Joint Recommendation of the North Western Waters High-Level
Group
Discard Plan for Demersal Fisheries in the North Western
Waters
1. Implementing authority
a. Acting in accordance with Article 43(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union and taking into account the
authority granted by Articles 15.6 and 18.1 of Regulation (EU) No
1380/2013 to the European Commission to adopt discard plans by
means of delegated acts, the Member States of the North Western
Waters submit a joint recommendation, as per Article 18.3 of
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, to the European Commission for a
specific discard plan for demersal fisheries in the North Western
Waters.
2. Objectives of the discard plan
a. As a result of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
(Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013), concluded in 2013 and effective
from 1st January 2014, there is now a provision under Article 18
for Member States to elaborate joint recommendations for regional
management measures specific to their fisheries and submit these to
the European Commission for adoption via delegated acts.
b. The scope of these recommendations is provided for in Article
18 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 by way of reference to Article
15.6 thereof, which outlines the process for adoption of a specific
discard plan by the European Commission for a period of no more
than three years, to contain any of the specifications referred to
in points (a) to (e) of Article 15.5.
c. Under Article 15.6 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, Member
States may cooperate, in accordance with Article 18 thereof, in the
drawing up of a specific discard plan with a view to the Commission
adopting such a plan by means of delegated or implementing acts or
via the ordinary Legislative Procedure.
d. The adoption of such specific discard plans is considered
important to the successful implementation of the landings
obligation as specified in the reformed Common Fisheries
Policy.
e. As such, this discard plan will establish provisions for any
of the specifications referred to in points (a) to (e) of Article
15.5 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, including specific
descriptions of any exemptions gained.
f. It is intended that the Commission delegated act giving
effect to this discard plan shall remain open to revision and
adaptation at any time during its duration of up to three years in
order to retain flexibility in addressing the challenges that will
be posed by the introduction of the landing obligation for demersal
fisheries. In particular, this discard plan shall remain open to
the later inclusion of exemptions under high survival and de
minimis, and to the inclusion of specific provisions for Minimum
Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) to be specified at any time.
g. In association with this discards plan, it is anticipated
that there may be a requirement for complementary changes in
technical measures in order to increase selectivity and reduce as
far as possible unwanted catches. Any such measures may be brought
forward in a separate recommendation as early as possible.
h. In accordance with Article 18.2 of Regulation (EU) No
1380/2013, the North West Waters Group has undertaken regular and
detailed engagement with the North Western Waters Advisory Council
in the preparation of this plan. The recommendations of the
Advisory Council have been fully examined and taken on board, where
possible.
i. It is considered to be the joint responsibility of the
Commission and the Member States concerned to maintain oversight of
the implementation of the provisions of this discard plan and to
review and amend any element that evidence and/or improved data
show is not fit for purpose.
3. Duration
a. As per Article 15.6 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, this
specific discard plan shall have a duration of no more than three
years.
4. Scope
a. In accordance with Article 15.1(c) of Regulation (EU) No
1380/2013, the Member States of the North Western Waters Group are
committed to a progressive and incremental introduction of the
landing obligation over the period 1 January 2016 to 1 January
2019.
b. This Joint Recommendation is concerned only with the species
which define the highly mixed cod, haddock, whiting & saithe
fishery; Norway lobster (nephrops) fishery; mixed common sole and
plaice fishery; and hake fisheries.
c. In developing this Joint Recommendation, the North Western
Waters Group has taken full account of the agreed recommendations,
suggestions and information furnished by the North Western Waters
Advisory Council. Those agreed positions, relating to the
phasing-in of the landing obligation and the species which will be
subject to the landing obligation from the 1st January 2016, have
been accepted by the North Western Waters Group. The North Western
Waters Advisory Council agreed that a gradual phasing in of the
landing obligation will be critical to allow for adaptation to it
and to retain stakeholder support (i.e. the need to avoid a big
bang in 2016). The Advisory Council also accepted that a second big
bang should be avoided if possible in 2019 i.e. that phased
implementation could continue in 2017 and 2018. The Member States
of the North Western Waters Group also considered the views
expressed by different stakeholders within the NWWAC, where those
were not the agreed positions of the NWWAC.
d. The North Western Waters Group, following the recommendations
of the North Western Waters Advisory Council, has identified
appropriate species for each relevant fishery to come within the
scope of the landing obligation from the 1st January 2016. It is
intended to build on this recommendation and that additional
species in relevant fisheries will be included on a gradual and
progressive basis. Consequently the North Western Waters Group will
be submitting further Joint Recommendations for the adaptation of
the delegated act giving effect to this discard plan in a timely
manner in order to comply with the provisions of the landing
obligation.
e. Fisheries and the specific landing obligation recommended
from the 1st of January 2016 in respect of the species defining
those fisheries are listed in the tables below.
f. Vessels subject to a landing obligation determined by
threshold criteria only shall be included in a list on the secure
EU control website established under Article 114 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. Further details are included in Annex
I.
g.
Table 1. Fisheries in ICES Area VIa West of Scotland and Union
Waters of Area Vb
Fishery
Gear Code
Fishing gear description
Mesh Size
Landing Obligation
Cod, Haddock, Whiting & Saithe
OTB, SSC, OTT, PTB, SDN, SPR, TBN, TBS, TB, SX, SV, OT, PT,
TX
Trawls & Seines
All
Where total landings per vessel of all species in 2013 and 2014
consist of more than 10% of the following gadoids; cod, haddock,
whiting and saithe combined, the landing obligation shall apply to
Haddock.
Nephrops
OTB, SSC, OTT, PTB, SDN, SPR, FPO, TBN, TB, TBS, SX, SV, FIX,
OT, PT, TX
Trawls, Seines, Pots, Traps & Creels
All
Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2013 and
2014 consist of more than 30% Nephrops, the landing obligation
shall apply to Nephrops.
Table 2. Fisheries with combined TAC for ICES Areas VI and VII
and Union Waters of Area Vb Hake
Fishery
Gear Code
Fishing gear description
Mesh Size
Landing Obligation
Hake
OTB, SSC, OTT, PTB, SDN, SPR, TBN, TBS, TB, SX, SV, OT, PT,
TX
Trawls & Seines
All
Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2013 and
2014 consist of more than 30% Hake, the landing obligation shall
apply to Hake.
Hake
GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN
All Gill Nets
All
All catches of Hake are subject to the landing obligation.
Hake
LL, LLS, LLD, LX, LTL, LHP, LHM
All Long lines
All
All catches of Hake are subject to the landing obligation.
Table 3. Fisheries with TAC covering all of ICES Area VII
Nephrops
Fishery
Gear Code
Fishing gear description
Mesh Size
Landing Obligation
Nephrops
OTB SSC, OTT, PTB, SDN, SPR, FPO, TBN, TB, TBS, SX, SV, FIX, OT,
PT, TX
Trawls, Seines, Pots, Traps & Creels
All
Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2013 and
2014 consist of more than 30% Nephrops, the landing obligation
shall apply to Nephrops.
Table 4. Fisheries in ICES VIIa Irish Sea
Fishery
Gear Code
Fishing gear
Mesh Size
Landing Obligation
Cod, Haddock, Whiting & Saithe
OTB, SSC, OTT, PTB, SDN, SPR, TBN, TBS, TB, SX, SV, OT, PT,
TX
Trawls & Seines
All
Where total landings per vessel of all species in 2013 and 2014
consist of more than 10% of the following gadoids; cod, haddock,
whiting and saithe combined, the landing obligation shall apply to
Haddock.
Table 5. Fisheries in ICES VIId - Eastern Channel
Fishery
Gear Code
Fishing gear
Mesh Size
Landing Obligation
Common Sole
TBB
All Beam trawls
All
All catches of Common Sole are subject to the landing
obligation.
Common Sole
OTT, OTB, TBS, TBN, TB, PTB, OT, PT, TX
Trawls
99 %). Other studies conducted in northern European waters have
shown similarly high post-capture survival rates. Harris and
Ulmestrand (2004) estimated 92 % survival, based on a control
sample of twelve Nephrops caught in baited creels (off the
Skagerrak, West Sweden) and maintained in holding tanks for two
weeks. An alternative control sample which was exposed to air at 15
C for a 90 min period had a 100 % survival rate. Chapman (1981)
estimated the survival at 97 % after individuals caught in creels
were transferred to cages on the sea bed on the west coast of
Scotland.
Similar studies have recently been conducted in more southern
European waters. Mehault et al. (2011) estimated a survival of 88 %
for creel Nephrops after re-immersion at the Bay of Biscay. A
similar experiment (Campos et al., 2010) carried out off the south
coast of Portugal showed an 84 % survival rate for creel caught
Nephrops that were used as a control group for estimating trawl
discard mortality. Table 1 gives a comparison of the post-capture
survival rates provided in these studies.
Studies of trawl-caught Nephrops indicate that damaged
individuals have a lower rate of post-capture survival than healthy
individuals (Mehault et al. (2011)). However, creel fishing is
regarded as a less stressful method of capture than trawling and
creel-caught Nephrops generally suffer less physical and
physiological damage during the capture process than trawl-caught
individuals (Ridgway et al., 2006). A large portion of the creel
landed Nephrops are exported live to markets in southern Europe and
good post-capture handling techniques are viewed as an important
practice that adds value to landings. This practice further
minimises the likelihood of damage and increases the chances of
survival if discarded.
Anecdotal information from the fishery suggests that at certain
times of year, a small proportion of individuals may be discarded
due to damage incurred during interactions with other animals (both
Nephrops and other species such as octopus) within the creel during
the capture process. The percentage of animals damaged in this way
is unknown and no studies have been conducted on the survival rate
of damaged creel-caught individuals. However, Adey (2008), in a
study on creel ghost fishing, frequently monitored creels left on
the sea bed for up to a year and found no evidence of Nephrops
damage due to predation and no Nephrops mortality until the creels
had been in place for more than six months.
Eye damage due to light exposure had been described in
literature (Gaten, 1988; Shelton et al., 1985) but according with
Chapman et al. (2000), this type of lesion does not seem to
influence the long term survival, growth or reproduction of
Nephrops. Prolonged aerial exposure and changes in ambient
temperature have also been shown to have physiological,
immunological and pathological effects (Ridgeway et al., 2006).
Again, the limited time on board the creel boat and quick release
into the water column ensures a prompt return to appropriate
temperatures.
Predation Mortality
Additional mortality due to post-release predation is not
accounted for in the survival rates given in Table 1. Predation by
seabirds was estimated to be 8.6 % of discarded creel-caught
animals in Loch Torridon (Adey, 2007) but there seems to be
considerable regional variation between areas, depending on the
size and behaviour of local populations of seabirds. The same study
concluded that there was very little or no mortality of
creel-caught discards due seabirds throughout the year in Loch Fyne
where seabirds instead follow the local trawl fishery.
In some areas of the West of Scotland, fishermen have
implemented measures to mitigate discard predation by seabirds by
using a device which provide some protection to discarded
individuals near the surface. The device consists of a plastic tube
or escape pipe on the side of the boat which releases the Nephrops
approximately 1 m under the surface and offers protection from
foraging seabirds when descending to the sea bed. (A Weetman, pers.
comm) though MS Science has not evaluated the efficacy of these
devices.
Longer term survival
Longer-term discard survival rate is influenced by the type of
ground to which the Nephrops are returned as they have specific
sediment requirements for the construction of burrows. The
probability of being returned to suitable habitat will therefore
depend upon the fishery practice and the spatial structure of the
particular grounds. The process of catch sorting differs between
Nephrops creel and trawl fisheries. In the trawl fishery, catches
may be sorted while steaming between grounds and hence Nephrops may
be discarded onto unsuitable habitat. In this situation, Nephrops
are unlikely to find a suitable refuge and are at a much higher
risk of predation mortality (Harris and Ulmestrand, 2004). In creel
fisheries, the catch is sorted during the creel hauling process and
discarded Nephrops are returned to the same location from which
they were caught, therefore increasing the chances of survival.
Experimental work which used creel-caught Nephrops to study the
effect of eye-damage on post-release survival and growth suggest
high long-term survival rates. Almost 20 % of the originally
captured (and tagged) individuals which were released back into the
sea (rather than retained in tanks) were recaptured, with some
individuals being recaptured and released multiple times during the
7 year study period (Chapman et al., 2000). There was no impact of
eye-damage (which occurs when individuals are brought to the
surface) on the survival rate.
Discussion
The Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
(STECF) report on the landing obligation highlighted a number of
issues relating to the exemption based on high survival (STECF,
2013). It emphasised the importance of international guidance and
protocols as to best practices with regards to scientific evidence
and also points out that the term high survival is somewhat
subjective (STECF, 2013).
The high survival rate of creel-caught Nephrops retained in
tanks or cages and used as a control group in experiments, suggests
that the discard survival of healthy creel-caught Nephrops could be
similarly high. Short soak times and good post-capture handling
minimises the potential for damage during the capture process,
ensuring captured individuals are in good condition (and likely
experience high rates of survival).
References
Adey, J. M. 2007. Aspects of the sustainability of creel fishing
for Norway lobster, Nephrops norvegicus (L.), on the west coast of
Scotland. PhD D thesis, University of Glasgow.
Adey, J. M., Smith, I. P., Atkinson, R. J. A., Tuck, I. D. &
Taylor, A. C. 2008. Ghost fishing of target and non-target species
by Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus creels. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 366: 119-127.
Bjordal, ., 1986. The behaviour of Norway lobster towards baited
creels and size selectivity of creels and trawl.
Fiskeridirektoratets Skrifter, Havunderskelser.18: 131137.
Campos, A., Fonseca, P., Mendes B., Pilar-Fonseca, T., Castro,
M., Leocadio, A., 2010. Survival of Norway lobster (Nephrops
norvegicus) escaping from trawl cod-ends. FCT Contract n
PDCT/MAR/59366/2004, Final Report.
Chapman, C.J. 1981. Discarding and tailing Nephrops at sea.
Scottish Fisheries Bulletin. 46: 10-13.
Chapman, C. J., Shelton, P. M. J., Shanks, A. M. & Gaten, E,
2000. Survival and growth of the Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus
in relation to light-induced eye damage. Marine Biology. 136:
233-241.
Charuau A., Morizur Y., Rivoalen J.J., 1982. Survival of
discarded Nephrops norvegicus in the Bay of Biscay and in the
Celtic Sea, ICES-CM-1982/B:13.
EC (2013) Amendement proposal for a regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions Brussels, 22.4.2013 COM(2013) 245
final.
Gaten, E. 1988. Light-induced damage to the dioptric apparatus
of Nephrops norvegicus (L.) and the quantitative assessment of the
damage. Marine Behaviour and Physiology. 13: 169-183.
Harris, R. R. and Ulmestrand, M. 2004. Discarding Norway lobster
(Nephrops norvegicus L. ) through low salinity layers - mortality
and damage seen in simulation experiments. ICES Journal of Marine
Science. 61: 127-139.
ICES. 2014. Report of the Working Group for the Celtic Seas
Ecoregion (WGCSE), 1322 May 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM
2014/ACOM:12.
Leocadio, A.M., Whitmarsh, D., Castro, M. 2012. Comparing Trawl
and Creel Fishing for Norway Lobster (Nephrops norvegicus):
Biological and Economic Considerations. PLoS ONE 7(7): e39567.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039567
Marine Scotland Science. 2014. Fisheries Information Network.
Internal database. Query ran 17/12/2014.
Mhault, S., Morandeau, F., Fifas, S. 2011. Discarded Nephrops
survival after trawling. Working document for ICES Nephrops working
group. IFREMER Report of project PRESPO, pp. 15.
Morello, E., Antolini, B., Gramitto, M., Atkinson, R., Froglia,
C. 2009. The fishery for Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758) in
the central Adriatic Sea (Italy): Preliminary observations
comparing bottom trawl and baited creels. Fisheries Research. 95:
325331.
Ridgway, I., Taylor, A., Atkinson, R., Chang, E., Neil, D. 2006.
Impact of the capture method and trawl duration on the health
status of the Norway lobster, Nephrops norvegicus. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 339: 135147.
Sangster, G.I., Breen, M., Bova, D.J., Kynoch, R., ONeill, F.G.,
Lowry, N., Moth-Poulsen, T., Hansen, U.J., Ulmestrand, M.,
Valentinsson, D., Hallback, H., Soldal, A.V., and Hoddevik, B.
1997. Nephrops survival after escape and discard from commercial
fishing gear. Presented at ICES FTFB Working Group, Hamburg,
Germany 14-17 April, 1997, ICES CM 1997 CM/B.
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
(STECF). 2013. Landing obligation in EU fisheries (STECF-13-23).
Graham, N. and Doerner, H. editors. Luxembourg: Publications Office
of the European Union. EUR 26330 EN,
Shelton, P.M.J., Gaten, E., Chapman, C.J. 1985. Light and
retinal damage in Nephrops norvegicus (L.). Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London (Series B) 226:217-236.
Wileman, D. A., Sangster, G. I., Breen, M., Ulmestrand, M.,
Soldal, A. V. & Harris, R. R., 1999. Roundfish and Nephrops
survival after escape from commercial fishing gear. Final report to
European Commission, Brussels, FAIR-CT95-0753.
Ziegler, F., 2006. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Norway
lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) caught along the Swedish west coast
by creels, conventional trawls and species-selective trawls. A data
report. SIK report 746, SIK, Gteborg, 36 pp (available from SIK
library: [email protected]).
Table 1. Summary of creel-caught Nephrops survival rates from
control groups in trawl discard survival studies.
Location
% Survival
Sample size
Study Period
Reference
Southern Portugal
84
24
2 days
Campos et al. (2010)
West of Scotland
97
NA
8-9 days
Chapman (1981)
Skagerrak, Sweden
92
12
2 weeks
Harris & Ulmestrand (2004)
Bay of Biscay
88
16
3 days
Mehault et al. (2011)
North Minch (West of Scotland)
> 99
576
14 days
Wileman et al. (1999)
Annex IV Recommendations for De minimis Exemptions
(i) De minimis exemption request for the vessels using nets to
catch sole in the Channel and Celtic Sea (ICES areas VIId, e, f and
g).
In the frame of the landing obligation for the demersal
fisheries in the North Western Waters, a de minimis exemption of 3%
is requested for sole (Solea solea) for the vessels using net gears
(gear codes GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR) in the Channel (VIId and
e) and the Celtc Sea (f and g) for 2016. This exemption could be
modified and completed by new elements in the near future according
to the species subject to the landing obligation in this fishery in
2017 and 2018.
I. Definition of the species and the stock
Sole (VIId)[footnoteRef:1]: For 2015, ICES advises on the basis
of the MSY approach but cannot quantify the resulting catches. The
implied landings should be no more than 1 931 t. Discards are known
to take place but are not fully quantified (in the order of 10%).
The spawning-stock biomass (SBB) has fluctuated without trend and
is above MSY Btrigger since 2002. Fishing mortality has always been
above FMSY, and has been above Fpa since 2005. Recruitment has been
fluctuating without trend. Recruitment in 2012 and 2013 are the
lowest of the time series. FMSY is above targeted, Btrigger is
above trigger, Bpa and Blim show full reproductive capacity, Fpa
and Flim show increased risk. [1:
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/sol-eche.pdf]
Sole (VIIe)[footnoteRef:2]: For 2015, ICES advises on the basis
of the MSY approach that catches in 2015 should be no more than 851
tonnes. All catches are assumed to be landed (discards are
considered to be negligible, i.e < 5%). The fishing mortality
has fluctuated around FMSY since the early 1990s and is estimated
to have been below FMSY since 2009. SSB has been around MSY
Btrigger for about two decades, increased from 2009 to 2012, and
has declined thereafter as a result of weaker recruitment.
Recruitment has been fluctuating without an overall trend, but the
2010 to 2012 year classes are estimated to be below average. FMSY
is appropriate, Btrigger is above trigger, Bpa and Blim show full
reproductive capacity, Fpa and Flim are undefined. [2:
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/sol-echw.pdf]
Sole (VII f and g): For 2015, ICES advises on the basis of the
MSY approach that catches should be no more than 652 t. All catches
are assumed to be landed. The spawning-stock biomass has been above
MSY Btrigger since 2001, but is declining. Since 2010, fishing
mortality has been increasing and is now at Flim. Recruitment has
been fluctuating around average. No specific management objectives
are known to ICES.
Sole is a flatfish for which some studies have shown interesting
survivability rate. STECF report 14-19[footnoteRef:3] on landing
obligation lists the survival studies known for sole, with no study
dealing with the survival of the sole in a net fishery.
Nevertheless, some studies in Canada and USA show interesting
survival rate for some flatfishes (Pleuronectidae) caught by
gillnets (Benoit and Hurlbut, 2010; Smith and Scharf, 2011). The
ongoing project ENSURE on the survival of the discards should give
some results on the survival of the sole caught and released by
trammel nets by the beginning of 2017 (Annex 1). [3: Scientific,
Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Landing
Obligations in EU Fisheries - part 4 (STECF-14-19). 2014.
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26943
EN, JRC 93045, 96 pp.]
II Definition of the management unit
1) Characteristics of the fishery and its activity
The NWW Discard Atlas (Catchpole and Ribeiro Santos, 2014),
which focus on the Celtic Sea (including VIIe, but excluding VIId)
indicates that the main gill (GN1) and trammel (GT1) nets effort
are from the French and English fisheries. The GN1 effort is widely
spread in the Celtic sea, but most the effort is close to the
English and French shore (Figure 2.1-6). Both fleets mainly target
demersal species including hake and pollack (Pollachius
pollachius). The French fleet also targets for crustacean species
(Spider crab and common crab). Also a Spanish small fleet (only 2
vessels) target hake operated in Divisions VII j and VIIk. A pilot
survey in 2006 showed a discard rate < 5%, so discards sampling
programme was not focussed on gillnets. There is an important Irish
gillnet fishery targeting cod in VIIe between January and March.
Much of this fishery is operated by vessels under 12m. The trammel
net effort (GT1) is less wide spread than the gillnet fishery and
most of the effort is carried out close to the Brittany coast. The
targets species for this fishery are sole, anglerfish and
crustaceans (Spider crab and common crab; Catchpole and Ribeiro
Santos, 2014).
The North Sea Discard Atlas (Quirijns and Pastoors, 2014)
described the trammel net fisheries (GT1) as operated by a number
of countries and are particularly important in more coastal waters,
for example off the English North Sea and Channel coasts for sole
(Fig 2). The main gillnet activity (GN1) is from a Danish fishery
targeted mainly at cod and plaice in the North Sea (Quirijns and
Pastoors, 2014).
GN1
GT1
Fig 1. Distribution of Celtic Sea international fishing effort
of gill (top) and trammel (bottom) nets fisheries, in fishing
hours, between 2010 and 2012. Source: STECF, 2013
Gillnets (GN1)
Trammelnets (GT1)
Fig 2. Distribution of North Sea, Skagerrak and Eastern Channel
international fishing effort (EU) in hours fishing by ICES
statistical rectangle. Figures shown for gillnets GN1 and trammel
nets GT1 Note: a) that within each plot the darker the shading, the
higher the effort; b) that the scales are different between the
plots and so the plots should not be used to infer relative
magnitude of effort between gears, but rather for examining
distribution of effort (Quirijns and Pastoors, 2014)
All the vessels using nets gears in the Channel are likely to
catch (and discard) undersized sole. The net fishery is subject to
different European and national license systems (AEP, ANP),
including one for sole (AEP) in the Western Channel, without
limited entry.
[Example of the French net fishery:]
Approximately 175 French vessels are concerned by the net
fishery and distributed in 43 French harbours according to the 2014
ObsMer report (Cornou et al. 2014). The activity of this fishery is
mainly dedicated to the sole, with some fishing trips targeting
other demersal fishes, rays or crustaceans. The size of the vessels
ranges from 4 to 18m, with an average of 12m. The main mesh-size
used range from 90 to 100 mm (2014 ObsMer report; Cornou et al.
2014). The nets are set during daily fishing trips, and the total
length of nets set ranges from 2km to 20km (3-4 km in average)
according to the size and the activity of the boat, and the season.
Fishing operations occur in depth ranging from 5 to 50m, with soak
time lasting between 4 and 24 hours. In the North East of the
Channel, a large part of the fleet also operates in the North Sea
(Fig 3 and 4).
In the Eastern Channel, a French national fishing authorization
system has been set in 2015 for the net fishery targeting sole
(> 300 kg / year; cf part III).
Fig 3. Spatial distribution of the fishing operations sampled
(red circle) and the total fishing effort (rectangle) in number of
days-at-sea operated by the net fishery in the North Sea and the
Eastern Channel (2014 ObsMer report; Cornou et al. 2014).
Fig 4. Spatial distribution of the fishing operations sampled
(red circle) and the total fishing effort (rectangle) in number of
days-at-sea operated by the net fishery (vessels 20 years in
average) and the costs of the adaptation, modification and
improvement of the handling process are often difficult despite
several attempts.
III Current management measures of the fleet
For the TR2 fleet, the cod management plan (regulation
n1342/2008) introduces 1) an European Fishing Authorisation; 2) a
capacity ceiling and 3) an effort regime by gear category that,
depending on CPUE, can penalize the increase of mesh size for TR2
to TR1 and globally limits flexibility for the fleets to change
gear even if cod is only a bycatch. TR2 fleets are furthermore
impacted by catch composition rule (technical measure regulation
n850/98 and regulation n2056/2001) that will be partly removed by
the omnibus regulation. Most of the TR2 fishery also operating in
the North Sea keeps its regulatory square mesh panel when operating
in the Channel, especially to avoid juveniles of pelagic species
(horse mackerel amongst others).
For the whiting in 4-7d, a management plan was agreed by EU and
Norway in 2014 based on an adjusted target F of 0.15. ICES
evaluated this harvest control rule (ICES, 2013d) and considered it
as precautionary
Minimal landing size of whiting is 27 cm in the Channel.
IV Recent works on selectivity measures
Several studies have been conducted since the 2000s on the
selectivity measures for the TR2 fishery in the Channel and the
North Sea (SELECAB[footnoteRef:6], SELECFISH[footnoteRef:7],
SELECMER[footnoteRef:8], FMC-NS[footnoteRef:9], SAUPLIMOR; See
Annex 1 (Vogel et al. 2015) for more details). Square mesh
cylinder, articulated rigid grid and semi rigid grid have notably
been tested to improve the overall selectivity of this fishery,
including demersal and pelagic species. These exercises were really
difficult because of the mix nature of this fishery. Indeed,
results were always mixed, the decreasing of discards for one or
more species (which do not save any money) leading to severe
economic impacts on the others species caught (Table 2). For
example, a decrease of 56% of the discards with articulated rigid
grid and square mesh cylinder is accompanied by a commercial loss
about 36% (vessels 18m). Moreover, some of the selective devices
tested were particularly difficult to install and handle by the
crew (articulate grid). No selective devices were then regulatory
adopted by the TR2 fishery in the Channel, even if most of the TR2
fishery operating in the North Sea keeps its regulatory square mesh
panel when operating in the Channel. [6:
http://wwz.ifremer.fr/manchemerdunord/Unite-Halieutique/Halieutique-Boulogne-sur-Mer/Axes-de-recherche/Dynamique-des-pecheries/Projets-de-recherche-associes/SELECCAB
;
http://wwz.ifremer.fr/manchemerdunord/content/download/41271/562568/file/SELECCAB-Hauturiers.pdf
;
http://wwz.ifremer.fr/manchemerdunord/content/download/41270/562557/file/SELECCAB-Artisans.pdf]
[7: http://wwz.ifremer.fr/peche/Projets/Selecfish2 ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDm9yJDziPs] [8:
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2009/rapport-6776.pdf] [9:
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2001/rapport-3463.pdf]
Table 2 Examples of selective measures studied since the
beginning of the 2000s
Bottom trawlers < 18m using TR2
Bottom trawlers 18m using TR2
Unwanted catches
Wanted catches (commercial catches)
Unwanted catches
Wanted catches (commercial catches)
Square mesh cylinder
(80 mm ; 2 m long)
-59 % of whiting
-29 % -35 %
flatfishes
Minimal loss for whiting and cuttlefish;
-14 % of squids;
- 8 % to -22% of flatfishes
-22 % of discards
(all species)
-16 % revenue
(all species)
Semi rigid grid (23 mm) + Square mesh panel
(60 mm ; 1 m long)
-21 % of discards
(all species)
-31 % revenue
(all species)
-56 % of discards
(all species)
-36 % revenue
(all species)
Articulated rigid grid. (30mm) + Square mesh cylinder
(80 mm ; 2 m long)
-78 % of discards
(all species)
-35 % revenue
(all species)
_ _ _
_ _ _
Articulated rigid grid (30mm)
_ _ _
__ _
-67 % of whiting
-49 % of plaice
-49 % of whiting
-18 % of plaice
The application of the landing obligation will certainly lead to
a new reflexion on the use of the selective devices previously
tested, notably according to the species that the vessels will have
to land. The losses of commercial catches will have to be compared
to the costs of the handling of the unwanted catches / ability to
continue to fish for a vessel fill range of quota species. This
comparison is extremely difficult to project on the light of the
change in the regulation that will occur January 1st, 2016, in the
context of the landing obligation and absence of clarity on how
additional species will be added to the landing obligation in
coming years. This aspect is a part of what led to develop the
French project EODE[footnoteRef:10]. This study is currently
ongoing in the North Sea and the Eastern Channel with the
objectives to look at the adaptation of the fishing strategy of two
TR2 vessels (< and > 18m) in front of the landing obligation,
and the impact of the LO onboard and inland. During the trials
(2weeks per month between October 2014 and September 2015), the
vessels are in the situation of full or half-full landing
obligation, and have to adapt their behaviour according to the
species they want to avoid. The selective devices previously tested
in the selectivity studies are at their disposition. Moreover, the
vessels will test new selective devices: T90 codend trawl
(80-90mm), which shows interesting results for gadoids in the
Celtic Sea; but also a 90mm and 100 mm trawl, which are actually
repulsive because of the loss of effort in the frame of the Cod
plan. Preliminary results should be available by the end of 2015.
[10:
http://www.comite-peches.fr/wp-content/uploads/Plaquette_EODE.pdf]
Finally, a new French selective study is under development by
some Regional Fishing Committees in collaboration with Producers
Organisations for the TR1 and the TR2 fisheries in the Western and
the Eastern Channel. The beginning of this study is hoped for the
fourth trimester of 2015, and will involve boats of different sizes
( 18m), for preliminary results planned in the beginning of
2017.
V Disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches
Few studies have previously studied what will be the economic
impact of a landing obligation, especially regarding what the CFP
called the "disproportionate costs" (Buisman et al. 2013, Condie et
al. 2013a and b, Poseidon, 2013; See Annex 2 (Macher et al., 2015 )
for more details). It is important to notice that several
scientific projects (EODE, CELSELEC, REDRESSE[footnoteRef:11],
local studies in the Channel for France) are currently ongoing for
the mixed fishery, which will try to assess the economic impacts of
the landing obligation at vessel and fleet levels. European "H2020"
research projects (DiscardLess[footnoteRef:12];
MINOUW[footnoteRef:13]) should also bring some elements on these
subjects in several years. [11:
http://www.aglia.org/sites/aglia.org/files/projets-pdf/La%20s%C3%A9lectivit%C3%A9%20en%20action.pdf]
[12:
http://wwz.ifremer.fr/emh/content/download/83625/1046566/file/DiscardLess.pdf]
[13: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/fem/projects.html#minouw]
Apart from that, general observations can emphasize the fact
that the landing obligation will result in many additional costs
for the fishers (as underlined by the Commission staff working
paper, 2011[footnoteRef:14]), but also for Fishing Producers and
harbour operators. These costs will prove most certainly
disproportionate compared to the valorisation which could be made
of the unwanted catches to be landed. [14:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/sec_2011_891_en.pdf]
- The TR2 fishery in the Channel is a mixed fishery financially
depending on several species (gadoids, cephalopods, pelagic
species, which are often spatially and temporally associated
related), operating long fishing trips (~3 days in average, up to 7
days) at considerable distance from home harbours (more than 1000km
return);
- The sorting and storing of the unwanted catches will increase
the time of the labour by fishing operation, thus increasing the
cost when the value of the catches sorted decrease, with economic
impacts on the whole fishing trip;
- Vessels have a legally limited capacity of storage, which may
be affected by the need to store unwanted catches at the expense of
targeted and commercial catches;
- Companies which can enhance the economic value of unwanted
catches are still rare for many MS, resulting in additional costs
related to the logistics of collecting these unwanted catches.
Their onshore processing will be even more problematic, because
landings of unwanted catches will not be regular in terms of
quantity and quality and very scattered along landing points ;
- Development of new market for unwanted catches will take
several years before being economically effective; it will not be
reasonably possible before January 1st, 2016
Several of these aspects have been identified amongst others in
the English Discard Ban Trial (Catchpole et al. 2014).
In the United Kingdom a recent report produced by Seafish
examined the potential for using discard fish[footnoteRef:15]. The
feasibility study surveyed nine main outlets in the UK interested
in utilising discards as raw materials to process into animal, pet
and aqua feed; compost and organic fertilizer; frozen bait; and
other products such as renewable energy generation. Most outlets
stated they accepted raw material in all formats including whole
fish, trimmings, ensiled or fresh, and that the majority already
had sufficient processing capacity to receive discards. They also
suggested that fishmeal processors would be willing to pay ~125 per
tonne of material supplied. Ensiling and digestion would cost
between 30 and 64 per tonne excluding onshore transport costs. Only
two processors indicated that they may be willing to develop local
solutions e.g. plants as most suggested they had sufficient
processing capacity at current sites to handle potential discards.
[15:
http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/SR661_Utilising_Discards_bulk_uses.pdf]
Estimates of discard quantities from English fleets, based on
data from scientific observers, showed that most of the commercial
outlets were not located close to the main landing ports where the
discards would be likely come ashore but that infrastructure could
be developed over time. In the short term however there were
uncertainties about the quantities of discards that may be
available.
The report also highlighted the costs that vessels may face in
bringing unwanted material ashore and accessing these disposal
routes. The costs per vessel metier vary significantly but also the
design of each vessel would be critical.
In addition to the findings of the report, discussion between
industry and UK government have noted that the gradual phasing in
of the landing obligation over a period of years prevents fishermen
/ bulk use processors from developing the necessary cost
efficiencies into any management system. This means that the act of
disposal, mainly due to the storage and transport costs, remains
prohibitively expensive in the short term and that those
potentially willing to invest wanted to wait before committing
investment.
Hereafter are some examples of economic elements to take in
account in the potential costs associated to the landing obligation
(data from French Fisher Organisations).
Profits based on price of fish for meal : from 20/ton to 60/ton
;
Distance from landing ports to the factory : from 2 to more than
500km;
Cost of transport : 0,30 /ton/km or 280/ton;
Cost of icing of 10 to 50/ton
Cost of storage: ~ 40 /ton/day ;
VI Conclusion
According to the fact that:
- The TR2 fishery using bottom trawls < 100 mm in the Channel
is a mixed fishery financially depending on several species,
operating long fishing trips (~3 days in average, up to 7 days) at
considerable distance from home harbours (up km 1000km);
- A substantial proportion of the current whiting catch is
discarded. Reducing the unwanted catch may take several years in
the context of the landing obligation. An exemption of 7% will help
the fishermen to adapt their fishing activity because improving
selectivity as required by the new CFP is no trivial;
- Selectivity efforts for this fishery must be addressed under
the new angle of the landing obligation, in a regulatory context
that should be deeply modified in the coming years. The EODE
project as well as H2020 Discardless will give precious information
on the way the landing obligation can be dealt by the
fishermen.
- De minimis exemptions can provide the flexibility to the
fishermen to adapt their behaviour to such new regulation frame,
particularly during the first years of the landing obligation
implementation.
A de minimis exemption of 7% is requested for whiting for the
fishery using bottom trawls MLS become more and more
substantial.
Mesh Size
70mm
80mm
90mm
100mm
Catch in Number
11864
11217
10456
9582
Catch/Population (Num)
74%
70%
65%
60%
Catch >MLS
11248
10613
9864
9002
Discards MLS in comparison to Nephrops less than MLS. For
example, increasing mesh the mesh size to 100mm from 70mm is
predicted to result in a 20% loss of marketable Nephrops, while
only reducing the retention of Nephrops below MLS of only 6%.
Increasing the mesh size from 80 to 100mm would result in only a 4%
reduction in Nephrops MLS.
It is also important to note that the relative difference
between losses of marketable Nephrops with reductions in Nephrops
below MLS increases with increasing mesh size.
(iii) Socio-economic impact
As noted above, any substantial changes in mesh size to
significantly reduce the levels of undersize Nephrosp caught would
likely result in substantial losses of marketable Nephrops in all
fisheries in ICES area VII. A particular concern in the Irish Sea
is that the average size of Nephrops is lower than elsewhere. This
may be due to the higher density of Nephrops found there than in
other Functional Units (FU), in particular the high densities
observed in FU 15. Studies in the Irish Sea (Briggs et al, 1999)
showed that catch rates of Nephrops of all sizes of Nephrops below
30mm carapace reduced when increasing mesh size from 70 to 80mm.
Therefore marketable Nephrops between 20 and 29mm will be lost as
mesh size increases.
In many cases, the catching and processing sectors have
developed their businesses to adapt to smaller Nephrops. Most
nephrops landed by the UK (Northern Irish) fishing fleet are tailed
and used as the basis of breaded scampi products. Larger tails are
used in whole tail scampi whilst a substantial market and
technology has been developed for a reformed tail scampi product
utilising smaller tails.
As these businesses are heavily dependent on prawns in the size
range 20-29 mm carapace length, significant losses will result from
increasing mesh size to try to reduce Nephrops that are below 20mm
carapace length.
(iv) Conclusion
While it may be technically possible to reduce the catches of
unwanted Nephrops, from an economic perspective this is not viable,
as the currently available tools, if applied would certainly result
in business falling below economic break-even which has been
suggested by STECF as an appropriate metric to determine whether a
given solution is technically very difficult or not (in line with
the basic regulation). While it would be desirable to follow the
opinion of STECF through determining the economic impact i.e. use
of the Break Even Revenue Indicator to ascertain whether such
losses would be economically sustainable or not, given that
economic data is aggregated at the resolution of gear and vessel
length i.e. no consideration of the target species, it is not
possible to undertake such an analysis. However, given that current
technical approaches are unlikely to result in substantial
reductions in catches of Nephrops 100). Very large sole (> 37
cm) were captured
more often by the experimental trawl. This result should be
considered carefully due to the small number of these
sized fish caught, and the general infrequence of these sized
fish in the fishery.
The application of the large mesh extension trawl in the Belgian
beam trawl fishery can be considered an
acceptable method to reduce the capture of sole at a level to
meet two needs: reduction of fishing mortality of
undersized sole, and maintain the economic viability of the
Belgian fishing fleet. Such a large reduction in sole
quota from two critical fishing grounds could lead to a failure
in the Belgian fleet to maintain a profitable business,
which could lead to insurmountable conditions to maintain their
commercial operation.
6 References
Breslow, N.E., Clayton, D.G., 1993. Approximate inference in
generalized linear models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 88, 9-25.
Depestele, J., Polet, H., Van Craeynest, K., Vandendriessche,
S., 2011. An overview of sea trials with the alternative beam
trawl. Instituut voor Landbouw- en Visserijonderzoek Technisch
Visserijonderzoek Rapport.
Eayrs, S., 2007. A guide to bycatch reduction in tropical
shrimp-trawl fisheries. Revised edition. Rome: FAO, 13.
European Commission (EC), 2014. Outcome of the council meeting.
Press release for the 3360th Council Meeting, Brussels 15-16
December, 2014. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_
Data/docs/pressdata /en/agricult/146304.pdf (Jan. 2015).
Glass, C.W., 2000. Conservation of fish stocks through bycatch
reduction: a review. Northeast Naturalist 7, 395-410.
He, P., 2010. Behavior of Marine Fishes: Capture Processes and
Conservation Challenges. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Holst R., Revill A., 2009. A simple statistical method for catch
comparison studies. Fish. Res. 95, 254-259.
Lescrauwaet, A., Torreele, E., Vincx, M., Polet, H., Mees, J.,
2013. Invisible catch: A century of bycatch and unreported removals
in sea fisheries, Belgium 19292010. Fish. Res. 147, 161-174.
R Development Core Team, 2009. R: A language and environment for
statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org (January 2015).
Reeves, S.A., Armstrong, D.W., Fryer, R.J., Coull, K.A., 1992.
The effects of mesh size, codend extension length and codend
diameter on the selectivity of Scottish trawls and seines. ICES J.
Mar. Sci. 49, 279-288.
Tessens, E., Velghe, M., 2013. De Belgische Zeevisserij 2013:
Economische situatie van de Belgische rederijen. Ministry of the
Flemish Government, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Sea
fisheries Office, 8.
Venables, W.N., Ripley, B.D., 2002. Modern Applied Statistics
with S. Fourth Ed. Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387-95457-0.
Winger, P.D., Eayrs, S., Glass, C.W., 2010. Fish behavior near
bottom trawls. In: He, P. (Ed.), Behavior of Marine Fishes: Capture
processes and conservation challenges. Willey-Blackwell, Ames, IA,
67-103.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_%20Data/docs/pressdata%20/en/agricult/146304.pdfhttp://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_%20Data/docs/pressdata%20/en/agricult/146304.pdfhttp://www.r-project.org/
Contact
Shannon Bayse, ScientistInstitute for Agricultural and Fisheries
Research
Animal SciencesAnkerstraat 1 8400 Oostende
BelgiumT +32 (0)59 56 98 75
[email protected]
Copies and use of content are allowed on the condition that the
source is clearly noted.
This publication, including all content, is protected under
international copyrights. ILVO grants all users a free, worldwide
right to access this work and a license to copy, use, distribute
and publicly display the content of this work, as well as to
distribute derivative works in any digital medium for any
non-commercial purpose. This permission is granted subject to
proper attribution of authorship and ownership of the rights.
This publication has been prepared by the authors with the
utmost care and accuracy. Neither ILVO nor the authors nor anyone
else involved in creating, producing or delivering this publication
or the materials contained therein, assumes any liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information provided in this publication, nor shall they be liable
for any direct or indirect damages arising out of the use of the
information made available through this publication.
Instituut voor Landbouw- en VisserijonderzoekBurg. Van
Gansberghelaan 929820 Merelbeke - Belgium
T +32 9 272 25
[email protected]
Large mesh extension report - Draft - 26-2-2015.pdf1 Abstract2
Introduction3 Material and methods4 Results5 Discussion6
References
