total  number  of  vessels 
involved in these metiers, 40 and 28 respectively. 

Belgium  has no gillnet fisheries in subareas 8 and 9. 

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 
summary regarding the collection of scientific information.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time required f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Spain has further selectivity work planned, namely, t o st art  w orking 
on  the  new  H2020  EveryFish  project,  although  it  is unclear if fixed 
gears are included. 

5.  EWG 22-05 observations 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided 
in  2020.  In  2021,  EWG  21-05  re-examined  the  Spanish  study  and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21-
05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of  losses 
for  the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05 
requested more information on the methodology of the calculation and 
the data used as the opportunity costs cannot be put int o c ontext  of  
the overall economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided  t o EWG 22-
05.  

Limited  updated  catch data has been provided by France for 2020, 
and  no  data  from  Spain  or  Portugal. France reports on a low horse 
mackerel  discard  rate  for  two  out  of  six  metiers  but  the  rate  is 

142 

142 

 
 
calculated  in  relation  to  total  metier  catches  and  not  to  horse 
mackerel  catches,  which  if  used  may  increase  the  discard  rate 
significantly.  

Therefore, no assessment of the implications of granting the proposed 
exemption with regard to the fishery and species can be made due t o 
the limited data provided by the Member States. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Mackerel  caught  by 
vessels  using  beam 
trawls,  bottom  trawls 
and  seines  in  ICES 
subareas  8  and  9  up 
to  a  maximum  of  5% 
of  the  total  annual 
catches of mackerel in 
the  specified  fisheries 
- Article 14 point  1(g) 
of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2015 

1.  Exemption Status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2023 but  w it h 
a requirement for additional information to be provided by the 1st May 
every year. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Information for 2020 was provided by France (Annex F ) on c at ches 
and total discard rates for all species in a range of fisheries employing 
beam and bottom trawls in ICES subareas 8 and 9. However, no dat a 
is provided on mackerel discards and catches, while there is no dat a 
reported for seines as they were not sampled. 

Spain provided catch data by metier for 2021 w hic h inc ludes seven 
metiers  using  bottom  trawls  with  catches  of  mackerel  – OTB_>70; 
OTB_DEF_>=55;  OTB_MPD_>=55;  OTB_MCD_>=55;  PTB_DEF_>70; 
PTB_DEF_>55 (Annex D). There was a total of 7, 35, 33, 122 for otter 
trawl  and  2  and  33 for pair trawl vessels involved in these metiers, 
respectively.  In  OTB_>70  landings  of  mackerel  were  494  tonnes in 
2021,  while  discarded  catch  was  2,279  tonnes  (82%).  In 
OTB_DEF_>=55,  landings  were 190 tonnes while discarded catches 
were  7  tonnes  (3.5%).  In  the  OTB_MPD_>=55  metier,  landings  of 
mackerel  were  6,115  tonnes  and  discards  were  11  tonnes (0.2%). 
This  is  a  directed  fishery  for  horse  mackerel  and  mackerel.  In  the 
OTB_MCD_>=55  landings  were  146  tonnes  and  discards  were  41 
tonnes  (22%).  In  the  PTB_DEF_>70  landings  were  11  tonnes  and 
discards 3 tonnes (21%). In the PTB_DEF_>55 landings of  mac kerel 
were 1,980+806 tonnes and there were 4 tonnes of discards (0.1%). 

In  2021,  no  catches  of  mackerel  were  reported  by  the  six  Belgian 
vessels active in these areas. 

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 
summary regarding the collection of scientific information.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time required f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels. 

Spain  has  provided  a  summary  of  all  selectivity  trials  made  by IEO 
that  was  already  presented  in  21-05,  and  a  summary  of  two  new 
selectivity experiments carried out by AZTI in 2021 and result s f rom 
the SMARTFISH project. The studies explored preliminarily  t he ef f ect 
of  shortening  lastridge  ropes  on  baka  otter  trawls  in  Div.  8abd 
(CASELEM  project)  and  pair  trawl  operating  in  Div.  8c   (MESEDE 
project). The CASELEM project showed that the codend selectivity of  
horse  mackerel  and  blue  whiting  was  significantly  improved  when 
shortening  lastridge  ropes,  whereas  the  selectivity  of  hake,  and 

143 

143 

 
 
megrim  was not.  

In  addition,  results  from  the  European SMARTFISH project are also 
presented, focusing on using underwater lighting on a grid  loc at ed in 
the  codend  to  modify  fish  behaviour  as  a  first  step  to  improve  
selectivity. However, the results showed t hat less t han 25% of  t he 
individuals of all species analysed passed through the grid and w ere  
retained in the lower codend, as well as that no significant differences 
were found when the grid was illuminated.  

Finally, project SELECLUGO (for metier OTB_DEF_>=55)  objective w as 
to assess the selectivity of the regulatory trawl codends used by t he 
commercial  fleet  in  2021  trials. The  results  indicate  that increased 
selectivity in this metier is not easily achievable in the short  term. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Spain has further selectivity work planned, namely it will c ont inue t o 
carry out the CASELEM selectivity campaign aimed at  improving  t he 
selectivity of multi-specific fisheries; continue with t rials f ocused on 
trawling  with  doors  and  incorporate  tests  of  fishing  tactics  to 
complement  improvement s  in  selectivity;  start  working on the new 
H2020  EveryFish  project ;  and  continue  with  the  DESCARSEL  and 
SELECLUGO projects. 

5.  EWG 22-05 observations 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided 
in 2020. In 2021, EWG 21-05 has re-examined the Spanish study and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21-
05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of  losses 
for  the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05 
requested more information on the methodology of the calculation and 
the data used as the opportunity costs cannot be put int o c ontext  of  
the overall economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided  t o EWG 22-
05.  

Updated catch data has only been provided by Spain and Belgium  f or 
2021.  Therefore, the implications of granting the proposed exemption 
with regard to the fishery and species concerned cannot be quantif ied 
due to a lack of catch data per gear, year and for all Member States.  

Nevertheless, the information provided by Spain shows relatively low  
rate of discards (i.e., OTB_MPD_>=55 metier targeting mackerel had 
a  discard  rate  of  0.2%  in  2021)  for  some  fisheries  but  quite  high 
discard rates in others (i.e., OTB_>70 metier has a mackerel disc ard 
rate of 82% in 2021).  

EWG  21-05  highlighted  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  through 
improvements  in selectivity is difficult in these fisheries given many 
are mixed fisheries and notes the results from the French and Spanish 
studies carried out in these fisheries which show quite high losses of  
commercial catch. Nonetheless, implementing t he most promising  of  
these gears may help to address the issue of reducing disc ard rat es 
for  mackerel  in  the  longer term. Focus should be on those fisheries 
with the highest volumes of mackerel discards. EWG 22-05 reiterat es 
this observation which remains relevant for this exemption.  

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

144 

144 

 
Mackerel  caught  by 
vessels  using  gillnets 
in  ICES  subareas  8 
and  9  up 
to  a 
maximum  of  3%  of 
annual 
the 
catches of mackerel in 
the  specified  fisheries 
- Article 14 point  1(h) 
of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2015. 

total 

1.  Exemption Status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2023 but  w it h 
a requirement for additional information to be provided by the 1st May 
every year. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Information  for  2020 is provided by France (Annex F) on catch and 
discard  rates  of  mackerel  in  six  metiers  employing  gillnets  in  ICES 
subareas  8  and  9.  This  data  was  collected  under  the  Obsmer 
programme.  However,  France lists six metiers deploying gillnets but 
reports total catch, landings and discards for two groups of combined 
metiers, while percentages of catch and discarded mackerel are only 
presented  for  three  specific  metiers,  divided between the group of 
combined  metiers. Furthermore, percentages of mackerel discarded 
are  given  in  relation  of the metier total catch, while the de minimis 
percentage should be calculated in relation to tot al mac kerel c atch. 
Therefore, these data limitations preclude an analysis of  t he F rench 
data. 

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Spain  for  the  metiers 
using gillnets and trammel nets - GNS_DEF_80-99; GNS_DEF _>=100 
(Annex C). There was only report of total number of vessels involved 
in these metiers, 40 and 28 respectively. 

Belgium  has no gillnet fisheries in subareas 8 and 9. 

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 
summary regarding the collection of scientific information.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time required f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Spain has further selectivity work planned, namely, t o st art  w orking 
on  the  new  H2020  EveryFish  project,  although  it  is unclear if fixed 
gears are included. 

5.  EWG 22-05 observations 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided 
in 2020. In 2021, EWG 21-05 has re-examined the Spanish study and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21-
05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of  losses 
for  the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05 
requested more information on the methodology of the calculation and 
the data used as the opportunity costs cannot be put int o c ontext  of  
the overall economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided  t o EWG 22-
05.  

Limited  updated  catch data has been provided by France for 2020, 
and  no  data  from  Spain  or Portugal. France reports a low mackerel 
discard rate for three out of six metiers but the rat e is c alc ulated in 
relation to total metier catches and not to mackerel catches, w hic h if  
used  would  increase  the discard rate significantly. This is similar to 

145 

145 

 
 
last year and suggest discarding of mackerel is low in gillnet fisheries.   

No assessment of the implications of granting the proposed exemption 
with regard to the fishery and species can be made due to the limit ed 
data provided by the Member States. The observations of EWG 21- 05 
for this exemption remain  relevant. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Anchovy  caught  by 
vessels  using  beam 
trawls,  bottom  trawls 
and  seines  in  ICES 
subareas  8  and  9  up 
to  a  maximum  of  5% 
of  the  total  annual 
catches of anc hovy in 
the  specified  fisheries 
- Article 14 point  1(o) 
of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2015. 

1.  Exemption Status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2023 but  w it h 
a requirement for additional information to be provided by the 1st May 
every year. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Information for 2020 is provided by France (Annex K) on frequency of  
occurrence of anchovy in fisheries employing beam and bottom traw ls 
in ICES subareas 8 and 9. This data was collected under t he Obsmer 
programme  for  2020.  No  catches  of  anchovy  are  reorted  in  the 
Obsmer  reports.  There  is  also  no  data  reported  for  seines  as  they 
were not sampled. 

Spain provided catch data by metier for 2021 for several trawl metiers 
but none are reported to catch anchovy. 

In  2021,  no  catches  of  anchovy  were  reported  by  the  six  Belgian 
vessels active in these areas. 

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 
summary regarding the collection of scientific information.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time required f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels. 

Spain  has  provided  a  summary  of  all  selectivity  trials  made  by IEO 
that  was  already  presented  in  21-05,  and  a  summary  of  two  new 
selectivity experiments carried out by AZTI in 2021 and result s f rom 
the SMARTFISH project.  

The  studies  explored  preliminarily  the effect of shortening lastridge 
ropes on baka otter trawls in Div. 8abd (CASELEM projec t) and pair 
trawl  operating  in  Div.  8c   (MESEDE project). The CASELEM project 
showed that the codend selectivity of horse mackerel and blue whiting 
was significantly improved when shortening lastridge ropes, w hereas 
the selectivity of hake, and megrim  was not.  

In  addition,  results  from  the  European SMARTFISH project are also 
presented, focusing on using underwater lighting on a grid  loc at ed in 
the  codend  to  modify  fish  behaviour  as  a  first  step  to  improve  
selectivity. However, the results showed t hat less t han 25% of  t he 
individuals of all species analysed passed through the grid and w ere  
retained in the lower codend, as well as that no significant differences 
were found when the grid was illuminated.  

Finally, project SELECLUGO (for metier OTB_DEF_>=55)  objective w as 
to assess the selectivity of the regulatory trawl codends used by t he 
commercial  fleet  in  2021  trials. The  results  indicate  that increased 

146 

146 

 
 
selectivity in this metier is not easily achievable in the short  term. 

None of this studies provided information specific to anchovy. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Spain has further selectivity work planned, namely it will c ont inue t o 
carry out the CASELEM selectivity campaign aimed at  improving  t he 
selectivity of multi-specific fisheries; continue with t rials f ocused on 
trawling  with  doors  and  incorporate  tests  of  fishing  tactics  to 
complement  improvements  in  selectivity;  start  working on the new 
H2020  EveryFish  project;  and  continue  with  the  DESCARSEL  and 
SELECLUGO projects. 

5.  EWG 22-05 observations 

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided 
in 2020. In 2021, EWG 21-05 has re-examined the Spanish study and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21-
05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of  losses 
for  the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05 
requested more information on the methodology of the calculation and 
the data used as the opportunity costs cannot be put int o c ontext  of  
the overall economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided  t o EWG 22-
05.  

Limited  catch  information  has  been  supplied  to  support  this 
exemption.  Belgium  reported  no  catch  of  anchovy  for  2021,  only 
frequency of species occurrence has been provided by France for 2020 
and no data by Spain and Portugal.  

Therefore, the implic ations of granting the proposed exempt ion w it h 
regard to the fishery and species concerned cannot be quantif ied due 
to a lack of catch data per gear, year and for all Member St ates. T he 
observations  of  EWG 21-05 remain relevant for this exemption that 
given the likely low level of catch, the impact of this exemption on the 
anchovy stock is likely to be low. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Anglerfish caught  by 
vessels  using  pelagic 
trawls,  beam  trawls, 
trawls  and 
bottom 
seines 
ICES 
in 
subareas 8 and 9 up a 
maximum  of  5%  of 
annual 
the 
catches of anglerfish in 
the  specified  fisheries 
-  Article 14 point 1(k) 
of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2015. 

total 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2023 but  w it h 
a requirement for additional information to be provided by t he 1 s t  of  
May every year. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated  information  for  2020  was  provided  by  France  (Annex 
H[SWW])  on  discard  rates  of  anglerfish  in  a  range  of  fisheries 
employing bottom trawls in ICES subareas 8 and 9. The discard rat es 
(calculated as discards of total anglerfish catch) of anglerfish was 30% 
for  bottom  trawls  targeting  crustaceans  (OTB)  and  6% for bottom 
trawls targeting demersal species and cephalopods (OTB, OTT, PTB) in 
2020. Bottom trawls targeting crustaceans (mainly Nephr ops ) had a 
total catch of 12435 tonnes with a total discard fraction of  53.8%. In 
2020,  172  tonnes  of  anglerfish  (3% of total landings) were landed, 
and 74 tonnes discarded. Bottom trawls targeting demersal spec ies 
and  cephalopods  landed  746  tonnes  of  anglerfish  (6%  of  total 
landings) and discarded 6 tonnes.  

147 

147 

 
 
 
 
OTB_DEF_≥55_0_0; 

Spain provided catch data by metier for 2021 (Annex D[SWW]) whic h 
includes five metiers using bottom trawls with catches of angler f ish: 
OTB_≥70_0_0; 
OTB_MPD_≥55_0_0; 
PTB_DEF_≥55_0_0; OTB_MCD_≥55_0_0. There was a total of  7, 35, 
33,  29  and  122  vessels  involved  in  these  metiers,  respectively.  In 
OTB_≥70_0_0, 304 tonnes of anglerfish were landed and 29 t onnes 
discarded  (8.7%).  In  OTB_DEF_≥55_0_0,  332  tonnes  of  anglerfish 
was  landed  with  2  tonnes  discards  (0.2%).  OTB_MPD_≥55_0_0 
landed  32  tonnes  and  discarded  0  tonnes  of  anglerfish.  For  both 
PTB_DEF_≥55_0_0  and  OTB_MCD_≥55_0_0  landings  were  122 
tonnes with 21 tonnes discards (14.7%). However, the data f rom t he 
latter  two  metiers  should  be  taken  with  caution  as  EWG  22-05 
observed  that  there  might  be  an  input  error  in  the  table  for 
OTB_MCD_≥55_0_0.  

Updated  information  for  2021  was  provided  by  Belgium  (Annex  C) 
where six vessels fishing with beam trawls (TBB) with a mesh size of  
70  mm  were  active  in  areas 8a and 8b. Total landings of anglerfish 
were 53 tonnes with 0.3 tonnes discards (0.69%).  

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 
summary (Annex A) regarding the collection of scientific information. 

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time req uired f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels. No updat ed 
information has been provided to EWG 22-05 in respect of this study. 

Spain  has  provided  a  summary  of  all  selectivity  trials  made  by IEO 
that  was  already  presented  in  21-05,  and  a  summary  of  two  new 
selectivity experiments carried out by AZTI in 2021 and result s f rom 
the SMARTFISH project.  

The  studies  explored  preliminarily  the effect of shortening lastridge 
ropes on baka otter trawls in Div. 8abd (CASELEM projec t) and pair 
trawl operating in Div. 8c (MESEDE project). The CASELEM project did 
not  focus  on anglerfish. The MESEDE project showed no significant 
difference in the catch of any species.  

In  addition,  results  from  the  European SMARTFISH project are also 
presented, focusing on using underwater lighting on a grid  loc at ed in 
the  codend  to  modify  fish  behaviour  as  a  first  step  to  improve 
selectivity. However, the results showed t hat less t han 25% of  t he 
individuals of all species analysed passed through the grid and w ere 
retained in the lower codend, as well as that no significant differences 
were found when the grid was illuminated.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Spain has further selectivity work planned, namely, it will continue t o 
carry out the CASELEM selectivity campaign aimed at  improving  t he 
selectivity of multi-specific fisheries; continue with t rials f ocused on 
trawling  with  doors  and  incorporate  tests  of  fishing  tactics  to 
complement  improvements  in  selectivity;  start  working on the new 
H2020  EveryFish  project ;  and  continue  with  the  DESCARSEL  and 
SELECLUGO projects. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided 

148 

148 

 
 
in 2020. In 2021, EWG 21-05 has re-examined the Spanish study, and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21-
05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of  losses 
for  the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05 
requested more information on the methodology of the calculation and 
the data used as the opportunity costs cannot be put int o c ontext  of  
the overall economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided  t o EWG 22-
05.  

Updated  catch  data  has  been  provided  by  France for 2020 and by 
Spain  and  Belgium  for  2021,  but  not  for  Portugal.  However,  the 
implications  of  granting  the  proposed exemption with regard to the 
fishery and species concerned cannot  be quantified due t o a lac k of  
consistent catch data per gear, year and for all Member States.  

Nevertheless,  EWG  22-05  notes  that  the  information  provided  by 
France,  Spain  and  Belgium shows relatively low rate of discards for 
most fisheries (i.e., OTB_DEF_≥55_0_0 (Spain) had a discard rat e of  
0.2%  in  2021  and  Belgium  beam  trawls (TBB) had a discard rate of 
0.69%),  with  higher  discard  rates  on  others  (i.e., French demersal 
trawls have a discard rate of 30% in 2020).  

EWG  21-05  highlighted  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  through 
improvements  in selectivity is difficult in these fisheries given many 
are  mixed  fisheries  and  notes  the  results  from  the  Spanish studies 
carried  out  in  these  fisheries  which  show  quite  high  losses  of 
commercial catch. This is particularly the case for anglerfish given it s 
morphology  which  make  improving  selectivity  specifically  for 
anglerfish impractical. EWG 22-05 reiterates these observations which 
remain relevant for this exemption.  

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Anglerfish caught  by 
vessels  using  gillnets 
in  ICES  subareas  8 
and  9  up 
to  a 
maximum  of  4%  of 
the 
annual 
catches of anglerfish in 
the  specified  fisheries 
-  Article  14  point  1(l) 
of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2015 

total 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2023 but  w it h 
a requirement for additional information to be provided by t he 1 s t  of  
May every year. 

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated information for 2020 was provided by Franc e (Annex H) on 
discard  rates  of  anglerfish  in  fisheries  employing  gillnets  in  ICES 
subareas 8 and 9. The discard rates (calculated as disc ards t o t otal 
anglerfish catch) of anglerfish was 11% for nets t argeting demersal 
species,  cephalopods  and  crustaceans  (vessels  under  15m, GTR in 
area  8a),  and  8  and  3%  for  nets  targeting  demersal  species  and 
crustaceans  with  vessels  above 15m (GNS,GTR) targeting sole and 
hake, respectively in 2020. GNS and GTR metiers with vessels under 
15m had a total catch of 6712 tonnes with a total discard f raction of  
19.3% for GTR metiers in area 8a. In 2020, 282 tonnes of anglerf ish 
(5%  of  total  landings)  were  landed,  and  37 tonnes discarded. GNS 
and GTR metiers with vessels above 15m had a total c atch of  11247 
tonnes  with  total  discard  fractions  of  39.9  and  8.6%  for  vessels 
targeting sole and hake, respectively. In 2020, 99 tonnes of anglerfish 
(1% of total landings) were landed, and 11 tonnes discarded.  

Spain provided information by metier for 2021 (Annex D). T here are 
40 vessels of 18m with a mesh size of 90 mm  targeting demersal f ish 
species,  but  mainly hake (GNS_DEF_80-99), and 28 vessels of 18m 

149 

149 

 
 
 
with a mesh size larger than 100 targeting demersal fish spec ies but  
mainly  anglerfish  (GNS_DEF_>=100).  However,  no  updated  catch 
data was provided for these metiers.  

Belgium  has no gillnet fisheries in subareas 8 and 9.  

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 
summary (Annex A) regarding the collection of scientific information.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time required f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No future work is planned on gillnet fisheries.  

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided 
in 2020. In 2021, EWG 21-05 has re-examined the Spanish study, and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21-
05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of  not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of  losses 
for  the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05 
requested more information on the methodology of the calculation and 
the data used as the opportunity costs cannot be put int o c ontext  of  
the overall economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided  t o EWG 22-
05.  

Limited  updated  catch data has been provided by France for 2020, 
and no data for Spain and Portugal. Belgium  has no gillnet fisheries in 
subareas  8  and  9.  The  information  provided  by  France  shows that 
discard rates are ranging between 2-11% for gillnets.   

No assessment of the implications of granting the proposed exemption 
with regard to the fishery and species can be made due to the limit ed 
data provided by the Member States. The observations of EWG 21- 05 
remain relevant for this exemption.  

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Megrim caught by 
vessels using beam 
trawls, bottom trawls 
and seines in ICES 
subareas 8 and 9 up 
to a maximum  of 5% 
of the total annual 
catches of megrim  in 
the specified fisheries 
- Article 14 point 1(i) 
of Regulation (EU) No 
2020/2015.  

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2023 but  w it h 
a requirement for additional information to be provided by the 1st May 
every year.  

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated  information  for  2020  is  provided  by  France  (Annex  G)  on 
discard  rates  of  megrim  in  fisheries  employing  beam  trawls  and 
bottom trawls in ICES subareas 8 and 9. This was collected under t he 
Obsmer  programme  for  2020.  Furthermore,  percentages  of  megrim 
discarded are given in relation of the metier total catch, w hile t he de 
minimis  percentage  should  be  calculated in relation to total  megrim 
catch. Therefore, these data limitations preclude an analysis of  t he 
French data. 

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 

150 

150 

 
 
  
 
summary  regarding  the  collection of scientific information.  Previous 
information  for  Portugal  (EWG  21-05,  Annex  1)  is  provided  for  the 
period 2017-2019 which indicates that overall landings of  megrim  by 
Portuguese  bottom  trawlers  averaged  117  tonnes.  The  supporting 
annex from Portugal reports that discards were negligible (1-1.3kg per 
trip  sampled)  when  compared  to  annual  landings  volume.  The  two 
relevant  metiers  -  OTB_DEF  and  OTB_CRU  -  involve  58  and  24 
vessels, respectively. Most landings came from OTB_DEF.  

OTB_DEF_≥55_0_0; 

Spain provided catch data by metier for 2021 (Annex D[SWW]) whic h 
includes  five  metiers  using  bottom  trawls  with  catches  of   megrim: 
OTB_≥70_0_0; 
OTB_MPD_≥55_0_0; 
PTB_DEF_≥55_0_0; and OTB_MCD_≥55_0_0. There was a total of  7, 
35, 33, 29 and 122 vessels involved in these metiers, respectively. In 
OTB_≥70_0_0,  293  tonnes  of  megrim  were  landed,  and  19  tonnes 
discarded (6%). In OTB_DEF_≥55_0_0, 255 tonnes of L. whiffiagonis 
was landed with 32 tonnes discards (12.5%) and 624 tonnes landings 
of  L.  boscii  with  108  tonnes  discards  (17.3%). OTB_MPD_≥55_0_0 
had  landings  of  16  and  46  tonnes  for  L.  whiffiagonis  and  L. boscii, 
respectively,  with 
species.  For 
PTB_DEF_≥55_0_0 reported landings and discards were zero. Megrim 
landings  in  OTB_MCD_≥55_0_0  were  4  tonnes  in  2021  with  zero 
discards. In ICES subareas 8abd, total landings of megrim  for all trawl 
fisheries were 2302 tonnes with 435 tonnes discards (18.9%). In ICES 
subareas  8c  and  9a,  total  landings  of  megrim  for  all  trawl fisheries 
were 272 tonnes with 32.17 tonnes discards (11.8%). 

zero  discards  of  both 

In 2021 there were six Belgian vessels fishing with beam trawls (TBB)  
with  a  mesh-size  of 70 mm in the Gulf of Biscay (ICES-area 8a and 
8b).  They  mainly  caught  common  sole,  and  have  as  by -catch 
anglerfish,  megrim,  and  in  smaller  quantities pollack, hake, whiting, 
skates  and  rays  and  plaice.  A  summary  of  discard  rates  based  on 
records  in  the  electronic  logbooks  was  provided.  In  2021  the data 
about  megrim  (Lepidorhombus  spp.) was estimated in 42,335 kg of 
landings, 905 kg of discards, for a discard rate of 2.14% (Annex D).  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time required f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels.  

Spain  has  provided  a  summary  of  all  selectivity  trials  made  by IEO 
that  was  already  presented  in  21-05,  and  a  summary  of  two  new 
selectivity experiments carried out by AZTI in 2021 and result s f rom 
the SMARTFISH project. The studies explored preliminarily  t he ef f ect 
of  shortening  lastridge  ropes  on  baka  otter  trawls  in  Div.  8abd 
(CASELEM  project)  and  pair  trawl  operating  in  Div.  8c  (MESEDE 
project). The CASELEM project showed t hat t he codend selectivity 
could improve when shortening lastridge ropes for some spec ies, but  
not for megrim.   

In  addition,  results  from  the  European SMARTFISH project are also 
presented, focusing on using underwater lighting on a grid  loc at ed in 
the  codend  to  modify  fish  behavior  as  a  first  step  to  improve 
selectivity. However, the results showed t hat less t han  25% of  t he 
individuals of all species analysed passed through the grid and w ere 
retained in the lower codend, as well as that no significant differences 
were found when the grid was illuminated.  

151 

151 

 
 
 
 
Finally, project SELECLUGO (for metier OTB_DEF_>=55)  objective w as 
to assess the selectivity of the regulatory trawl codends used by t he 
commercial  fleet  in  2021  trials. The  results  indicate  that  increased 
selectivity in this metier is not easily achievable in the short term. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Spain has further selectivity work planned, namely it will c ont inue t o 
carry out the CASELEM selectivity campaign aimed at  improving  t he 
selectivity of multi-specific fisheries, continue with t rials f oc used on 
trawling  with  doors  and  incorporate  tests  of  fishing  tactics  to 
complement  improvements  in  selectivity,  start  working  on the new 
H2020  EveryFish  project,  continue  with  the  DESCARSEL  and 
SELECLUGO projects. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Updated catch data has been provided by France for 2020 and Spain 
and  Belgium  for  2021  but  not  for  Portugal.  The  implications  of 
granting  the  proposed  exemption  with  regard  to  the  fishery  and 
species  concerned  cannot  therefore  be  quantified  due to a lack of 
catch  data  per  gear,  year and for all Member States.  No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided t o EWG 22 -
05. 

The information provided by Spain shows discards rat es of  18.9% in 
ICES  subareas  8abd  and  11.8%  in  ICES  subareas  8c  and  9a  for 
megrim  in  2021.  The  information  provided  by  Belgium  shows 
relatively  low  rate  of  discards  for  beam-trawls  targeting  megrim  in 
subarea  8ab,  estimating  the  discard  rate  of  2.14%  (905  kg).  The 
previous  catch  information  provided  for  beam  trawlers  referred  to 
total landings of 47 tonnes with an unwanted c atch of  0.26 t onnes, 
but  relative to subarea 8 (EWG 21-05, Annex 3). Generally, discard 
rates vary considerably between metier. 

EWG  21-05  highlighted  that  reducing  the  discard  rates  through 
improvements  in selectivity is difficult in these fisheries given many 
are  mixed  fisheries  and  notes  the  results  from  the  Spanish studies 
carried  out  in  these  fisheries  which  show  quite  high  losses  of 
commercial  catch.  EWG  22-05  reiterates  this  observation  which 
remains relevant for this exemption. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Megrim caught by 
vessels using gillnets 
in ICES subareas 8 
and 9 up to a 
maximum  of 4 % of 
the total annual 
catches of megrim  in 
the specified fisheries 
- Article 14 point 1(i) 
of Regulation (EU) No 
2020/2015.  

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2023 but  w it h 
a requirement for additional information to be provided by the 1st May 
every year.  

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated  information  for  2019  and  2020  was  provided  by  France 
(Annex H) on discard rates of megrim in fisheries employing gillnets in 
ICES subareas 8 and 9. France lists six metiers deploying gillnet s but  
reports  total  catch,  landings  and  discards  for  only  one  group  of 
combined metiers. Furthermore, percentages of megrim  discarded are 
given  in  relation  of  the  metier  total  catch,  while  the  de  minimis 
percentage  should  be  calculated  in  relation  to  total megrim catch. 
Therefore, these data limitations preclude an analysis of  t he F rench 
data.  

Spain provides catch data by metier for the period 2017- 2020 w hic h 

152 

152 

 
 
includes two metiers using gillnets and trammel nets - GNS_DEF _80-
99; GNS_DEF_>=100  (EWG 21-05, Annex 2). There was a total of  40 
and  28  vessels  involved  in  these  metiers,  respectively.  In 
GNS_DEF_80-99, landings of megrim  averaged 1.25 tonnes over t he 
period  2017-2020  (range  0  -  2  tonnes)  with no unwanted catches 
reported.  In  the  GNS_EF_>=100  metier,  there  were  no  catches  of 
megrim  reported.  

Belgium  has no gillnet fisheries in subareas 8 and 9.  

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 
summary (Annex A) regarding the collection of scientific information.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time required f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No  additional  information  has  been  provided  and  no  new  work 
planned. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided 
in 2020. In 2021, EWG 21-05 has re-examined the Spanish study and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21-
05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of  losses 
for  the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05 
requested more information on the methodology of the calculation and 
the data used as the opportunity costs cannot be put int o c ontext  of  
the overall economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided  t o EWG 22-
05.  

Updated catch data has been provided by Spain for 2021 and limit ed 
data France for 2020. No data has been provided by Portugal. Belgium 
has no gillnet fisheries in subareas 8 and 9. The information provided 
by  Spain  and  France  shows  that  discard  rates for megrim in gillnet 
fisheries are negligible.   

No  new  assessment  of  the  implications  of  granting  the  proposed 
exemption with regard to the fishery and species can be made due t o 
the limited data provided by the Member States, but as observed by 
EWG  21-05  the  low  level  of  megrim  discards  in  gillnet  fisheries 
indicates the impact of this exemption on the megrim  stock is likely t o 
be low. This observation still remains relevant. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Whiting  caught  by 
vessels  using  pelagic 
trawls,  beam  trawls 
and  seines  in  ICES 
subarea  8  up  to  a 
maximum  of  5%  of 
the 
annual 
catches  of  whiting  in 
the  specified  fisheries 

total 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  granted  until  the  end  of 
2023 but with a requirement for additional information to be provided 
by the 1st of May every year.  

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated information was provided by France (Annex I) on c at ch and 
discard rates of whiting in fisheries using bottom trawls, pelagic trawls 
and seines in ICES subareas 8 and 9. The discard rate (calculated as 

153 

153 

 
- Article 14 point 1(m) 
of  regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2015.  

discards of total whiting catch) of whiting was 3.8% for bottom traw ls 
targeting demersal species and cephalopods (OTB, OTT, PTB) in 2019. 
Danish  seines discard rate in 2019 was 6.5% for vessels under 25m 
targeting  demersal  species and cephalopods and 10.3% for vessels 
targeting various fish species. Total landings (all gears c ombined) of  
whiting  were  1956  tonnes  in  2019  with  a  total  discard  fraction  of 
4.8%.  In  2020,  only  discard  information  was  available  for  whiting 
from  pelagic  trawls  targeting  demersal  species  (OTM,  PTM)  which 
accounts for 0.4% discard rate (of total whiting c atch). Landings of  
whiting were only available from these metiers and were 14.9 tonnes.  

Spain  provided  catch data by metier for 2021 (Annex D). However, 
there is no data available for whiting.   

Updated  information  for  2021  was  provided  by  Belgium  (Annex  C) 
where six vessels fishing with beam trawls (TBB) with a mesh size of  
70 mm  were active in areas 8a and 8b. Total landings of whit ing w as 
0.2 tonnes with 0 tonnes discards (0%).  

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 
summary (Annex A) regarding the collection of scientific information.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time required f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels. T he st udy 
did not provide any specific information relating to whiting.  

Spain  has  provided  a  summary  of  all  selectivity  trials  made  by IEO 
that  was  already  presented  in  21-05,  and  a  summary  of  two  new 
selectivity experiments carried out by AZTI in 2021 and result s f rom 
the SMARTFISH project.  

The  studies  explored  preliminarily  the effect of shortening lastridge 
ropes on baka otter trawls in Div. 8abd (CASELEM projec t) and pair 
trawl  operating  in  Div.  8c  (MESEDE project). The CASELEM project 
showed that the codend selectivity of horse mackerel and blue whiting 
was significantly improved when shortening lastridge ropes, w hereas 
the selectivity of hake, and megrim  was not.  

In  addition,  results  from  the  European SMARTFISH project are also 
presented, focusing on using underwater lighting on a grid  loc at ed in 
the  codend  to  modify  fish  behaviour  as  a  first  step  to  improve 
selectivity. However, the results showed t hat less t han 25% of  t he 
individuals of all species analysed passed through the grid and w ere 
retained in the lower codend, as well as that no significant differences 
were found when the grid was illuminated.  

Finally, project SELECLUGO (for metier OTB_DEF_>=55)  objective w as 
to assess the selectivity of the regulatory trawl codends used by t he 
commercial  fleet  in  2021  trials. The  results  indicate  that increased 
selectivity in this metier is not easily achievable in the short term. 

France  provided  a  summary  of  results  from  selectivity  projects, 
namely  the  REDRESSE  project  and  the  OPTISEL  project.  The 
REDRESSE  project  (2014-2017)  focused  on  trawl  fleets  targeting 
cephalopods, Nephrops and demersal fishes to test various selective 
configurations  to  reduce  the  discard  levels  within  these  fisheries. 
There  were  no  significant  results  relating  to  whiting  catches.  The 
OPTISEL project started in 2019 and tested a selective grid t hat  w as 
used in the REDRESSE project. This selective grid seems to reduce the 

154 

154 

 
 
 
 
catch  of  undersized Nephrops. However, no specific results can be 
found for whiting.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Spain has further selectivity work planned, namely it will c ont inue t o 
carry out the CASELEM selectivity campaign aimed at  improving  t he 
selec tivity of multi-specific fisheries; continue with t rials f ocused on 
trawling  with  doors  and  incorporate  tests  of  fishing  tactics  to 
complement  improvements  in  selectivity;  start  working on the new 
H2020  EveryFish  project ;  and  continue  with  the  DESCARSEL  and 
SELECLUGO projects. 

Furthermore,  France  has  further selectivity work within the ACOST 
project,  which  started  in  2021.  The  project  aims  to  improve  the 
biological, genetic and exploitation knowledge of 4 stocks in the Bay of 
Biscay classified as data limit ed stocks: pollack, meagre, red mullet ,  
and  whiting.  Additionally,  the  CASEP  project  is  a  continuation  of 
previous work on selectivity aiming to further develop this work.  

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided 
in 2020. In 2021, EWG 21-05 has re-examined the Spanish study and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21-
05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of  losses 
for  the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05 
requested more information on the methodology of the calculation and 
the data used as the opportunity costs cannot be put int o c ontext  of  
the overall economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided  t o EWG 22-
05.  

Updated catch data was provided by Belgium for 2021 and by F ranc e 
for 2019 and 2020. Catch data on whiting was not provided by Spain 
and  Portugal.  Therefore,  the  implications  of  granting  the  proposed 
exemption with regard to the fishery and species concerned cannot be 
fully quantified due to a lack of catch data per gear, year and f or all 
Member States. 

Nonetheless, the information provided by France shows relatively low  
rates  of  discards  (i.e.,  3.8%  in  2019  for  bottom  trawls  targeting 
demersal  species  and  cephalopods),  while  Belgium  reported  zero 
discard rates on whiting.   

Given  that  improving  the  selectivity  of  whiting  in  towed  gears  has 
been shown to be technically possible through the use of square mesh 
panels  or  other  selectivity  devices,  implementing  effective  gear 
modifications to reduce whiting discards is encouraged.  

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Whiting  caught  by 
vessels gillnets in ICES 
subarea  8  up  to  a 
maximum  of  4%  of 
the 
annual 
catches  of  whiting  in 
the  specified  fisheries 
- Article 14 point  1(n) 
of  regulation  (EU)  No 

total 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption  granted  until  the  end  of 
2023 but with a requirement for additional information to be provided 
by the 1st of May every year.  

2.  Fishery Context 

Updated information was provided by France (Annex J). T w o F rench 
fisheries  of gillnetters operate in ICES subarea 8. Gillnetters smaller 
than  15m  using  gillnets  and  trammel  nets (GNS, GTR). In 2019 444 

155 

155 

 
2020/2015.   

vessels were active and 502 vessels in 2020. Gillnet t ers larger t han 
15m using gillnets and trammel  nets (GNS, GTR) operate in the Bay of 
Biscay  (ICES  area  8abcd).  In  2019,  78 vessels were active and 77 
vessels  in  2021.  The  data  was  collected  under  the  Obsmer 
programme. Percentages of whiting discards were presented from t he 
STECF database for 2013-2016. However, these data were presented 
in  relation  to  the  total  TAC  species  catches,  while  the  de  minimis 
percentage  should  be  calculated  in  relation  to total whiting catch. 
Therefore, these limitations preclude an analysis of the French data.   

Spain  provided  information  by  metier  for  2021  (Annex  D[SWW]). 
There  are  40  vessels  of  18m  with  a  mesh  size  of  90  mm  targeting 
demersal  fish  species,  but  mainly  hake  (GNS_DEF_80-99),  and  28 
vessels of 18m with a mesh size larger than 100 target ing demersal 
fish  species  but  mainly  anglerfish  (GNS_DEF_>=100).  However,  no 
updated catch data was provided for these metiers.  

Belgium  has no gillnet fisheries in subarea 8.  

There  is  no  updated  catch  information  from  Portugal,  except  a 
summary (Annex A) regarding the collection of scientific information.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The justification for the exemption is largely the same as assessed by 
STECF  20-04,  namely  from  a  detailed  economic  analysis  of 
disproportionate costs resulting from the additional time required f or 
handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels. T he st udy 
did not provide any specific information relat ing to whiting.  

France provided a summary of recent work on selectivity measures. 
The REDRESSE project (2014-2017) conducted in t he Bay of  Bisc ay 
analysed  options  to  work  on  the  selectivity  of  French  netters. 
However,  no  trials  were  carried  out  as  it  was  not  possible  to  find 
options to reduce the discards of whiting and mackerel.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Spain has further selectivity work planned, namely, t o st art  w orking 
on  the  new  H2020  EveryFish  project,  although  it  is unclear if fixed 
gears are included. 

Furthermore,  France  has  started  a  project  in  2021  (ACOST)  to 
improve the biological, genetic and exploitation knowledge of 4 stocks 
in the Bay of Biscay classified as data limited stocks: pollack, meagre, 
red mullet and whiting.  

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

The supporting information on economic impacts was already provided 
in 2020. In 2021, EWG 21-05 has re-examined the Spanish study and 
comments on the approach and methodology were provided. EWG 21-
05 observed that the economic information provided on impacts of not 
granting the exemption indicates a comparatively high level of  losses 
for  the  vessels  involved  in  this  fishery.  However,  EWG  21-05 
requested more information on the methodology of the calculation and 
the data used as the opportunity costs cannot be put int o c ontext  of  
the overall economic performance of the fleet segments. No additional 
information on the methodology and data was provided  t o EWG 22-
05.  

Limited updated catch data has been provided by F rance, based on 
data for the period 2013-2016. No data has been provided f or Spain 
and Portugal. Belgium has no gillnet fisheries in ICES subarea 8.    No 
assessment  of  the  implications of granting the proposed exemption 

156 

156 

 
 
 
 
with regard to the fishery and species can be made due to the limit ed 
data provided by the Member States.  

However, based on the observations of EWG 21-05 it is likely that t he 
discards of whiting from gillnet fisheries are very low  and t heref ore, 
the  impact  of  the  exemption  on  the  whiting  stock  is  likely  to  be 
negligible. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Red Sea Bream  

1.  Exemption status 

caught by vessels 
using bottom trawls, 
seines & beam trawls 
in 9a up to a 
maximum  of 5 % of 
the total annual 
catches of red sea 
bream in the specified 
fisheries - Article 14 
point 1(p) of 
Regulation (EU) No 
2020/2015.  

Existing  temporary  de  minimis  exemption applicable until  the end of 
2023 but with a requirement for additional information to be provided 
by the 1st May every year.  

2.  Fishery Context 

No new information was provided.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

Even though not referred to in the SWW JR, EWG 22-05 assumes that  
the justification for the exemption is the same as assessed by ST ECF 
21-05 and by STECF 20-04. This was based on the detailed economic  
analysis  of disproportionate cost s resulting from the additional time 
required for handling and sorting unwanted catches on board vessels. 
The study indicates that in terms of lost opport unit y c osts, Bot t om 
trawlers in division 9a are estimated to experience losses amount ing 
to  of  €20,400  for  Spain  €154,500  for  Portugal  if  the  requested  de 
minimis  exemption for red sea bream is not granted. This equates t o 
2.7%  of  the  total  losses  estimated  for the fleets subject to all the 
requested exemptions for all species in the JR, if all such exempt ions 
are not granted.  

No other supporting information is provided.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional evidence was provided.  

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

No new information has been provided so no evaluation can be made 
and the conclusions of EWG 20-04 and EWG 21-05 remain relevant.  

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Sole caught by 
vessels using bottom 
trawls, seines and 
beam trawls in 9a up 
to a maximum  of 5 % 
of the total annual 
catches of sole in the 
specified fisheries - 
Article 14 point 1(q) of 
Regulation (EU) No 
2020/2015  

1.  Exemption Status  

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2023 but with 
a requirement for additional information to be provided by the 1st May 
every year.  

2.  Definition of the fisheries  

Information was provided for Portugal (EWG 21-05 Annex 1) for the 
period 2017-2019 which indicates that overall landings of sole by 
Portuguese vessels was 50 tonnes. The supporting annex from 
Portugal reports that no discards were reported. No information on the 
number of vessels involved is provided. The two relevant metiers - 

157 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OTB_DEF and OTB_CRU - involve 58 and 24 vessels, respectively.  

Spain provided catch data by metier for the period 2017- 2020 which 
includes four metiers using bottom trawls - OTB_DEF_>=55; 
OTB_MPD_>=55; PTB_MPD_>=55; OTB_MCD_>=55  (Annex 2). Only 
the OTB_MCD_>=55 metier reported landings of sole which averaged 
6 tonnes (range from 1 -8 tonnes) with negligible unwanted catches.  

No catch data was reported for France.  

Belgian vessels do not fish in division 9a.  

3.  Basis for (the maintenance of) the exemptions  

Even though, not referred to in the SWW JR, EWG 22-05 assumes that 
the justification for the exemption is the same as assessed by ST ECF 
20-04 and STECF 21-05 and based on the detailed economic analysis 
of disproportionate costs resulting from the additional t ime required 
for  handling  and  sorting  unwanted  catches  on  board  vessels.  The 
study indicates that in terms of lost opportunity costs, bottom trawlers 
in  division  9a  are  estimated  to  experienc e  losses  amounting  to  of 
€25,400  for  Spain  €55,300  for  Portugal  if  the requested de minimis 
exemption  for  sole  is  not  granted.  This  equates to 1% of the total 
losses estimated for all fleets subject to all the requested exempt ions 
for all species in the JR, if all such exemptions are not granted.  

No other supporting information is provided.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

No additional evidence was provided, and no indication of future w ork 
planned.  

5.  EWG 21-05 observations  

Very limited new information has been provided so no evaluation can 
be made and the conclusions of EWG 20-04 and EWG 21-05 are still 
relevant. 

References 

Anon.  20222.  De  minimis  exemption  consolidation  request  of  5% for several species for 2023 
onwards proposed from Spain for trawlers in the Bay of Biscay and Iberian w at ers  (ICES 8abd 
and 8c9a). Report provided to EWG 22-05 by Spain. 38pp+Annexes. 

Cornou Anne Sophie, Scavinner Marion, Sagan Jonathan, Cloatre Thomas, Dubroca Laurent, Billet  
Norbert (2021). Captures et rejets des mét iers de pêche français. Résultats des observations à 
bord des navires de pêche professionnelle en 2019. Obsmer. https://doi.org/10.13155/79198  

Cloâtre  Thomas,  Quinio-Scavinner  Marion,  Sagan  Jonathan,  Dubroca  Laurent,  Biellet  Norbert 
(2022). Captures et rejets des métiers de pêche français. Résultats des observations à bord des 
navires de pêche professionnelle en 2020. Obsmer 

Gauduchon Thibault, Cornou Anne Sophie, Scavinner Marion, Goascoz Nicolas, Dubroca Laurent, 
Billet  Norbert  (2020).  Captures  et  rejets  des  métiers  de  pêche  français.  Résultats  des 
observations  à  bord  des  navires  de  pêche  professionnelle  en  2018.  Obsmer. 
https://doi.org/10.13155/73122  

General Secretariat for Fisheries, in cooperation with: Tragsatec, the Universit y of  Sant iago de 
Compostela and AZTI Tecnalia, 2019. Analysis of the economic viability of unwanted catches that 
are subject to landing obligations in South-Western Waters. November 2019 

158 

158 

 
Leonardi  S.,  Rubin  A.,  Meillat  M.,  Coppin  F.,  Delpech  J-P.,  Morandeau  F.,  Larnaud  P.,  2009. 
Selecmer – Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers – Pêcheries mult ispéc if iques Manche – 
Mer du Nord, 66 +  62 pp. Version septembre 2009 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – 66th Plenary Report (PLEN-
21-01). EUR 28359 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978 -
92-76-36151-0 (online), doi:10.2760/437609 (online), JRC124902. 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of  t he Landing 
Obligation Joint Recommendations (STECF-18-06) (2018). Publications Of f ice of  t he European 
Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-79389-9, doi:10.2760/999971, JRC112740 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Evaluation  of  Landing 
Obligation  Joint Recommendations (STECF-19-08). Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-09523-1, doi:10.2760/227428, JRC117511 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  Evaluation  of  Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation (ST ECF -
20-04). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-20383-4, 
doi:10.2760/328463, JRC121260 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  -  Evaluation  of  Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation (ST ECF -
21-05). EUR 28359 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978 -
92-76-40593-1, doi:10.2760/83668, JRC126128. 

7.2 

 High Survivability exemptions 

A summary of the proposed high survivability exemptions is given in Table 7.2.1.  

Table 7.2.1. Summary of high survivability submitted as part of the SWW Joint Recommendations 

Exemption  

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

and 

Skates 
rays 
caught  by  all  gears in 
ICES subareas 8 and 9 
-  Article  10.1  of 
Delegated  Regulation 
(EU) No 2020/2015. 

1. Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption with request for additional information. 
Member  States  having  a  direct  management  interest  shall  submit 
every  year,  as  soon  as  possible  and  not  later  than  by  1  May, 
additional scientific information supporting the exemption. 

The  existing  temporary  high  survivability  exemption  applies  to  all 
gears and is applicable until 31st December 2022.  

SWW  group  requests  the  continuation  of  this  exemption  until  31 
December 2023. 

2.  Fishery context 

No updated information about fleet composition, landings, and discard 
statistics was provided except for French observer program dat a f or 
cuckoo ray. 

Obsmer  observer  program  (2019  and  2020)  data  for  cuckoo  ray 
catches:  

Data from bottom trawls targeting demersal species and cephalopods 
in the Bay of Biscay (OTB, OTT) estimated discards of 26.9% in  2019 
and 49.5% in 2020 and in the Celtic Sea, Western Channel and West 
of Ireland above 18m (OTB, OTT, PTB) estimated disc ards of  39% in 
2019 and 19.6% in 2020. 

Limited discard data was provided for other species, t hese inc lude -  
Undulate ray which account for 2% of the discards for GNS in  8b  and 
8% of the discards GTR in 8a. Blonde ray ac count for 1.6% discards in 
for GTR in 8a. 

159 

159 

 
 
 
Morfin et al. (2019) provided a description of the French fleet. In t he 
territorial  waters  of  the  division  8.a,  undulate  rays  were  mostly 
discarded  by  small  (<  12  m)  otter trawlers (29%), trammel netters 
(32%)  and  large  set  longliners  (30%)  in  2017  (source  DPMA  and 
Ifremer SIH). The French catches of all species were 515.7 t wit h 484 
t discards in 2017.  

There  was  no  additional  information  regarding  the  Spanish  fleet. 
Additional information was provided by the regional group to EWG 18-
06 about number of Spanish vessels per gear type operating in ICES 
area 8, but only a combined discard rate was provided for all spec ies 
and gears (29%). 

Information  was  evaluated  previously  in  EWG  19-08  for  the 
Portuguese fleet including gear type, number of vessels and estimated 
landings and discards.  

3.  Previous survival evidence 

No new survival evidence for skates and rays has been provided by 
the  Southwestern  Waters  Member  States  Group.  The  previous 
estimates  of  skates  and  ray  survival  (Tagging, captive and vitality 
studies)  as  assessed  by  STECF  (EWG  20-04,  EWG  21-05  and 
references therein) remain the best available for the SWW set net and 
trawl fisheries. These can be summarised as:    

  Previous  evidence  from  Portugal  in  area  9  for  thornback, 
spotted, blonde and undulate rays was evaluated in EWG  19 -
08,  based  on  vitality  data  that  do  not  constitute  discard 
survival estimates but indicate survival potential, and t agged 
undulate  rays  caught  by  trammel  nets  with  a  return rate of 
11%.  

  Previous  evidence  was  evaluated  by  EWG  18-06  for  rays 
discarded from Spanish otter trawls and trammel net s in ICES 
areas 8c and 9a. Survival of thornback ray (af t er 1 mont h of  
captive observation) was estimated at 17% (10-27%, 95% CI) 
when  discarded  from  otter  trawls.  The  observations  from 
trammel nets were not reported by species. 

  Previous  evidence  was  provided  from  Spain  (EWG  20-04) 
provided for thornback ray in area 9a with bottom otter t raw l. 
Estimated survival of thornback ray at medium  term w as 58% 
(47.7%‐69.9%). The study did not use control individuals, and 
there was no observation to asymptote (up to 48h), t heref ore 
survival  may  have  been  overestimated.  Also,  there  was  no 
mention of the number of individuals assessed. T he st udy did 
not find an effect of air exposure (30 and 60 min).  

  Vitality  evidence  from  two  scientific  trawls  surveys  was 
evaluated by EWG 19-08. Most of rays were found in Excellent  
or  Good  conditions  (60-72%),  however,  these  data  are  not 
representative  of  commercial  fishing  conditions  due  to  the 
short tow duration of 30 mins. 

  ENSURE  project  (ICES  division  8a):  undulate  rays  (144n) 
tagging  study  using  acoustic  tags  and  released  from  small 
single rig otter trawlers (under 12m). At least 49% of the rays 
survived  the  first  14  days  after  being  released.  Survival 
evidence was relevant for the French small otter trawl fishery, 
which contribute to 29% of the French discards in area 8a f or 
undulate  ray  (of  concern  given  high  discard  rate  in  coastal 

160 

160 

 
 
fisheries for the areas of interest) (Morfin et al., 2019).  

  SURF project (Cuckoo ray): The overall survival probabilit y f or 
cuckoo ray across seasons and vessels between 14-23% (95% 
CI).    There  was  some  indication  of  captivity related effects 
(20%  of  controls  died  in  the  summer,  and  up  to  80% in the 
winter). The observations from winter were therefore not used 
for estimating the relationship between vitality index and long -
term  survival.  A  slightly  lower  survival  rate  was  observed 
during winter but variability between vessels w as larger t han 
between seasons. The most important factor identified to affect 
survival  rate  was haul duration but also wave height, fishing 
depth, air temperature and duration of air exposure displayed 
significant  effects.  Discard  data  for  cuckoo ray from France 
reports  a  discard  rate  of  27%  is  reported  for  the  particular 
fishery,  while  39%  discards  are  reported  for  French  bottom 
trawls in the Celtic Sea, western channel and west of Ireland as 
a  whole.  This  is  concern  given  the  observed  low  survival 
estimates observed in the French trials. 

  SUMARIS project also mentioned in JR however SUMARIS study 
was  not  conducted  ICES  areas  8  or  9:  Blonde,  thornback, 
undulate  and  spotted ray species caught using otter trawls, 
beam trawls and nets in the English Channel and NNW.  

4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 

Survival estimates are available from the following projects: 

ENSURE project: Conservative estimate of 49% survival after 14 days 
for  undulate  ray  caught  on  small  bottom  trawlers  (under  12m). 
Results compatible to small scale fisheries (vessels under 12m). 

SURF  project  demonstrated  12  –  22%  cuckoo  ray  survival  caught 
using otter trawl. Estimated cuckoo ray discard survival from single rig 
otter trawler. Cuckoo rays were caught under commercial c ondit ions 
and control ray were used to monitor holding facilities. 

As evaluated by EWG 19-08, the vitality data appeared to adequately 
cover  the  fishing  activity,  characteristics  and  conditions  of  the 
Portuguese  trammel  net  and  trawl  fisheries,  but  do  not  constitute 
survival evidence.  

As  requested  by  EWG  21-05,  additional information on the Spanish 
fleet could help assess how representative the survival evidence is f or 
the  fishery,  especially  regarding  seasons.  Indeed,  even  though 
evidence  was  collected  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  with  expected 
different environmental conditions than in area 9a, it was show n t hat 
survival of thornback ray is negatively affected by warmer waters. The 
trial  in  area  9a  was  conducted  in  March,  which  based on available 
information would suggest a lower chance for survival in  t he summer 
when water temperature is higher. 

SUMARIS  project:  Overall  ray  survival  varied  between  gears  with 
lowest survival of 27% for spotted ray caught in beam trawl and up t o 
86%  for  blonde  ray  caught  using  otter  trawl.  Although  SUMARIS 
project  was  conducted outside ICES subareas 8 and 9, the studies 
were  completed  using  detailed  protocol  with  control  ray  used  to 
monitor holding facilities. Results compatible with commercial vessels 
operating  in the North Sea and English Channel where studies were 
conducted. 

161 

161 

 
 
 
5.  Additional evidence and work planned 

The SURF project will continue, and the project is intended to increase 
scientific knowledge about survival of cuckoo ray. It will take plac e at  
the junction between the Bay of Biscay and the Celtic Sea and w ill  be 
led by IFREMER. The first results will be added to the exemption 2023.  

In France, the Directorate for Sea Fisheries and aquacult ure and t he 
Museum National d’Histoire naturelle have concluded a convention in 
order  to  provide  fishermen  with  some  help  identifying  the  various 
species of rays in the Atlantic. This aims at improving the complet ion 
of  the  logbooks  and  prevent  mislabelling.  However,  this  should  be 
validated, perhaps by observer coverage.  

Portuguese roadmap: Two further skates and ray projec t s,  (project 
PPCENTRO  and  PhD  thesis),  were  started  but  due  to  Covid-19 
(PPCENTRO) and lack of data (PhD thesis) the projects did not provide 
conclusive data. Therefore, no new evidence has been presented. 

A Spanish study (DESCARSEL) was mentioned in EWG 21-05 and due 
to  continue  once  COVID  restrictions  allowed  further  on-board 
sampling, to estimate the survivability of skates and rays in Spanish 
bottom otter-trawls. However, no new evidence was presented  and it  
is assumed this work did not proceed.  

6.  EWG 22-05 Observations 

No new survival data has been presented. Survival data provided from 
previous projects is valuable but commented on by EWG in  previous 
years.  

The  SUMARIS  project  provided  survival  estimates  for  blonde, 
thornback,  undulate  and  spotted ray species. SWW Annex B noted 
that the conclusions of the SUMARIS report show good survivabilit y 
for the species examined during the study.  

In  conjunction  with  FROM  Nord,  a  second  phase  of  the  project  is 
planned  for  2022/2023.  This  will  entail  a  survivability  study  of 
thornback  rays  caught  with Danish seines. It is a 9- month project 
carried out by the FROM Nord, a French Producer Organisat ions, as 
part of its 2022 production and marketing plan (PPC). In t he c ontext 
of  supporting  the  exemption  of  skates  and  rays  from  the  landing 
obligation,  this  study  will  also  provide  additional  elements  to  the 
SUMARiS project, which did not examine the Danish seine. 

Two Portuguese projects were mentioned in Annex A, but t he result s 
from these projects were not conclusive and t herefore there is nothing 
new to report. It is noted that the SURF project, which ended in 2020, 
and which focused on the survival of the Cuckoo ray, will be extended 
in 2022 (date will be communicated soon). This extension of the SURF  
project is intended to increase scientific knowledge about survival of  
cuckoo  ray.  It  will  take  place  at  the  junction  between  the  Bay  of 
Biscay and the Celtic Sea and will be led by IFREMER. The first result s 
will be available in 2023.  

The Portuguese roadmap noted that in the near f ut ure, t he plan f or 
skates  and  ray survivability experiments needs to be revised and is 
dependent  on  availability  of  adequate  facilities  for  these  research 
experiments.  Further  work  is  required  to  increase  knowledge  of 
discard survival for skates and rays in each fishery at  various t imes 
during the year. 

162 

162 

 
 
 
Red 
seabream 
caught  by  vessels 
using 
the  artisanal 
gear  voracera  in ICES 
division  9a  and  with 
in 
hooks  and 
ICES  subareas  8  and 
10  and  ICES  division 
9a  -  Article  11(1)  of 
Regulation  (EU)  No 
2020/2015 

lines 

As for cuckoo ray, the information provided in the past and addit ional 
catch data provided to support the JR show quite high disc ard rat es 
for  some  ray  species,  which  could  equate  to  high levels of  discard 
mortality associated with this exemption if the survival rates are low . 
However, the catch information provided is incomplete and filling  t he 
gaps in catch data for ray species should be prioritised to allow  a f ull 
assessment of this exemption on t he relevant species. 
1.  Exemption Status 

The  existing  high  survivability  exemption  has been granted until 31 
December 2022. Member States having a direct management interest 
should submit as soon as possible, but not later than by 1 May 2022 
additional scientific information supporting the exemption.  

2.  Definition of the fisheries 

A Roadmap of Portuguese survival studies to support  this exempt ion 
was  provided  previously  to  STECF.  This  roadmap  referred  to  the 
results from survival experiments detailed in a report dated May 2019 
(“Blackspot  seabream  (Pagellus  bogaraveo)  in  Portugal  mainland 
(ICES  Division  27.9.a):  fisheries  characterization  and  survivability 
experiments”.  Most  of  the specimens were found to be in Excellent 
(85- 89%) or Good (8-12%) conditions, and the at-vessel-mort alit y 
observed in the sampled trips was 0.6-2.6%. The observed survival 
rate  in  captive  conditions  after 36 hours was 86%. This study was 
reviewed  by  EWG  19-08  and  limitations  in  the  methodology, 
particularly in the short monitoring period were identified, which were 
considered  likely  to  have  overestimated  survival.  EWG  19-08 
concluded that further studies are needed to generate robust survival 
estimates. 

3.  Basis for (the maintenance of) the exemption 

No  new  information  was  supplied  to  EWG  22-05  for assessment as 
due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  additional  experiments  planned  to 
occur  in  2021  were  postponed to late 2023. Additional survivability 
experiments  with  red  seabream  caught  by  demersal  longline s  are 
planned  to  be  conducted  under  the  project  PPCENTRO.  Those 
experiments  aim  to  estimate  the  survival  rates  based  on  captive 
observations and during a longer observation period as suggested by  
STECF 19-08. Captivity observations will be conducted for periods of  
three-weeks  in IPMA’s facilities in Peniche (located near the fishing 
harbour).  Vitality,  RAMP  and  lesions  of  the  specimens  and  water 
quality  parameters  will  be  monitored  daily.  Additional  vitality  data 
after capture, RAMP and lesions will be recorded onboard f or all t he 
captured specimens 

4.  EWG 22-05 observations 

No new information has been provided but new studies are planned t o 
address  issues  raised  by STECF EWG 19-08.  The new experiments 
aim to estimate the survival rates based on captive observations and 
during a longer observation period in line with recommendations f rom 
ICES WKMEDS. 

References 

163 

163 

 
  
 
Bart  Ampe,  Noémi  Van  Bogaert,  Els  Torreele,  Sebastian  Uhlmann.  2020.  Discard  survival 
estimates of commercially caught skates of the North Sea and English Channel, Sumaris projec t  
(2020). 

Baulier  Loïc,  Morandeau  Fabien,  Ramonet  Morgane,  Sourget  Quiterie,  Winkler  Joachim. 2021.  
The SURF project: survivability of discarded cuckoo rays (Leucoraja naevus) in F renc h bot tow 
trawl fisheries. Project report.  

Cloâtre  Thomas,  Quinio-Scavinner  Marion,  Sagan  Jonathan,  Dubroca  Laurent,  Biellet  Norbert 
(2022). Captures et rejets des métiers de pêche français. Résultats des observations à bord des 
navires de pêche professionnelle en 2020. Obsmer. 

Cornou Anne Sophie, Scavinner Marion, Sagan Jonathan, Cloatre Thomas, Dubroca Laurent, Billet  
Norbert (2021). Captures et rejets des métiers de pêche français. Résultats des observations à 
bord des navires de pêche professionnelle en 2019. Obsmer. 

Laura Lemey, Klaas Sys, Esteban Torreblanca, Damian Villagra Villanueva, Tim Plevoet s. 2021. 
Interim report II Raywatch: Towards a more extensive and efficient long-term data collection f or 
skates in support of the “Roadmap for rays and skates”. ILVO Report 36pp. 

Morfin Marie, Simon Julien, Morandeau Fabien, Baulier Loïc, Méhault Sonia, Kopp Dorothée. 2019. 
Using  acoustic  telemetry  to  estimate  post -release  survival  of  undulate  ray  Raja  undulata 
(Rajidae) in northeast Altantic, Ocean and Coastal Management, 178(2019) 

Oliver, M., McHugh, M., Murphy, S., Browne, D., and Cosgrove, R. 2019. Post-capture c ondition 
of cuckoo ray in an Irish otter trawl fishery. BIM Fisheries Conservation Report, Marc h 2019. 12 
pp 

Oliver,  M.,  McHugh,  M.,  Murphy,  S.,  Browne,  D.,  and  Cosgrove,  R.  2021.   An  assessment  of 
cuckoo  ray  (Leucoraja  naevus)  survivability  in  an  Irish  otter  trawl  fishery.  BIM  Fisheries 
Conservation report, November 2021.  

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of the Landing 
Obligation Joint Recommendations (STECF-18-06) (2018). Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-79389-9, doi:10.2760/999971, JRC112740 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of Landing 
Obligation Joint Recommendations (STECF-19-08). Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-09523-1, doi:10.2760/227428, JRC117511 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Evaluation of Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation (STECF-
20-04). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-20383-4, 
doi:10.2760/328463, JRC121260 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) - Evaluation of Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation (STECF-
21-05). EUR 28359 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-
92-76-40593-1, doi:10.2760/83668, JRC126128. 

8  BALTIC SEA – OVERVIEW OF JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 1396/2014 established a discard plan for fisheries in t he 
Baltic Sea. This discard plan was valid until 31 December 2017 after which most of the element s 
of this discard plan were subsumed into the multiannual plan for the stocks of  c od, herring and 
sprat in the Baltic Sea - Regulation (EU) 2016/1139. Article 7 of this Regulat ion c ontains t hese 
elements. In 2017 a new set of Joint Recommendations was submitted by the Member St at es in 
the  Baltic   and  following  assessment  by  STECF,  a  new  delegated  Act  was  put  in  place  -  
Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (Eu)  2018/306.  For  2022  a  new Joint Recommendation has 
been submitted by the Baltfish Group of Member States.The main element s of  t he new  JR  and 
which of these have been assessed by EWG 22-05 are summarised in table 8.1. 

Table 8.1 Main elements of the Joint Recommendations submitted for the Baltic Sea 

164 

164 

 
 
  
Elements 

Status with relevant Article 
in current discard plan 

Assessment by EWG 20-
04 with relevant 
Annexes in JR 

De Minimis 
None 
High Survivability 
Cod, plaice and salmon caught 
with trap-nets, creels/pots, 
fyke-nets and pound net 
Salmon caught with trap-nets, 
creels/pots, fyke-nets and 
pound nets including Pontoon 
traps 

caught 

in 
Plaice  ≤MCRS 
Gillnets,  trammel  nets,  Danish 
and Scottish seines, and certain 
trawls  from  1st  Nov  to  30th Apr 
in ICES subdivisions 22–32 

NA 

Existing but revised* (inclusion 
of plaice) 
Article 
Existing 

Not assessed 

Not assessed 

New 

Assessed based on 
supporting information 
submitted 

Minimum conservation reference size 
Baltic Cod 

Existing and unchanged 

Not assessed 

8.1  High survivability exemptions  

A summary of the proposed high survivability exemptions is given in Table 8.1.1.  

Table 8.1.1. Summary of high survivability submitted as part of the Baltic Joint Recommendations 

Exemption  

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Plaice ≤MCRS  caught 
trammel 
in  Gillnets, 
and 
nets,  Danish 
Scottish  seines,  and 
certain  trawls from 1st 
Nov  to  30th  Apr  in 
ICES  subdivisions  22–
32. 

1. Exemption status 

This  is  partially  an  update  of  a  previous  request  for  an  exemption 
which was reviewed by STECF PLEN 19-03. 

The trawl and seining elements are a new request  f or plaic e (below  
the MCRS of 25 cm) in ICES subdivisions 22, 23, 24 and 25  as is  t he 
time limitation included.  

2.  Fishery context 

According to ICES, in subdivisions 21–23 plaice landings are split 68% 
and  32%  between  active  and  passive  gears,  respectively. 
Approximately  31%  (average  2018–2020)  of  plaice  caught  are 
discarded.  

ICES advice for subdivisions 24–32 show plaice landings are split 77% 
and  23%  between  active  and  passive  gears,  respectively. 
Approximately  ~25%  (average  2018–2020)  of  plaice  caught  are 
discarded,  with  an  84%  and  12% split between active and passive 
gears, respectively. No information is provided on the volume  below  
the  minimum  conservation  reference size discarded as stipulated in 
this request for an exemption.  

ICES  advises  that  the  fishing  pressure  on  the  plaice  stock  in 
subdivisions 21-23 is below FMSY and spawning-stock size is above 
MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim.  The stock is fished sustainably according 
to ICES. 

According  to  the  information  provided, 33% of the Danish fleet are 
gillnetters but there is no information on percentage of these that use  

165 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
trammel nets or whether vessels use both gears. 

In 2021 there were three Danish seine (SDN) and one Scottish seine 
(SSC) vessels in the Danish fleet operating in the Baltic Sea T he SDN 
vessels categories were 1 (12–15 m) and 2 (18–24 m); while the SSC 
vessel was in the 10–15 m  category. Seiners make up around 1%  of  
the  fleet.  No  information  on  kWs,  gear  configuration  (seine  rope 
lengths) or gear operation is provided.  

In 2021, there were 61 trawlers in the Danish fleet  operating in t he 
Baltic  Sea  and  all  but  two  were  less  than  18  m.  No  information  is 
available  for  the  fleets  from  other  Member  States  operating  in 
subdivisions 22-32. 

3.  Survival evidence 

The following survival evidence is provided: 

Trammel  nets  (Annexes  3  and  5):  100%  survival  of  plaice  from 
trammel  nets  with  soak  times  from 19–47 hrs over a 10-day period 
when stored in floating boxes was observed. This survival estimat e  is 
based  on  a  shorter  time-period  than  normal  survival  experiments. 
However, the asymptote (i.e., no mortalities over a 4–5- day period) 
was assumed sufficient with additional vitality estimates at the end of  
the observation period used to support this. Th e prot ocol employed 
here is based on ICES WKMEDS recommendations that “monitoring is 
continued until mortality approaches an asymptote”. 

Trawling  (Annex  6):  Survival  estimates  of  87%  were  observed  for 
trawl-caught  plaice  when  held  over  10  days  in  a  recirculating 
aquaculture system. Vitality scores were also taken but  not  used t o 
infer  survival.  Typically,  survival  estimates  for  fish  are  undertaken 
over  at  least  two  weeks.  However,  according  to  the  supporting 
information, the truncated time-period in this experiment was due to a 
low  temperature  event  that  resulted  in  high  mortalities  after  the 
event.  No evidence was presented that a mortality asymptote was 
reached  in  the  10  days  so  the  estimates  should  be  treated with a 
degree of caution. 

Seining: Two studies are provided as supporting evidence: one (Annex 
6) indicated an 87% survival estimate for trawl-caught plaic e; w hile 
the  other,  a  Danish-seine  study (Annex 3), indicated a similar 87% 
survival  rate.    This  experiment  was  completed  under  the  same 
conditions as the trammel caught plaice using floating boxes. 

4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 

The trammel net trial was completed in ICES subdivisions 22 and 23 
in depths of 7–18 m. Fishing is normally undertaken in depths of  ~ 5 –
30 m  so the trial is representative in terms of depth. The size ranges 
during  the  survival  trial  were  22—40  cm  (mean  33.4  ±3.3  cm),  no 
length frequency for the fishery for the plaice are provided.  

For the trawled fisheries, the trials were completed in ICES subdivision 
22  in  depths  of  16–19  m  (Annex  3)  and  in  ICES  subdivision  24  in 
depths of 10–47 m  (Annex 6). The plaice size ranges were 14–29 c m 
(Annex  3)  and  17–27 cm (Annex 6). This indicates most of the fish 
observed during the experiments were below MCRS.  

While  discard  data  for  passive  and  active  gears  is  sparce  in  ICES 
subdivisions  21–23  there  is  evidence  from  ICES  subdivisions 24–32 
suggesting only 12% of plaice discards are caught by passive gears. 
Assuming similar  discard rates for the whole region these low disc ard 
rates  coupled  with  ‘high’  survival  in  static  gears  are  somewhat  in 

166 

166 

 
contrast  to  the similar survival rates (87%) but much higher (84%) 
discard rates/volume in the trawl fisheries reported by ICES. 

These  contrasting  discard  rates  need  be  considered  with  trawl 
fisheries in the region accounting for the bulk of the landings (68% in 
subdivisions  21–23;  77% in subdivisions 24–32). It should be noted 
that plaice in subdivisions 21– 23 are an ICES category 1 stock, w hile 
plaice  in  subdivisions  24–  32  are  an  ICES  category  3  stock.  While 
Category  1  stocks  can  be  considered  to  have  a  full  analytical 
assessments and forecasts; Category 3 stocks have reliable estimates 
with the advice based on an ICES precautionary approach. 

5.  Additional evidence and work planned 

For the trammel  net fishery, the information provided to ST ECF PLEN 
19-03 has been updated. The new information has t ake n ac count of  
the  concerns  raised  by  PLEN 19-02. This includes concerns around 
how  plaice  are  removed  from  trammel  nets  on  board,  soak  times, 
comparisons with gillnets, monitoring periods, and the review process  
used in the original trials.  

No  new  survival  estimates  have  been  supplied  but  the  information 
provides  argues  that  because  sort  times  and  air  exposure  are  low 
there  the  is  no reason (unless new scientific  evidence emerges) to 
suggest survival in summer  would be lower than observed in w int er.  
In  any  case,  the  exemption  is  requested  to  be  time  limited  during 
November to April. 

EWG  22-05  notes  the  observations  of  The  Low  Impact  Fishers  of 
Europe  (LIFE)  who  do  not  support  the  granting  of  this  exemption. 
Their two main reasons are: 

1  There  is  no  impact  study  or  quantifiable  data  submitted 
regarding the impact on the cod stocks from this derogation.  
2  The  research  on  plaice  survivability  is  not  of  sufficiently high 
quality due to, for example, the small sample size used, limit ed 
geographical spread the research relates to, and quest ionable 
conclusions regarding survivability based on cold temperatures   

They  elaborate  on  these  two  points  and  suggest  a  revision  of the 
Baltic Management plan (2016/1139) in particular w it h ref erence t o 
cod stocks and their impact on the plaice TAC (c onsidering t hat t he 
cod  quota  is  a  bycatch  quota).  They  also  suggest  “detailed  and 
accurate documentation” regarding plaice and cod discards should be 
provided to the Advisory Council to support the exemption. 

Further  joint  input was provided from the Coalition Clean Baltic and 
The Fisheries Secretariat. They raise concerns over the small sample 
size and claimed that the fishery is not represent ative of  t he ent ire 
Baltic. For the survival trials detialed in Annex 6, they also quest ion 
the  linkage  of  cold  temperatures  for  a  mass mortality event during 
their trial. They suggest that the trial should be redone as there is an 
obvious bias to the results, because the survival rates are only for t he 
first 10 days of the trial and do not take account of the mass mortality 
event caused by the sudden dip in temperature. They also point to the 
differences between the results of (Schram & Molenaar, 2018)  w here 
a  14%  survival  was  observed  for  undersized  plaice  and the results 
here (87% survival).  

The Coalition Clean Baltic and The Fisheries Secretariat also highlight  
how  the  plaice  stock  in  Subdivisions  24–32  area  is  assessed  as  a 
category  3  stock  by  ICES  and  the  limited  data  is  not  sufficient  to 

167 

167 

 
 
 
 
support the exemption. There are also some concerns over the limited 
data  from  the  Annex  6  study  to  cover  the  spring  period  of  the 
proposed  time  period  for  the  derogation  Additionally,  they  also 
question  why  the  effects  on  cod  were  not  included, for example a 
proposal  to  include  gears  that  reduced  undersized  cod  and  plaice 
catches.  There  is  also  suggest  the  inclusion  of  REM as part of the 
derogation and wonder if the proposed exemption in in  line  w it h t he 
CFP aims. 

There is no indication of further work planned. 

6.  EWG 22-05 Observations 

As for the beam trawl fisheries in the North Sea and NWW, t he main 
motivation for this exemption appears to be to mit igat e against  t he 
economic  costs  of  landing  high  volumes  of  unwanted  plaice.  The 
justification  for  this  exemption  is  based  on  estimates  for  plaice 
survival, which are at least as reliable as those available f or plaic e in 
other  fisheries.  However,  there  are  caveats  relating  to  their 
robustness as detailed above that should be addressed. 

Responding to the STECF PLEN 19-03, the supporting information that 
fishing  practices  for  gillnets  and  trammel  nets  are  comparable  but 
suggest  that  entanglement  in gillnets may be different to trammels 
but do not explain how this might impact on survival.  It  is st at ed in 
the supporting document that in gillnet fisheries, the fish are retained 
by the gills or large parts of the body whereas in trammel  nets the fish 
are  entangled  in  a  pocket  of  netting.  Whether  the  difference  in 
retention has an impact on survival should be explored further. 

For Annex 3 and 5, the mean size of plaice was 33 c m (range 22 –40 
cm) although the exemption request is for plaice ≤MCRS  (25 c m). It  
appears that most of the fish caught in the trammel nets were above 
MCRS with plaice ≤MCRS caught in only 3 of the 13 fleets of nets from 
which survival estimates were derived. It is unsure w hat  impac t  t he 
catching  process  would  have  on  smaller  fish,  but  due  to  the  way 
trammel  nets  catch,  smaller  fish are likely to be entangled more by 
the gills as they attempt to pass through the meshes. 

For  the  trawl  and  seine  part  of  the  exemption,  t here  is  a  limited 
description of the codends used, for example, with no informat ion o n 
the mesh sizes used. Information on the mesh sizes would  be usef ul 
considering  there are different mesh size regulations in subdivisions 
22  and  23 compared to the rest of the Baltic region. Baseline mesh 
sizes are at least 120 mm  (for T90) and at least 105 mm  fitted wit h a 
Bacoma exit window of 120mm,  with a derogation in subdivisions 22 
and 23 of at least 90 mm  when directed fishing for flatfish (Regulation 
(EU) 2019/1241). Codend mesh size and construction is likely to have 
an impact on survival, particularly for small plaice. 

Additionally, there are some conc erns over the justification to truncate 
the observation period to ten days (due to an extreme cold event) and 
whether  this  did  bias  the  survival  estimates.  This  is  considered 
important given the survival estimates are higher than estimates from 
other trials.  In the supporting document provided by LIFE, it is stated 
that  the  temperatures  in  2021 were similar to annual temperatures 
experienced since 2010.  

No information on catch rates has been provided. The expected length 
frequencies are not discussed for any of the gears, and it is not  c lear 
to what extent the impact would be on ≤MCRS plaice catches  f or t he 
different gears. The data presented is from very specific areas w it hin 

168 

168 

 
 
 
the subdivisions and no information is presented on how these areas 
compare to the rest of the subdivisions, accepting t hat 70% of  t he 
plaice catches come from subdivisions 22-23, where t he t rials w ere 
carried out.  

It  is  difficult  to  comment  on how this exemption will impact on cod 
stocks.  It  is  unlikely  the  exemption  itself  would  have  any  impacts 
unless in granting it, this led to an increase in fishing effort for plaic e 
and  thereby  potentially  increasing  cod  catches  in  the  fishery  as  a 
whole. Further information on the cod and plaice catches and discards 
(from  all  gears)  would  be  required  to  make  any  assessment.  The 
market  situation  for  plaice  would  also  be  important  as  if  targeted 
fisheries  for  plaice  were  seen  as  viable,  then  there  would  be  an 
incentive to increase effort.  

Additionally, for trawl fisheries, EWG 22-05 understands that specif ic 
legislated  gears  that  reduce  cod  catches  while  allowing  flatfish 
fisheries  to  continue  are  due  to  be  introduced  into  legislation. 
However,  no  information  on  the  likely  uptake  of  these  gears.  The 
BALTFISH High Level Group request that details of  c od c atches and 
bycatches  from  these  gears  should  be  recorded  separately  from 
catches  taken  by  other  fishing  gears.  This  would  be  especially 
important  in  relation  to  this proposed exemption as there are mesh 
size increases proposed (for trawls) and their impac t  on ≤MCRS  f ish 
needs to be evaluated further. 

Only  data  from the Danish fleet involved in the fisheries is provided 
with no information for other fleets that may avail of  t he exempt ion  
submitted  with  the  request .  It  is  understood  Denmark  has  around 
72% of the total TAC. 

EWG  22-05  notes  that  for  Annex 6: The request is for subdivisions 
22–25 but the overall request (from BALTFISH JR) is for subdivisions 
22–32. Clarification is needed as to the area intended to be covered. 

References 

Aalborg University. (2019) Discard survival of plaice and cod from trammel net and Danish  se ine 
fisheries in the Baltic Sea, Aalborg University, 15 April 2019 

Aalborg  University  (2021).  Updated  note  on  short-term  survival  of  discarded  (Pleuronectes 
platessa) caught in trammel  nets at winter season. Aalborg University, Denmark 28 June 2021 

Aalborg University (2021). Comments and updated information to STECF concerning requested 
information  on plaice caught in Danish Trammel net fishery (62nd PLENARY MEETING REPORT, 
PLEN-19- 03) Aalborg University, 28 June 2021 University of Aalborg, Appendix Danish  T rammel 
Net studies, Aalborg Universitet, June. 

DTU  Aqua.  (2020)  Request  for  documentation  on  plaice  discard  survival  for  demersal  trawl 
(including seines) in the Western Baltic with specification of the fishing fleet using active gears, 1 
April 2022 (updated version of previous version of 28 April 2021) 

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort, Baltic Sea and ec oregion, 28 May 2021, 
PLE 27.21-23 and PLE 27.24-32, 28 May 2021 

Jensen, Sergey V. Kucheryavskiy, Peter R. Møller, Niels Madsen. (2021). Init ial experiment s t o 
asses  short-term  survival  of discarded plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) caught in trammel nets 
during the winter season. Fisheries Research 251 (2022) 106308 

9  MEDITERRA NEA N – OVERVIEW OF JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS  

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2064 established a discard plan for Medit erranean 
fisheries.  It  includes  de  minimis  exemptions  to  the  landing  obligation  for  certain  demersal 

169 

169 

 
fisheries  in  the  Adriatic  and  south-eastern  Mediterranean  Sea.  One  of  these  de  minimis 
exemptions covering the bycatch of small pelagics (i.e., anchovy, sardine, mac kerel and horse 
mackerel) caught with bottom trawls is included under this Regulation. It remains   valid unt il 31 
December 2022. Given their expiry date, the Member States Regional Groups (ADRIAT ICA and 
SUDESTMED) submitted additional information and updated data to support the c ontinuation of  
these exemptions. 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2021/2066  supplemented  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1022 
regarded details of implementation of the landing obligation for certain demersal st ocks in t he 
western Mediterranean Sea for the period 2022-2024. The exemption from the landing obligat ion 
for scallop, carpet clams and Venus shells caught with mechanised dredges, for w hic h sc ientific 
evidence  demonstrates high survival rates in the western Mediterranean Sea,  is valid until 31 
December 2022. Given these high survivability exemptions are due to expire, the Member Stat es 
Regional  Group  PESCAMED  submitted  additional  information  and  updated data to support the 
continuation of these exemptions. 

The main elements of the existing discard plans which have been assessed by EWG 22 - 05 are 
summarised in table 9.1. 

Table 9.1 Main elements of the Joint Recommendations submitted for the Mediterranean 

Elements 

Contained currently 
in pelagic or 
demersal discard 
plan 

Status with 
relevant Article in 
current discard 
plan 

Assessment by 
EWG 22-05 with 
relevant Annexes in 
JR 

De minimis 
Bycatches of Anchovy, 
Sardine, Mackerel and 
Horse mackerel caught 
by bottom trawls, 
Adriatic Sea & South-
Eastern Mediterranean 
High survivability 
Scallop, Carpet clams, 
and Venus shells caught 
with mechanised 
dredges, Western 
Mediterranean 

Demersal 

Temporary until end 
of 2022 
Article 3(1a(viii)) & 
3(1b(vii)) 

Re-assessed based on 
supporting 
information supplied 
by ADRIATICA & 
SUDESTMED 

Demersal 

Temporary until end 
of 2022 
Article 3(1a), 3(1b) & 
3(1c) 

Re-assessed based on 
supporting 
information supplied 
by PESCAMED 

9.1  De minimis exemptions 

9.1.1  South-Eastern Mediterranean Sea 

General observations 

The SUDESTMED HLG (including Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta) requests t he prolongat ion of  
the de minimis exemption for anchovy, sardine, mackerel and horse mackerel caught  by bot tom 
trawls for 2023 onwards. 

Data supporting the request includes: 

  The  description  of  the  bottom  trawl  fisheries  (Annex  A)  for  which  the  de  minimis 
exemption is requested in SUDESTMED area at national level by Cyprus, Greece, Italy and 
Malta. 

  Supporting  evidence  (Annex  B)  on  the  request  of  de  minimis  exemptions  under  the 

disproportionate costs condition (only by Cyprus and Greece); 

EWG 22-05 highlights that: 

170 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Catch and economic data are not available for all countries (e.g., Malta provided only catch 

data) 

  There is an inconsistency in the way discard rates are estimated among c ount ries. More 
specifically, Malta and Cyprus estimated discard rates using discards below  MCRS (Malt a 
and Cyprus). On the other hand, Greece and Italy did not estimate discards below MCRS, 
and use total discards to estimate the discard ratio. 

Table 9.1.1 Summary of de minimis exemptions submitted for the Southeastern Medit erranean 
Sea exemptions relating to small pelagic species caught by bottom trawls.  

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Anchovy, Sardine, 
Mackerel and Horse 
Mackerel, up to a 
maximum  of 5% of 
the total annual 
catches by vessels 
using bottom trawls 
in the South-Eastern 
Mediterranean Sea - 
Article 3.1 point b(vii) 
of the Commission 
Delegated Regulation 
(EU) No 2021/2064 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2022. Spec if ic  
request  for  additional  information  are  reported  in Article 3.2: “By 1 
May 2022, the Member States having a direct management interest in 
the  fisheries  in  the  Adriatic and south- eastern Mediterranean Sea 
shall submit to the Commission additional data based on the ongoing 
studies  and  an  evaluation  of the impact of the exemption and any 
other  relevant  scientific  information supporting the exemption laid 
down in paragraph 1, points (a)(viii) and (b)(vii)”.  

2.  Fishery Context 

Biological and economic data have been submitted by Cyprus, Greece, 
Malta, and Italy. Quantified data on catches below MCRS is lacking f or 
some of the Member States (Italy and Greece). Fleet descriptions are 
provided  for  all  Member  States  as  well  as  discard  proportion 
estimates. However, it should be highlighted that the way the discard 
ratio is estimated differs among countries (i.e., for Cyprus and Malta it 
is  the  ratio  between  discards  (<MCRS)  and  total  catch,  while  for 
Greece and Italy it is the ratio between total disc ards (bot h <MCRS 
and >MCRS) and total catch).  

Cyprus  reported  catch  data  by  GSA  (GSA24  and  GSA25).  By 
aggregating  the  values  (GSA24+GSA25).  EWG  22-05  calculated  a 
combined  discard  ratio  of  3.9%,  for  the  species  covered  by  the 
exemption. 

Greece presented discard data per GSA for 2019 based on F DI 2020 
data call and also based on Electronic Reporting System (ERS) dat a 
for the reference year of 2019. Based on the STECF data presented by 
Greece  in  the  Annex  A,  EWG  22-05  calculated  a  combined  discard 
ratio of 3.3% for the pelagic species under the landing obligation. 

Italy  reported  catch  data  by  GSA.  By  aggregating  the  values,  a 
combined discard ratio of 9.6% for pelagic species is calculated, which 
is mainly  due to the high discard rates for horse mackerel. 

Malta presented pelagic species caught by bottom trawlers. Landings 
were obtained from logbooks and discard rates were calculated based 
on onboard observations, in line with DC-MAP. Discard rate is zero f or 
most pelagic species, while the aggregate discard rate is 1.9%.  

3.  Basis for the exemption 

According to the JR, the justification for an extension of the exemption 
is mainly  based on “the disproportionate costs for hazards linked t o 
the  full  load  of  holds  of  limited  capacity,  and  in  the  absence  of 
infrastructure to handle unwanted catches once landed”. Annex A and 
B provide supporting information on biological and economic  impac t s  
to justify the exemptions. This information has largely been presented 

171 

171 

 
 
 
 
previously as supporting information. 

Cyprus - Cyprus provided information regarding technical solutions for 
increasing  selectivity  and  for  the  existing fisheries restricted areas 
(also  provided  a  map).  Regarding  selectivity,  it  is  stated  that: 
“considering the multispecies character of the bot tom t rawl f isher y, 
the very low presence of pelagic species in the cat ches and t he f ac t 
that  pelagic  species  (basically  Trachurus  spp)  are  discarded 
irrespectively of their size due to their low commercial value, it seems 
unlikely that measures focusing on reducing t he by catch of  pelagic 
species could be taken, without jeopardizing the sustainabilit y of  t he 
trawl fisheries targeting demersal species.”  

Additionally, Cyprus provided a Multicriteria Table (Table 2) to just if y 
disproportionality of costs. However, it should be ment ioned that costs 
don’t seem to significantly increase under the “do not hing sc enario” 
mainly because of the very low level of discards. 

Greece  -  Greece  provided  an  exhaustive  list  (more  than  100)  of 
National  Measures  (adopted  and/or  planned  to  adopt)  on  spatio-
temporal  closures  (see Table 5). Regarding selectivity, the Member 
State mentioned that all trawls have adopted the 40mm codend mesh 
size, which is already large enough to release small pelagic  spec ies, 
provided they have the opportunity to escape.  

According to Annex A: “Additional ways for improving the selectivity of 
the trawl, through changes in other parts of the trawl …  m ay also be 
investigated the next years … having in mind that in Greek trawl multi 
species fisheries, the improvement in selec tivity af fect in dif f er ent 
ways to different species. A “positive” result of the selectivity f or  one 
species, usually means significant loss of commercial indiv iduals f or  
other important species”.  

In the case of Greece, the de minimis  exemption is mainly  ba sed on 
disproportionate costs, which is described in Annex B. This indicated a 
significant  profit  loss  under  the  “do  nothing”  scenario,  where  a  de 
minimis  exemption is not in place.  

Annex B also mentions that there was no interest in Greece t o invest  
in the collection and processing of unwanted catches by t he privat e 
sector and the main obstacle for this unwillingness t o invest , is t he 
transport costs from landing sites to processing points, in combination 
with the small quantities of small pelagic species discarded by traw ls . 
The  low  level  of  unwanted  catch  if  landed  would  not   support 
investment in facilities to handle such unwanted catches.  

Malta - Malta only provided information on catch and discards level t o 
justify  de  minimis  exemption.  No  information  regarding  selectivity 
increases, or spatio-temporal closures were provided. 

Italy  -  Italy  provided  some  additional  explanatory  text  to  justify 
exemptions  based  on  diminishing  discards  due  to decreased fishing 
effort and existing spatial measures.  

Regarding  selectivity,  the  report  mentioned  that:  “despite  some 
progress,  bottom  trawls  still  catch  undersized  specimens  and 
unwanted  catches  in  general.  To  simultaneously  improve  the  size 
selectivity of different species or catch categories, more sophisticated 
alternative of selective devices, such as grids could be explor ed and 
implemented  in  some  Mediterranean  fisheries  (e.g.,  Sala  et  al., 
2015).” 

Moreover, justification for the exemption based on disproport iona te 
costs  on  a  similar  basis  as  for  other  Member  States  along  with 

172 

172 

 
indications of research into improving gear selectivity are provided by 
Italy.  

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Some additional information has been provided in the SUDESTMED JR, 
compared with the previous EWG. However, the justif icat ion around 
disproportionate  costs  is  still  not  adequately  supported,  remaining 
generic . An interesting synthesis of measures is provided by the study 
of Spedicato et al. (2021) in the case of Italy. In addit ion, it  is also 
worth  mentioning  that  in  some  Member  States  there  are  on-going 
studies due to be finalized during 2023. No clear reference of  f urt her 
additional  work  planned  by  Member  States  is  mentioned  in  the 
supporting documents.  

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

Some  additional  information  has  been  provided,  relative  to  the 
previous EWG assessments of this exemption. However, the previous 
assessments by EWG 19-08 and 21-05 remain relevant.  

The  methodology  for  calculating  the  discard  ratio  differs  among 
countries (i.e., for Cyprus and Malta it is the ratio be t w een disc ards 
(<MCRS)  and  total  catch,  while  for  Greece  and  Italy  it is the ratio 
between total discards (both <MCRS and >MCRS) and total catch).  

Additionally,  there  is  a  weakness  in  the  combined  de  minimis 
approach. Accepting that the combined discards ratio f or all spec ies 
covered by the exemption is low for some species, the proport ion of  
the catch that is discarded may be high. 

While  estimates  of  the  potential  increase  in  costs  of  handling 
unwanted catches ashore are provided, there is no way to objec tively 
judge whether such estimates amount to disproportionate c osts. T he 
arguments  are  generic  and/or  applied  to  an  “average”  vessel,  and 
more  detailed  information  is  necessary.  However,  EWG  22-05 
acknowledges  that  the  recent  great  increase  in  fuel  costs  has 
worsened the overall situation. 

Updated  catch  data  has  been  provided  by  the SUDESTMED group. 
However,  the  information  is  sporadic,  for  different  years  and  not 
consistently  presented.  Therefore,  the  implications  of granting the 
proposed exemption with regard to the fishery and species concerned 
cannot be quantified due to these data issues, noting that apart f rom 
Italy the reported discard rates are relatively low. 

EWG 22-05 notes that for the reduction of discards, SUDESTMED HLG 
considers a key factor the effects of management measures related to 
the  introduction  of  the  Recommendation  GFCM/42/2018/5  on  a 
multiannual  management  plan  for  bottom  trawl  fisheries  exploiting 
demersal  stocks in the Strait of Sicily (geographical subareas 12 to 
16), establishing 3 FRAs as permanent closures for demersal fisheries. 
Aditionally, since 2019 Italy has reduced the fishing eff ort of  bot tom 
trawlers  in  GSAs  16  and  19.  EWG  22-05  considers  that  these 
measures are mostly aimed at protecting juveniles and/or spawners of 
demersal species. However, EWG 22-05 acknowledges that a general 
reduction  of  the  fishing  effort  of  bottom  trawl  would  likely  also 
decrease the amount of bycatch of small pelagics. 

173 

173 

 
 
 
 
9.1.2  Adriatic Sea 

General observations 

The ADRIATICA HLG (including Croatia, Italy and Slovenia) requests the prolongation of  t he de 
minimis exemption for anchovy, sardine, mackerel and horse mackerel caught by bot tom t raw ls  
for 2023-2024. 

Data supporting the request includes: 

  Annex A1 - Considerations about the scientific knowledge related to the application of  t he 
landing obligation and to the continuation of the de minimis exemption for small  pelagic by 
catch of bottom trawl fisheries in Italy - ADRIATICA area (word document). 

  Annex  A2  –  Discards  and  landings  (average  values  2019-2020)  of  the  small  pelagics 

subject of this request caught by bottom trawl in Italy (excel document) 

  Annex B1 - Discards and landings (reference year 2021) of the small pelagic s subject of  

this request caught by bottom trawl in Slovenia (excel document) 

  Annex  B2  -  Additional  information  with  regard  to  Slovenian  fisheries  regarding  the 
necessity of de minimis exemptions in the Adriatic Sea in light of disproport ionat e c osts 
(word document) 

  Annex  C1  -  Discards  and  landings  (reference  years  2018-2020)  of  the  small  pelagics 

subject of this request caught by bottom trawl in Croatia (excel document) 

  Annex  C2  -  Considerations  regarding  the  landing  obligation  in  the context of demersal 

fisheries in Croatia - analyses of costs for collection of unwanted catch upon landing. 

EWG 22-05 highlights that: 

 

 

 

As  regards  disproportionate  costs,  EWG  22-05  notes  that  the 
supporting  information  are  still  based  on  documents  provided  to  previous  EWGs  and 
consequently EWG 22-05 can only reaffirm the same observations.   

Concerning the possibilities to increase selectivity, EWG 22- 05 not es 
that  the  results  coming  from  the  Implemed  project  regarding  the  use  of  selectivity 
devices, such as grids and T90 panels, in bottom trawl nets are not exhaustive. If  on one 
hand there are improvements in the selectivity for some species, such as European hake, 
on the other hand, there are possible economic losses due to the reduction of  c atches of  
red mullet and deep-water rose shrimp of commercial size. Further investigation on t hese 
selectivity  devices  is  needed  to  find  an  acceptable  compromise  between  improving 
selectivity and minimising  economic losses. 

EWG 22-05 notes that for the reduction of disc ards, ADRIAT ICA HLG 
considers a key factor the effects of management measures related to the introduction  in 
the Adriatic Sea of the Recommendation GFCM/44/2021/1 that establishes a fishing ef f ort  
regime for key demersal stocks in GSAs 17 and 18 and the closure of coastal strip (w it hin 
6 nautical miles) or alternatively 30 continuous days of fishing ban, in addition to exist ing 
FRAs and the establishment of new FRAs. EWG 22-05 considers that these measures are 
mostly aimed at protecting juveniles and/or spawners of demersal species. However, EWG 
22-05 acknowledges that a general reduction of the fishing effort  of  bot tom t raw l w ould 
likely decrease also the amount of bycatch of small pelagics. 

Table  9.2.1  Summary  of  de  minimis  exemptions  submitted  for  the  Adriatic  Sea  exemptions 
relating to small  pelagic species caught by bottom trawls. 

Exemption 

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Anchovy, Sardine, 
Mackerel  and Horse 
Mackerel,  up  to  a 
maximum  of  5%  of 
annual 
the 
catches  by  vessels 
using  bottom  trawls 
in  the  Adriatic  Sea  - 

total 

1.  Exemption status 

Existing temporary exemption granted until the end of 2022. Spec if ic  
request for additional information is reported in article 3.2: By 1 May 
2022, the Member States having a direct management interest in t he 
fisheries in the Adriatic and south- eastern Mediterranean Sea shall 
submit  to  the  Commission  additional  data  based  on  the  ongoing 
studies  and  an  evaluation  of the impact of the exemption and any 
other  relevant  scientific  information supporting the exemption laid 

174 

174 

 
 
Article 3.1 point a(viii) 
(Commission 
Delegated  Regulation 
(EU) No 2021/2064 

down in paragraph 1, points (a)(viii) and (b)(vii).  

2.  Fishery Context 

Catch data and information on the number of vessels involved in t he 
fisheries  has  been  provided  by  Italy  (2019-2020)  data  for  bottom 
trawls  in  GSA  17,  Croatia  (2018-2019-2020)  data  for  all  gears 
including bottom trawls and Slovenia (2021) data for bottom trawls.  

Croatia - Information on Estimated Discards, Estimated Catch, Discard 
Rate  for  all  the  fleet  combined  and for bottom trawls for the years 
2018-2019-2019  reported  in  Annex_C1.  Except  for  horse  mackerel 
with a discard rate of up to 6%, for the other species disc ards rat es 
are never more than 1%. Cumulative discards rates range from 2.8 t o 
4.1 %. 

Italy  -  Information  on  number  of  vessels  for  by  GSA  and  by  gear 
presented in a single file together with Estimated Discards, Estimat ed 
Catch, Discard Rate (Annex_A2) and estimates de minim is  volumes. 
No information provided for GSA 18.  

Average values of landings and discards are provided for 2019- 2020.  
However, due to Covid 19, the 2020 Italian data on discards is derived 
from very few observations. It is important to highlight the fact that in 
some  case  the  discards  relate  to  a  single  species  giving  very  high 
discard  rates.  This  is  the  case  for  both  species  of  horse  mackerel 
(discard rate up to 73.9 %). The high discards rat e for these species is 
due  both  to  the  presence  of  undersized  specimens  and  the  low 
economic  value  of  adults.  No  unwanted  catches  of  anchovy  and 
sardine  are  reported.  And  for  mackerel  the  discard  rate  is  1%. 
Cumulative discards rates correspond to 53.1% in GSA 17 due t o t he 
high discard rate for horse mackerel. According to the table report ed 
in  annex  A1,  the  Italian  Authorities  highlight  that  the  volume  of 
catches  of  small  pelagic  in  the  demersal  trawl  fisheries  (OTB  gear 
level) is very small compared to t he total volume of catches. 

Slovenia - Information on number of vessels together with Est imat ed 
Discards, Estimated Catch, (Annex_B1). According to the table, t otal 
discards  reported  by  the  bottom  trawl  fleet  was  173.1  kg 
corresponding to a cumulative discard ratio of 2.4%.   

3.  Basis for the exemption 

The  basis  for  justifying  the  exemption  relates  to  disproportionate 
costs, in the absence of infrastructure to handle unw anted c atches 
once landed as well as the difficulties to increase selectivity  in mixed 
fisheries. 

Croatia - As for the disproportionate cost and management measures, 
the same arguments used in the previous request  (EWG 19 - 08, 21-
05) for the trawl fleet are repeated. Croatia (see Annex C2) presents a 
table describing the factors for increased costs arising from unwant ed 
catches.  There  is  also  an  analysis  of  the  potential  revenues  that 
unwanted  landings  may  offer  when  the  landing  obligation  is 
implemented. Even in a scenario where an optimistic price of 0.5 €/kg 
for the discards is adopted, the analysis indicates that t he numerous 
landing places that are spread around the country (146 landing sit es) 
result in very low volumes of discards per week that are not enough to 
create  economic  benefits.  This  is  highlighted  by  the  fact  that  the 
transportation  costs  outweigh  the  potential  revenues  from  the 
exploitation of unwanted catches. Croatia has indicated t hat t here is 
an on-going organised effort to rationalise the number of landing sites 

175 

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
by significantly eliminating some and modernising others. A total of 13 
projects of improving the port/landing sites (investing into total of  12 
ports/landing  places)  have  been  initialised  during  the  period  2014-
2020.  Croatia  argues  on  this  basis that it should be possible to re-
evaluate the disproportionate costs.  

Croatia  (Annex  C2)  also  presented  management  measures  of 
permanent  and  temporary  spatio-temporal  regimes  as  well  as  the 
establishment of FRA areas as measures to avoid unwanted catches of 
undersized fish. These are generic, rather than related specifically t o 
bycatch of small pelagics. 

Italy - As for the disproportionate costs, the same argument s used in 
the  previous  request  (EWG  19-08,  21-05)  for  the  trawl  fleet  are 
repeated (Annex A1). The justification is supported by an analysis of  
the continuation of the exemption, primarily due to disproport ionat e 
costs of handling unwanted catches. This is based on an analogy w it h 
the potential cost for an “average” trawl vessel (producing around 40 
kg/day  of  discard  of  species  in  the  Annex  III  of  the  EU  Reg. 
1967/2006  and  working  around  140  days/year)  equating to around 
3000 euro per year. This amount is about 7.5% of the gross prof it  of  
the  “average”  vessel  (Sartor  et  al.,  2016;  Maynou  et  al.,  2018 
(Deliverable 2.19)).  

Additionally,  it  is  argued  there  are  disproportionate  costs  in  the 
absence of infrastructure to handle unw anted c atches onc e landed 
(MedBLand  project,  Spedicato  et  al.,  2021).  The  de  minimis 
exemption is seen as a “stop-gap” that offsets some of the unw ant ed 
catches while research and testing of selective gears is c arried out . 
This argument has been used consistently since the introduction of the 
landing obligation. 

Management  measures  presented  by  Italy  are  related  to  the 
introduction  in  Adriatic  Sea  of  Recommendation  GFCM/44/2021/1. 
This established a fishing effort regime for key demersal stocks in t he 
Adriatic  Sea  (geographical  subareas  17  and  18) and the closure of 
coastal  zone  (within  6  nautical  miles)  or  alternatively   a  30-day 
prohibition  of  fishing.  This  was  in  addition to existing FRAs and the 
establishment  of  new  FRAs. These measures are considered key  to 
reducing discards. In the transitional period, Italy has reduced bottom 
trawl  fishing  effort  by  16%  overall  (plus  a  further  8%  reduction  in 
2019). The reduction of the fishing effort included the decrease of t he 
number  of  fishing  days  during  the  autumn  season,  given  the 
implementation of the fishing ban (at least 30 continuous days) and 
the  reduction of working days (maximum 4 per week) just after the 
ban.  

An  analysis  of  the  discard  ratio  for  Trachurus trachurus showed a 
slight decrease in the period 2008-2020. 

In addition, Italy also applies the closure of the coastal zone (six miles 
from  the  shore  or  4  miles for those fishing vessels that cannot fish 
behind  six  miles  from  the  shore)  for  10  to  12  weeks  after  the 
temporary cessation. According to the JR, the Autumn fishing ban and 
limitation  of  fishing  days  after  the  ban  are  considered  useful  for 
avoiding the catch of young individuals for several species (MedBLand 
study, Spedicato et al., 2021).  

Additionally,  Italy  states  t he  mixed  nature  of  the  demersal  trawl 

176 

176 

 
 
 
fisheries  poses  problems  when  technical  measures  related  to  the 
codend  mesh  size  opening  are  considered.  Experiments  in  this 
direction  were  conducted  in  the  IMPLEMED  project  (Sbrana  et  al.,  
2022), though the target of this project were demersal species in t he 
different GSAs, rather than small pelagics. The final report the projec t 
has  been  approved  in 2022. Preliminary analysis for GSA 17 (Italian 
side),  show  the  T90  configuration  did  not  show  substantial 
improvement in size selectivity of European hake.  For red mullet, t he 
T90 net proved to be the most size selective, but this was associated 
with  a  significant  loss  (-33%  in  biomass  and  -38%  in  number)  of 
individuals  above  the  MCRS  of  11 cm TL, with significant economic 
losses. No reference to small pelagics is provided in this study 

Slovenia - For Slovenia the request for the  de minimis  exempt ion is 
based on disproportionate handling costs with compared t o t he f act 
that  the  amount  of  discards  is  very  low.  There  is  no  additional 
information  provided. 

4.  Additional evidence and work planned 

Most of the supporting information provided by ADRIATICA HLG  w ere 
already  presented  in  the  previous  EWGs  (e.g.,  MINOUW  and 
DISCARDLESS  projects  and  Sartor  et  al. 
(2016)).  Also, 
disproportionality of costs is not supported by any new documentation 
or information. 

New results coming from the IMPLEMED project regarding t he use of  
selectivity devices, such as grids and T90 panels have been presented.  

No additional planned work is mentioned. 

5.  EWG 22-05 Observations  

The supporting information and the basis for the exemption provided 
by Croatia, Italy and Slovenia are not different from those presented 
previously to EWG 21-05. Therefore, the observations from EWG 2 1-
05 remain relevant. 

Regarding,  Italy the estimated combined discard rate (small pelagic 
species)  corresponds  to  53.1%  in  GSA17.  Consequently,  the  de 
minimis  volume  is  likely  to  cover  only  a  proportion  of  the  discards. 
Ways to deal with or reduce the residual unwanted catches have not  
been provided. For Croatia and Slovenia value of combined disc ards 
are much lower and typically less than 5%.  

As regards disproportionate costs, the supporting inf ormat ion is st ill 
based on documents provided in previous EWG and consequently EWG 
22-05 can only reaffirm the same considerations. However, EWG 22 -
05  acknowledges  that  the  recent  great  increase  in  fuel  costs  has 
worsened the overall situation.  

The results coming from the IMPLEMED project regarding t he use of  
selec tivity devices, such as grids and T90 panels, in bottom trawl net s 
while interesting are not necessarily relevant for this exemption. If  on 
one hand there are improvements in the selectivity for some spec ies, 
such  as  European  hake,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  possible 
economic  losses  due  to  the  reduction of catches of red mullet and 
deep-water rose shrimp of commercial size. Further invest igation on 
these  selectivity  devices  is  needed  to  find  a  compromise  between 

177 

177 

 
 
 
improving selectivity and minimising  economic losses. 

EWG 22-05 notes that for the reduction of discards, ADRIAT ICA HLG 
considers a key factor the effects of management measures related to 
the  introduction  in  the  Adriatic  Sea  of  the  Recommendation 
GFCM/44/2021/1  that  establishes  a  fishing  effort  regime  for  key 
demersal  stocks  in GSAs 17 and 18 and the closure of coastal strip 
(within 6 nautical miles) or alternatively 30 continuous days of fishing 
ban, in addition to existing FRAs and the establishment of new  F RAs. 
EWG  22-05  considers  that  these  measures  are  mostly  aimed  at 
protecting juveniles and/or spawners of demersal spec ies. How ever, 
EWG 22-05 acknowledges that a general reduction of the fishing effort 
of bottom trawl would likely also decrease the amount  of  byc atch of  
small pelagics. 

EWG 22-05 notes that in Adriatica JR, page 6 the following sentence is 
reported: Croatia, Italy and Slovenia recommend the continuation of  
the  following  exemption  already  granted  in  amended  Commission 
delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/4 up to 0.5% of total annual catc hes 
of  pelagic  species  (Anchovy,  Sardine,  Mackerel,  Horse  mackerel) 
under landing obligation according to Table. 

This sentence contains two aspect that should be clarify; the first  one 
regards  the  delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/4  that  is  no  longer  in 
force; the second relates to the de minimis  request of 0.5%, w hic h it  
is assumed should be 5%. 

9.1.3  Western Mediterranean Sea 

General observations 

The  PESCAMED  HLG  (including France, Italy and Spain) requests the prolongation of the high 
survivability exemption for scallop (Pecten jacobaeus), carpet clams (Venerupis spp.) and Venus  
shells (Venus spp.) caught with mechanised dredges until 31st December 2024. 

Data supporting the request includes: 

  Annex  1  –  Information  from  Spain  to  support  the  requests  for  High  Survivability 
exemptions regarding mollusc bivalves (striped venus clam Chamelea gallina  and w edge 
clam Donax trunculus). 

  Annex 1.1 – Scientific paper: Effects of mechanized dredging targeting Chamelea gallina , 
striped  venus  clams, on the associated discards in the northern Alboran Sea (Western 
Mediterranean Sea). 

  Annex 1.2 – Scientific paper: Damage assessment and survival est imat es in t he w edge 

clam (Donax trunculus) caught by mechanical dredging in the northern Alboran Sea. 

  Annex 2 – Total landings of scallop (Pecten jacobaeus), carpet clams (Venerupis spp.) and 
Venus  shells  (Venus  spp.) and number of vessels belonging to the French dredge fleet 
targeting Murex in 2021. 

  Annex 3 – Information from Italy to support the requests for high survivability exemptions 
regarding mollusc bivalves - Consideration on the survivability of the striped venus c lam 
(Chamelea gallina). 

  Annex 3.1 – Scientific paper: Reburial potential and survivability of the striped venus clam 

(Chamelea gallina) in hydraulic dredge fisheries. 

EWG 22-05 highlights that: 

 

The  limited  supporting  information  pertaining  to  Scallop  (Pecten 
jacobaeus)  and  Carpet  clams  (Venerupis  spp.)  species  does  not  provide  additional 
scientific evidence to support the request for a  high survivability exemption.  

178 

178 

 
 
 
 

Concerning Venus shells (Venus spp.) caught with hydraulic dredges in 
the Western Mediterranean Sea, Italy supplied a report on survivability of  st riped Venus 
clam's (C. gallina) to support the request, which provides relevant information. 

Table 9.1.3.1 Summary of high survivability exemption submitted for the Western Mediterranean 
Sea exemptions relating to three species of bivalves caught by mechanized dredges. 

Exemption  

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Scallop (Pecten 
jacobaeus), 
Carpet clams 
(Venerupis spp.), 
and Venus 
shells (Venus 
spp.) below the 
minimum 
conservation 
reference size 
caught with 
mechanised 
dredges (HMD) 
in the Western 
Mediterranean 

1. Exemption status 

Pescamed HLG has submitted a joint recommendation to amend the present 
discard  plan  for  demersal  species  in  the western Mediterranean Sea (EU 
Regulation No 2021/2066) in order to extend three temporary exempt ions 
that  are  set  to  expire  on  December  31,  2022.  Separate  annexes  are 
supplied with additional scientific evidence required by the discard pla n f or 
exemptions. Exemptions are requested from January 1, 2023, to December 
31, 2024. 

2.  Survival evidence 

Besides the material provided in previous years, five scientific papers have 
been supplied by the Pescamed HLG to support the request: 

-  Annex  1.1:  Effec ts  of  mechanized  dredging  targeting  Chamelea 
gallina,  striped  venus  clams,  on  the  associated  discards  in  the 
northern Alboran Sea (Western Mediterranean Sea) 

-  Annex 1.2: Damage assessment and survival estimates in the wedge 
clam  (Donax  trunculus)  caught  by  mechanical  dredging  in  the 
northern Alboran Sea 

-  Annex 3: Consideration on the survivability of the striped venus clam 

(Chamelea gallina) 

-  Annex 3.1: Reburial potential and survivability of the st riped venus 

clam (Chamelea gallina) in hydraulic dredge fisheries 

-  The effect of dredge capture on the escape response of  t he great 
scallop,  Pecten  maximus  L.:  implications  for  the  survival  of 
undersized discards (Jenkins and Brand, 2001),  

The  first  two  studies  (Annex  1.1  and  1.2)  do  not  present  scientific 
information that support the request based on the high survivabilit y of  t he 
three bivalves subject to this exemption.  

Annex 1.1 (Urra et al., 2018) extrapolated high survivability f or disc arded 
undersized  Venus  shells based on low proportions of damaged individuals  
(4.9  percent), but the relationship between the damaged individuals and 
the actual level of survivability was not investigated.  

The high probability of survival for molluscs (>96%) indicated by Annex 1.2 
(Urra et al., 2021) is solely determined from disc ards of the bivalve species 
D.  trunculus  caught  by  mechanised  dredges,  albeit  this  species  is  not 
covered  by the landing obligation as no MCRS is defined for this species. 
EWG 22-05 reiterates the risks in extrapolating survival evidence bet ween 
species. 

Annexes  3,  supplied  by  Italy, provides information on survivability of the 
striped Venus clams (C. gallina) caught by hydraulic dredges, the result s of  
which were published in Annex 3.1 (Bargione et al., 2021). Experiment s in 
the lab and at sea, indicate survival rates of 94.8 percent and 96.2 percent, 
respectively, with no significant differences between the two trials or w it hin 
size classes. These data conclusively demonstrate that C. gallina individuals 
returned to the sea have a high chance of survival. EWG 22-05 notes that a 

179 

179 

 
range of factors might impact survival and cautions against ext rapolating 
survival evidence for the same species across fisheries (e.g., from hydraulic  
dredge to mechanised/towed dredges). 

The subject of the paper Jenkins and Brand (2001) is Pec t en m axim us (a 
co-genus of P. jacobaeus) caught with dredges in the Irish Sea. T he st udy 
demonstrated  a  reduction  in the swimming ability in captured undersized 
scallops.  These  data,  together  with  numerous  studies  of  predator 
aggregation  to  discarded  material,  indicated that there is a potential for 
high  levels  of  mortality  in  undersized  discards  of  P.  maximus  and  in 
impacted but uncaptured individuals.  

3.  Fishery context 

Information from French vessels using dredges (HMD) have been provided, 
but  the  target  species  in  this  case is the gastropod  Murex. It is unclear 
whether all of these vessels target the species covered by t he exempt ion. 
Only overall landings (90 tonnes) have been provided, with no inf ormat ion 
on  landings  by  species.  Italy  in  the T yrrhenian Sea confirmed around 38 
hydraulic dredges harvesting bivalve molluscs, of which 20, 4 and 14 belong 
to the Roma, Gaeta and Napoli areas, respectively. 

4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 

High survivability of Venus clams harvested in the Western M editerranean 
can  be  inferred  from  studies  performed  in  the  Adriatic  Sea  considering 
fishing gear similarities (e.g., hydraulic dredge). 

Concerning the other two species, scallop (Pecten jacobaeus) and c arpet 
clams  (Venerupis  spp.),  their  survivability  cannot  be  inferred  from  the 
supporting studies, which are focused on different species. 

5.  Additional evidence and work planned 

The observations of EWG 17-03 and EWG 21-05 provided to the PESCAMED 
group  remain  relevant  to  this  exemption.  EWG  17-03  highlighted  the 
following studies/publications as potential sources of further information: a) 
a study  by  Moschino  et  al.  (2003)  gives  some  information  on  the 
survivability of Venus clams; b) a review of discard survival rat es done f or 
the  Commission  in  2012  has  some  information  on  the  survivability  of 
Atlantic scallop (Pecten maximus), which is comparable t o Medit erranean 
scallop.  EWG  21-05  recommended  that  the  PESCAMED  group  evaluate 
whether  the  survival  data  in  these  studies  is  indicative  of  the  western 
Mediterranean fisheries. 

6.  EWG 22-05 observations 

The  supporting  information  pertaining  Pecten  jacobaeus  suggest  further 
investigation on the survivability of this species caught with dredges in t he 
Western Mediterranean Sea, also considering the potential ef f ects of  suc h 
gears in the swimming ability of this bivalve.  

No scientific evidence to support the request based on the high survivabilit y 
of the carpet clams (Venerupis spp.) has been provided and thus no furt her 
evaluation of the proposed exemption is possible. 

The  supporting  information  provided  for  Venus  shells  (Venus  spp)  does 
provide  robust  high  survivability  estimates  for  this species harvested by 
hydraulic dredges. Several caveats are noted, principally the estimat es are 
from a different area (e.g., Adriatic Sea). 

180 

180 

 
 
 
10  BLA CK SEA  – OVERVIEW OF JOINT RECOMMENDA TIONS 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2065 established a discard plan for turbot fisheries 
in  the  Black  Sea.  This  discard  plan  is  valid  until  31  December  2022  and  included  a  high 
survivability exemption for turbot caught in bottom set gillnets. By 1 May 2022, Member St at es 
having a direct management interest in the turbot fisheries in the Black Sea were asked to submit 
to the Commission additional data on survival estimates relating to the gillnet fish ery f or t urbot  
and any other relevant scientific information supporting the exemption laid down in the Delegated 
Regulation.  

The main elements of the JR assessed by EWG 21-05 are summarised  in table 10.1. 

Elements 

Contained currently 
in pelagic or 
demersal discard 
plan 

Status with 
relevant Article in 
current discard 
plan 

Assessment by 
EWG 22-05 with 
relevant Annexes in 
JR 

Turbot caught with 
gillnets 

Demersal 

Temporary until end 
of 2022 
Article 3(1) 

Assessed based on 
supporting 
information supplied 
by Bulgaria and 
Romania 

10.1  High survivability exemptions 

A summary of the information provided to support the high survivability exemptions for turbot  in 
the Black Sea is provided in table 10.1.1. 

Table  10.1.1  Summary  of  high  survivability  exemption submitted for  the Black Sea exemption 
relating to turbot caught by bottom gillnets. 

Exemption  

Main Findings of EWG 22-05 

Turbot 
(Scophthalmus 
maximus) caught 
with bottom-set 
gillnets (GNS) 
in the Black Sea 
(GSA29) - Article 
3 of Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 
No 2021/2065 

1. Exemption status 

Existing  temporary  high  survivability  exemption  applicable  until  31st 
December 2022. 

The JR requests the continuation of this de minimis  exemption for 2023.  

2.  Survival evidence 

New  evidence  on  the  vitality  of  turbot  caught  with  gillnets  has  been 
provided. Information comes from two pilot studies carried out  in 2022 in 
Bulgaria  (5  experimental  fishing  trials  performed  by  IRF)  and  Romania  (4 
experimental  fishing  trials  performed  by  NIMRD)  following  the  same 
methodology. Survival evidence is not documented and the main findings of  
the pilot studies mainly refer to vitality rates of turbot in gillnet fisheries. In 
fact,  fish  were  kept  in  tanks  onboard  for  less  than 1 hour, during which 
their condition was monitored (e.g., alive, dead, and potential injured). 

In Bulgaria, the results of the pilot study a high vitality rate of turbot caught 
in  monofilament  gillnets  (85.71%).  T here  were  no  undersized  specimens 
caught  during the surveys, as all seven specimens caught (6 alive and 1 
dead) were larger than the MCRS of 45 cm TL (Reg. 2019/1241), indicat ing 
the gear used is selective (100% of fish larger than MCRS).  

The Romanian pilot study indicated a good vitality rate of turbot caught with 
monofilament gillnets of 81.67%. Similarly,  no undersized specimens w ere 
caught  during  the  surveys,  with  all  of the 131 specimens of turbot (107 
alive  and  24  dead)  larger  than  the  MCRS 45 cm TL, equally showing the 
gear used by the Bulgarian fleet is selective (100% of fish larger t han t he 
MCRS).  

181 

181 

 
 
3.  Fishery context 

No additional information on the fisheries exploiting turbot in the Blac k Sea 
has been provided, in addition to what was already provided to EWG 21- 05 
as follows (Reference year 2020):  

i)  for Romania, 59 vessels targeted turbot with gillnets in 2020 and 

landed about 70 tonnes of turbot, and catches were reported as 
75 tonnes, with the estimated discard negligible; 

ii)   ii) for Bulgaria, 124 vessels targeted turbot with gillnets in 2020 and 

landed about 62 tonnes of turbot, and catches were reported as 
75 tonnes, with the estimated discard again reported as 
negligible. 

4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 

Taking the vitality index as a proxy for the survival rate (according to “ICES 
Guidelines  on  methods  for  estimating  discard  survival”,  hereafter  ICES 
guidelines), high rates of vitality were recorded during the 2 pilot  surveys. 
In  Romania,  extremely  long  soak  times  (25-31  days)  generated  lower 
vitality rates (78%), when compared with shorter soak times (16/18 days 
with vitality rates of 86%). In Bulgaria, soak times ranged between 7 and 8 
days and the overall vitality rate was 86%, confirming the results obt ained 
in Romania.  

The  vitality  rates  were  based  on  9  experimental  trials,  which  makes  it 
difficult  to  draw  any conclusions about both likely survival rates and the  
compatibility compared to current fishing practises as the conditions (e.g., 
seasonality)  in  the  wider  fishery  was  not considered in the experimental 
design.  In  addition,  no  detailed  description  of  the  commercial  fishing 
practice has been provided (e.g., average soaking time, seasonalit y, etc.). 
Understanding, the soak times used in the fishery is considered particularly 
important. 

5.  Additional evidence and work planned 

The supporting information provided is limited and mostly refers to vit alit y 
rate estimates. Therefore, additional experiments to obtain survival rates of  
turbot caught with gillnets would be required to provide better estimates of  
surivival in the fishery. A full study following the ICES guidelines to direc t ly 
observe discard survival would ideally be conducted in the gillnet fishery t o 
provide robust survival estimates for turbot.  

6.  EWG 22-05 Observations 

Data  provided  by  Bulgaria  and  Romania  are  valuable  because  they 
represent  the  first  attempt  of  assessing  survival  of  turbot  caught  with 
gillnets  in  the  Black  Sea,  albeit  based  on  vitality  estimates.  Vitality 
assessments  do  not,  by  themselves,  generate  an  absolute  survival 
estimate,  but  can  quantify  “at -vessel”  or  “immediate”  mortality  levels. 
When  correlated  with  a  likelihood  of  survival  at  vitality  (derived  from 
tagging or captive observation methods), a vitality index can be used as a 
proxy  for  survival.  Moreover,  following  the  ICES  guidelines,  vitality  is 
typically quantified by measuring characteristics of individual animals suc h 
as  activity,  responsiveness,  reflex  impairment,  and  injury.  Therefore,  in 
future studies it would be highly recommended to follow the methodologies 
described in the ICES guidelines. 

However,  based on the supporting information presented, along with the 

182 

182 

 
 
 
fishery  information  provided  last  year  to  EWG  21-05,  it  seems  that 
discarding of turbot is negligible/absent in this fishery. Therefore, while t he 
exemption itself is likely to have low impact, it is not altogether clear why it  
is needed. 

References 

Bargione  G.,  Petetta  A.,  Vasapollo  C.,  Virgili  M.,  Lucchetti  A.  2021.  Reburial  potential  and 
survivability of the striped venus clam (Chamelea gallina) in hydraulic  dredge fisheries. Scientif ic 
Reports. 11:9109 DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-88542-8. 

Jenkins S.R. and Brand A.R. 2001. The effect of dredge capture on the escape response of  t he 
great scallop, Pecten maximus (L.): implications for the survival of undersized disc ards . J. Exp. 
Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2001) 

Maynou,  G.  Kraus  (CSIC),  D.  Pinello,  P.  Accadia,  E.  Sabatella,  M.  Spina din.  2018.  MINOUW 
Project,  Deliverable  2.19  Handling,  storage,  transport  and  utilization  of  unwanted  catches. 
Available at: http://minouw-project.eu  

Sala A., Lucchetti A., Perdichizzi A., Herrmann B., Rinelli  P. 2015. Is square-mesh better selective 
than larger mesh? A perspective on the management for Mediterranean trawl fisheries. Fisheries 
Research 161:182–190. 

Sartor P., Carbonara P., Lucchetti A., Sabatella R. 2016. Characterisation of the discards of  t he 
demersal  fisheries of the Italian Seas; propaedeutic information for the implementation of the 
Landing Obligation provisions (EU Reg. 1380/2013, Art. 15). Italian Ministry for the Agric ult ural 
Food and Forestry Policies (MIPAAF) Coordinated Project. Final report, 268 pp +  Annexes.  

Sbrana  M.  et  al.  2022.  Improving  the  selectivity  of  trawl  gears  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea to 
advance 
IMPLEMED. 
EASME/EMFF/2019/1.3.2.6/01/SI2.818717-SC04 

the  sustainable  exploitation  pattern  of 

fisheries  – 

trawl 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for Fisheries (STECF ). 2021. Evaluation of the 
fishing effort regime in the Western Mediterranean – part VI (STECF-21-13). Publications Office of 
the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Spedicato M.T., J. L. Sánchez-Lizaso, E. Sabatella, K. Tsagarakis, P. Sart or, G. Lembo.  2021. 
Synthesis of the Landing Obligation Measures and Discard Rates for the Medit erranean and t he 
Black Sea. EASME/EMFF/2019/1.3.2.6/ SI2.835464. 

Urra  J.,  Marina  P.,  Garcia  T,  Baro  J.  2021.  Damage assessment and survival estimates in the 
wedge  clam  (Donax  trunculus)  caught  by  mechanical  dredging  in  the  northern  Alboran  Sea. 
Marine Biology Research. DOI: 10.1080/17451000.2021.1949618. 

Urra J., Garcia T., Leon E., Gallardo-Roldan H., Lozano M., Rueda J.L., Baro J. 2018. Ef f ec ts of  
mechanized dredging targeting Chamelea gallina, striped venus clams, on the associated discards 
in  the  northern  Alboran  Sea  (Western  Mediterranean  Sea).  Journal  of  the  Marine  Biological 
Association of the United Kingdom. doi:10.1017/S0025315418000462. 

11  ECONOMIC IMPA CTS OF THE LA NDING OBLIGA TION 

11.1  Request from the Commission 

EWG  22-05  was  requested  to  review  the findings  of  the  ad  hoc  contract  linked  to this EWG 
‘Summary  of information on possible socio-economic impact of the implementation of the landing 
obligation’, which was submitted on the 11 May 2022. 

11.2  Overview of Ad hoc contract 

DG  Mare issued an ad hoc contract to summarize the available scientific information on the socio -
economic  impacts  of  the  landing  obligation.  The  contractors  provided  two  documents:  an 
inventory  excel-table  with  detailed  information  about  the  content  of  relevant  scientific 
publications (e.g., peer-reviewed publications, books and technical reports) and scientific projects 

183 

183 

 
 
 
as  well 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ewg/2205 ).  

report  with 

as 

a 

the  main 

findings 

and 

conclusions 

(see 

The report is divided into two parts - ex ante and ex post assessment. The int roductory part  of  
the  ex-ante  assessment  presents  the possible impact s of the landing obligation and provides 
information about bioeconomic models which that have been used to analyse such impac t s. All 
findings  are  summarized  in  the  table  found  in  that  section.  Further  on,  the  ex-ante analysis 
provides  information  on  exemptions  (de  minimis,  high  survival  rate  and  damaged  fish  by 
predators), flexibilities (year transfer, inter species flexibility) mitigation measures (selec tivit y 
and tactical changes, quota top-up, quota transferability, and harvest control rules and reference 
points) as well as compliance. The ex-post assessment summarizes all available informat ion in  a 
short chapter, noting that a key problem in this type of analysis is the lack of relevant studies.  In 
the last part of the report the authors then set out the findings of the review.  

11.3  EWG 22-05 observations 

EWG 22-05 observes that the ad hoc contractors have provided a very comprehensive overview 
of existing scientific information and assessments of the socio-economic impac t s of  t he landing 
obligation.  As  the  report  is  essentially  a  review  of  the  existing  literature,  there  is  limited 
information on the causes that could affect the changed socio-economic  sit uation due t o t he 
adoption  of  landing  obligation.  This  is,  however,  an  important  point  and  requires  further 
elaboration with the DGMARE, Member States and the Advisory Councils .  

EWG  22-05  observes  that  there  is  still  very  little  informat ion  available  on  the current socio-
economic impacts of the landing obligation. The majority of the reviewed literat ure provides an 
ex-ante assessment of possible socio-economic impacts based on simulations using bioec onomic  
models, interviews, or conceptual literature. Therefore, their results and conclusions are heavily 
relied  on  the  way  they  are  constructed  (e.g.,  the  inclusion  of  socioeconomic  drivers  and 
incorporation of fisher’s behaviour) and the assumptions they use to define the analyses. 

EWG  22-05  notes  that  one  of  the  main  concerns  of  Member  States  and  the fishing industry 
regarding the implementation of the landing obligation was and still is the choke species problem 
(see also EWG 13-23 (STECF 2013) or 14-19 (STECF 2014a). Many of the exempt ions f rom t he 
landing obligation put in place and the flexibility instruments included in Article 15 aim to address 
the  problem  of  avoiding  choke  species  problems  in  mixed  fisheries  (e.g. ,  inter-annual  quota 
flexibility, inter species flexibility, de minimis,  survivability, quota transferability). As most  of  t he 
ex-ante modelling exercises to assess socio-economic impacts assume full implementation of  t he 
landing obligation, choke effects are shown to be the main problems of the landing obligat ion in 
these analyses and the accompanying literature. However, there is very little empirical  evidence 
on choke effects in fisheries today. It seems that the desire to ensure “business as usual” as f ar 
as possible in Union fisheries has led to a lack of effective implement ation. T his in c ombinat ion 
with a lack of monitoring and the introduction of all or some of the instruments (e.g., exemptions 
or mitigation measures) means anticipated choke species have not materialised. This means t hat  
there  is  often  a  significant  mismatch  between  the  model  calculations  of  impacts  (a  full 
implementation of the landing obligation) and the actual situation in fisheries.  

EWG 22-05 observes that STECF has been requested several times in t he f irst  years af t er t he 
adoption of the current basic regulation to provide an ex-ante feedback on possible effects of  t he 
landing obligation. In the first EWG report on the landing obligation (STECF 13-20, p. 9) the EWG 
stated that difficulties to improve selectivity may have more to do w it h ec onomic  implic at ions 
(short term losses) than technical issues. The ad-hoc report (especially t able 1) support s t his 
conclusion,  as  mitigation  measures  and  exemptions  have  been  subsequently  introduced 
principally to reduce the short-term costs of the implementation of t he landing obligation, rat her 
than to solve problems in specific fisheries. 

EWG  22-05  observes  that  there  is  limited  literature  on  “disproportionate  costs  of  handling 
unwanted catches”. There are a few specific projects (e.g., MINOUW project and a study from the 
Netherlands  (Oostenbrugge et al. 2021)) where researchers have attempted to calculate the 
actual costs of handling unwanted catches on board. However, STECF has st ated several t imes 
that  it  remains  a  judgement  call when costs can be defined as ‘disproportionate’ (see STECF 
2013, p. 10, STECF 2014b (EWG 13-17), p. 10). Therefore, there is still no objective threshold for 
‘disproportionate costs.’  

184 

184 

 
EWG  22-05  observers  that  the  ad  hoc  report  raises  another  important  aspect  of  the 
implementation of the landing obligation - the quota uplifts (or top-ups). This is t he c ase w hen 
fleets do not reduce discards but have benefitted from higher fishing possibilities t hrough quot a 
uplifts. There are no specific economic studies showing this effect, other than the recent analysis 
developed by Borges (2020).” (see Annex X page 12).  

EWG 22-05 notes that with the quota uplift fishers receive a catch quota rather t han a landings 
quota. Predicted bycatch (based on the number of discards in years prior to the implement at ion 
of  the  LO)  were  added  to  the  quota.  However,  implementation  of  mitigation  measures  and 
exemptions in combination with a low level of enforcement could lead to higher overall c atches 
than the catch quota. There is a lower availability of data on catches as discards are still allow ed 
and it is nearly impossible to judge if discards fall under de-minimis exemptions or not. For some 
species an increase in removals is observed which increases the pressure on stocks and t here is 
an increased risk of unsustainable exploitation of the stocks in the mid- to long-term.  

EWG 22-05 observes that ad hoc report briefly discusses possible dist ributional ef f ects of  t he 
mitigation measures and exemptions. The study concludes (see also EWG 22-05 conclusions) that 
fleets with low discard rates in the past c ould potentially benefit from the landing obligation in the 
form  of  higher  quotas.  However,  there is a lack of firm evidence in the report to support this 
conclusion.  

References 

Borges, L., The unintended impact of the European discard ban. ICES Journal of Marine Sc ienc e, 
2020. 78(1): p. 134-141. 

Oostenbrugge, H. v., Klok, A., Deetman, B., Bastleer, J. Bleeker, K. and A. M. Winter. Undersized 
whiting in the BT 2 fishery. Wageningen Economic Research, The Hague. ISBN 978-94-6395-804-
2 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 2013 – Landing obligat ion in 
EU fisheries (STECF-13-23). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 2014a – Landing Obligat ions 
in EU Fisheries - part 4 (STECF-14-19). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 2014b – Landing Obligation in 
EU Fisheries - part II (STECF-14-01). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg 

12 

CONCLUSIONS 

The conclusions reported below are general observations on the quality and weaknesses identified 
with  the  exemptions  submitted  across  all  the  regional  groups.  In  this  regard,  EWG  22-05 
concludes that: 

General conclusions 

  The role of STECF EWGs set up to evaluate Joint Recommendations remains t o evaluat e 
the scientific rigor and robustness of the underpinning information supplied by Member 
States  to  support  the  main  elements  of  Joint  Recommendations.  The  EWG  or  STECF 
cannot adjudicate on whether exemptions should be accepted or not. 

  The avoidance of unwanted catch through improved selectivity or other means should be 
the  primary  focus  in  implementing  the  landing  obligation.  While  recognising  that 
modifying selectivity can result in some reduction in revenue, such loss in revenue should 
be  viewed  in  the  broader  context of medium-term gains in stocks from an increase in 
selectivity,  the  reduced  risk  of choke events and better utilization of quota to land a 
higher proportion of more valuable catch. 

  The quality of submissions to support the exemptions has generally improved sinc e t he 
first JR’s were submitted in 2014. However, there are cases in the 2022 JRs w here t he 
supporting information does not contain any new information.  For some exempt ions, no 
information has been provided at all. This has meant that for many exemptions, the EWG 
has not been able to carry out any meaningful evaluation and the previous observations 
from STECF remain valid. 

185 

185 

 
 
  The quality and consistency of catch data provided to support exempt ions in 2022 has 
been quite limited for many exemptions. Data has covered different years, for different or 
wider areas than covered by the exemption and in different formats. STECF acknowledges 
that Covid-19 has meant data collection has been challenging. However, having such data 
is important to understand the relationship between the de minimis  volume  request ed, 
the actual level of unwanted catches to put the proposed exemption in the context of t he 
fishery and also the state of the stock for which the exemption is covering. This allows an 
assessment as to the level of risk of the exemption to the relevant stocks covered by t he 
exemption. 

  Weaknesses remain in the collection of catch documentation data. If t he dat a sit uation 
does  not  improve and the true quantities being caught as reported do not reflect the 
actual removals, it will likely have a significant impact on the quality of scientif ic advice 
and  may  compromise  the  achievement  of  the  MSY  objective.  This  potential  for  this 
discrepancy is higher for de minimis than high survival exemptions bec ause t he actual 
discard amount may be substantially higher than the permitted de minimis  amount . F or 
high survival exemptions, this risk has been mitigated to some extent by deducting t he 
estimated dead discards associated with the exemptions from the total allow able quot a 
prior to allocation.  

  The intention of DGMARE to carry out a full review of the exemptions that are in plac e is 
timely. Such a review would help to determine whether they need to be amended or are 
still  required  given  likely  changes in catch patterns, gears used, vessels involved and 
uptake. In initiating such a review, however, STECF stresses it is vital that Member States 
and the Advisory Councils understand what information is needed to support this review  
and allow STECF carry out a meaningful evaluation. 

  The CFP review provides an opportunity to consider the landing obligat ion and w ays t o 
improve implementation. In this cont ext, reviewing the process of evaluating exemptions 
would be helpful for STECF in addition to reviewing the exemptions themsleves. 

Conclusions on de minimis exemptions 

  Under Article 15 of the CFP Basic Regulation Member States have a legal requirement  t o 
record all catches discarded under de minimis  exemptions. However, in many  c ases t his 
information is still lacking from the supporting information provided by Member States as 
evidenced by the limitations of data contained in the FDI database. 

  For many exemptions, the relationship between the de minimis volume requested and the 
level  of  unwanted  catches  is  unclear  from  the  information  provided  to  support  the 
exemption. In some cases, the de minimis volume covers 100% of the unwanted catches, 
usually in fisheries where the levels of unwanted catch are small. In other c ases, t he de 
minimis  volume  covers only a small part of the unwanted catches and the supporting 
information  should  contain  indications  on  the  measures  to  be  taken  to  reduce  these 
residual unwanted catches. 

  The  case  for  de  minimis  should  not  be  improved  by  having  high  levels  of  unwanted 
catches, and therefore high handling costs, where the incentive t o improve selec t ivit y 
should be maintained. Improving selectivity or avoidance methods to reduce t he catches 
of unwanted catches should be the priority. 

  Judging at which level costs are disproportionate because t here is no w ay of  assessing 
objectively what level of costs constitutes disproportionate remains challenging. F or t his 
reason,  in  assessing  de  minimis  exemptions,  the  relationship  between  the  de  minimis 
volume, the actual level of unwanted catches and the overall status of the stocks involved 
has been the focus of the assessments. 

  Testing gears to improve the selectivity for low value stocks or in circumstances where the 
level of discards is very low is challenging. Prior to the landing obligat ion suc h c atches 
were always discarded due to their low market value. Diverting scarce research f unds t o 
specifically  investigate  selectivity  for  such  spec ies is not really an option. Therefore, 
improving  selectivity  in  such  circumstances  is  only  going  to  be  delivered  as  a 

186 

186 

 
 
consequence of using selective gears designed to reduce unwanted catches of  dif f erent 
target species. For instance, the use of square mesh panels in gadoid fisheries may lead 
to a reduction in boarfish or greater silver smelt catches. 

Conclusions on high survivability exemptions 

  Assessing what constitutes high survivability is still complicated by t he limit ed evidenc e 
and the variability in the available estimates. Many factors can affect survival, but  t hese 
are not well understood. This makes assessment of requests for survivability complex as 
many factors need to be considered. 

  Survivability should be considered in the context of the discard rate for the fishery seeking 
an exemption. Medium survival rates in high discarding fisheries still lead to high disc ard 
mortality  rates.  STECF  has  previously  concluded  (STECF  PLEN  19-02)  that  unless 
surviving  discards  are  accounted  for  in  stock  assessments  when  dead  discards  are 
accounted  for  in  TAC  setting,  where survivability exemptions are in place, the actual 
fishing  mortality  will  not  match  the  agreed  catch  level.  This  should  continue  to  be 
discussed in the assessment forums for stocks with survival exemptions. 

  To  date,  survival  and  discard  evidence  and  fleet  information  is  reported  in  rather 
incoherent way that hindered assessment by the EWG. Most information is Member Stat e 
specific within regions and there are very limited transboundary linkages to neighbouring 
areas with shared stocks and fisheries.  

  Gaps in the evidence provided remain on conditions of the relevant f isheries (gear use, 
haul duration, seasonality, areas etc.) and catch data for all Member St at es t o provide 
context  for  this  exemption.  Such  information  is  crucial  in  order  to  assess  the 
representativeness of the different reported survival rates and to be able t o assess t he 
effects of the exemption on the different stocks. 

Conclusions on technical measures 

  Despite many experiments to test selective gears, there are still relatively few examples of  
such  gears  being  incorporated  into  the  JRs  submitted.  Where  there  is  no  specific 
legislation  making  the  use  of  selective  gears  mandatory,  uptake  of  selective  gears 
remains extremely low even in fisheries where unwanted catches remain high. 

  Strengthening the linkage of exemptions to the use of selective gears as is t he c ase f or 
several exemptions, would provide greater confidence that the exempt ion is not  just  a 
means to maintain “business as usual” in the relevant fishery. 

  Extensive  work  has  been  carried  out  on  selectivity,  for  some  regions,  but  this  work 
remains uncoordinated and not necessarily targeted at the right fisheries. A review of the 
work completed to identify what works and what does not, along with detailing t he gaps 
in knowledge would help to channel further experiments into the appropriate fisheries.  

  There  are  indications  of  various  experiments  with  lights  to reduce unwanted catches. 
Consolidating the findings into one review would be helpful to understand whether using 
lights  has  potential  to  reduce  unwanted  catches  and  for  which species and in which 
fisheries.  

Conclusions on the economic impacts of the landing obligation 

  The  introduction  of  exemptions  or  mitigation  measures  associated  with  a  low  level  of 
control and monitoring has allowed the fishing sector to continue more or less t o operat e 
as  ‘business  as  usual’.  Model  calculations  using  full  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation as a basis show high short -term losses but often associated long - term gains 
(see Table 1 in the ad hoc report).  

  More effective implementation of the landing obligation would seem to depend on bet t er 
mitigation of the short-term losses to allow fishers to change fishing patterns or to employ 
more  selective  fishing  gear,  resulting  in  higher  long-term  gains.  However,  currently  it 

187 

187 

 
 
 
seems  there  is  bigger  incentive  for  fishers  to  avoid  short  term  losses  due  to 
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  through  exemptions,  as  the  perception  from 
fishers tends to be they cannot comply with the landing obligation without the exemptions 
remaining in place. There is little consideration or expectation of  t he longer -term gains 
that may accrue and the main motivation is to maintain “business as usual” as muc h as  
possible.  

  The combination of a lack of control, exemptions and quota uplifts, has meant there have 
not been any significant socio-economic impacts associated with the landing obligat ion t o 
date.  There  is  so  far  no  empirical  evidence  from  the  studies  conducted  to  suggest 
otherwise.  

  The  question  of re-distributional effects of the landing obligation should be given more 
attention as it could make the implementation more difficult when f ishers perceive t hat 
they lose while others win from the implementation of the landing obligation.  

  An  ex-post  analysis  of  the  economic  implication  of  the  landing  obligation  should  be 
conducted. This should aim to explore and explain the reasons for the lack of real impac t s 
and to contrast the results with the ex-ante literature showing impac t s w ould be likely. 
This should also include possible ways to mitigate short -term losses wit hout rec ourse t o 
flexibility mechanisms or exemptions from the general rules. The aim should be t o allow  
the sector to be able to cope with the short-term losses to realise the mid -  t o long- t erm 
gains that could be accrued.  

13 

REFERENCES 

Aalborg University (2021a). Comments and updated information to STECF concerning requested 
information  on plaice caught in Danish Trammel net fishery (62nd PLENARY MEETING REPORT, 
PLEN-19- 03) Aalborg University, 28 June 2021 University of Aalborg, Appendix Danish T rammel 
Net studies, Aalborg Universitet, June. 

Aalborg  University  (2021b).  Updated  note  on  short -term  survival  of  discarded  (Pleuronectes 
platessa) caught in trammel  nets at winter season. Aalborg University, Denmark 28 June 2021 

Aalborg University. (2019) Discard survival of plaice and cod from trammel net and Danish  seine 
fisheries in the Baltic Sea, Aalborg University, 15 April 2019 

Anders  N,  Breen  M,  Saltskår  J,  Totland  B,  Øvredal JT, Vold A (2019) Behavioural and welfare 
implications of a new slipping methodology for purse seine fisheries in Norwegian w at ers. PLoS 
One 14: 1–24. e0213031. 

Anders N, Eide I, Lerfall J, Roth B, Breen M (2020) Physiological and flesh quality c onsequences 
of pre-mortem crowding stress in Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). PLoS One 15: 1 –20. 
e0228454 

Anders  N,  Roth  B,  Breen  M  (2021)  Physiological  response  and  survival  of  Atlantic  mackerel 
exposed  to  simulated  purse  seine  crowding  and  release.  Conserv  Physiol  9(1):  coab076; 
doi:10.1093/conphys/coab076. 

Anon.  (2022).  De  minimis  exemption consolidation request of 5% for several species for 2023 
onwards proposed from Spain for trawlers in the Bay of Biscay and Iberian w at ers (ICES 8abd 
and 8c9a). Report provided to EWG 22-05 by Spain. 38pp+Annexes. 

Balazuc  A.,  Goffier  E.,  Soulet  E.,  Rochet  M.J.,  Leleu  K.  (2016).  EODE  –  Expérimentation  de 
l’Obligation  de  DEbarquement  à  bord  de  chalutiers  de fond artisans de Manche Est et mer du 
Nord, et essais de valorisation des captures non désirées sous quotas communautaires, 136 +  53 
pp. 

Bargione  G.,  Petetta  A.,  Vasapollo  C.,  Virgili  M.,  Lucchetti  A.  (2021).  Reburial  potential  and 
survivability of the striped venus clam (Chamelea gallina) in hydraulic dredge fisheries. Scientif ic 
Reports. 11:9109 DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-88542-8. 

188 

188 

 
 
Bart  Ampe,  Noémi  Van  Bogaert,  Els  Torreele,  Sebastian  Uhlmann.  (2020).  Discard  survival 
estimates of commercially caught skates of the North Sea and English Channel, Sumaris  projec t  
(2020). 

Baulier Loïc, Morandeau Fabien, Ramonet Morgane, Sourget Quiterie, Winkler Joac him. (2021).  
The SURF project: survivability of discarded cuckoo rays (Leucoraja naevus) in F renc h bot tow 
trawl fisheries. Project report.  

Borges, L., The unintended impact of the European discard ban. ICES Journal of Marine Sc ienc e, 
(2020). 78(1): p. 134-141. 

Browne et al. 2019. Assessment of a 90 mm  T90 mesh codend, a new gear option for Celt ic  Sea 
whitefish vessels. Irish Sea Fisheries Board (BIM), Fisheries Conservation Report ,  July 2019. 8 
pp.https://bim.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BIM-Assessment-of-a-90-mm-T90-mesh- codend-
report.pdf 

Browne, D., Cosgrove, R., and Tyndall, P. (2016). Assessment of T90 mesh in a fishery target ing 
whiting in the Celtic Sea, Irish Sea Fisheries Board (BIM), Fisheries Cons ervation Report , June 
2016. 8 pp  

Cloâtre  Thomas,  Quinio-Scavinner  Marion,  Sagan  Jonathan,  Dubroca  Laurent,  Biellet  Norbert 
(2022). Captures et rejets des métiers de pêche français. Résultats des observations à bord des 
navires de pêche professionnelle en 2020. Obsmer 

Cornou Anne Sophie, Scavinner Marion, Sagan Jonathan, Cloatre Thomas, Dubroca Laurent, Billet  
Norbert (2021). Captures et rejets des métiers de pêche français. Résultats des observations à 
bord des navires de pêche professionnelle en 2019. Obsmer. https://doi.org/10.13155/79198  

Cosgrove, R., Browne, D., Minto, C., Tyndall, P., Oliver, M., Montgomerie,  M., and Mc Hugh, M. 
(2019). A game of two halves: Bycatch reduction in Nephrops mixed fisheries. Fisheries Research, 
210: 31-40. https://bim.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BIM-Game-of-two-halves-published.pdf 

Cosgrove, R., Browne,  D.,  Tyndall, P., McHugh, M., Oliver,  M., Minto, C., Burke,  B.,  ( 2016). 
Assessment  of  a  dual  codend with net separator panel in an Irish  Nephrops fishery. Irish Sea 
Fisheries Board (BIM), Fisheries Conservation Report, December 2016. 12 pp. https://bim.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2021/02/5987-BIM-Stella-Nova-Trial-Brochure.pdf 

DTU  Aqua.  (2020)  Request  for  documentation  on  plaice  discard  survival  for  demersal  trawl 
(including seines) in the Western Baltic with specification of the fishing f leet using active gears, 1 
April 2022 (updated version of previous version of 28 April 2021) 

Gauduchon Thibault, Cornou Anne Sophie, Scavinner Marion, Goascoz Nicolas, Dubroca Laurent, 
Billet  Norbert  (2020).  Captures  et  rejets  des  métiers  de  pêche  français .  Résultats  des 
observations  à  bord  des  navires  de  pêche  professionnelle  en  2018.  Obsmer. 
https://doi.org/10.13155/73122  

General Secretariat for Fisheries, in cooperation with: Tragsatec, the Universit y of  Sant iago de 
Compostela and AZTI Tecnalia, (2019). Analysis of the economic viability of  unw ant ed c atches 
that are subject to landing obligations in South-Western Waters. November 2019 

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort, Baltic Sea and ec oregion, 28 May 2021, 
PLE 27.21-23 and PLE 27.24-32, 28 May 2021 

Jenkins S.R. and Brand A.R. 2001. The effect of dredge capture on the escape response of  t he 
great scallop, Pecten maximus (L.): implications for the survival of undersized disc ards . J. Exp. 
Mar. Biol. Ecol. (2001) 

Jensen, Sergey V. Kucheryavskiy, Peter R. Møller, Niels Madsen. (2021). Init ial experiment s t o 
assess short-term survival of discarded plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) c aught in t rammel  net s 
during the winter season. Fisheries Research 251 (2022) 106308 

Laura Lemey, Klaas Sys, Esteban Torreblanca, Damian Villagra Villanueva, Tim Plevoets. (2021). 
Interim report II Raywatch: Towards a more extensive and efficient long-term data collection f or 
skates in support of the “Roadmap for rays and skates”. ILVO Report 36pp.  

189 

189 

 
Leonardi  S.,  Rubin  A.,  Meillat  M.,  Coppin  F.,  Delpech  J-P.,  Morandeau F., Larnaud P. (2009). 
Selecmer – Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers – Pêcheries mult ispéc if iques Manche – 
Mer du Nord, 66 +  62 pp. Version septembre 2009 

Marçalo A, Breen M, Tenningen M, Onandia I, Arregi L, Gonçalves J.M. (2019) Mitigating slipping-
related  mortality  from  purse  seine  fisheries for small pelagic fish: case studies from European 
Atlantic waters. In The European Landing Obligation. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 297–318. 

Matthew McHugh, Martin Oliver, Daragh Browne, Cóilín Minto, Ronán Cosgrove. (2019) Benef it s 
of  120  mm  diamond and 100 mm T90 codends in the Celtic and Irish Seas. Irish Sea Fisheries 
Board  (BIM),  Fisheries  Conservation  Report,  February  2019.  7  pp.  https://bim.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/BIM-8306-Benefits-of-120-mm-diamond-and-100-mm-T90-codends-in-
the-Celtic-and-Irish-Seas.pdf 

Maynou,  G.  Kraus  (CSIC),  D.  Pinello,  P.  Accadia,  E.  Sabatella, M. Spinadin.  (2018). MINOUW 
Project,  Deliverable  2.19  Handling,  storage,  transport  and  utilization  of  unwanted  catches. 
Available at: http://minouw-project.eu  

Morfin  Marie,  Simon  Julien,  Morandeau  Fabien,  Baulier  Loïc,  Méhault  Sonia,  Kopp  Dorothée. 
(2019). Using acoustic telemetry to estimate post-release survival of undulate ray Raja undulat a 
(Rajidae) in northeast Altantic, Ocean and Coastal Management, 178(2019) 

Nielsen, E.E., et al., (2009). Population genomics of marine fishes: identifying adaptive variat ion 
in space and time. Molecular Ecology, 18, 3128-3150 

O’Neill, F.G.O., Feekings, J., Fryer, R.J., Fauconnet, L., Afonso, P. (2019). Discard avoidance by 
improving  fishing  gear  selectivity:  Helping  the fishing industry help itself. 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.  283–297).  Springer  International  Publishing  AG, 
part of Springer Nature 

Oliver et al., 2021. Assessment of the Dual Codend on the Galway Aran Fishing Grounds.   Irish 
Sea  Fisheries  Board  (BIM),  Fisheries  Conservation  Report,  September  2021.  8  pp. 
https://bim.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BIM-Fisheries-Report-Dual-Codend-  Galw ayAran-
Fishinggrounds.pdf 

Oliver, M., McHugh, M., Murphy, S., Browne, D., and Cosgrove, R. 2019. Post -capture c ondition 
of cuckoo ray in an Irish otter trawl fishery. BIM Fisheries Conservation Report, Marc h 2019. 12 
pp 

Oliver,  M.,  McHugh,  M.,  Murphy,  S.,  Browne,  D.,  and  Cosgrove,  R.  2021.   An  assessment  of 
cuckoo  ray  (Leucoraja  naevus)  survivability  in  an  Irish  otter  trawl  fishery.  BIM  Fisheries 
Conservation report, November 2021.  

Oostenbrugge, H. v., Klok, A., Deetman, B., Bast leer, J. Bleeker, K. and A. M. Winter. Undersized 
whiting in the BT 2 fishery. Wageningen Economic Research, The Hague. ISBN 978-94-6395-804-
2 

OP COBRENORD.  (2022). Rapport d’étude du projet SUMO (SUrvie de la sole en Manc he -Ouest) 
34 p. 

Randall,  P.,  Ribeiro  Santos,  A.,  Firmin,  C.,  O’Sullivan,  H.,  White,  E.,  Catchpole,  T.  (2017). 
Assessing the survival of discarded sole (Solea solea) in an English inshore trawl fishery, Part  of  
the Cefas ASSIST Project, February 2017, Cefas report pp55  

Reid, D.G., Calderwood, J., Afonso, P., Fauconnet, L., Pawlowski, L., Plet -Hansen, K.S., et  al. 
(2019). The best way to reduce discards is by not catching them! In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulric h, S.J 
Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation reducing discards in complex, mult i-  spec ies 
and multi-jurisdictional fisheries (pp. 261–282). Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing AG, 
part of Springer Nature 

Sala A., Lucchetti A., Perdichizzi A., Herrmann B., Rinelli  P. 2015. Is square-mesh better selective 
than larger mesh? A perspective on the management for Mediterranean trawl fisheries. Fisheries 
Research 161:182–190. 

190 

190 

 
Sartor P., Carbonara P., Lucchetti A., Sabatella R. 2016. Characterisation of the discards of  t he 
demersal  fisheries of the Italian Seas; propaedeutic information for the implementation of the 
Landing Obligation provisions (EU Reg. 1380/2013, Art. 15). Italian Ministry for the Agric ult ural 
Food and Forestry Policies (MIPAAF) Coordinated Project. Final report, 268 pp +  Annexes.  

Sbrana  M.  et  al.  2022.  Improving  the  selectivity  of  trawl  gears  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea to 
IMPLEMED. 
advance 
EASME/EMFF/2019/1.3.2.6/01/SI2.818717-SC04 

the  sustainable  exploitation  pattern  of 

fisheries  – 

trawl 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for Fisheries (STECF). 2021. Evaluat ion of the 
fishing effort regime in the Western Mediterranean – part VI (STECF-21-13). Publications Office of 
the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  -  Evaluation  of  Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation (ST ECF -
21-05). EUR 28359 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978 -
92-76-40593-1, doi:10.2760/83668, JRC126128. 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – 66th Plenary Report (PLEN-
21-01). EUR 28359 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978 -
92-76-36151-0 (online), doi:10.2760/437609 (online), JRC124902. 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  Evaluation  of  Joint 
Recommendations on the Landing Obligation and on the Technical Measures Regulation (ST ECF -
20-04). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-20383-4, 
doi:10.2760/328463, JRC121260 

Scientific,  Tec hnical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Evaluation  of  Landing 
Obligation  Joint Recommendations (STECF-19-08). Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-09523-1, doi:10.2760/227428, JRC117511 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  61st  Plenary  Meeting 
Report (PLEN-19-02). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN  978 -
92-76-09515-6, doi:10.2760/31279, JRC117461 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of  t he Landing 
Obligation Joint Recommendations (STECF-18-06) (2018). Publications Of f ice of  t he European 
Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-79389-9, doi:10.2760/999971, JRC112740 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of  t he Landing 
Obligation Joint Recommendations (STECF-17-08). (2017). Publications Off ice of  t he European 
Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-67480-8, doi:10.2760/149272, JRC107574. 

Scientific, Technical and Ec onomic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – – Evaluation of the Landing 
Obligation Joint Recommendations (STECF-16-10). (2016). Publications Off ice of  t he European 
Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27758 EN; doi:10.2788/59074 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Landing Obligation -  Part  5 
(demersal species for NWW, SWW and North Sea) (STECF-15-10). (2015). Publications Of f ice of  
the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27407 EN, JRC 96949, 62 pp.  

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 2014a – Landing Obligat ions 
in EU Fisheries - part 4 (STECF-14-19). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  46th  Plenary  Meeting 
Report (PLEN-14-02). (2014). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26810 
EN, JRC 91540, 117 pp 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 2014b – Landing Obligation in 
EU Fisheries - part II (STECF-14-01). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 2013 – Landing obligat ion in 
EU fisheries (STECF-13-23). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Spedicato M.T., J. L. Sánchez-Lizaso, E. Sabatella, K. Tsagarakis, P. Sart or, G. Lembo. 2021. 
Synthesis of the Landing Obligation Measures and Discard Rates for the Medit erranean and t he 
Black Sea. EASME/EMFF/2019/1.3.2.6/ SI2.835464. 

191 

191 

 
Uhlmann et al., 2021. Effects of catch composition on the fate of Europe an plaice (Pleuronectes 
platessa) discarded from Belgian beam trawlers. Under review with Fisheries Research.  

Fisheries 

Uhlmann, S. S., Theunynck, R., Ampe, B., Verkempynck, R., Miller, D. C.M., van Marlen, B., van 
der  Reijden,  K.  J.  et  al. 2016b. Overleving doorboomkor gevangen pladijs – Survival of beam-
trawled Europeanplaice (Pleuronectes platessa). ILVO Mededeling 210. Institute f or Agric ult ural 
pp.   
and 
(13)  (PDF)  Survival  of  undersized  plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), s ole (Solea solea), and dab 
(Limanda 
from: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313164959_Survival_of_undersized_plaice_Pleuronect
es_platessa_sole_Solea_solea_and_dab_Limanda_limanda_in_North_Sea_pulse-trawl_f isheries  
[accessed May 18 2022]. 

pulse-trawl 

Oostende, 

Research, 

fisheries. 

Available 

limanda) 

Belgium. 

North 

172 

Sea 

in 

Uhlmann,  S.S.,  Theunynck,  R.,  Ampe,  B.,  Desender,  M.,  Soetaert,  M.,  Depestele,  J., 2016a. 
Injury, reflex impairment, and survival of beam-trawled flatfish. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 1244–1254. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv252 

Uhlmann, S.S., Ampe, B., Van Bogaert, N., Vanden Berghe, C., Vanelslander, B., 2021.  F lat f ish 
survivors have tales to tell: Cold seawater and reduced deployment durat ion c ontribut e t o t he 
survival  of  European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) discarded by Belgian beam trawlers. Fish. 
Res. 240, 105966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2021.105966 

Urra J., Garcia T., Leon E., Gallardo-Roldan H., Lozano M., Rueda J.L., Baro J. 2018. Ef f ec ts of  
mechanized dredging targeting Chamelea gallina, striped venus clams, on the associated discards 
in  the  northern  Alboran  Sea  (Western  Mediterranean  Sea).  Journal  of  the  Marine  Biological 
Association of the United Kingdom. doi:10.1017/S0025315418000462. 

Urra  J.,  Marina  P.,  Garcia  T,  Baro  J.  2021.  Damage assessment and survival estimates in the 
wedge  clam  (Donax  trunculus)  caught  by  mechanical  dredging  in  the  northern  Alboran  Sea. 
Marine Biology Research. DOI: 10.1080/17451000.2021.1949618. 

Van Bogaert, N., Ampe, B., Uhlmann, S., and Torreele, E., 2020. Discard survival est imat es of  
commercially  caught  skates  of  the  North  Sea  and  English  Channel  (Interreg  programme  No. 
Output O 5.1), Work Package 2. 

Viera A., Meillat M., Coppin F., Delpech J-P., Morandeau F., Gamblin C., 2010. SELECCAB –  Volet  
Artisans - Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers artisanaux travaillant en Manche – Mer du 
Nord de façon à limiter les captures de cabillaud., 61 + 48pp. Version septembre 2010 

Weiller Y., Reecht Y., Vermard Y., Coppin F., Delpech J-P., Morandeau F ., 2014. SELECF ISH – 
Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers artisanaux travaillant en Manc he Est  -  Mer du Nord 
afin de limiter  leurs rejets, 82 +  55pp. Version avril 2014 

14  LIST OF RELEVA NT REGULA TIONS  

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  404/2011  of  8  April  2011  laying  down  detailed 
rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Communit y 
control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy  

Regulation  (EU)  No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 
2013  on  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  1954/2003 and 
(EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 
and Council Decision 2004/585/EC 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1392/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a disc ard 
plan for certain small pelagic fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1393/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a disc ard 
plan for certain pelagic fisheries in north-western waters 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1394/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a disc ard 
plan for certain pelagic fisheries in south-western waters 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a disc ard 
plan for certain small pelagic fisheries and fisheries for industrial purposes in the North Sea  

192 

192 

 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1396/2014 of 20 October 2014 esta blishing a disc ard 
plan in the Baltic Sea 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2438 of 12 October 2015 establishing a discard plan 
for certain demersal fisheries in north-western waters 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2439 of 12 October 2015 establishing a discard plan 
for certain demersal fisheries in south-western waters 

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 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2016/2377  of  14  October  2016  amending  Delegated 
Regulation (EU) No 1394/2014 establishing a discard plan for certain pelagic fisheries in Sout h -
Western waters 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/86 of 20 October 2016 establishing a disc ard plan 
for certain demersal fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea  

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/87 of 20 October 2016 establishing a disc ard plan 
for turbot fisheries in the Black Sea 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/153  of  23  October  2017  amending  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/86  establishing  a  discard  plan  for  certain  demersal  fisheries  in  the 
Mediterranean Sea 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/211  of  21  November 2017 establishing a discard 
plan as regards salmon in the Baltic Sea 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/45 of 20 October 2017 establishing a disc ard plan 
for certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea and in Union waters of ICES Division  IIa f or t he 
year 2018 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/46 of 20 October 2017 establishing a disc ard plan 
for certain demersal and deep sea fisheries in North-Western waters for the year 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 Sout h -
Western waters 

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 f isheries and 
fisheries for industrial purposes in the North Sea 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/190  of  24  November  2017  amending  Delegated 
Regulation (EU) No 1393/2014 establishing a discard plan for certain pelagic fisheries in Nor t h-
Western waters 

Regulation  (EU)  2018/973  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  4  July  2018 
establishing a multiannual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploit ing 
those stocks, specifying details of the implementation of the landing obligation in  t he Nort h Sea 
and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 676/2007 and (EC) No 1342/2008 

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 

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 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/2035  of  18  October  2018  specifying  details  of 
implementation of the Landing Obligation for certain demersal fisheries in the Nort h Sea f or t he 
period 2019-2021 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/2036  of  18  October  2018  amending  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/86  establishing  a  discard  plan  for  certain  demersal  fisheries  in  the 
Mediterranean Sea 

193 

193 

 
Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/306  of  18  December  2017  laying  down 
specifications for the implementation of the landing obligation as regards cod and pla ice in Balt ic  
Sea fisheries 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/905  of  13  March  2019  amending  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2018/2034  establishing  a discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in North-
Western waters for the period 2019-2021 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/906  of  13  March  2019  amending  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2018/2035  specifying  details  of  implementation  of  the  Landing Obligation for 
certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea for the period 2019-2021 

Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the 
conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems t hrough t echnical 
measures,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  1967/2006,  (EC)  No  1224/2009  and 
Regulations  (EU)  No  1380/2013,  (EU)  2016/1139,  (EU)  2018/973,  (EU)  2019/472  and  (EU) 
2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) 
No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and ( EC) 
No 2187/2005. 

Regulation  (EU)  2019/472  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  March  2019 
establishing a multiannual plan for stocks fished in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and 
for fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulations (EU) 2016/1139 and (EU) 2018/973, 
and  repealing  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  811/2004,  (EC)  No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, 
(EC) No 509/2007 and (EC) No 1300/2008 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation (EU) 2019/2237 of 1 October 2019 specifying details of  the 
landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in South-Western waters f or t he period 2020 -
2021 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2238  of  1  October  2019  specifying  details  of 
implementation of the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in t he Nort h Sea f or t he 
period 2020-2021 

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 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/4  of  29  August  2019  amending  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/86  establishing  a  discard  plan  for  certain  demersal  fisheries  in  the 
Mediterranean Sea 

Council Regulation (EU) 2020/123 of 27 January 2020 fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for 
certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union w at ers and, f or Union f ishing 
vessels, in certain non-Union waters 

Commission  Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2015 of 21 August 2020 specifying details of the 
implementation  of the landing obligation for certain fisheries in Western Waters for the period 
2021-2023 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2013 of 21 August 2020 amending Regulation (EU) 
2019/1241  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  technical measures for 
certain demersal and pelagic fisheries in the North Sea and in the South-Western Waters 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/2014  of  21  August  2020  specifying  details  of 
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  for  certain  fisheries  in  the   North  Sea  for  the  period 
2021-2023 

Council Regulation (EU) 2021/92 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunit ies f or 
certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union w at ers and, f or Union f ishing 
vessels, in certain non-Union waters 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2021/2062  of  23  August  2021  amending  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2020/2014  specifying  details  of  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  for 
certain fisheries in the North Sea for the period 2021-2023 

194 

194 

 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2324 of 23 August 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 
2019/1241  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  technical measures for 
certain demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Celtic Sea, the Irish Sea and the West  of Scotland 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2063  of 25 August 2021 amending and c orrecting 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/2015  specifying  details  of  the  implementation of the landing 
obligation for certain fisheries in Western Waters for the period 2021-2023 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2064 of 25 August 2021 supplementing Regulat ion 
(EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the est ablishment  
of a de minimis exemption to the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in t he Adriat ic  
Sea 
and 

south-eastern 

Mediterranean 

195 

195 

 
 
 
15 

 ANNEXES 

Annex  I  -  Templates for the provision of fisheries information to support  de minimis 
and high survivability exemptions 

Table 12.1a Template for the provision of information that defines the fisheries to which de 
minimis exemptions should apply 

Recommended steps to follow to support proposed high survival exemptions: 

1.  Define the selected species for which the exemption is being sought  
2.  Define the stock(s) of the selected species 
3.  Define the management unit (group of vessels) 
4.  Describe the catch and discard profile (discard rate, age composition, confidence and 

variability in the data) 

5.  Where relevant, describe any selective measures with potential to reduce unwanted catches 

and/or increase discard survival 

6.  Describe the scientific discard survival evidence to support the request for exemption, it is 

important to include the detailed scientific reports, so the quality of the estimates can be 
established 

7.  Describe any relevant current and future scientific discard survival studies 
8.  Describe any expected benefits or risks (economic, environmental) in the provision of an 

exemption for the selected species and management unit  

Reporting against a Road Map (e.g. plaice, skates and ray s) 

Progress against the three main tasks of the road map should be detailed:  

1.  Quantifying catches and discards per species and metier 
2.  Generating discard survival evidence 
3.  Stakeholder led adoption of codes of best practice to maximize discard survival  

Templates of summary tables for supporting high survival exemptions evidence 

Table Annex 1.1. List all studies with survival evidence relevant to the exemption.  

Exemption  applied  for 

Survival estimate 

Evidence 

Countr
y 

Specie
s 

Are
a 

Gea
r 

Status 

Experiment
al sample 

Status 

Type 
of 
study 

Survival 
estimate 
in % 

Factors that 
influence 
survival 

XX 

XX 

XX 

XX 

Existing 
exemptio
n/ 

response 
to request 
for 
additional 

Captive
/ 

Complete
d/ 

Species, 
area, gear 

Vitality
/ 

Taggin
g 

Ongoing/ 

Delayed/ 

Upcoming 

196 

196 

Survival 
estimate 
(95% 
confidenc
e 
interval) 

Describe 
observed 
effects of 
the 
operational 
(e.g., haul 
duration, 
catch 
weight, 

Status of 
the 
evidenc
e 

New 
evidence
/ 

already 
submitte
d in 
YEAR 

Referenc
e 

Annex 

Referenc
e of the 
report  or 
publishe
d article 

Annex 
number 
for the 
provide
d 
evidenc
e 

 
 
 
 
evidence/ 

extension 
of existing 
exemptio

n/ 

new 
exemptio
n 

catch 
composition, 
sorting  time, 
air 
exposure), 
biological 
(e.g., fish 
size) and 
environment
al (e.g., 
temperature
, fishing 
depth) 
factors 

… 

… 

… 

… 

… 

… 

… 

… 

… 

… 

… 

… 

Table  Annex  1.2.  List  all  fisheries  to  which  the  exemption  applies,  with  blanks  if  no  further 
information available. 

Exemption  applied  for 

Fishery 

Landings  and discards 

Evidence 

Coun
try 

Speci
es 

Ar
ea 

Ge
ar 

Status 

Speci
es as 
bycat
ch or 
targe
t 

Num
ber of 
vessel
s 

Seaso
n 

Catch 
composi
tion 

Sorti
ng 
time 

Landi
ngs in 
weigh
t 

Discar
ds in 
weigh
t 

Disca
rd 
rate 
in % 

Status 
of the 
eviden
ce 

Refere
nce 

Annex 

Avera
ge 
(min-
max) 

Descri
be 
when 
the 
fisher
y is 
taking 

place 

Describe 
the catch 
composit
ion (e.g., 
presence 
of stones 
or sand, 

mix of 
fish and 
crustace
ans) 

New 
eviden
ce/ 

already 
submit
ted in 
YEAR 

Refere
nce of 
the 
report 
or 
publish
ed 

article 

Annex 
numb
er for 
the 
provid
ed 
evide

nce 

Avera
ge 
(min-
max) 
over 
the 
years 

if 
releva
nt 

Avera
ge 
(min-
max) 
over 
the 
years 

if 
relev
ant 

XX 

XX 

XX 

XX 

Existing 
exempti
on/ 

respons
e to 
request 
for 
addition
al 
evidenc
e/ 

extensio
n of 
existing 
exempti
on/ 

new 
exempti
on 

… 

… 

…  … 

… 

… 

… 

Approach applied for high survival evidence evaluation 

1.  Exemption status 

197 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Existing exemption/response to request for additional evidence/extension of existing 
exemption/new exemption 

2.  Survival evidence 

New discard survival evidence provided? ICES critical review applied (see Annex II)? 
Robustness of the survival estimate? Study limitations e.g. representativeness within study, 
monitoring duration? Give % survival. 

3.  Fishery context 

Is it clear to which fisheries the exemption applies? Fishery description (vessels, discards) 
information provided? Give % discard rate. 

4.  Survival and fishery compatibility 

Is survival evidence relevant to the fishery? What assumptions are being made on factors that 
influence survival? 
5.  Additional evidence 

What additional evidence would improve confidence in awarding an exemption? How does this 
link  to the roadmap (skates and rays, NS TBB PLE only)? 

Submit full discard survival study reports or papers 

Any new evidence for discard survival should be supported by documentation (e.g. scientific or 
technical report, submitted or published paper) appended as annex. Documentation should be 
informative enough so that the ICES critical review can be applied such as described in:  
ICES. 2015. Report of the Workshop on Methods for Estimating Discard Survival 3 (WKMEDS  3), 
20-24 April 2015, London, UK. ICES CM 2015\ACOM:39. 47 pp.  

198 

198 

 
Annex II – ICES template for critical review of survival experiments 

The  framework of the critical review used to evaluate literature on discard survival estimates 
based  on  ICES  WKMEDS  guidelines;  Catchpole  et  al.,  unpubl.  data.  ‘Y’  =  yes,  ‘N’  =  no,  ‘P’  = 
partial; whereby more positive responses demonstrate more robust studies. 

Critical review questions 

Are  crite ria given to define whe n death occurred? 

W as a control used that informed on experimental induce d mortality?  

W as all discard induced mortality observed/modelled (during monitoring period or time at liberty)? 

Did the  sample re present the part of the catch being studied?   

Did the  sample re present the re levant population in the wide r fishery? 

Is the  method of selection for assessed fish described? 

Is the re a description for e ach health state category?  

W e re  re flexes developed using 'unstre ssed' fish (not exposed to capture  treatment) and consistently 
observe d? 

W e re  there time limits for re sponses/re flexes? e .g. operculum movement within 5 secs. 

W as assessment container appropriate for the species, adequate to observe re sponses? 

Is the  potential for observer bias discussed? 

Are  the  protocols e ffective in assessing health/injury? 

Are  assessments consistent across all parts of the study? 

Are  the  holding/transfer facilities described? 

Are  holding/transfer facilities considered sympathetic to the biological/behavioural needs of the subjects? 

Are  the  holding/transfer conditions the same across tre atments/re plicates? 

W as there potential for additional stress/injury/mortality with captive fish unlikely? 

Are  the  holding/transfer conditions re pre sentative of "ambient" (discarded to) conditions? 

Are  the re  appropriate protocols for handling/removal of dead specimens? (e.g. dead removed regularly) 

Are  the re  appropriate protocols for monitoring live specimens?  

Is the re sufficient fre quency in observations during the monitoring period? 

W as there potential for stress/injury in subjects during observation unlikely? 

i

e
c
n
a
d
u
g
y
e
K

s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
q

s
t
n
e
m
s
s
e
s
s
a

y
t
i
l
a
t
i
V

n
o
i
t
a
v
r
e
s
b
O
e
v
i
t
p
a
C

W as mortality observed to (or ve ry near to) asymptote?  

g
a
T

i

n
g

  Has the potential for tagging induced mortality been considered? 
g

199 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are  fish re leased in the same are a as they we re  caught? 

Are  tag losses accounted for? 

C an discard-related m ortality be distinguished from natural mortality, fishing mortality and emigration? 

Is the  duration of the at-liberty tagged period sufficiently long to e stimate discard survival? 

Traditional tags - Are  catche s in the fishery sufficiently large to provide the required tag return rate to 
e stim ate discard survival? 

Acoustic, DST tags  - C an the death of an individual be accurately determined from the data? 

Acoustic tags - Doe s the acoustic re ceiver array provide full coverage of the area?  

Pop-off DST-tags - Is there a similar likelihood of tag re covery for both survivors and non -survivors? 

W e re  controls re pre sentative of the tre atment groups? i.e. biologically (length, sex, condition), number, 
spatial & te mporal origin 

Did control subje cts experience same e xperimental conditions?  

W e re  tre atment and controls randomly selected to account for bias? 

s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

W e re  "blind controls" used to account for performance/measurement bias? 

Is potential for e ffects whe n combining stressors from acquisition m ethods discussed? 

  Is the  analysis that derived the survival estimates described? 
s
i
s
y
l
a
n
A

Are  the  conclusions based on data summary or statistical infere nce?  

Are  the  conclusions supporte d by the data / analysis? 

200 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16 

CONTA CT DETA ILS OF EWG-22-05 PARTICIPANTS 

1  -  Information on EWG participant’s affiliations is displayed for information only. In any case, 
Members of the STECF, invited experts, and JRC experts shall act independently. In the context of 
the  STECF  work,  the  committee  members  and  ot her  experts  do  not  represent  the 
institutions/bodies  they  are  affiliated  to  in  their  daily  jobs.  STECF members and experts also 
declare  at  each  meeting  of the STECF and of its Expert Working Groups any specific interest 
which might be considered prejudicial to their independence in relation to spec if ic it ems on t he 
agenda.  These  declarations are displayed on the public meeting’s website if experts explicitly 
authorized the JRC to do so in accordance with EU legislation on the protection of personnel data. 
For more information: http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/adm-declarations 

STECF members 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Borges, Lisa 

FishFix, Lisbon, Portugal 

info@fishfix.eu 

Döring, Ralf  

Grati,  Fabio  (EWG 
co-chair) 

Raid, Tiit  

Thünen Institute [TI-SF] Federal 
Research  Institute 
for  Rural 
Areas,  Forestry  and  Fisheries, 
Institute  of  Sea  Fisheries, 
analyses 
Economic 
Herwigstrasse  31,  D-27572 
Bremerhaven, Germany 

Institute 

National Research Council (CNR) 
for  Biological 
– 
Resources 
Marine 
and 
Biotechnologies  (IRBIM),  L.go 
Fiera  della  Pesca,  2,  60125, 
Ancona, Italy  

Estonian  Marine 
Institute, 
University  of  Tartu,  Mäealuse 
14, Tallin, EE-126, Estonia 

ralf.doering@thuenen.de 

fabio.grati@cnr.it   

Tiit.raid@gmail.com   

Rihan, Dominic  (EWG 
co-chair) 

BIM, Ireland 

rihan@bim.ie   

Invited experts 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Avdic 

Mravlje,  Fisheries  research  institute  of  edoavdic@gmail.com 

201 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edvard 

Slovenia 

Bleeker, Katinka 

Wageningen  Marine  Research, 
The Netherlands 

katinka.bleeker@wur.nl 

Bolognini, Luca 

National Research Council, Italy 

luca.bolognini@cnr.it  

Browne, Daragh 

Bord 
Docks, Galway, Ireland 

Iascaigh  Mhara,  new 

Daragh.browne@bim.ie 

Jakoleva, Irina 

Fisheries  Service  under  MoA, 
Lithuania 

irina.jakovleva@zuv.lt 

Liontakis, Angelos 

AGRERI,  Greece 

aliontakis@agreri.gr 

Lloret, Josep   

  University of Girona, Institute 

josep.lloret@udg.edu 

Pereira,  

Joao 

of  Aquatic  Ecology,  17003, 
Girona, Spain 

Direção-Geral 
de  Recursos 
Naturais,  Segurança e Serviços 
Marítimos, Portugal 

jmfpsquid@gmail.com 

Mc Hugh, Matthew 

BIM, Ireland 

Matthew.McHugh@bim.ie 

Oliver, Martin 

BIM, Ireland 

Martin.Oliver@bim.ie 

Sala, Antonello 

Italian 
Council, Italy 

National 

Research 

antonello.sala@cnr.it 

Uhlmann, 
Sebastian 

Sven 

Flanders  Research  Institute  for 
Agriculture, Fisheries and F ood, 
Belgium 

sven.uhlmann@gmx.net 

Tsitsika, Efthymia 

Hellenic  Centre 
Research, Greece 

for  Marine 

kodesina@yahoo.com 

Viva, Claudio 

Centro 
Biologia Marina (CIBM), Italy 

Interuniversitario 

di 

viva@cibm.it 

Zolubas, Tomas 

Marine  Research 
Klaipeda University, Lithuania 

Institute, 

tomas.zolubas@gmail.com 

European Commission 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Doerner, Hendrik 

JRC, STECF secretariat 

jrc-stecf-secretariat@ec.europa.eu 

Dragon, 
Cecile 

Anne-

DG  MARE D1 

Anne-Cecile.DRAGON@ec.europa.eu 

202 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Ivanescu, Raluca 

DG  MARE C1 

Raluca.IVANESCU@ec.europa.eu 

Lindebo, Erik 

DG  MARE C5 

Erik.LINDEBO@ec.europa.eu 

Martin, Maria Aira 

DG  MARE C1 

Maria.AIRA-MARTIN@ec.europa.eu 

Ranshuysen, 
Evelien 

DG  MARE D3 

Evelien.RANSHUYSEN@ec.europa.eu 

Ribeiro, Cristina 

DG  MARE C5 

Cristina-RIBEIRO@ec.europa.eu 

Shrives, Jonathan 

DG  MARE C1 

Jonathan.SHRIVES@ec.europa.eu 

203 

203 

 
 
 
 
 
17 

18 

LIST OF BA CKGROUND DOCUMENTS   

Background documents are published on the meeting’s web site on:  
http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/stecf/ewg22-05  

List of background documents: 

EWG-22-05 – Doc 1 - Declarations of invited and JRC experts (see also section 16 of this report  – 
List of participants) 

Ad  hoc  contract  – Doc 2 - Summary of information on possible socio-economic impact of the 
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation’.  Part  of  STECF  EWG  22-05  Evaluating  the  joint 
recommendations on the landing obligation and technical measures 

Ad  hoc  contract  – Doc 3 - Summary of information on possible socio-economic impact of the 
implementation of the landing obligation’. Matrix table. Part of STECF EWG 22-05 Evaluat ing t he 
joint recommendations on the landing obligation and technical measures 

204 

204 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over  the European  Union there are  hundreds of  Europe Direct  information centres.  You can  find the address  of the centre  n earest 
you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct  is a service  that answers  your questions about the European Union. You can contact  this service:  

- by freephone:  00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain  operators may charge  for  these calls),  

- at the following  standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic  mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information  about the European  Union in all the official  languages of  the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free  and priced  EU publications from  EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of  free  publications may be obtained by contacting Europe  Direct or your local information  centre  (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
K
J
-

A
X

-
2
2
-
0
0
9
-
E
N
N

-

206 

doi:10.2760/390054 

ISBN 978-92-76-55195-9