Jelovnik

obveza iskrcavanja

Santa1

ŽIVOTNA refleksija o LO-u

,

The Landings Obligation – No Simple Answers

11th of December 2019

Jeremy Percy

On Monday, 2 December 2019, the PECH (Fisheries) Committee of the European Parliament organized a public hearing on State of play of the Landing Obligation: challenges and best practices (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/189086/Final%20Programme%20PECH%20public%20hearing-Landing%20Obligation_2.12.2019.2_EN-original.pdf).

During the previous session of the Parliament, just over 18 months ago on May 14 2018, the PECH Committee organized a similar hearing entitled: “Landing Obligation and Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries”. In summing up, the then Chair of the PECH Committee, Mr Alain Cadec, commented: “…the diagnosis is very clear: uncertainty, difficulty, complexity…”.  Plus ça change… https://lifeplatform.eu/choking-landing-obligation/

A key element of the 2013 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of 2013 is the gradual elimination of the practice of discarding through the introduction an obligation to land all catches. The landing obligation (LO) is supposed to have been phased in since 2015 through to 2019 for all commercial fisheries (species under TACs, or under minimum sizes) in European waters and for European vessels fishing in the high seas.

However, a thread running through the presentations of all the speakers at this hearing was that, at Member State level, the LO is not being implemented effectively. Former fisherman Jerry Percy, LIFE’s Senior Advisor and Director of the NUTFA (New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association of the UK) was one of the speakers. His presentation is available here, and drawing on his experience in the UK, he has penned the piece below for LIFE.

The LO: designed for trawlers, not fit for purpose for small scale low impact fishing

It is abundantly clear that the Landings Obligation [LO] was written very much with larger scale mobile gears in mind. Just one illustration of this concentration of interest is underlined by the massive difference between discard related studies done with regard to larger and smaller scale sectors respectively, 3760 on large scale v 164 on small scale. This does make the requirements of the LO clearly inappropriate and therefore not fit for purpose with regard to the small scale fleet, especially as circa 80% of whom use passive rather than mobile gears.

The combination of a relatively low impact on stocks due to both vessel size and the resultant lack of fishing power, combined with their use of passive gears, many of which produce a live catch that can be returned unharmed to the water does provide a strong argument against tarring them with the same brush as the larger scale sector. Furthermore, the small scale sector should in fact be recognized and rewarded for this lower impact and lack of discards via the provision of additional fishing opportunities best delivered via Article 17 of the CFP. This states that “Within the fishing opportunities allocated to them, Member States shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, such as reduced energy consumption or habitat damage.”

The strategy to deter fishers from discarding, and the LO, need a rethink

Fishermen are fishermen and no fisherman gets out of bed and decides that he doesn’t want to catch much fish today. Our raison d’etre is to catch fish, lots of fish, and we have become very good at it and because we have become very good at it, we inevitably need systems in place to deter us from catching too much.

At the same time, there remains a commitment by member states to deal with the discard issue and it is still a live element with both eNGO’s and the public so as an industry we cannot simply ignore it, it’s not going to go away anytime soon.

The current failures of the LO are largely down to two major factors.

Firstly, that there has been precious little genuine monitoring or enforcement of the LO since its inception. This is exemplified by a recent comment from an official at the UK’s Marine Management organization (MMO) that 2018/19 was seen as an ‘education’ rather than an enforcement phase.  Furthermore, despite the LO being in place for the Baltic since 2015, it is common knowledge, including within the member states concerned that discards continue to run at over 50% for some species. On this basis and with very little real time monitoring or enforcement of discards it is hardly surprising that fishermen continue to dump fish.

Both carrots and sticks are required to encourage a change in culture

Secondly, it is equally clear that there has been much excellent work done to improve the selectivity of mobile gears in the last few years and discards in general have reduced significantly for many fisheries. The fact remains however that discarding is still extant within the mobile sector, there is a legal requirement in place that makes discarding illegal [whether we like it or not] and both carrots and sticks are necessary to encourage and support fishermen to change their culture as well as their fishing gears if discarding is to be reduced to the lowest possible level. Among the number of ‘elephants in the room’ referred to by various speakers at the recent hearing at the European Parliament on the subject, one that was not mentioned specifically was the fact that mobile gears are not inherently selective in the same way as passive gears, hence the seemingly insurmountable challenge of making them substantially selective.

It is also a fact that the leading gear technology expert certainly in the UK and probably the EU stated recently that his challenge was not only to develop more selective gears but it was an equal struggle to persuade fishermen to actually use them. Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the more selective gears inevitably lose some of the target species when trying to avoid other fish, hence the reluctance of some mobile gear operators to change their ways but change their ways they must to avoid breaking the law and also to avoid going bankrupt through being stopped from fishing in a choke species scenario [bearing in mind not only the zero catch quotas for 2019 for some species in some areas also but the parlous state of North Sea Cod that is shaping up to be a potentially major choke species for many vessels].

Some proposals

[1]: at the present time, cameras [REM] are the only reliable way of monitoring discards aboard fishing vessels. It is certain that technology will improve with time, but currently, cameras are the most cost effective and proven option.

[2]: All mobile gear vessels over a certain length [12 metres? / 15 metres?] as well as the larger passive netting vessels should be required to have cameras and perhaps other REM fitted, paid for via EMFF and its successors [as well as perhaps via any financial penalties incurred through overfishing].

[3]: As is currently the case, uplifts in quota should continue to be awarded to vessels to compensate to some extent for no longer being able to discard.

[4]: ALL fish caught must be landed

[5]: ALL fish suitable for human consumption should be sold for human consumption [only those species caught specifically for fishmeal are excluded – but still obviously count against quotas AND require cameras on the vessels concerned]

[6]: Fishermen are not penalized via their quota holdings for over quota landings [it is counter productive to reduce quota following a transgression that in turns means that the fisherman is further restricted on next trip and so on]. NB; the current inability of the under ten sector in the UK to be able to cross book [swap] quotas is a serious impediment to quota and catch flexibilities currently only available to the over ten PO sector [despite having an officially recognized Coastal PO for the under tens]. In the light of the LO, this is an absolutely vital component within this aspect of the initiative.

[7]: a sliding scale is introduced relating to the penalty for landing fish in excess of the vessel quota. Firstly, the value of the over quota landing is immediately subtracted from the overall landed value of the trip and secondly, a sliding scale of penalty directly related to the weight [or a percentage of the landing] is imposed. The initial suggestion is for the penalty to equal the value of the over quota element of the landing [ie, landing £1000 over quota results in £2000 overall penalty] but consideration should be given to a sliding scale, perhaps based on the premise that the more you land over quota, the higher the penalty, thus ensuring that a landing does continue to provide an income irrespective of size of vessel but is at the same time reduced and penalizes those who have a greater impact through catching fish in excess of their quota. The bigger the over quota landing, the bigger the penalty.

The basic premise being that the fisherman does not benefit financially from landing these fish and increasingly is penalized for doing so, especially if he repeats the overfishing whereby financial penalties should increase.

We recognize that not penalizing fishermen in quota terms for landing over quota fish goes against fisheries management logic but history suggests that this is in fact counter productive as the resultant reductions in access to quota generates a downward spiral as less quota equals more ‘discards’ and simply doesn’t work. The suggestion above recognizes that there will be an element of over quota landings initially but the penalties, especially if they are based on a progressive sliding scale, will provide more than enough encouragement for fishermen to avoid ‘discards’ very quickly. [at the same time, a backstop could be introduced based on a reduction in a vessel’s quota allocation to ensure no overall abuse of the system in the event of very significant or continuing over quota landings, perhaps aimed at the quota uplift element].

The approach outlined above also solves the problems highlighted by many commentators, namely that there will be no need to separate the catch on board, there will be no additional work required by the crew, no danger of cross contamination, no need to carry extra boxes and an overall improvement in safety over the present model. At the same time, there will no need for additional resources on land in terms of systems to deal with landings not destined for human consumption and no opportunities for illegal activities centred around the misuse of this element of landings.

In conclusion

No fishermen likes to consider, let alone promote a form of penalty for the process of fishing but our concern is that unless the industry comes up with some ideas then officialdom surely will. Although there will undoubtedly need to be alterations to the basic initiative set out here especially with regard to the percentage penalties, the potential sliding scales mentioned and a backstop, we consider that the basic premise is sound and that the current approach to the LO is simply unsustainable and we urgently need to find a practical alternative to avoid either bankrupting fishermen or forcing them into illegal activities.

♦ ♦ ♦

storm-918589_960_720

Obveza iskrcavanja: trenutno stanje u Europskom parlamentu

,

Calm before the storm: hearing in the European Parliament on the state of play of the landing obligation before its full implementation in January 2019 proves lack lustre.

Brussels, 11th october 2018

Brian O'Riordan

 

Full agenda: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/PECH/DV/2018/10-08/ProgrammeHearingLandingObligation_EN.pdf

Given the title of the hearing, one would have expected a more interesting and informative meeting. However, we were fed with more of the same old, same old.

Alain Cadec set the stage by stating that he hoped that the meeting would outline the major challenges left, the state of play, and that it would offer some solutions to problems faced in implementing the Landing Obligation (LO). He was to be disappointed.

Disappointing too for the majority fleet segment of small-scale low impact fishers, comprising over 70% of the fleet, providing over 50% of the jobs, and landing 8 to 10% of the commercial catches. Despite being significantly affected by the LO, there was no mention of the fleet, let alone what is being done to mitigate the impact of the LO for those tens of thousands of vessel owners who have no quota, and for whom the zero discards policy implies a zero fishing policy that will outlaw their activities.

Mr Jean Porcher, a Breton shipowner, and President (CEO) of “Armement Porcher” provided an industry perspective. He manages the activities of 17 25 metre trawlers and employs 240 staff. His fleet operates for around 6 months of the year in the Western part of the channel, and struggles to generate a 10% return on their capital.

For his fleet discards are impossible to deal with. He explained that there is no room on board to store all the unwanted catches in boxes; the entire hold space is given over to storing the fish catch on ice. Furthermore, strict hygiene requirements mean that catches destined for human food consumption must be kept apart from catches destined for industrial, non-human food purposes. How do you motivate crews working on a catch share basis to apply the LO when the work on discards is unpaid but significant?

Dr Lisa Borges, from the Discardless project gave a review of the evolution of the discard policies up to now, starting in 1992, when DG Mare had decided that a discard ban was not the best idea. She failed to mention the so called “Fish Fight” campaign led by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. This had been instrumental in bringing huge public pressure to bear on the Commission during the reform process, and this had moved discards from zero to hero, and to the top of the CFP agenda from nowhere. She highlighted that in the Baltic no significant changes in practice (to avoid discards) were perceptible, and that at EU level there was no project to monitor and evaluate the handling of unwanted catches at sea.

Heather Hamilton from ClientEarth highlighted that progress has been much slower than expected, and as highlighted by the STECF evaluation of the LO, exemptions decrease effectiveness. She stressed the importance of accurate monitoring of catches and the high risk of non-compliance due to lack of effective MCS, with a need to move to fully documented fisheries.

Elisa Roller gave a review of the state of play, noting the high percentage of catches under the LO (66% in the Mediterranean) but without any assessment of the effectiveness of its implementation. In answer to MEPs questions, she said that there had been plenty of time to prepare, money has been spent, tools have been developed and put in place, so there should be no reasons for any surprises.

She highlighted that it has taken Norway decades to reap benefits from its discards policy, so we should not expect that on January 1 2019 we “will go from 0 to 100”. The amendment of the Control regulation would be important in tackling the problem of discards, and she felt that the progress shown against MSY targets was good news.

The only person to mention that the LO presented particular problems for small and medium operations was the MEP Werner Kuhn, who also highlighted the need to separate fish for human consumption from the catch destined for industrial use and feed not for direct human consumption.

Alain Cadec summed up by reminding that he had voted against the LO. As it has been approved by a legitimate democratic process, we must work with it. He predicted stormy political weather ahead, referring to the Spring elections.

♦ ♦ ♦

net_pic

Gušenje zbog obveze iskrcavanja

, ,

Gušenje zbog obveze iskrcavanja:

pomiješane poruke, teška pitanja i različita mišljenja u Bruxellesu

 

Bruxelles, 31. svibnja 2018.

Brian O'Riordan

Obveza iskrcavanja (LO) je jedna od najdalekosežnijih i najkontroverznijih mjera koje su uvedene u reformiranu Zajedničku ribarstvenu politiku (ZRP) iz 2013. Osmišljen kako bi se riješila i etička (bacanje hrane) i pitanja očuvanja (selektivnost/prekomjerni izlov), došao je kao grom iz vedra neba nakon vrlo energične kampanje usmjerene i na širu javnost i na europske donositelje odluka, a koju su vodile televizijske osobe. Uopće nije bio predviđen u Zelenoj knjizi iz 2009., a malo je vremena posvećeno razradi načina na koji bi se takva mjera mogla provesti u praksi. Preferirani pristup DG Mare provedbi bio je postupno uvođenje LO-a tijekom razdoblja od 4 godine (2015. do 2019.), rješavajući probleme kako se pojavljuju, umjesto da se pokušavaju predvidjeti i riješiti problemi unaprijed.

Tri i pol godine od početka provedbe, a samo 7 mjeseci do potpunog stupanja na snagu, nadamo se da je do sada većina nedostataka na LO-u izglađena.

To je bio dojam koji je ostavio gospodin Karmenu Vella, povjerenik za pomorske poslove i ribarstvo, u govoru pred Odborom za ribarstvo Europskog parlamenta 15. svibnja. Istaknuo je da: „Pravila su jasna: od 1. siječnja 2019. obveza iskrcavanja primjenjivat će se na sve ulove vrsta koje podliježu ograničenjima ulova, a u Sredozemnom moru i minimalnim veličinama. To su pravila ZRP-a, o kojima su se svi dogovorili i koja su svima dobro poznata već više od četiri godine. Pravila se ne mogu mijenjati tijekom poluvremena utakmice... To bi potkopalo reformirani ZRP. I naštetilo bi našem kredibilitetu."..."

Međutim, takva jasnoća vizije i svrhe nedostajali su u raspravama u Europskom parlamentu prethodnog dana tijekom radionice na temu „Obveza iskrcavanja i vrste koje guše u viševrstnom i miješanom ribolovu“. Nakon prezentacije i rasprava o 3 studije slučaja iz sjeverozapadnih voda, Sjevernog mora i jugozapadnih voda, predsjednik Odbora za ribarstvo Alain Cadec sažeo je rekavši da: Dijagnoza je vrlo jasna: neizvjesnost, teškoća, složenost… Ne žalim što sam glasao protiv obveze iskrcavanja.".

Niti jedan od 9 zastupnika u Europskom parlamentu koji su govorili tijekom rasprave nije branio obvezu iskrcavanja (LO). Jedan je istaknuo da znanstvenici nisu ponudili nikakva rješenja te da se LO ne može primijeniti 1. siječnja 2019. Drugi je govorio o zbunjenosti i problemima te pozvao na dulje prijelazno razdoblje i veću fleksibilnost. Treći je izjavio da LO nije kompatibilan sa sustavom ukupnog dopuštenog ulova [TAC] / kvota te da ga je teško uskladiti s miješanim ribolovom. Čak se pozvao i na Plan B.

Predstavnik DG Mare složio se da postoji nesigurnost i kaos, ali je izrazio mišljenje da „Alat“ LO-a (zamjene/fleksibilnost kvota, de minimis odredbe, povećanja TAC-a, izuzeća itd.) ne koristi se dovoljno. Zastupnik je također primijetio da znanstvenici ne mogu dati potpunu sliku problema gušenja;prigušnice se ne guše jer LO još nije u potpunosti implementiran„S obzirom na to da se LO provodi postupno, potrebno je više vremena i strpljenja kako bi se vidjelo kako će se stvari razvijati, te je potrebno na LO gledati „drugačije“, zaključila je.

Slučaj Sjevernog mora istaknula je složenost definiranja specifičnih ribolovnih područja, kategoriziranih prema velikom rasponu metarija, godišnjih doba, vrsta itd. Izlagačica, francuska znanstvenica, istaknula je da ribolovna smrtnost u Sjevernom moru ponovno raste te da bi se prošli dobici mogli izgubiti. Također je napomenula da će problemi s gušenjem postati problem samo ako se LO strogo provodi. Trenutno problemi s gušenjem nisu uočeni niti prijavljeni STECF-u, što je ona uočila.

Slučaj jugozapadnih voda istaknuo je da će kombinacija FMSY-a i LO-a stvoriti ozbiljne probleme i zatvoriti ribarstvo. Uočeno je da je gušenje dinamično pitanje, posebno s obzirom na klimatske promjene. Utjecaj gušenja mijenjao bi se s vremenom – složena situacija koja će vjerojatno ostati složena, zaključeno je.

Zastupnici u Europskom parlamentu postavili su razna pitanja, uključujući i jedno od galicijskog zastupnika u Europskom parlamentu o utjecaj LO-a na malo ribarstvo s obzirom na nejednakost u raspodjeli kvota. U Galiciji, najvažnijoj europskoj ribarskoj regiji i regiji koja najviše ovisi o ribarstvu, 90% od 4500 ribarskih plovila klasificirano je kao „artes menores“, što obuhvaća plovila prosječne duljine 8,8 metara koja koriste pasivne alate. Većina tih plovila djeluje u mješovitom ribolovu, gdje se nalaze i vrste koje podliježu kvoti i one koje ne podliježu kvoti.

Međutim, kao i u drugim europskim državama članicama, flota malih plovila s pasivnom opremom ima ograničen pristup kvotama jer floti nedostaje potrebna povijest ulova da bi se kvalificirala za njih. Upravljanje kvotama uvedeno je kao mjera za veće flote i sada se nameće malim flotama putem Zakona o lojalnosti (LO), unatoč tome što je većina kvote dodijeljena većoj floti. Zbog toga je upravljanje kvotama, a time i LO, nepravedno diskriminirajuće prema manjim plovilima.

Također je postavljeno pitanje u ime škotskih operatera pridnenih koćarica, za koje je bakalar jedna od glavnih ciljnih vrsta i na koje će gušenje imati velike posljedice. Pitali su koji „stup“ ZRP-a treba žrtvovati – razine ribolova utvrđene na razini najvećeg održivog prinosa, provedbu LO-a ili ribare.

Prezentatorica slučaja Sjevernog mora primijetila je da ukidanje LO-a neće ništa riješiti, da se problem odbacivanja ulova neće riješiti sam od sebe. LO je, po njenom mišljenju, bio koristan alat za podizanje svijesti o problemu odbacivanja ulova, ali sada je bilo vrijeme da se sagledaju dva različita, ali povezana cilja:

a) želja za smanjenjem odbačenog ulova i

b) želja za izvlačenjem svih ulova.

Potonje se često smatra najgorom opcijom, ali nekontrolirano odbacivanje ulova također znači nekontrolirani ribolovni napor. Smatrala je da „Točno dokumentiranje odbačenog ulova na moru ima veći prioritet za postizanje održivosti od obveze iskrcavanja. SVE ulovljena riba„Što se tiče malog ribolova (MSF), smatrala je da je provedeno mnogo istraživanja i da se pitanje odbacivanja ulova u SSF-u može sažeti u maksimu da su, poput djece, mali brodovi = mali problemi, veliki brodovi = veliki problemi. Takvo gledište ne odražava se u različitim stvarnostima s kojima se različite flote moraju nositi, posebno ograničenom lokacijom i sezonskom prirodom malog ribolova u usporedbi s vrlo mobilnom prirodom, širim rasponom i cjelogodišnjom aktivnošću većih operacija. Bilo da su velike ili male po veličini, LIFE smatra da je za sve segmente flote prijetnja neposrednog bankrota veliki problem, bez obzira na veličinu plovila.

Takvo je stajalište izrazio španjolski znanstvenik predstavljajući slučaj jugozapadnih voda. Smatrao je da su, budući da su SSF i LSF prilično različiti, za svaki segment flote potreban drugačiji pristup.

Izlagač za sjeverozapadne vode, irski znanstvenik, odgovorio je na škotsko pitanje rekavši da ako sektor ribarstva ne lovi ribu na održiv način, ne radi se o odustajanju od ribara, već o tome da će ribari izgubiti svoja tržišta zbog pritiska potrošača. To je bio izbor koji je smatrao; ili se pridržavati Ugovora o ribolovu ili izgubiti svoja tržišta. Što se tiče malog ribarskog sektora (SSF), raspodjela je nacionalno pitanje, smatrao je, a na državama je da odluče kako će dodijeliti kvote i postupati s malim ribljim sektorom (SSF).

Prema mišljenju Udruge ribara s niskim utjecajem na okoliš (LIFE), LO će imati nesrazmjeran utjecaj na ribolovne operacije malog polivalentnog pasivnog ribolovnog alata (plovila kraća od 12 metara koja koriste nevučene alate). Uglavnom, ove su operacije vrlo selektivne, s vrlo niskim stopama odbacivanja ulova u usporedbi s koćarenjem i drugim vučenim alatima. Samo zato što je manje odbacivanja ulova u malom ribarskom području (SSF) ne znači da su manje pogođeni LO-om. LO je sigurno osmišljen imajući na umu sektor mobilnih alata velikih razmjera, a ne sektor pasivnih alata niskog utjecaja. To se odražava u činjenici da je u posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća objavljeno 3924 znanstvena rada vezana uz pitanja odbacivanja ulova, 3760 se usredotočilo na operacije velikih razmjera, a samo 164 je razmatralo implikacije za SSF.

Nedostatak pristupa malih ribara kvotama potrebnim za ostanak u održivosti kada se LO u potpunosti provede 2019. godine čini ih vrlo ranjivima na „gušenje“ i prisiljavanje na ukidanje poslovanja i bankrot ili na kršenje zakona i suočavanje s posljedicama. Što se tiče malog ribarskog fonda (SSF), LIFE se boji da bi politika nultog odbacivanja mogla postati politika nultog ribolova i nultog prihoda za SSF.

Stoga LIFE zagovara dvostruki pristup visini napora za ribolov male ribe (SSF). Prije svega, potrebno je osigurati potrebnu i pravednu raspodjelu kvota kako bi se SSF-u omogućilo planiranje i upravljanje svojim poslovanjem. Takva raspodjela trebala bi uključivati određeno objedinjavanje kvota koje se mogu koristiti po potrebi za rješavanje problema gušenja kada se pojavi. Drugo, za obalni segment flote SSF-a, prelazak na upravljanje naporom mogao bi pružiti pravedniji i učinkovitiji način rješavanja problema pristupa i odbacivanja ulova.

Dodatne informacije:

Vellin govor Parlamentu sljedećeg dana https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/vella/announcements/speech-commissioner-vella-european-parliament-pech-committee_en

Informacije o DGMareu: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/discards/

Radionica Odbora za ribolov o obvezi iskrcavanja i vrstama koje se guše: https://research4committees.blog/2018/05/28/pech-workshop-landing-obligation-and-choke-species-in-multispecies-and-mixed-fisheries-2/

Malo ribarstvo i cilj nultog odbacivanja ulova. Glavna uprava Europskog parlamenta za unutarnju politiku. 2015. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540360/IPOL_STU(2015)540360_EN.pdf

♦ ♦ ♦

PRIJAVITE SE NA NAŠ NEWSLETTER

* označava potrebno
hrCroatian
en_GBEnglish nl_NLDutch fr_FRFrench de_DEGerman elGreek it_ITItalian pl_PLPolish ro_RORomanian es_ESSpanish maMaltese hrCroatian