Page 1 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

Pelagic AC

Louis Braillelaan 80 2719 EK Zoetermeer

The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0)63 375 6324

E-mail: info@pelagic-ac.org Website: www.pelagic-ac.org

Participants

1 Sean O’Donoghue, chairman Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation 2 Anne Doeksen North Sea Foundation 3 Bjorn Åsgård Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation Sweden 4 Cephas Ralph Marine Scotland Compliance 5 Eric Roeleveld Jaczon 6 Ernesto Penas DG MARE 7 Esben Sverdrup-Jensen Danish Pelagic Producer’s Organisation 8 Eskild Kirkegaard ICES 9 Frederik Schutyser DG MARE 10 Gerard van Balsfoort Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association 11 Jerome Nouis From Nord 12 Joost Paardekooper DG MARE 13 Julian Roberts Marine Management Organisation UK 14 Konstantinos Kokosis European Bureau for Conservation and Development 15 Leon Bouts Netherlands Food and Consumer Products Safety Authority 16 Malin Hultgren Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation Sweden 17 Manuela Musella DG MARE 18 Martin Pastoors Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association 19 Matthew Cox North Atlantic Fishing Company Limited 20 Matthias Bigorgne French Fisheries Directorate 21 Michael O’Mahony Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority Ireland 22 Norman Graham DG MARE 23 Rob Pronk W van der Zwan 24 Verena Ohms Pelagic AC 25 William Stewart European Fisheries Control Agency

1. Introduction by the chairman, Sean O’Donoghue

The chair opened the meeting and explained that Ian Gatt who is the chairman of the Pelagic AC was supposed to chair this meeting, but is tied up in Scotland discussing BREXIT with his administration. He sent his apologies and had asked Sean O’Donoghue to chair the meeting in his absence. A tour de

Workshop on the Landing

Obligation 5 July 2016

09.30-13:00 hrs

Rue Phillipe Le Bon 3 Room 3.36 Brussels

Page 2 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

table followed. Subsequently the chairman thanked the Commission and in particular Ernesto Penas for providing the meeting room and for helping organize the meeting. He recalled that the Pelagic AC has spent a lot of time producing a document on how to implement the pelagic landing obligation which was unanimously supported by all Pelagic AC members. Unfortunately the only recommendation that was adopted by the Member States (MS) was in relation to minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRS). If more of the Pelagic AC recommendations had been taken onboard some of the issues causing problems would have been resolved by now. The chairman further pointed out that there had been a number of productive meetings with control experts from the North Sea (NS) and the North Western Waters (NWW) regional groups. To date the Pelagic AC has not been able to meet with the South Western Waters (SWW) control group despite efforts by the Pelagic AC to establish a working relationship with that group.

2. Presentation on issues and problems identified

In terms of the agenda the chairman said that the meeting will be split into two parts: first the problems and issues identified within the Pelagic AC over the last year will be listed and explained. After the coffee break there will then be a discussion on possible solutions to the problems identified. He hoped that this will be an open meeting where people fully contribute to the discussion so that solutions and a way forward can be found.

He said that whenever he or Ian Gatt spoke to the different control expert groups and MS regional groups the first point they emphasized was that the people on the fishing grounds have to see that rules make sense, because otherwise the landing obligation will not work. To be able to sell the regulation to fishermen it has to make sense and be practical and the successful implementation of the landing obligation is entirely dependent on the buy-in of those affected by it. Another key issue is that the rules have to be applied uniformly across all vessels, including those from Norway and the Faroe Islands.

The first problem identified by the Pelagic AC is in relation to bycatch of a zero TAC stock. This question has especially arisen with herring catches in area VIa and VIIb,c where the TAC has been set to zero. Until today it was not clear how to handle such a situation. Some people could apply a very strict definition of article 15 in this regard and argue to close down the mackerel and horse mackerel fishery early in the season due to herring bycatch.

The next problem was in relation to labour conditions on freezer-trawlers with closed discard chutes. Gerard van Balsfoort explained that on freezer-trawlers fish is sorted and graded and subsequently frozen onboard. During grading it becomes known whether undersized fish and forbidden species, but also species without commercial value is in the catch. Before the introduction of the landing obligation this fish could be discarded through the discard chute. Once the landing obligation entered into force the discard chutes had to be closed. However, there is still fish that freezer-trawlers are allowed to discard, e.g. when it is covered by a de minimis or that must be discarded, e.g. forbidden species. Without the discard chute it is very difficult to get rid of this fish. It has to be put into crates, carried to the upper deck and thrown overboard there. This is risky and against official regulations for labour conditions. Some vessels do not want their crew members to do this and therefore freeze this fish which is very costly. This is but one example of a problem in pelagic fisheries that does not receive much attention from the MS. While Gerard van Balsfoort admitted that the problems in demersal fisheries are much bigger than in pelagic fisheries he urged people to also address the problems encountered with the pelagic landing obligation.

The next question was how the de minimis is applied, whether on individual vessel or MS basis. The chairman pointed out that the Pelagic AC had provided some specific recommendations on the use of the de minimis which were not taken onboard by the NS and NWW groups and only partly by the SWW group. He added that some bycatch of demersal species occurs in pelagic fisheries which could

Page 3 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

be covered by a de minimis. However, the demersal sector is not happy about the pelagic sector requesting a de minimis for demersal species. The chairman said that it was necessary to have an open and frank discussion about this.

In Sweden a new grid has been developed which greatly reduces saithe bycatch in herring fisheries. However, some technical solutions are contrary to the Technical Measures Regulation and a solution has to be found for that.

The next issue related to catch composition rules which are not compatible with the landing obligation as such. Under the landing obligation there is no other option, but to land what has been caught. The only way people could comply with catch composition rules in the past was by discarding and this cannot be done anymore. One of the issues that the Pelagic AC considered especially unfortunate was that the Commission adopted an Implementing Regulation on the Control Regulation in October 2015, but failed to consult the ACs on this regulation. Some of the issues now raised could have been addressed in this Implementing Regulation if the ACs had been consulted.

Another issue is that it is often difficult to assess whether fish has been damaged by predators or by fishing equipment, a problem particularly relevant on freezer-trawlers. Some fish gets meshed, some fish gets stuck in buffer tanks and some fish falls from the conveyor belt. This fish is not fit for human consumption. Fish damaged by predators must not be used for human consumption either. However, it is very difficult for a worker on a freezer-trawler to distinguish between the types of damage that occurred. A study by the German authorities on several fishing trips has shown that the total amount of damaged fish per trip is less than 1%. At the moment this broken fish is being frozen. However, this is costly and a sort of unintended collateral damage brought about by the landing obligation.

The next problem was in relation to a conflict with the Animal Byproduct Regulation which has also been highlighted by the NWW control experts group. The nature of pelagic fishing is such that fish is directly pumped from the net into tanks. It is not known whether there is undersized fish in the catch until the grading has been done in the factory. Undersized fish has to be dealt with differently and must not go to human consumption. The processing plant usually only has a license for fish destined for human consumption. The question was how this will be dealt with since there was a fear that an inspector might accuse a processing plant to operate illegally if there is undersized fish in the catch.

An issue that was just recently brought to the attention of the Pelagic AC was that in certain cases the hold of the vessel has to be increased to store fish that was previously being discarded. To do so under EU regulation requires the vessel to purchase gross tonnage (GT) from another vessel which is a huge cost. The same applies to operators that want to invest in more safety and comfort.

One of the biggest issues for the Pelagic AC, however, is the unwillingness of MS to appropriately consult the AC and their continuous rejection of forming a subgroup for widely distributed stocks. Although there is nothing stopping MS from having such a subgroup they categorically refuse this option which has now led to a situation where different conditions apply to the same stock in the SWW compared to the NWW and NS. The chairman said that even at this late stage the Pelagic AC will continue pursuing one regional group for the widely distributed stocks and he hoped that eventually common sense will prevail.

The chairman furthermore pointed out that the MS have so far dismissed almost all of the suggestions submitted by the Pelagic AC in relation to discard plans and all recommendations in relation to control. Within the Pelagic AC people do all they can to agree on unanimous recommendations, but every time these recommendations are presented to the regional groups the MS disagree on them and move on without even seriously considering the recommendations.

Another thing that the chairman considered worth mentioning was the situation where the SWW group decided to change the MCRS for horse mackerel without ever consulting the Pelagic AC. Afterwards the SWW group belatedly sent its joint proposal to the Pelagic AC with a three day

Page 4 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

deadline to respond to the proposal. As a result the Pelagic AC wrote a very strong letter to the SWW group pointing out that this behaviour is not in accordance with the CFP and also made a formal complaint to the Commission. This is not a way the Pelagic AC can operate and this practice has to change.

3. Pelagic AC control recommendations

The chairman explained that the Pelagic AC has made a number of suggestions and spent a lot of time on the control side of things. Personally he was very disappointed, to say the least, in relation to the gramme size recommendation put forward by the Pelagic AC. He considered this recommendation one of the best ever made by the Pelagic AC and he was convinced that it would have had a huge effect in relation to compliance with the landing obligation. Unfortunately the control experts did not see the benefits of mandatorily reporting gramme sizes. However, the Pelagic AC considered the collection of gramme sizes a very valuable, real-time tool. Furthermore, while the information does not have to be recorded in the logbook, pelagic vessels record the information anyway for market purpose since all pelagic fish is sold by gramme size. The chairman saw this as an excellent way to identify high risk vessels instead of categorizing all RSW vessels as high risk. The Pelagic AC felt that this tool is really worth it being explored and he wanted to check again whether control experts might be willing to take this recommendation onboard. Once high risk vessels have been identified using gramme size reporting additional control tools will be applied to such vessels. This could be closed-circuit television (CCTV), observers etc. or a combination of those. The chairman considered this a more efficient suggestion than to bring in CCTV on all vessels.

Another recommendation again referred to the need for a level-playing field. At the moment the chairman saw a scenario where MS ignore the recommendations from the Pelagic AC and implement CCTV from a certain date onwards. The Norwegians and Faroese, however, are very unlikely to accept that situation and he predicted ending up with two pelagic vessels fishing on the same grounds and yet abiding different regulations. He was not even sure that the landing obligation can be applied to Norwegian and Faroese vessels. If a Norwegian or Faroese vessel is detained by a MS for an offense and found guilty, that vessel will not get any penalty points. An EU vessel would get penalty points. This was not a fair system. There was also the issue of cross-border fishing. There is a de minimis for mackerel in the SWW, but not in the NWW.

The Pelagic AC also recommended to do a risk evaluation by gear and species rather than by vessel type and to have one regional group dealing with the widely distributed stocks instead of three or four separate groups.

The chairman furthermore pointed out that the collaboration with regional groups must improve. At the Schiphol meeting on 17 May with the control experts he requested that instead of the control expert groups (CEGs) submitting final recommendations to the high level groups (HLGs) they should have a discussion with the ACs first. Once a report has been presented to the HLGs the CEGs will have to defend that report even if there are anomalies in there. It would hence be very sensible to sit down with the ACs first and discuss the ideas. That would not stop CEGs from making recommendations, but it would make them aware of potential issues. He was very surprised when the CEGs did not want to agree to this suggestion and he hoped to find a good way of working together. He wondered if the Commission could act as an honest broker and get reason to prevail.

He asked the meeting participants if they had any other issues that they would like to address and that should be added to the list of problems.

Matthew Cox suggested adding the issue of quota swaps connected to the landing obligation to the list. However, the chairman thought that this was already touching on solutions. He pointed out that the main problem in pelagic fisheries is the bycatch of demersal species. The Pelagic AC had

Page 5 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

previously suggested a way around this at one of the workshops by making an amendment to the TAC and Quota Regulation to include hake in the footnote. However, people representing demersal interests were vehemently against this idea.

Michael O’Mahony said that from an individual control expert point of view the real issue in pelagic fisheries is the non-compliance with the discard-logging regulation. The chairman agreed to add this point to the list.

Gerard van Balsfoort said that the MCRS for mackerel in the NS is a problem. The Commission has already proposed to align the MCRS between different areas into one.

The chairman said added that the real problem is how to assess MCRS when fishing across the line. It is an implementation issue and he wondered how control people will look at this.

Cephas Ralph thanked the chairman for an interesting exposition of some of the problems. In his experience non-compliance with the landing obligation is driven by financial gain. In the pelagic industry there is a system whereby money derived from the catch depends on the size composition of the catch and that will continue as a driver for discarding. He said that there are very few options to stop that.

The chairman fully agreed with Cephas Ralph and pointed out that this was one of the main reasons to suggest the mandatory reporting of gramme sizes as a control tool.

Eric Roeleveld pointed out that flexibility was needed in relation to removing upper mesh size. The chairman agreed that a solution has to be found for this, because amending the Technical Measures Regulation will take at least two years.

4. Discussion on potential solutions

The chairman went back to the beginning of the presentation to discuss each problem one by one. The first one was how to deal with bycatch and zero TAC species. In terms of bycatch people mainly refer to demersal bycatch in pelagic fisheries. Zero TAC refers to situations like herring in VIa and VIIb,c where ICES advised a zero TAC. The chairman suggested to deal with the bycatch issue first. Solutions proposed to date included swaps, quota uplifts and de minimis.

Ernesto Penas said that people have to differentiate between zero TAC and zero quota. The question on quota swaps is different from how to deal with zero TACs. The kind of situation provided for by zero TACs could maybe be eliminated by a flexibility mechanism. This is different from a situation where a MS has zero quota. There the question is how to deal with relative stability and quota swaps could be a solution. However, some industry representatives said that quota swaps are not increasing. The Commission decided to look into this issue and has gathered some very preliminary results which will be presented at the NSAC meeting in Aberdeen next week. For now it seems indeed that quota swaps are not increasing. The Commission will therefore explore how extra transparency could be provided so that people get a better idea of who has which quota.

The chairman wanted to explore this issue from a pelagic point of view. As example he used hake quota which not all pelagic fishermen have access to. He wanted to know what will happen in a scenario where a pelagic vessel cannot get quota for hake. In theory the fishery will have to close down. It could happen that e.g. the mackerel fishery has to stop because of a few hundred tonnes of hake bycatch while there is still 100.000 tonnes of mackerel available. The chairman encouraged people to think of a pragmatic solution for this issue.

Ernesto Penas agreed that pragmatic solutions have to be found. It is not the intention of the landing obligation to close a fishery early in the season that still has a lot of quota left. He suggested using

Page 6 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

the experience from the Pelagic AC to identify bottlenecks like hake and herring in certain areas and to check how flexibility of quota swaps can be increased.

Matthew Cox pointed out that the landing obligation itself reduced liquidity of the whole swapping mechanism which is the real problem. The company he represents is currently prosecuting a herring fishery in the NS and has a small quota of NS mackerel available. Normally he would be happy to swap this quota, but he will not do so this year, because there are small bycatches of mackerel. So, instead he will hold on to the quota until the end of the year when he knows exactly how much mackerel bycatch there was. This happens in all fisheries.

The chairman explained that in 2016 hake was included in the landing obligation in NWW. In 2015 it was relatively easy for pelagic vessels to get access to hake, but now it is not anymore, because everyone needs hake quota for himself. There is very little scope in MS for swapping and he wanted to know what will happen if people cannot get hake quota.

Ernesto Penas considered this an interesting discussion and understood from the interventions that initially it seems that the landing obligation has reduced quota swaps. In that case another solution has to be found, perhaps the 9% inter-species flexibility as described in article 15 could be applied.

Matthew Cox said that the de minimis applies only to certain species whereas the inter-species flexibility does not apply at all due to the unwillingness of MS to define which stocks are within safe biological limits. He could only see cod equivalent measures as a possibility to deal with the problem. What that does to relative stability is another issue.

The chairman said that at the moment there is a swapping mechanism on price per ton to balance the swaps. However, he was trying to avoid a dooms day scenario where a fishery will be closed because of lack of hake quota. He said that MS have taken a very narrow view on article 15, especially in regards to the 9% inter-species flexibility.

Ernesto Penas said that the Commission does provide a list of species which are within safe biological limits and that it was the responsibility of ICES to determine which stocks are within safe biological limits not the MS.

Gerard van Balsfoort explained that last year hake had no reference points and therefore it was not possible to apply the inter-species flexibility. This year there are reference points for the stock and it is within safe biological limits. However, MS already made their discard plans and do not seem to want to use the inter-species flexibility.

Frederik Schutyser pointed out that in the Fishing Opportunity Regulation it is indicated which stocks are within safe biological limits. There has been a discussion on how the Commission interprets the regulation, but the Commission is consistent in the way it applies the regulation. The list of stocks within safe biological limits is updated based on the latest scientific advice.

Ernesto Penas said that not using the inter-species flexibility is the failure of the MS since they have no reason not to use it.

Joost Paardekooper added that using the inter-species flexibility is up to the MS and does not have to be invoked through discard plans.

Ernesto Penas remarked that looking at different discard plans it can be seen that MS apply the de minimis in different ways. He understood that the Pelagic AC feels that MS have not listened to its recommendations. However, in the case of other ACs it seems that MS listened very well and took over a lot of the ACs’ recommendations. Therefore it was necessary to analyse why this has not been the case for the Pelagic AC.

Page 7 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

The chairman replied that other ACs gave very general recommendations whereas the Pelagic AC has been very specific. To him this was where the problem arose. Coming back to a zero TAC situation he said that converting bycatch into another species will still result in a lot of bycatch.

Ernesto Penas explained that if there was no landing obligation there would still be catches of a zero TAC stock. In his view nothing will change in terms of fishing mortality. The only thing that will change is that catches will be reported.

Matthew Cox wanted to know what will happen when at the end of the year it turns out that someone caught 4 tonnes of something for which he does not have quota.

Gerard van Balsfoort replied that this is already happening and that MS book these catches under other quota which have not been exhausted. Fishermen are not being penalized since these are tiny amounts to balance the books.

Ernesto Penas said that banking and borrowing can be applied each year. That means if someone has exceeded catches of one stock, then this can be paid back in the next year. If that is not possible because that person does not have quota for that stock, then his quota for another stock will be reduced.

Michael O’Mahony considered this problem to be just a choke species issue. From a control perspective he wanted to point out that on the 1st of July, when a vessel catches hake, until January this is considered to be hake and the Control Regulation prohibits direct fishing for a stock for which someone has no quota.

Gerard van Balsfoort said that this is true and that transfers at the end of the year are normally for small amounts. However, hake bycatch is much higher and he did not see a possibility to transfer that much hake to balance the books. So, indeed, hake is a choke species.

Michael O’Mahony further pointed out that there is a difference between zero quota and zero TAC. Regarding zero TAC of herring he said that in the past discards of herring have not been logged, but all of a sudden people say that there is a problem with herring bycatch.

However, the chairman replied that herring catches have been recorded. In the past it was allowed to have 60% mackerel and 40% herring. That 40% is suddenly zero and he wanted to know what is going to happen next. Will the mackerel and horse mackerel fishery be closed because of herring bycatch? He furthermore said that herring bycatch has even been recorded in 2015.

Ernesto Penas said that there is no date in the CFP about when which flexibility can be applied and that people have to use common sense.

The chairman wanted to know whether CEGs have discussed how control authorities will deal with such a scenario.

Michael O’Mahony responded that this topic has not been specifically discussed within any of the CEGs. There were some small quantities of boarfish catches both discarded and retained on-board by a MS that does not have boarfish quota. Control authorities accepted this, assuming that the MS will book those catches as something else at the end of the year.

Esben Sverdrup-Jensen said that this is a major issue which has to be addressed. To illustrate an example he pointed out that there is an ITQ system in Denmark. It could happen that a vessel with herring quota catches 600 tonnes of herring and has a bycatch of 20 tonnes of mackerel and 5 tonnes of saithe. However, these catches are not being sorted onboard and the skipper will land the catch into a factory and get paid for herring. Mackerel and saithe has no value and goes into fishmeal. So, this vessel has to cover its bycatch. It can do so by either renting fish which is fairly expensive or by buying quota which is even more expensive. To avoid this situation he recommends to the vessel owners to buy saithe quota and cover their potential bycatch even though saithe has no value for

Page 8 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

them. However, this creates a huge conflict with the demersal sector in Denmark. Mackerel is probably even more expensive to rent. A potential solution is inter-species flexibility. The Pelagic AC was very concerned about how MS would use this flexibility and therefore recommended using the de minimis instead. However, in the current situation the inter-species flexibility might be the right solution as long as this fish is not sold for human consumption. He further pointed out that there already is the footnote in the TAC and Quota Regulation and in his personal view people should look into solving some of the issues by using footnotes. Otherwise people risk a major conflict between the demersal and the pelagic sector.

The chairman agreed that the Pelagic AC should look at the footnotes, in particular regarding mackerel and horse mackerel. He did foresee a conflict with the demersal sector, but said that it had to be done. Regarding scientific assessments he wanted to know how these will deal with situations where e.g. catches of herring with a zero TAC will be converted into mackerel.

Eskild Kirkegaard said that this depends entirely on the data ICES gets. At the moment ICES is very concerned that it will not get the real data of what has been caught. In the industrial fishery there was a separate monitoring program set-up to monitor bycatch and not only logbooks. Not getting the real information could introduce a bias which will matter in the assessments.

Ernesto Penas pointed out that the provision for using inter-species flexibility is to report the real species that has been caught. It can be counted against another stocks quota, but it has to be reported.

The chairman agreed that this was necessary, but it seemed to him that there was no mechanism enabling this.

Björn Åsgård said that the Scheveningen Group has agreed on principles regarding how to apply interspecies flexibility, although the individual MS remain responsible for its application. He promised to share the document with the Pelagic AC.

The chairman concluded that the group should look into footnotes, quota swaps and inter-species flexibility to address bycatch issues. He also thought that a lot can be done in terms of de minimis, particularly regarding its interpretation. He wanted to try to get MS agree on a methodology in terms of changing one species for another.

On the next issue Gerard van Balsfoort said that the Marine Management Organisation in the UK has provided some guidelines for freezer-trawlers on how to deal with the discard chute, but this was an ongoing discussion. Some ship owners did not want to get into the discussion and therefore decided to just close the discard chute. However, this issue is not easy to solve and every type of vessel has its own set of problems. In general he would like to find a working solution with control authorities.

The chairman suggested that the Pelagic AC could raise this issue with the CEGs and try to reach an agreement.

Gerard van Balsfoort thought that that could be a possibility, but he also pointed out that this will be a very technical discussion.

The next item was in relation to how the de minimis is applied, but the chairman pointed out that this has already been covered and that MS seem to have a very narrow view on the de minimis, mostly refusing to grant it to pelagic fisheries.

Ernesto Penas said that it was important to understand why MS were open to consider high de minimis levels in the demersal sector while they had little sympathy for the pelagic sector. To his understanding MS thought that discards in pelagic fisheries are so low that by allowing a de minimis nothing would change in pelagic fisheries.

Page 9 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

The chairman said that the Pelagic AC never disputed MS in that there is a low discard rate in pelagic fisheries. However, demersal bycatch in pelagics never came up. The Pelagic AC approached the de minimis from a species point of view and the chairman wanted to start the dialogue from that angle.

The next issue was in relation to a new grid developed in Sweden to reduce saithe bycatch in herring fisheries.

Ernesto Penas said that the new technical measures proposal is aiming to cater for this kind of things. At the moment even small changes to technical measures have to be decided through co-decision which does not make sense. The Commission’s new proposal allows for regional measures to be implemented quickly. However, so far the Commission has received signals from the Parliament indicating that MEPs think the Commission tries to take away decision-making power from the Parliament. He therefore strongly encouraged people to talk to their MEPs and tell them that this kind of flexibility is needed in order to have a more regional approach to technical measures.

Joost Paardekooper was not familiar with the technicalities of the Swedish example, but he wondered what would stop the industry from introducing more selective gear. He pointed out that with the Omnibus Regulation in place such measures can already be dealt with through joint recommendations. At the same time the CFP enables individual MS to carry out pilot projects to take up a specific problem. He said that it was not necessary to wait with this until a new Technical Measures Regulation has been adopted.

The chairman considered this a good suggestion and short-term solution. The long-term solution will be a revision of the technical measures. He concluded that the Pelagic AC will have to identify measures to be included in the pelagic discard plans.

Joost Paardekooper added that the discard plans can be amended annually. Currently the Commission is amending the SWW delegated act, because the SWW group wanted to change the MCRS of horse mackerel.

The chairman remarked that the Pelagic AC has never been properly consulted on the amendment proposal by the SWW group.

In regards to catch composition rules the chairman thought that this might also be included in discard plans.

Ernesto Penas wanted to know what exactly was meant by catch composition rules given that the Omnibus Regulation has already dealt with that matter.

Gerard van Balsfoort explained that there was a specific issue with the mackerel box. Before the landing obligation a vessel targeting horse mackerel could discard mackerel if there was more than 15% mackerel in the catch. Under the landing obligation, however, it has to be kept and if there is more than 15% mackerel in the catch the vessel has to leave the mackerel box and search for horse mackerel outside the box. However, the area is very large and the horse mackerel fishing grounds are inside the box. He therefore suggested to either reduce the size of the mackerel box or to change the catch composition rules inside the box.

Given that this is a very specific rule applying in the mackerel box the chairman suggested asking for a scientific review of the issue and receive an update from the Commission at the Pelagic AC October meeting.

Joost Paardekooper explained that most catch composition rules were removed through the Omnibus Regulation. However, this one was kept because it was intended to protect mackerel. The idea has never been to discard mackerel, but to move on. Therefore, this rule is still in place.

Page 10 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

Leon Bouts added that this issue has also been discussed at a joint meeting with all regional groups last year. At this meeting MS also interpreted the mackerel box as a moving on provision and therefore decided to keep it.

The chairman nevertheless thought that a scientific review of the mackerel box would be valuable.

Joost Paardekooper said that it is still possible to look at the issue together with scientists, but now people know why the mackerel box is still there.

The following point was how to deal with damaged fish. The chairman suggested reverting this issue back to control experts if they are willing to meet with the Pelagic AC.

Gerard van Balsfoort said that this issue comes down to a control issue and the question whether MS are willing to reduce costs for ship owners a bit.

Michael O’Mahony thought that this was a good example for allowing a de minimis. Gerard van Balsfoort agreed, but also pointed out that there are two conditions attached to a de minimis: either selectivity cannot be improved or costs are prohibitive. Fishing companies will not go bankrupt if they do not get a de minimis for damaged fish. So, the question is when are costs considered prohibitive?

Michael O’Mahony said that the joint recommendations had a broad view on damaged fish whereas the Omnibus Regulation has a very narrow view.

The chairman concluded to look into the possibility to get a de minimis exemption for damaged fish and said that the interpretation of article 15 is very important in this case.

Regarding processing plants onboard the chairman thought that this could only be implemented through regional discard plans.

Ernesto Penas was not sure about this and promised to look into the issue. The chairman decided to park the issue until the Commission can provide a view on this.

Julian Roberts said that onboard processing plants are a control issue and that it was important to know what goes into such a processing plant. He said that it would be possible to carry out a pilot project on this.

Ernesto Penas remembered that the idea behind banning onboard processing was to avoid uncertainty about the species and amounts going into the processing plants. If there was a way to make sure that this could be controlled then there would be no reason anymore for banning such equipment.

The chairman agreed and proposed carrying out a pilot project.

The next issue was in regards to the NWW group having identified a conflict with the Animal By-product Regulation, but this problem has been largely resolved by now.

Ernesto Penas was very surprised that this issue still is listed as a problem. He said that this was a problem created by someone trying to protect human health. He wanted to know if people actually encounter problems in regards to this.

Matthew Cox said that the problem was that the regulation did not fit to what happened on the grounds. There was no category for things like undersized fish and people were discussing having to store and transport undersized fish separately.

Joost Paardekooper explained that the Commission has addressed this issue with the MS, but it seemed that neither the Commission nor the MS have ever reached out to the industry to communicate their conclusions. This will have to change in the future. He said that the Animal By-product Regulation is very clear and undersized fish is still edible fish. However, there might be a point at which people themselves declare something as animal by-product and at this point there is

Page 11 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

no way back. Before that there is still flexibility on how to use this fish. So, the Animal By-product Regulation does not apply unless someone declares something as animal by-product himself.

The chairman said that this was new information to him and nobody in the industry has been made aware of this.

Matthew Cox wanted to know if fish damaged by the fishing operation, e.g. the net has to be declared as animal by-product. He pointed out that broken fish is not fit for human consumption, but if this has to be declared as animal by-product it will become very expensive.

Leon Bouts said that it depends on food safety regulations whether such fish qualifies as category three, but Gerard van Balsfoort pointed out that broken fish is automatically category three.

The chairman asked the Commission to provide an update on this issue at the Pelagic AC October meeting.

The following point was about GT increase for safety reasons or as a result of the landing obligation. The chairman wanted to know if there was a reason that the Commission decided to remove the provision from the CFP that solely related to GT increase for safety improvements.

Ernesto Penas replied that there is a long history of the CFP trying to prevent any structural subsidies to increase capacity and capacity has been defined by GT. There is no intention to change that.

However, the chairman pointed out that the previous CFP had a provision specifically relating to safety onboard where people had to prove that any increase in GT will only be to improve safety. He wanted to know whether this provision has been removed for a reason.

Ernesto Penas confirmed that this provision has been removed on purpose. He said that the GT restriction applies to structural measures, but that all MS have plenty opportunity to be flexible, with possibilities of 10% increases on average. However, such increases must not be realized with public money.

Jerome Nouis explained that the organization he works for has carried out a survey on the effects of the discard ban. In 80% of fishing trips there will be a problem with the size of the hold if all catches have to be brought back to shore. In a few years an old vessel will have to be replaced. The new vessel will have a shelter deck and bigger cabins for the crew. This means there will be an increase in GT, but not to increase fishing capacity, but to increase comfort and safety. A solution has to be found for this situation, e.g. by buying GT from smaller vessels. However, smaller vessels already need more GT because of the discard ban. Therefore he argued that increases in GT in relation to safety should not be considered an increase in fishing capacity.

Matthew Cox considered this a much bigger issue than most people realize. It is not necessarily related to the discard ban, but to improvements of safety. GT is not a very smart of controlling fleet capacity, because fishing capacity equals the amount of fish a vessel can hold and that has nothing to do with overall GT.

The chairman suggested that the Pelagic AC will pursue this issue and put it forward to the Commission. If that turns out unsuccessful another option would be to have a discussion on a de minimis exemption in relation to disproportionate costs.

Another big problem is the MS’ unwillingness to take onboard the recommendations of the Pelagic AC and the chairman wondered how the Pelagic AC can get MS to see the usefulness of having one pelagic regional group and of having more influence in terms of final decisions produced. He asked the Commission for help on this matter and emphasized that the Pelagic AC has put a lot of effort into producing fact-based recommendations. Especially having one regional subgroup dealing with the widely distributed stocks made a lot of sense to the Pelagic AC, but MS keep ignoring this recommendation.

Page 12 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

Ernesto Penas pointed out that discard plans can be modified and that people should not get the impression that once a plan has been adopted there is no way back. He emphasized that implementing the landing obligation is a learning experience for all parties involved and that changes might have to be proposed after some data has been collected and analyzed. He explained again that MS are of the opinion that the Pelagic AC recommends certain things so that nothing has to change in pelagic fishing practice. However, the landing obligation is about changing behaviour and he recommended that the Pelagic AC uses its one year of experience with the landing obligation to show that the industry has changed its practice.

The chairman appreciated this comment, but felt that there is often a lack of understanding of how pelagic fisheries work. Most pelagic vessels do not know what their bycatch is until the catch has been landed into the factories. He did not know how the pelagic industry could demonstrate that it is changing practices other than by suggesting how to identify high risk vessels, namely based on mandatory gramme size reporting.

Ernesto Penas replied that EFCA has been developing technologies on how to control the landing obligation. If mandatorily collecting gramme sizes is a good idea, he was certain that EFCA will say so. He said that all parties have an interest to find practical solutions to make the landing obligation work.

William Stewart explained that EFCA is running a project on gramme sizes and has collected gramme size information from factories in Ireland and Scotland and also some at sea. At the moment EFCA was waiting for the fishery to continue. Once the results are available EFCA will present a paper with the outcomes and also meet the MS to discuss how to use gramme sizes.

The chairman said that it would be useful if EFCA could also get some information from those vessels already collecting gramme size information on a haul by haul basis.

William Stewart stressed that EFCA is trying to collect as much data as possible, also directly from vessels. If the chairman could provide information on vessels that would volunteer their data, then EFCA would be very happy about this.

Leon Bouts was concerned about the legal basis for applying additional control tools once high risk vessels have been identified based on gramme size analysis. These vessels will not be happy about the additional controls and object this. He wanted to know how to handle this.

The chairman wanted to know whether this approach could be included in the discard plans once the methodology has been agreed.

Ernesto Penas said that discard plans can only include technical measures, no control measures. However, the legal basis is there through the Control Regulation, which says that action can be taken based on a risk assessment. One way of dealing with this issue is through EFCA’s joint deployment plans.

The chairman asked EFCA to provide and update on its gramme size project at the Pelagic AC meeting in October.

In terms of a level-playing field the chairman pointed out that a situation where a Norwegian vessel is fishing in EU waters under different conditions cannot be accepted.

Ernesto Penas fully agreed with this, but he wanted to know which rules there are that Norwegians would not be bound to.

The chairman responded that the classic example is the penalty point system which does not apply to Norwegian and Faroese vessels.

Page 13 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

Ernesto Penas said that there are already problems to harmonize the sanction system across Europe, because some MS will never accept harmonizing sanctions across Europe, let along with third countries.

The chairman said that the situation is not as simple as that and that officially EU rules apply to Norwegian vessels, but because of the way the rules are constructed they cannot be applied to Norway.

Ernesto Penas replied that a few years back Norwegians could complain that a discard ban did not apply to EU vessels. However, the chairman pointed out that in EU waters the discard ban was not applying to Norway either, but that in Norwegian waters the discard ban applied to EU vessels.

Michael O’Mahony thought that people were missing the big picture and that everybody agreed that the same rules should apply to Norwegian and other third country vessels as they apply to EU vessels. In terms of onboard processing he wanted to know for what that was necessary given that there are no discards logged that would now need to be retained and processed. He said perhaps that the reason MS did not listen to the Pelagic AC recommendations is because the underlying size of the problem is being hidden and not disclosed.

The chairman pointed out that the level of discards is very low in pelagic fisheries, but Michael O’Mahony responded that this was exactly his point. How can we justify a de minimis allowance, because logged discards are so low?

Esben Sverdrup-Jensen considered it very uncomfortable that someone was insinuating that pelagic fisheries have a massive discard problem which has neither been reported by science nor MS. He agreed that there might be a financial benefit in discarding fish, but he also pointed out that there is a massive risk in being caught with huge financial implications. He said that people had to balance the argument.

5. Conclusions and way forward

The chairman concluded that the meeting has been very useful thanks to the open discussion and that people are a little closer to some solutions now. He intended to have another discussion within this forum in October. He thanked the Commission for facilitating the meeting and the participants for attending.

6. AOB

There was no other business.

7. End of meeting

The chairman closed the meeting at 13:15.

Page 14 of 14 Pelagic Advisory Council

Co-funded by the EU

Action items

Add non-compliance with the landing obligation to the problems identified (chairman, secretariat)

Add the removal of upper mesh size to the list of potential solutions (chairman, secretariat)

Explore footnotes in the TAC and Quota Regulation, quota swaps and inter-species flexibility to cover bycatch of demersal species in pelagic fisheries (Pelagic AC)

Send the Scheveningen Group’s document on inter-species flexibility to the Pelagic AC (Björn Åsgård)

Raise discard chutes with CEGs and try to find an agreement (Pelagic AC)

Discuss de minimis approach with MS (Pelagic AC)

Enable implementation of Swedish saithe grid through joint recommendation or pilot project (Pelagic AC, Swedish MS)

Request a scientific review of the mackerel box (Pelagic AC)

Consider possibility to get a de minimis exemption for damaged fish (Pelagic AC)

Carry out a pilot project on onboard processing plants (pelagic industry, MS)

Provide update on the question whether broken fish has to be reported as animal by-product at Pelagic AC October meeting (DG MARE)

Discuss GT increase for safety reasons within the Pelagic AC and put the issue forward to the Commission (Pelagic AC)

Provide update on EFCA gramme size project at Pelagic AC October meeting (EFCA)

Organise another meeting on implementing the landing obligation in October (chairman, secretariat)