Menu

landing obligation

Santa1

A LIFE reflection on the LO

,

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

Landing obligation: state of play in the EP

,

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

Choking on the Landing Obligation

, ,

Choking on the Landing Obligation:

mixed messages, tough questions and dissenting views in Brussels

 

Brussels, 31st of May 2018

Brian O”Riordan

The Landing Obligation (LO) is one of the most far reaching and controversial measures to be introduced into the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of 2013. Designed to address both ethical (food waste) and conservation (selectivity/ overfishing) issues, it arrived like a bolt out of the blue following a highly charged campaign directed both at the public at large and at European decision takers and led by TV personalities. It was not at all anticipated in the 2009 Green Paper, and little time was allocated to working out how such a measure could be implemented in practice. DG Mare’s preferred approach to implementation has been to gradually phase in the LO over a 4-year period (2015 to 2019), addressing issues and solving problems as they arise, rather than trying to anticipate and to solve problems in advance.

Three and half years into implementation, and with just 7 months to go before its full entry into force, it is to be hoped that by now most of the wrinkles on the LO have been ironed out.

This was the impression given by Mr Karmenu Vella, Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, in a speech to the Fisheries Committee of European Parliament on May 15. He highlighted that: “The rules are clear: as of 1 January 2019, the landing obligation will apply to all catches of species subject to catch limits and, in the Mediterranean, subject to minimum sizes. These are the rules of the CFP, agreed by all, and well-known to everybody for more than four years now. Rules cannot be changed half-time through a match…. It would undermine the reformed CFP. And it would damage our credibility.”

However, such clarity of vision and purpose were lacking from discussions in the European Parliament on the previous day during a workshop on the “Landing Obligation and Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries”. Following the presentation and discussions of 3 case studies from the North-western Waters, the North Sea, and South-western waters, Mr Alain Cadec, Chair of the Fisheries Committee summed up by stating that: The diagnosis is very clear: uncertainty, difficulty, complexity… I don’t regret voting against the Landing Obligation”.

Not one of the 9 MEPs who spoke during the discussion defended the Landing Obligation (LO). One highlighted that no solutions had been offered by the scientists, and that the LO was not implementable on January 1 2019. Another talked about confusion and problems, and called for a longer transition period and more flexibility. Yet another stated the LO was not compatible with a Total Allowable Catch [TAC] / quota system and was difficult to square with mixed fisheries. There was even a call for a Plan B.

The DG Mare representative agreed that there was insecurity and chaos but opined that the LO “tool box” (quota swaps/ flexibility, de minimis provisions, TAC increases, exemptions, etc) is not being used sufficiently. The representative also observed that scientists are unable to give a full picture of the choke problem; “chokes are not choking because the LO is not yet fully implemented”. Given that the LO is being implemented progressively, more time and patience are needed to see how things evolve, and a need to look at the LO “differently”, she concluded.

The North Sea case highlighted the complexity of defining specific fisheries, categorized as they are by a large variety of metiers, seasons, species etc. The presenter, a French scientist, highlighted that fishing mortality in the North Sea is rising again, and that past gains may be lost. She also noted that choke issues will only become a problem if the LO is strictly implemented. Currently choke problems have not been observed or reported to the STECF she observed.

The Southwestern waters case highlighted that the combination of FMSY and LO will create serious problems and will close fisheries. Choke is a dynamic issue, especially given climate change, it was observed. Choke impact would change over time – a complicated situation that is likely to remain complicated, it was concluded.

Various questions were raised by the MEPs, including one from a Galician MEP on the impact of the LO on small-scale fisheries given the inequality of quota distribution. In Galicia, Europe’s most important fishing and most fishery dependent region, 90% of the 4,500 strong fishing vessel fleet is classed as “artes menores”, comprising vessels with an average length of 8.8 metres using passive gears. Most of these vessels operate in mixed fisheries, where both quota and non-quota species are found.

However, as in other European Member States, the small-scale passive gear fleet has little access to quota as the fleet lacks the necessary catch history to qualify for such. Quota management was introduced as a measure for larger scale fleets and is now being imposed on small-scale fleets through the LO, despite most of the quota being allocated to the larger scale fleet. This makes quota management, and thus the LO, unfairly discriminatory against smaller vessels.

There was also a question asked on behalf of the Scottish demersal trawler operators, for whom one of the main target species is cod, and who will be heavily impacted by chokes. They asked which “pillar” of the CFP should be sacrificed – the fishing levels set at MSY, the implementation of the LO, or the fishermen.

The North Sea case presenter observed that scrapping the LO will not solve anything, that the discard problem will not resolve itself on its own. The LO had been a useful tool for raising awareness about the problem of discards she felt, but now it was time to look at two different but linked objectives:

a) the desire to reduce discards, and

b) the desire to land all catches.

The latter is often seen as the worst option, but also uncontrolled discarding means uncontrolled fishing effort. She felt that “accurately documenting discards at sea is of higher priority to achieving sustainability than the obligation to land ALL fish caught”. As regards small-scale fisheries (SSF), she felt that a lot of research had been done, and that the issue of SSF discards could be encapsulated by the maxim that, like children, small boats = small problems, big boats = big problems. Such a view is not reflected in the different realities that the different fleets have to deal with, especially the restricted location and seasonal nature of small-scale fishing operations compared to the highly mobile nature, wider range and year-round activity of larger scale operations. Whether large or small in scale, LIFE considers that for all fleet segments the treat of imminent bankruptcy is a big problem irrespective of the size of the vessel.

Such a view was expressed by the Spanish scientist presenting the Southwestern Waters case. He felt that as SSF and LSF are quite different, a different approach is needed for each fleet segment.

The North western waters presenter, an Irish scientist, responded to the Scottish question by saying that if the fisheries sector did not fish in a sustainable way, it was not a matter of giving up on fishermen, but rather fishermen would lose their markets due to consumer pressures. That was the choice he felt; either comply with the LO or lose your markets. On SSF, allocation was a national issue he felt, and it was for states to decide how they allocated quota and treated SSF.

In the view of the Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE) the LO will have a disproportionate impact on small-scale polyvalent passive gear fishing operations (vessels under 12 metres in length using non-towed gears). In the main, these operations are highly selective, with very low rates of discarding compared to trawling and other towed gears. Just because there is less discarding in the SSF doesn’t mean that they are impacted less by the LO. The LO has surely been designed with the large scale mobile gear sector in mind, not the low impact passive gear sector. This is reflected in the fact that in the last few decades, 3924 scientific papers have been published related to the discard issues, 3760 have focused on large scale operations and only 164 have considered the implications for SSF.

The lack of access of small-scale fishing operators to the quota necessary to remain viable when the LO is fully implemented in 2019 makes them highly vulnerable to “choking” and being forced either to tie up and go bankrupt, or to break the law and face the consequences. For SSF, LIFE fears that the zero-discard policy could well become a zero-fishing, zero-income policy for the SSF.

LIFE therefore advocates a two-pronged approach to the LO for SSF. First and foremost, a requisite and fair quota allocation needs to be provided to enable SSF to plan and manage their operations. Such an allocation should involve some pooling of the quota which can be drawn on as needed to deal with the choke problem as it arises. Secondly, for the inshore segment of the SSF fleet, a move towards effort management could provide a fairer and more effective way to deal both with the problem of access and that of discarding.

Further information:

Vella’s speech to the Parliament the following day https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/vella/announcements/speech-commissioner-vella-european-parliament-pech-committee_en

DGMare information: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/discards/

Pêche Committee Workshop on the Landing Obligation and Choke Species: https://research4committees.blog/2018/05/28/pech-workshop-landing-obligation-and-choke-species-in-multispecies-and-mixed-fisheries-2/

Small-scale fisheries and the zero-discard target. European Parliament DG for Internal Policies. 2015 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540360/IPOL_STU(2015)540360_EN.pdf

♦ ♦ ♦

SIGN UP TO OUR NEWSLETTER

* indicates required
en_GBEnglish
hrCroatian nl_NLDutch fr_FRFrench de_DEGerman elGreek it_ITItalian pl_PLPolish ro_RORomanian es_ESSpanish maMaltese en_GBEnglish