FMAC/14/10
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION (FMAC) GROUP
ABERDEEN BANK HADDOCK SCHEME
Summary
As an alternative to a possible expansion of closed areas for the protection of
juveniles, which SWFPA are against, it is important that we present a
workable compromise. In delivering that compromise, we must be fully aware
and take account of the impact that the measures may have on fishing
businesses.
To find a solution we must first understand the problem, which in this case
seems to be two separate yet interconnected issues. The first is the issue of
discarding of small fish below the Minimum Landing Size (MLS), which we
believe to be mainly the result of operating in contravention of the regulations
on gear specification1; this happens in very few cases, is largely undetected,
and is supported only by anecdotal information. The second is the issue of
high grading, which is a business decision to maximize economic yield from
the catch aligned to the available quota and market conditions at the time, and
would seem to be the biggest issue of the two.
It could be argued that a closure would be the most effective measure,
certainly in terms of ease of enforcement. However, the issue of displacement
and the effect that displaced effort could have on the small fish populations
elsewhere, may deliver an unhelpful consequence. Finding a practical and
workable solution for the Aberdeen Bank, short of closing it, may prove to be
the best course of action due to the fact that it would produce a visible,
uncomplicated gain.
The Norwegian approach of moving-on individual vessels and applying wider
precautionary areas where multiple vessels have been moved-on would seem
to provide some basis for a sensible compromise. Importantly, it would
provide a regime for individual fishers to benefit from their own initiative by
allowing them to remain on the fishing grounds, whilst at the same time,
introducing a system where those willing to continue bad practice lose out by
having to move from the area. It would largely address the issue of high
grading, although to operate to any useful degree it would require the setting
of a further reference size and more routine inspection. This Minimum Catch
Size (MCS), which would be above the current Minimum Landing Size (MLS),
would need to take some account of market requirements, although the
introduction of a MCS as a supplementary measure would not restrict the
landing of fish above the minimum landing size; it would merely help to reduce
waste by stimulating a focus on improved selectivity so that the catch remains
within allowable parameters.
1
Council Regulation EU (No) 850/98
A9397514
1
FMAC/14/10
Vessels operating illegally are believed to be catching more of this size of fish
relative to others operating within the law. It is logical therefore to assume that
they would be the first to come up against the new restrictions, which in itself
should be significant enough to prompt a positive response in terms of
improved selectivity.
What we can’t escape in putting together a compromise, is the need to set out
a clear and fair system of deterrents, in the absence of which, there would be
no incentive to comply. This document therefore suggests a level of
punishment within the confines of soft law.
With one eye on the landings obligation, it is important that we start to trial
initiatives such as those applied by Norway. It could be argued that under a
landings obligation, few additional measures need be applied. However, it is
also regularly stated by the sector that we should apply the Norwegian system
as a way of mitigating risk in an enforcement light regime; trialing such an
approach may well help us to assess what is appropriate for future use.
In summing up, it is right that we recognise the reasonably limited extent of
the problem and as such, ensure that measures adopted are fair and
proportionate; that said, it is important that we do enough to protect what
could be classed as our bread and butter stocks.
Introduction
The following is in response to a raised flag by Marine Scotland (MS) who
have declared intent to discuss options to reduce the level of discards at, and
around the Aberdeen Bank. The proposed discussion, which will include area
closures as an option, should be viewed as an attempt to stimulate behavioral
change, allowing the industry to better meet the future requirement to land all
catches, and as a way of giving additional protection to the haddock stock.
Improving selectivity beyond current levels will undoubtedly feature high in the
“what needs to change” list, and new approaches we trial now within a
relatively relaxed administrative framework, may well provide benefits for the
future, as well as influencing how we approach the issue in a broader sense.
SWFPA strongly refutes the need for an area closure due to the fact that we
view discarding in this case as being very much influenced by the individual
vessel operator, rather than a general problem related to area fished or
method of fishing. This view is supported by observed information, which
shows a general problem with high grading, with around two thirds of all
haddock discarded in the area being fish above the current Minimum Landing
Size (MLS) (Observed trips). This means that this particular problem lies
outside the current reach of the EU regulation to protect juveniles2. However,
2
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 783/2011
A9397514
2
FMAC/14/10
anecdotal information on the fishery in the Aberdeen Bank area points to a
potential problem with high levels of discards in only a few TR1 vessels and
that the practice is a result of operating in contravention of current gear
regulations. The relatively low number of juvenile closures, which number
seven in just under five and a half years, with two of those only encroaching at
the edges, would seem to support the point that this is more a high grading
issue than it is the discarding of fish below the MLS. There is of course a
different interpretation, which may or may not be credible, which is that the
relatively low number of closures is the result of light monitoring, or that the
vessels concerned are very aware and operate in an adaptive manner that
ensures closures are avoided.
Finding a solution is made ever more difficult, given that national measures
must go beyond current EU regulation, which means that any one element of
the level of thresholds, area and duration of closure, or the size of the fish,
must be exceeded. Further complexity exists in attempting to marry additional
measures with the flexibility required to make it appealing to fishers.
Article 46 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the
conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of
juveniles of marine organisms states:
1. Member States may take measures for the conservation and management of
stocks:
(a)
in the case of strictly local stocks which are of interest solely to the Member
State concerned; or
(b) in the form of conditions or detailed arrangements designed to limit catches by
technical measures:
(i) supplementing those laid down in the Community legislation on fisheries; or
(ii) going beyond the minimum requirements laid down in the said legislation;
provided that such measures apply solely to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Member
State concerned and registered in the Community or, in the case of fishing activities
which are not conducted by a fishing vessel, to persons established in the Member State
concerned.
Members of SWFPA have long been vociferous about national measures
applying only to Scottish boats. Incidents of repeated incursions into
permanently closed areas such as the long hole and various RTCs for cod,
suggest that unless we cater for almost everyone in the fishery, then the very
visual activities of others begin to undo the best of good causes.
The fishery for haddock in and around the Aberdeen Bank area is prosecuted
almost entirely by Scottish vessels and a handful of English vessels; there is
very little, if any, haddock landed by other nationalities, although a new
dimension could see Norwegian vessels both fishing in the area and landing
the product into Scottish ports. As a result we would suggest that the
measures prosed herein are applicable to both UK and Norwegian vessels.
A9397514
3
FMAC/14/10
Closure to fishing
SWFPA does not accept that closed areas is the most appropriate and
intelligent way of protecting juveniles; the lack of creative thinking and ideas
should not move us to a default position of closing a fishery down, especially
where ease of enforcement is a significant influence in reaching such a
decision. In addition, such an approach fails to take into consideration the
complex nature of fleet dynamics and the unknowns and unintended elements
of fleet displacement and disruption. Further, it would be intrinsically wrong to
apply closures at a time when freedom to operate will be a fundamental
element of a functional landing obligation.
The area
The area we propose for special measures goes well beyond what the sector
itself would call the Aberdeen Bank, although the extent of the area is still
significantly less than first discussed with Marine Scotland. Whilst we
understand the reason for being overly general in terms of presenting the
issue, we should be careful not to understate the relatively diverse nature of
the fisheries, including methods used (Demersal single trawl, Nephrops twin
and single rig trawl, pair seine, Seine net) as well as the range of depths and
bottom types within the area; the Aberdeen Bank is one feature within a much
larger area.
It is very much the case that abundances of haddock appear in different
locations at different times, as well as appearing in different locations at the
same time, but with different age structures. It is important therefore that we
design an approach which accommodates the diverse nature and profile of
the fishery.
SWFPA will use fishers’ knowledge on bottom type (rocky or sand) and
known variations of depths (shallow banks) to map the area.
Alternative approach – Norway
Norway operates a discard policy that is very light in touch; the level at which
it affects individual vessels very much depends on the actions and approach
of the skipper. The policy relies on various support mechanisms such as a
move-on policy which, as well as moving vessels from the area when
observed levels of discards are too high, encourages vessels to return to the
area if improved selectivity is used. Where the widespread capture of small
fish is observed, precautionary areas are created, and entry to these larger
areas is the skipper’s decision, although failing to apply the correct selectivity
comes at high cost. Based on a very basic and purist ideology, which holds
the skipper responsible for every aspect of discarding, Norway very much
views the skippers’ actions as the determining factor in the profile of the catch.
This is in line with what we believe to be happening at the Aberdeen Bank,
with the problem very much resting at the individual vessel level.
A9397514
4
FMAC/14/10
By its very nature, the Norwegian approach provides the individual operator
with the freedom and ability to continue to fish within an area if selectivity is
appropriate, although the response by the skipper is very much dependent on
the economic importance of the area concerned and his desire to remain on
the grounds.
The Norwegian approach very much fits our own requirements by providing
both the stimulus and freedom for the individual operator to innovate and to
benefit from that innovation. In contrast, those failing to innovate fail to benefit
from the same opportunity. That said, it is very much the case that little can be
done to solve the problem unless it is supported with a reasonable degree of
on-sea surveillance.
A significant difference between EU legislation and that of Norway, is that
Norway’s minimum sizes, most of which are higher than in the EU, relate to
catch size not landed size, which is why they take such a dim view of high
catch rates of small fish.
Proposal
 It is proposed that the following measures, which should be seen as a pilot
project, apply for 12 months from 1 October 2014 and should, where
possible, apply to all UK vessels. This proposal does not affect the right of
vessels to land fish above the MLS. It is the makeup of the catch that will
determine whether or not a vessel is moved-on or a precautionary area set;
the intention of the skipper to retain all fish above the MLS will have no
bearing.
 With regard to Scottish registered vessels, the proposal is that soft law is
applied and delivered through the recognised procedures of FMAC and
administrative penalties. Vessels from other regions of the UK should have
similar penalties applied. Further discussion is required regarding the
procedure for vessels flying the flag of a third country, such as Norway. As
a least course of action we would expect the Norwegian authorities to be
notified of any precautionary area and of any activity by Norwegian vessels
in the area.
 A sample shall be taken when it is estimated that at least 200kg of
haddock, and is present in one haul.
o (a) The minimum size of the sample shall be 200kg of haddock.
 The new MCS of 33cm will apply to haddock only, the current MLS is
30cm.
 The area of application will be the sea area that sits outside the 12 mile
limit and is bounded by 56 30 Degrees N to 57 30 N and the 0 Degree line.
A9397514
5
FMAC/14/10
 For the purpose of setting precautionary areas, the larger area will be
divided into four sub areas. The lines of separation will run east on 57°N
and South on 0° 30W.
 On inspection, vessels that have in their haul, or on deck, more than 10%
by weight of haddock below the Minimum Catch Size (MCS) will be
required:
o
If trawling, to move outside an area 20 by 20 nautical miles with the
center point agreed with the boarding officer using the mid point of
the most recent tow as a guide for 21 days.
o If seining, to move outside an area 15 by 15 nautical miles with the
centre point agreed with the boarding officer using the mid-point of
the most recent shot as a guide for 21 days.

Vessels who on inspection have been asked to move-on may continue to
fish the area or return to the area within 21 days. However, if on further
inspection any such vessel has a catch composition that remains in breach
of the MCS requirements during this 21 day period, the vessel/s will be
deducted 14 days. Any and every subsequent breach of the threshold
within the 21 day period will attract a further penalty of 7 days.

A precautionary area will be set where three positive results are found
within a continuous 72 hour period. The precautionary area will not exceed
the boundary of the sub area in which the three positive results are found.

A precautionary area will remain for no longer than 21 days.

Vessels fishing within a precautionary area will be deducted 14 days if on
inspection the catch is in breach of the MCS threshold. Every subsequent
breach of the threshold will attract a further penalty of 7 days.
SWFPA
September 2014
A9397514
6