Joint Recommendation of the North Western Waters HighLevel 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.
1
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.
2
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 1 st
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 1 st 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.
3
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.
4
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.
Fishing gear
Mesh
Size
Landing Obligation
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 4. Fisheries in ICES VIIa – Irish Sea
Fishery
Gear Code
Cod,
OTB, SSC, OTT, PTB,
Haddock,
SDN, SPR, TBN,
Whiting TBS, TB, SX, SV, OT,
& Saithe
PT, TX
Table 5. Fisheries in ICES VIId - Eastern Channel
Fishery
Gear Code
Common
Sole
TBB
Common
Sole
OTT, OTB, TBS,
TBN, TB, PTB, OT,
PT, TX
Common
Sole
GNS, GN, GND,
GNC, GTN, GTR,
GEN
Fishing gear
All Beam trawls
Trawls
Mesh Size
All
<100mm
All Trammel nets &
Gill nets
5
All
Landing Obligation
All catches of Common Sole
are subject to the landing
obligation.
Where the total landings per
vessel of all species in 2013
and 2014 consist of more than
5% Common Sole, the landing
obligation shall apply to
Common Sole.
All catches of Common Sole
are subject to the landing
obligation.
Fishery
Gear Code
Cod,
Haddock,
Whiting &
Saithe
OTB, SSC, OTT,
PTB, SDN, SPR,
TBN, TBS, TB, SX,
SV, OT, PT, TX
Fishing gear
Trawls and Seines
Mesh Size
Landing Obligation
All
Where total landings per
vessel of all species in 2013
and 2014 consist of more than
25% of the following gadoids;
cod, haddock, whiting and
saithe combined, the landing
obligation shall apply to
Whiting.
Mesh
Size
Landing Obligation
All
Where the total landings per
vessel of all species in 2013
and 2014 consist of more than
10 % Common Sole, the
landing obligation shall apply
to Common Sole.
Table 6. Sole Fishery in ICES VIIe – Western Channel
Fishery
Common
Sole
Gear Code
TBB
Fishing gear
All Beam trawls
Table 7. Fisheries in ICES VII (excluding VIIa; VIId and VIIe for Common Sole) – Celtic Sea &
Western Channel
Fishery
Common
Sole
Common
Sole
Gear Code
TBB
GNS, GN, GND,
GNC, GTN, GTR,
GEN
Fishing gear
Mesh
Size
Landing Obligation
All Beam trawls
All
Where the total landings per
vessel of all species in 2013
and 2014 consist of more than
5 % Common Sole, the landing
obligation shall apply to
Common Sole.
All Trammel nets &
Gill nets
All
All catches of Common Sole
are subject to the landing
obligation.
6
Fishery
Gear Code
Cod,
Haddock,
Whiting &
Saithe
OTB, SSC, OTT,
PTB, SDN, SPR,
TBN, TBS, TB, SX,
SV, OT, PT, TX
Fishing gear
Trawls & Seines
Mesh
Size
Landing Obligation
All
Where total landings per
vessel of all species in 2013
and 2014 consist of more than
25% of the following gadoids;
cod, haddock, whiting and
saithe combined, the landing
obligation shall apply to
Whiting.
Note: See Gear Code Acronym Table in Annex II
5. Exemptions
a. Fish which has been damaged by predators like fish-eating marine mammals,
predatory fish or birds can constitute a risk to humans, pets and other fish by virtue
of pathogens and bacteria which might be transmitted by such animals.
Consequently, as set out in Article 15.4(d) the landing obligation should not apply to
such catches and the fish should be immediately disposed of at sea.
b. Having regard to food safety provisions as set out in Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004
of the European Parliament and of the Council as well as in Commission Regulation
(EC) No. 1881/2006, catches of fish for which flesh contaminants would exceed the
maximum limits set by EU rules for human or animal consumption shall not be kept
on board a vessel. Consequently, the landing obligation should not apply to such
catches and the fish should be immediately disposed of at sea.
c. Situations where the landing obligation shall not apply are specified in Article 15.4
of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. This refers to species in respect of which fishing is
prohibited, as defined by a Council Regulation, species for which scientific evidence
demonstrates high survival rates, and catches falling under the de minimis
exemption, as outlined in Article 15.5(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
d. The North Western Waters Group recommends that a high survivability exemption
should apply in the following case, full details in Annex II:
Norway Lobster (nephrops) caught by Pots, Traps or Creels in ICES Areas VIa
and VII
The North Western Waters Group is aware that scientific research on other species
and fishing methods is ongoing. Additional high survivability exemptions may be
recommended when these studies have been completed and evaluated.
7
e. The North Western Waters Group is making recommendations for de minimis
exemptions as set out herein.
The recommendations will be examined and reviewed for 2017 and 2018 with the
objective of reducing and, over time, phasing out these provisions where possible.
In reviewing the provisions, the NWW Group will take into account experience in
the fisheries, progress on the Cod Recovery Plan and the results from scientific and
technical trials. The phasing in of additional species under the Landing Obligation
may necessitate the inclusion of further recommendations for de minimis
exemptions.
The NWW Group recommends that before deciding on exemptions for reasons of de
minimis STECF be requested to swiftly evaluate these exemptions and give
supplementary advice on any further or changed conditions to such exemptions.
Full details for each case are set out in Annex IV:(i)
A maximum of 3% for years one (2016), two (2017) and three (2018) for
common sole of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using
trammel and gill nets to catch common sole in the Channel (ICES Areas
VIId, e, f and g)
(ii)
A maximum of 7% for years one (2016) and two (2017), and 6% for year
three (2018) for whiting of the total annual catches of this species by
vessels using bottom trawls < 100 mm to catch whiting in the Channel
(ICES Area VIId and e)
(iii)
A maximum of 7% for years one (2016) and two (2017), and 6% for year
three (2018) for whiting of the total annual catches of this species by
vessels using bottom trawls ≥ 100 mm to catch whiting in the Celtic Sea
and the Channel (ICES Areas VIIb-j)
(iv)
A maximum of 7% for years one (2016) and two (2017), and 6% for year
three (2018) for whiting of the total annual catches of this species by
vessels using bottom trawls < 100mm to catch whiting in the Celtic Sea
(ICES Area VII (excluding VIIa, d and e)
(v)
A maximum of 7% for years one (2016) and two (2017), and 6% for year
three (2018) for Norway lobster (nephrops) of the total annual catches of
this species by vessels obliged to land Norway lobster (nephrops) in ICES
Area VII
8
(vi)
A maximum of 7% for years one (2016) and two (2017), and 6% for year
three (2018) for Norway lobster (nephrops) of the total annual catches of
this species by vessels obliged to land Norway lobster (nephrops) in ICES
Area VIa
(vii)
A maximum of 3% for years one (2016), two (2017) and three (2018) ) for
common sole of the total annual catches of this species by vessels gear
with increased selectivity in the Channel (ICES Areas VIId and e) and the
Celtic Sea (VIIf and g)
6. Documentation of catches
a. In accordance with Article 15.5(d), specific discard plans can make provisions on
documentation of catches. Such provisions should be consistent with the rules
outlined in Regulation (EU) no 1224/2009.
b. Catches of species subject to catch limits shall be recorded in the appropriate fishing
logbook with the correct scientific species name and/or with the appropriate codes
in order to quantify the exact catches, in accordance with the Control Regulation.
Documentation should be sufficiently rigorous to enable robust scientific
assessments to be undertaken and the application of methods of control.
c. Catches of species below a minimum conservation reference size should be recorded
as a separate entry.
d. For any species not subject to the landing obligation, all estimated volumes of
discards above 50 kg live-weight equivalent in volume shall be recorded in the
electronic/fishing logbook with appropriate codes denoting the species discarded.
e. For any species not subject to the landing obligation pursuant to Articles 15.4 and
15.5 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
all estimated discards in volume shall be recorded in the electronic/fishing logbook.
The utilisation of the de minimis exemption shall be monitored by the competent
authority.
The North Western Waters Group may wish to take account of any advice issued by
relevant experts groups relating to the documentation of catches in due course.
9
Annex I: List of Vessels subject to a landing obligation determined by
threshold criteria only

Tables 1- 7 of this Joint Recommendation include landing obligations that will only
apply where a vessel has had landings of a particular species or group of species
above the relevant percentage threshold in the years 2013 and 2014.

A Flag Member State shall determine the vessels that meet the threshold criteria
designated for a particular fishery and which are, therefore, subject to the landing
obligation for that particular fishery.

The Flag Member State shall compile lists of all such vessels and the landing
obligation(s) applicable to those vessels.

Vessels to which the threshold criteria do not apply are not required to be included
on the lists.

Each Flag Member State shall transmit its lists to the secure EU Control website by 1
January 2016.

Lists will be updated from time to time by the Flag Member State and any such
amendment will have effect as soon as it is listed on the secure EU Control website.

A vessel is deemed to be subject to the Landing Obligation if it meets one or more of
the definitions set out in Tables 1 to 7.

The inclusion of a vessel on a list on the secure EU Control website shall be evidence
(unless the contrary is shown) that that vessel is subject to a Landing Obligation
determined by threshold criteria only.

The exclusion of a vessel from a list on the secure EU Control website shall be
evidence (unless the contrary is shown) that the vessel is not subject to a landing
obligation determined by threshold criteria only.

A vessel not on the list may be subject to one or more of the landing obligations in
Tables 1-7 which are not determined by threshold criteria.
10
Annex II: Gear Code Acronym Table
Gear Code
OTB
OTT
OT
PTB
PT
TBN
TBS
TX
SDN
SSC
SPR
TB
SX
SV
TBB
GN
GNS
GND
GNC
GTN
GTR
GEN
LLS
LLD
LL
LTL
LX
LHP
LHM
FPO
FIX
Type of gear
Bottom Otter Trawl
Otter Twin Trawls
Otter Trawls (Not Specified)
Bottom Pair Trawl
Pair Trawls (Not Specified)
Nephrops Trawl
Shrimp Trawl
Other Trawls (Not Specified)
Danish Anchor Seine
Scottish Seine (Fly Dragging)
Scottish Pair Seine (Fly Dragging)
Bottom Trawls (Not Specified)
Seine Nets (Not Specified)
Boat or Vessel Seine
Beam Trawl
Gillnets (Not Specified)
Gillnets Anchored (Set)
Gillnets (Drift)
Gillnets (Circling)
Combined Gillnets-Trammel Nets
Trammel Net
Gillnets and Entangling Nets (Not Specified)
Set Longlines
Drifting Longlines
Longlines Not Specified
Trolling Lines
Hooks and Lines (not specified)
Handlines and Pole Lines (Hand Operated)
Handlines and Pole Lines (Mechanised)
Pots
Traps (Not Specified)
11
Annex III – Recommendation for High Survivability Exemption
Request under Article 15.4(b) of EU 1380/2013 to exempt from the Landing Obligation
Nephrops Norvegicus caught in pots, traps and creels in Areas VIa and VII on the basis of
high survival rates.
Article 15.4(b) of EU 1380/2013 states that the landing obligation shall not apply to:
“species for which scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates, taking into account
the characteristics of the gear, of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem;”
This request recommends that Nephrops caught in pots (pots includes, pots, traps and
creels) in Areas VIa and VII should be exempt from the landing obligation on the grounds of
high survival.
Annex 1 presents the scientific evidence for high survival in pot fisheries for Nephrops. It
draws upon several studies that use pot caught Nephrops as a control group in experiments
to demonstrate survival rates of between 92 - 99%. Nephrops caught by pots are frequently
used as a control in experiments on survivals in Nephrops trawl fisheries as survival in pot
fisheries is generally accepted to be high.
Whilst the studies cited in Annex 1 are from Area Vl, pot, fisheries for Nephrops throughout
Areas Vl and Vll are similar in their methods and practices and survival rates should
therefore be similarly high. The small scale of the pot fisheries in Area Vll would not justify
the cost of dedicated survival studies.
In Area VIa potting activity is mainly carried out by United Kingdom (UK) vessels and is of
particular importance in the inshore waters and sea lochs on the west coast of Scotland. In
2013 1572t of landings were from pot fishing. The value of UK (Scottish) pot caught
Nephrops in 2013 was estimated at €17m.
In Area VII, potting for Nephrops is of smaller scale but of importance in localised inshore
areas of mud habitat. It is carried out by the Irish and UK (Northern Irish) fleets.
In 2013 Irish landings of Nephrops caught by pots in Area VII totalled 66 tonnes. The main
areas for potting are inshore areas of the west and southwest of Ireland. The value of
landing is 2013 was estimated at €0.5m.
In 2013, UK (Northern Irish) landings of pot caught Nephrops in Area VII totalled 10 tonnes,
and were valued at around €67,000. The main Nephrops pot fishery in UK (Northern
Ireland) is located in Strangford Lough on the east coast of County Down.
12
Annex 1. Nephrops discard survival in creel fisheries
Lynda Blackadder, Carlos Mesquita & Helen Dobby
Marine Scotland Science (MSS)
Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen
Background
The latest reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) identified the reduction of discards
and bycatch as a key objective (EC 2013). In combination with catch quotas, a discard ban
will be gradually introduced for all regulated species in European waters between 2015 and
2019. Exceptions to the landing obligation will be made for species which "according to the
best available scientific advice, have a high survival rate when released into the sea under
conditions defined for a given fishery" (EC 2013). This paper will discuss Nephrops discard
survival in the Scottish creel fishery, provide an overview of previous studies and consider if
this fishery meets the exemption criteria.
Introduction
Nephrops is a marine decapod crustacean, widely distributed across the Northeast Atlantic
and Mediterranean Sea where it inhabits burrow complexes constructed on areas of muddy
sediment. It is commercially valuable and exploited throughout its range by both trawl and
creel fisheries. Total landings of Nephrops by UK vessels into Scotland amounted to just
under 18,000 tonnes in 2013 with a first sale value of £61.7 million, making Nephrops the
second most valuable species landed into Scotland (Marine Scotland Science (MSS), 2014).
Creel fishing for Nephrops is well established in UK (Scotland), particularly in the inshore
waters and sea lochs on the west coast of Scotland. Although creel fishing typically accounts
for a relatively small proportion of total Scottish landings (~ 10 % in 2013, ICES, 2014), creelcaught Nephrops attract high prices in the live export market and can provide an important
source of income for small local boats. To the west of Scotland, creel fishing accounted for
17 % of landings in the North Minch and almost 20 % in the South Minch in 2013 with the
ports of Portree (~490 tonnes) and Stornaway (~330 tonnes) receiving the greatest amount
of creel-caught landings (Marine Scotland Science (MSS), 2014).
Creels and trawls exploit Nephrops populations in different ways, with trawl catches highly
dependent on seasonal and daily burrow emergence patterns related to light levels and tide
(for example) while creel catch rates are influenced by feeding activity in response to bait
and agonistic behaviour (Adey, 2007; Bjordal, 1986). For this reason, creels are more
selective for larger Nephrops than trawls, and catches typically exhibit a length composition
consisting of a significantly greater proportion of large individuals in comparison to trawl
13
catches (Bjordal, 1986; ICES, 2014; Leocadio et al., 2007; Morello et al., 2009; Ziegler, 2006).
Discarding related to minimum landing size (MLS) is therefore likely to be at a lower level
than in trawl fisheries although market driven size related discarding still occurs (above
MLS). Creel-caught Nephrops may also be discarded when they are soft-shelled (due to
recent moulting) or damaged during the capture process either by gear, poor handling or increel predation. There is little quantitative information on the level of Nephrops discards
from creel fisheries in Scotland, and observer trips on board these vessels are not currently
part of the MSS sampling programme. A number of trips were conducted on the West of
Scotland during 2008-2010 and indicated highly variable creel-caught Nephrops discard
rates – between 0 and 40 % by number with an average of around 10 % over all trips.
However, it is not known whether these values are indicative of current creel discards rates.
Discard survival rates
The immediate survival rate of discarded Nephrops is highly variable and depends on a
number of factors, including the amount of damage incurred during capture and postcapture handling, air temperature and the level of predation by sea-birds, fish and other
marine predators during their return to the sea-bed (Chapman, 1981). The type of ground
the Nephrops are returned to will affect their longer-term survival, as Nephrops 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.
Mortality of Nephrops due to discarding in the creel fisheries has been considered negligible
compared to other sources of mortality (trawl landings and discards, creel landings) and
therefore studies on the survival of creel caught Nephrops have mainly been conducted due
to their usefulness as a control group in experiments to estimate the mortality of trawlcaught individuals. Wileman et al. (1999) reported on a study in the Gairloch area of the
North Minch in which only 3 of the 576 creel caught control individuals (held in pens on the
sea bed) died in captivity (which corresponds to a survival rate of > 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
14
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
15
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).
16
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, Å., 1986. The behaviour of Norway lobster towards baited creels and size selectivity
of creels and trawl. Fiskeridirektoratets Skrifter, Havundersøkelser.18: 131–137.
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 nº 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: 169183.
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), 13–22 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
17
Marine Scotland Science. 2014. Fisheries Information Network. Internal database. Query
ran 17/12/2014.
Méhault, 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: 325–331.
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: 135–147.
Sangster, G.I., Breen, M., Bova, D.J., Kynoch, R., O’Neill, 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 speciesselective trawls. A data report. SIK report 746, SIK, Göteborg, 36 pp (available from SIK
library: hr@sik.se).
18
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
(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
(2011)
et
al.
576
14 days
Wileman
(1999)
et
al.
North Minch (West > 99
of Scotland)
19
et
al.
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)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.
Sole (VIIe)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 F MSY 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. F MSY is
appropriate, Btrigger is above trigger, Bpa and Blim show full reproductive capacity, Fpa and Flim
are undefined.
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
1
2
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/sol-eche.pdf
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/sol-echw.pdf
20
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 14-193 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).
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).
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.
21
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)
22
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 18 m, with an average of
12 m. 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 2 km to 20 km (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 50 m, 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).
23
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 < 15 m) in the Western
Channel and Western Brittany (2014 ObsMer report; Cornou et al. 2014).
UK Gill and Trammel Net fisheries
During 2013 there were 497 vessels that landed sole into ports along the Channel (7d and
e). The majority (466) of these vessels were under 10m inshore vessels. The remaining 31
vessels were greater that 10m in length. The total landings of sole for these vessels
amounted to 439 tonnes. In the western channel 183 of the under 10m vessels landed less
than 300kg of sole. The total number of operators using nets along the Channel is 812.
During 2013 there were 255 UK vessels that operating GT and GN gears in VII f and g. Of
these 67 vessels landed sole into UK ports. 53 of these vessels were under 10m in length
and 14 over 10m in length. Total landings from this fleet came in at 3,380 tonnes with 3
tonnes of sole. This is very much a non-target sole fishery the phasing of the landing
obligation means that these vessels will be subject to the landing obligation and they will
face exactly the same challenges as those operating in the Channel in avoiding any juvenile
sole.
24
2) Composition of the catches, landings and discards.
According to the NWW Discard Atlas, the trammel nets (GT1) has the highest overall discard
rate, but highly variable among species. Anglerfish and sole had discard rates of 15% and
0%, respectively, whereas other species such as whiting, cod, ling and hake had high discard
rates, ranging from 46% to 63%. The reported data from this fishery is scarce and the
discard estimates should be interpreted with care. Gillnets (GN1) are mostly operated by
the French fleet and are the gear with the lowest discard rates. Most of the species have
discard rates ranging from 0% and 7%, except for cod with 20% of discard rate of the
average total catches. The high discard rate for cod might be related with the quota
restrictions (Catchpole and Ribeiro Santos, 2014).
For sole, the NWW Discard Atlas underlines that it “is a high market value species with low
discard rates between 2010 and 2012, with an average discard rate of 3%. This indicates the
ability of fishermen to avoid unwanted sole catches” (Catchpole and Ribeiro Santos, 2014).
The average discard rate for sole in the Celtic Sea (including the Western Channel) is indeed
very low (3%), even though only a small part of the catch comes from the Channel net
fishery. The same discard rate (3%) is observed during this period in the Eastern Channel (all
gear included) according to the Discard Atlas for the North Sea.
[Example of the French net fishery:]
The proportion of sole in the catches of the French netters targeting sole in the Channel is
high (~35%), with a really low proposition of the sole catches being discarded: 2.1% (VIId
and IVc) and 0.3% (VIIe) for dedicated netters; 9.7% for non-dedicated netters, but only 3%
of sole in their catches (Table 1).
The proportion of sole that is in the catches of all UK netters operating in the Channel is
approximately 8% (439 tonnes out of 5,398).
The proportion of sole that is in the catches of UK netters operating in the Celtic Sea is
approximately 1%.
25
Table 1. Proportion of the catch discarded by species, for the French fleet using net in the Channel,
according to 2013 French data (2014 ObsMer report; Cornou et al. 2014).
ObsMer Métiers 2014
Proportion in the Proportion
of
the Proportion of undersize in
catches (%)
catches discarded (%)
the discards in weight (%)
Nets targeting sole in Eastern Channel and 36.3 [31.3 - 41.7]
the North Sea
2.1 [1.6 - 2.8]
91.6
Nets targeting flatfish in Western Channel 32.7 [21.9 - 43.7]
and Western Brittany operated by vessels
smaller than 15 m
0.3 [0.1 - 0.8]
18.9
Nets targeting other species than sole in 2.9 [1.0 - 5.6]
Eastern Channel and the North Sea
9.7 [0.5 - 19.3]
100.0
The cause of discards for sole is predominantly related to the minimal landing size (Fig 5 and
6).
Fig 5. Length structure (in number) of sole landings and discards of French netters targeting demersal species
in the Eastern Channel and the south of the North Sea in 2013. 97% of the individuals of the 2.1% discarded
are undersized (2014 ObsMer report; Cornou et al. 2014).
26
Fig 6. Length structure (in number) of sole landings and discards for French netters smaller than 15 m targeting
demersal species in the Western Channel (and VIIh) in 2013. 24% of the individuals of the 0.3% sole discarded
are undersized (2014 ObsMer report; Cornou et al. 2014).
3) Sorting and handling of the catches
[Example of the French net fishery:]
Catches of commercial sole are directly unmeshed during the haul of the nets, and sorted
and stored once the net is hauled in the boat, or stock onboard and sort at the harbour. The
undersized sole are release as soon as they are unmeshed.
III Current management measures of the fleet
The regulation (CE) N° 850/98 obliges the use of a minimal mesh size of 90 mm and a catch
composition rule of 70%. The minimal landing size of the sole is 24 cm.
For the sole in the Western Channel, a management plan has been agreed by the EU in 2007
(Council Regulation (EC) No. 509/2007). Following the recovery of the stock in 2011 the plan
has moved into the management plan phase where it aims to keep F at the target value of
0.27. Fishing days by vessels and by years have been implemented.
[Example of the French net fishery:]
For the Sole in the Eastern Channel (VIId), a regulation has been set in 2015 in France,
leading to 1) the establishment of a national fishing authorization (for vessels fishing more
27
than 300kg annually) accompanied by a effort capacity cap (ANP); 2) the obligation to have a
VMS equipment for vessels owning an ANP to facilitate monitoring of the effort; 3) an effort
regime in fishing days for netters and beam trawlers (with a reduction of 10% in 2015); 4) a
limitation of the length of nets (1km per linear meter ship without prejudice to more
stringent regional rules); 5) four zones to protect nurseries of sole within the 3 miles with
prohibition of towed gear.
The majority of the UK netters are allocated monthly catch limits by the Marine
Management organisation which states the permitted levels of catches that they are
entitled to make).
IV Recent works on selectivity measures
As mentioned above in the discard atlases, the negligible discard rate (3%) of the net fishery
indicates the ability of fishermen to avoid unwanted sole catches. Improving the selectivity
of static gear is then difficult. Few studies have looked at the improvement of the selectivity
for sole netters, the ones done in the late 1990s showing commercial losses according to the
increase of the mesh size (IFREMER, 1997). In 2014, a workshop has been organized in the
frame of the selectivity project "REDRESSE" in the Bay Biscay (Annex 3), involving
commercial fishermen and scientists from IFREMER. No efficient selective measures could
be identified during this workshop to reduce unwanted catches, especially for sole for which
unwanted catches are really low (1 to 3% of discard of undersized sole for netters of Bay of
Biscay using 100 mm mesh size trammel nets (Cornou et al. 2014)). For sole, reducing the
length of the nets or the soaking time will not change the percentage of undersize caught by
fishing operation, as these parameters are not involved in the cause of this discard. In
REDRESSE, works have been then focused on the publication of guidance for good practice
(limitation of the length of the nets and of the soak times, etc.), which is expected during
2015.
V Conclusion
According to the fact that:
- Discard of sole are really low (< 3%, mostly undersized, for the dedicated fishery), i.e.
the selectivity is already really high for this species in the net fishery;
- Selectivity improvement by regulatory measures to avoid the undersize will be hard to
achieve without economic impacts on the revenue of the boats;
28
- The consumption of the sole quotas is high for some areas, and the quota uplifts
remain uncertain for the stocks for which "discards are negligible";
- The landings of undersized sole will represent low amounts of catches distributed in
multiple little harbours all along the coast, which severely limit the possible non-human
consumption outlets.
- Even if social acceptance is not an argument expected for the exemption request, the
obligation to land small amounts of undersized soles known to have a survival rate above
zero will be really difficult to accept for commercial fishermen, leading to a risk of severe
non-compliance by the commercial fishermen in front of the landing obligation for this
species and by extension for the other species;
- 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 3% is requested for the sole caught in the net fishery in the
Channel.
29
References
Catchpole, T., Ribeiro Santos, A. 2014. Discard Atlas of the North Western Waters Demersal
Fisheries. CEFAS, England, 118 pp.
Cornou Anne-Sophie, Dimeet Joel, Tetard Alain, Gaudou Olivier, Quinio-Scavinner Marion,
Fauconnet Laurence, Dube Benoit, Rochet Marie-Joelle (2014). Observations à bord des
navires
de
pêche
professionnelle.
Bilan
de
l'échantillonnage
2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13155/35856
Equipes Ressources Halieutiques et Technologie des Pêches du Centre IFREMER de
Boulogne/Mer (1997). Comparaison des captures de soles au filet trémail pour les
maillages 84, 90 et 100 mm dans le détroit du Pas-de-Calais. Rapport IFREMER, 45pp.
Quirijns F., Pastoors, M. 2014. Discard Atlas of North Sea fisheries, IMARES Wageningen UR,
84 pp.
Rochet M.-J., Arregi, L., Fonseca, T., Pereira, J., Pérez, N., Ruiz, J., and Valeiras J. 2014.
Demersal discard atlas for the South Western Waters. 121 p.
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.
30
Annex 1: ENSURE (EvaluatioN de la SURvie des REjets – Evaluation of discards survival)
Département Ressources Biologiques et Environnement
Laboratoire de Biologie et Technologie Halieutiques
Lorient.
The landing obligation is one of the main issues dealt by the new Common Fisheries Policy.
Article 15 indicates that all species under TAC have to be landed; however the species for
which high survival rate can be demonstrated scientifically may be exempted. In such
context, the ENSURE project aims at 1) identifying the species that present a potential of
survival after discard, 2) determining the optimal condition of survival and 3) describing the
state of discarded individuals. These objectives will be reached from observations on board
of commercial vessels: the vitality of discarded individuals will be assessed as well as their
reflex impairments. The experimentations carried out will enable to determine the
maximum duration of emersion that can be stand without compromising the survival. Once
the lethal levels will be defined, the proportion of individuals discarded according to their
vitality and reflex status will be estimated. In the meantime, individuals discarded alive will
be tagged. Based on the significant explanatory variables and observations made on-board,
technical and operational improvements will be proposed to ensure the best survival rates.
The expected results should feed the discard plans relative to the three métiers addressed
by the ENSURE project: bottom trawl targeting mixed fish species in the bay of Biscay and
English Chanel, twin trawl targeting Nephrops in the bay of Biscay and trammel nets
targeting sole in the English Channel.
The project was launched in June 2014 and will run until end 2016 - beginning of 2017.
31
Annex 2: REDRESSE project
AGLIA
6, rue A. Rio - 56100 Lorient
Portable : 06 99 04 60 00 - Fax : 02 97 83 33
66
email: rimaud.aglia@orange.fr
REDRESSE is a selectivity project which has been launched in 2014 for four gears used in the
Bay of Biscay (bottom and pelagic trawls, Danish seine, and nets), which involved scientists
from IFREMER and commercial fishermen from all along the French coast. The REDRESSE
project's objective is to develop and test strategies to further reduce unwanted catches
from fleets in the Bay of Biscay by experimenting with different solutions on board
commercial fishing vessels (the use of selective devices, strategy changes, and spatial and
temporal measurements, etc.). The idea is to find technical solutions able to improve the
selective practices already in place and to reduce discards by minimising the impact on
commercial catches in order to maintain the economic sustainability of fishing businesses.
Presentation
of
the
project:
http://www.aglia.org/sites/aglia.org/files/projets-
pdf/La%20s%C3%A9lectivit%C3%A9%20en%20action.pdf
32
(ii)
De minimis exemption request for the vessels using bottom trawls < 100 mm (TR2)
in the Channel (ICES area VIIde).
In the context of the landing obligation for the demersal fisheries in the North Western
Waters, a de minimis exemption of 7% is requested for the whiting (Merlangius merlangus)
for the trawler fishery using TR2 gear (OTB, OTT, PTB, SDN, XXX) to target gadoids in the
Channel (VIIde) 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
Whiting (4 - 7d)4: For 2015, ICES advises on the basis of the EU–Norway management plan
that total catches should be no more than 28 317 tons. If rates of discards and industrial
bycatch do not change from the average of the last three years (2011–2013), this implies
human consumption landings of no more than 17 190 tons (13 678 tonnes in the North Sea
and 3512 tonnes in Division VIId). Management for Division VIId should be separated from
the rest of Subarea VII. The stock statuses show a stock for which FMSY, Btrigger and safe
biological limits are undefined. The spawning-stock biomass (SBB) has declined in recent
years and is close to the minimum value of the time-series, while fishing mortality has been
declining over most of the time-series. The average level of recruitment has been low since
2003.
Whiting (7b, c e-k)5: For 2015, ICES advises based on the MSY approach that catches in 2015
should be no more than 18 501 tonnes. If discard rates do not change from the average of
the last three years this implies landings of no more than 14 230 tonnes. Discard rate is
estimated ≈ 17% in 2013 (2.5kt / 14.3kt). The stock status shows a stock harvested
sustainably. SBB increased from 2008 and has been decreasing since 2011, but remains well
above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality has shown a declining trend since 2007 and has been
below the FMSY proxy since 2011. Recruitment between 2010 and 2012 was below average
whereas the 2013 year class is estimated to be the second highest in the series. MSY is
reached, and the stock is within safe biological limits.
4
5
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/whg-47d.pdf
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/whg-7e-k.pdf
33
II Definition of the management unit
1) Characteristics of the fishery and its activity
For the Western Channel, the NWW Discard Atlas (Catchpole and Ribeiro Santos, 2014)
reports that the trawlers with a codend mesh size range 70-100mm is the fishery with
second highest effort in Celtic Sea (including Western Channel), accounting for 18% of the
total effort. The main fishing areas are localized in ICES VIIe, close to the English and French
shores (Figure 2.1-3) and in VIIg, close to the Irish shore. However, the TR2 effort is likely to
be more widespread and higher than showed in the Figure 2.1-3. The TR2 fishery in the
Western Channel is mainly characterized by a mixed fishery targeting anglerfish, gadoid
species and non-quota species (cuttlefish and squid), taking place in VIIe close to the English
and French shore. According with the STECF data (2013), most of the TR2 effort is mainly
operated by English and French vessels (Catchpole and Ribeiro Santos, 2014).
Fig 1. Distribution of Celtic Sea international fishing effort of TR2 fishery, in fishing hours, between
2010 and 2012. Source: STECF, 2013
For the Eastern Channel, the NS Discard atlas described the use of TR2 fishery as more
widespread than the TR1 gear (Fig 1.) and associated mainly with three fisheries, one of
which is a mixed fishery taking place in the more southerly parts of the North Sea and
centred on the eastern Channel in which whiting and non-quota species are important
constituents. This is predominantly a French fishery.
34
TR2
Fig 1. Distribution of North Sea, Skagerrak and Eastern Channel international fishing effort (EU)
in hours fishing by ICES statistical rectangle for TR2. 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)
The example of the French fishery shows that the vessels concerned by this fishery use
mainly bottom otter-trawl, but can also use otter twin trawls and Danish seine. The meshsize used range from 70 to 90 mm (mainly 80 mm ; 2014 ObsMer report, Cornou et al.,
2014) to fit the Cod Plan,. The fishing operations occur in depth ranging from 20 to 70 m,
and last between 45min and 4 hours. Fishing trips duration are variable, from 12h to 7 days
(3 days in average), depending on the size of the boats, the species targeted, the seasons,
the weather forecast or even the harbour. In the North East of the Channel, a large part of
the TR2 fleet also operates in the North Sea, regularly during the same fishing trips (Fig 1, 2,
3 and 4).
The main target species of this mixed fishery in the Channel are non-quota species
(cephalopods; Scallops, red mullet), whiting, anglerfish, megrim and also sole in some areas.
These species are often spatially and temporally associated. Between 9 and 13 species
constitute 80% of the catches in the VIIde (Cornou et al., 2014). During a same fishing trip, a
boat can operate several métiers targeting different species, including pelagic species with
pelagic gears.
The UK fleet operating in the Channel (using the associated gear codes) is made up of 261
vessels.
35
2) Composition of the catches, landings and discards.
According to the NWW Discard Atlas, TR2 are the main gear for the Nephrops fishery. The
Nephrops fishery in the Celtic Sea is relatively small when compared with other areas, such
as the Irish or the North Sea. This fishery has higher discard rates than the TR1, and the
main discarded species are roundfish species: cod (49%), haddock (47%), plaice (38%) and
whiting (33%). Spanish TR2 fishery has the same discard pattern of the other countries, with
discard rates for haddock (92), hake (65%) ling (62%) (Table 3.1-9). The drivers to discard
these species are quota restrictions and undersized fish. Nephrops discards estimates were
only available for 2012, and although the discards of this species are known to be low, STECF
data showed high discard rates, mainly derived from the Irish TR2 fleet. These estimations
were classified as erroneous and removed from the tables presented in this atlas (Catchpole
and Ribeiro Santos, 2014).
For the French fishery, the main cause of discards for whiting in the Channel (and the North
Sea) in the TR2 fishery is the minimum landing size (70% of the whiting discards in weight;
Fig 5 and 6). A small portion of discards of whiting is due to market constraints (~20 %).
Fig 5. Length structure of whiting landings and discards of French bottom trawlers equal or larger
than 18 m and targeting demersal species in the Eastern Channel and the south of the North Sea in
2013 (Cornou et al. 2014). 77% of the whiting discard (in number) were undersized
36
Fig 6. Length structure of whiting landings and discards for French bottom trawlers smaller than 18 m
and targeting demersal species in the West of the Eastern Channel and the south of the North Sea in
2013 (Cornou et al. 2014).
3) Sorting and handling of the catches
Sorting and handling of the catches are variable according to the size of the boats. For the
smallest ones (< 12 m), the sorting is generally done at the back of the vessel and the
catches are stored directly on the desk in fish boxes. For medium vessels (12 - 18 m),
catches are often sort at the back of the deck and stored in a refrigerated hold. The largest
vessels (> 18 m) have often a conveyor to help the sorting of the catches. Sorting time
depends on the quantity of catches, and is on average 30 min. Unwanted catches are
discarded during the sorting process. Due to the age of the boats (> 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 n°1342/2008) 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
n°850/98 and regulation n°2056/2001) 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).
37
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 (SELECAB6, SELECFISH7, SELECMER8, FMC-NS9,
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-derecherche/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
38
Table 2 Examples of selective measures studied since the beginning of the 2000s
Bottom trawlers < 18 m using TR2
Bottom trawlers ≥ 18 m using TR2
Unwanted
catches
Wanted catches
(commercial catches)
Unwanted
catches
Wanted catches
(commercial catches)
Square mesh cylinder
-59 % of whiting
-22 % of discards
-16 % revenue
(80 mm ; 2 m long)
-29 % à -35 %
Minimal loss for
whiting and cuttlefish;
(all species)
(all species)
-31 % revenue
-56 % of discards
-36 % revenue
(all species)
(all species)
(all species)
-35 % revenue
___
___
-67 % of whiting
-49 % of whiting
-49 % of plaice
-18 % of plaice
flatfishes
-14 % of squids;
- 8 % to -22% of
flatfishes
Semi rigid grid (23
mm) + Square mesh
panel
-21 % of
discards
(all species)
(60 mm ; 1 m long)
Articulated rigid grid.
(30 mm) + Square
mesh cylinder
-78 % of
discards
(all species)
(all species)
(80 mm ; 2 m long)
Articulated rigid grid
(30 mm)
___
__ _
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 EODE10. 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 > 18 m) in front of
the landing obligation, and the impact of the LO onboard and inland. During the trials
(2 weeks 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
10
http://www.comite-peches.fr/wp-content/uploads/Plaquette_EODE.pdf
39
studies are at their disposition. Moreover, the vessels will test new selective devices: T90
codend trawl (80-90 mm), which shows interesting results for gadoids in the Celtic Sea; but
also a 90 mm 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.
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 (< and > 18 m), 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,
REDRESSE11, 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 (DiscardLess12; MINOUW13) should also
bring some elements on these subjects in several years.
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, 201114), 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.
- 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 1000 km 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;
11
http://www.aglia.org/sites/aglia.org/files/projets-pdf/La%20s%C3%A9lectivit%C3%A9%20en%20action.pdf
http://wwz.ifremer.fr/emh/content/download/83625/1046566/file/DiscardLess.pdf
13
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/fem/projects.html#minouw
12
14
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/sec_2011_891_en.pdf
40
- 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 fish15. 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.
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.
15
http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/SR661_Utilising_Discards_bulk_uses.pdf
41
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 500 km;
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 1 000 km);
- 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
< 100 mm (OTB, OTT, PTB, DNS, XXX).
42
Reference
Brabant J.C., Delpech J.P., Dufour J.L., Garren F., 2001. Essais d’un chalut avec fenêtre à
mailles carrées en mer du Nord. Rapport de contrat. Boulogne-sur-Mer, CRPMEM NordPas-de-Calais/Picardie : 1-20
Buisman, E., Van Oostenbrugge, H., & Beukers, R. 2013. Economische effecten van een
aanlandplicht voor de Nederlandse visserij.LEI-rapport 2013-062. ISBN/EAN : 978-90-8615657-3. 48 pp.
Catchpole, T., S. Elliott, D. Peach, S. Mangi (2014). Final Report: The English Discard Ban
Trial, Cefas report, pp65.
Catchpole, T., Ribeiro Santos, A. 2014. Discard Atlas of the North Western Waters Demersal
Fisheries. CEFAS, England, 118 pp.
Condie, H. M., Catchpole, T. L., & Grant, A. (2013a). The short-term impacts of implementing
catchs quotas and a discard ban on English North Sea otter trawlers. ICES Journal of
Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fst187. pp. 1-11.
Condie, H. M., Grant, A., & Catchpole, T. L. (2013b). Does banning discards in an otter
trawler fischery create incentives for more selective fishing? Fisheries Research (148), pp.
137 - 146.
Cornou Anne-Sophie, Dimeet Joel, Tetard Alain, Gaudou Olivier, Quinio-Scavinner Marion,
Fauconnet Laurence, Dube Benoit, Rochet Marie-Joelle (2014). Observations à bord des
navires de pêche professionnelle. Bilan de l'échantillonnage 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13155/35856
43
Leonardi S., Rubin A., Meillat M., Coppin F., Delpech J-P., Morandeau F., Larnaud P., 2009.
Selecmer – Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers – Pêcheries multispécifiques
Manche – Mer du Nord, 66+62pp.
Mortreux S., Minet J.P., Brabant J.C., 2001. Sauvegarde des juvéniles de plie et de morue
dans le détroit du Pas-de-Calais. Rapport de synthèse – TMSI/TP N°01-019 : 1-62.
Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd. (2013). A case study review of the potential
economic implications of the proposed CFP landings obligation. 55 pp.
Viera A., Meillat M., Coppin F., Delpech J-P., Morandeau F., Le Garrec A., Gamblin C. 2010.
Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers artisanaux et hauturiers travaillant en
Manche –Mer du Nord de façon à limiter les captures de Cabillaud. Deux rapports :
http://wwz.ifremer.fr/manchemerdunord/Unite-Halieutique/Halieutique-Boulogne-surMer/Axes-de-recherche/Dynamique-des-pecheries/Projets-de-rechercheassocies/SELECCAB
Weiller Y., Reecht Y., Vermard Y., Coppin F., Delpech J-P., Morandeau F., 2014. SELECFISH –
Amélioration de la sélectivité des chalutiers artisanaux travaillant en Manche - Mer du
Nord afin de limiter leurs rejets, 82 + 44pp.
44
Annex 1: Sélectivité des chaluts de fond langoustiniers et démersaux : Etat des lieux et
perspectives
Annex 2: Analyse de l'impact économique de la mise en place de l'obligation de débarquement
pour les chalutiers de fond : amélioration de la sélectivité, traitement des captures indésirées.
45
(iii)
De minimis exemption request for the vessels using bottom trawls ≥ 100 mm in the
Celtic Sea and the Channel (ICES areas VIIb-j).
In the context of the landing obligation for the demersal fisheries in the North Western
Waters, a de minimis exemption of 7% is requested for the whiting (Merlangius merlangus)
for the fishery using bottom trawl gears with a mesh size equal or larger to 100 mm (gear
codes : OTB, SSC, OTT, PTB, SDN, SPR, TBN, TBS, TB, SX, SV ) to target gadoids in the Celtic
Sea (VIIbcfghij) and the Channel (VIIde) 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 stocks
The exemption covered the Celtic Sea and the Channel as the fishery in question operates in
both sub-regions.
Whiting (7b, c e-k)16: For 2015, ICES advises based on the MSY approach that catches in
2015 should be no more than 18 501 tonnes. If discard rates do not change from the
average of the last three years this implies landings of no more than 14 230 tonnes. Discard
rate is estimated ≈ 17% in 2013 (2.5kt / 14.3kt). The stock status shows a stock harvested
sustainably. SBB increased from 2008 and has been decreasing since 2011, but remains well
above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality has shown a declining trend since 2007 and has been
below the FMSY proxy since 2011. Recruitment between 2010 and 2012 was below average
whereas the 2013 year class is estimated to be the second highest in the series. MSY is
reached, and the stock is within safe biological limits.
Whiting (4 - 7d)17: For 2015, ICES advises on the basis of the EU–Norway management plan
that total catches should be no more than 28 317 tons. If rates of discards and industrial
bycatch do not change from the average of the last three years (2011–2013), this implies
human consumption landings of no more than 17 190 tons (13 678 tonnes in the North Sea
and 3512 tonnes in Division VIId). Management for Division VIId should be separated from
the rest of Subarea VII. The stock statuses show a stock for which F MSY, Btrigger and safe
biological limits are undefined. The spawning-stock biomass (SBB) has declined in recent
years and is close to the minimum value of the time-series, while fishing mortality has been
declining over most of the time-series. The average level of recruitment has been low since
2003.
16
17
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/whg-7e-k.pdf
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/whg-47d.pdf
46
II Definition of the management unit
1) Characteristics of the fishery and its activity
The NWW Discard Atlas (Catchpole and Ribeiro Santos, 2014) reports that "the TR1 fishery is
the predominant fishery in the Celtic Sea (including VIIe, excluding VIId), with the highest
fishing effort, accounting for 23% of the total effort (STECF 2013). It has a widespread
distribution in the whole area, but most of the effort is exerted in ICES VII e, g and h (Fig 1).
The countries that contributed with most effort were France, Spain, Ireland and UK
(England). The TR1 fishery is characterized to be a mixed fishery, mainly targeting ‘gadoid’
species, such as haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), cod (Gadus morhua) and whiting
(Merlangus merlangus) as well as anglerfishes and megrims. There is an important TR1
mixed fishery in ICES VIIj-k, mainly operated by Irish and Spanish vessels and targeting
anglerfishes (Lophius spp), megrims (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis), hake (Merluccius
merluccius), haddock and whiting."
Fig 1. Distribution of Celtic Sea international fishing effort of TR1 fishery, in fishing hours, between 2010 and
2012. Source: STECF, 2013
The example of the French fishery shows that the vessels concerned are distributed in
approximately 45 harbours, from Bayonne (extreme south of the French Atlantic coast) to
Boulogne (extreme North of the French Channel coast) with the main ports located in
Brittany (Le Guilvinec, Paimpol, St Brieuc).. The size of the vessels ranges from 18 m to 38 m,
with an average of 24 m. The vessels of this fishery use mainly bottom otter-trawl, but can
also use otter twin trawls and paired trawls. The mesh-size used is 100 mm (2014 ObsMer
report; Cornou et al. 2014), with a square mash panel of 120 mm in the codend since 2015
(100 mm before). The fishing operations occur in depth ranging from 80 to 250 m. They last
between 2 and 4 hours. Fishing trips duration are variable depending of the seasons and of
the weather forecast, from 5 to 15 days (~13 days in average, compared to 4-9 days for Irish
fishery). During a same fishing trip, a boat can operate several métiers targeting gadoids
(haddock, cod, whiting), Nephrops, anglerfish, megrim, but also non-quota species as
cephalopods. These species are often spatially and temporally associated.
47
The UK TR1 fishery (114 vessels work the Channel and 37 in the Celtic Sea) shows that the
vessels concerned are registered throughout the whole of the Channel , from Newlyn
(extreme west) to Ramsgate (extreme East coast) with the main ports by way of vessel
numbers located in Newlyn, Plymouth and Brixton. The size of the vessels ranges from
under 10 m to approx. 30 m. The vessels of this fishery use mainly bottom otter-trawl, but
can also use otter twin trawls and paired trawls. The mesh-size used is typically 100 mm and
above with a square mash panel of 120 mm in the codend since 2015 (100 mm before). The
fishing operations have a similar pattern to those of French vessels and are variable
depending on the vessel, the seasons and of the weather forecast. During a same fishing
trip, a vessel is likely to also catch anglerfish, megrim, other gadoids but also significant
quantities of highly valuable non-quota species as cephalopods. These species are often
spatially and temporally associated with vessels considering themselves to be part of an
ultra-mixed fishery rather than having a single species focus.
2) Composition of the catches, landings and discards.
The NWW discard indicates that "the main discarded species by TR1 are haddock, cod18 and
whiting with 44%, 27% and 20% of discard rate of the average total catches between 2010
and 2012, respectively (Catchpole and Ribeiro Santos, 2014)".
The NWW discard atlas show that the whiting represents approximately 15% of the 10 main
species landings of the TR1 fisheries by year (average 2010 - 2012; Table 1). It considers that
20% of the whiting catches are discarded in average, which may vary according to the MS
(28% (CI [15; 42]) of the whiting caught were discarded in the French fleet in 2013 (Cornou
et al. 2014)). Discards of whiting in this fishery are mainly due to because of market
constraints and minimal legal size.
18
The discard rate for cod increased between 2010 and 2012 resultant of the quota restrictions in the mixed
fisheries and recruitment variability (Catchpole and Ribeiro Santos, 2014).
48
Table 1. Celtic Sea (ICES Divisions VII b, c, e, f, g, h, j, k) demersal fisheries: landings (t) and discards
(t) per gear, species and year; table sorted in descending order on the average catch 2010-2012, top
10 species per gear. Only for average total catch equal or greater than 20 t.
III Current technical measures applying to the fleet
Since the beginning of the 2000’s, vessels use 100 mm diamond mesh size in codend, in
order to respect catch composition rules. In order to protect juvenile of whiting, but also
haddock and cod, the fleet implement a 100 mm square mesh panel in 2012 (Reg (CE)
n°737/201219). In 2015, mesh size of the square mesh panel was increased to 120 mm in
VIIfgj (applicable to the French fleet since 2015 January, 1st20 and to be extend to all fleet by
a European regulation during 2015), and it is expected a reduction of discard of about 25%
of all Gadoids21. Minimal landing size of whiting is 27 cm.
At MS level, fishing capacity for the French fleet using bottom trawls ≥ 100 mm is limited by
two national authorisation regimes (in KW): one to access the area VIIfg22 and the other to
land more than 15 tonnes of monkfish by year23.
19
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 737/2012 of 14 August 2012 on the protection of
certain stocks in the Celtic Sea
20
Arrêté du 4 novembre 2014 portant définition de mesures techniques dans les zones CIEM VII f, VII g et à
une partie de la zone CIEM VII j (au nord de 50° nord et à l’est de 11° ouest)
21 CSTEP, 2014. European Commission Request for services - Celtic Sea
. Plenary meeting (PLEN 14-03). Working document
22
Arrêté du 22 juillet 2009 portant création d’une licence nationale dans la zone Cabillaud mer Celtique (zones
CIEM VII f et VII g)
23
Arrêté du 22 juillet 2009 réglementant la pêche professionnelle de la baudroie en zone CIEM VII
49
IV Recent works on selectivity measures
Numerous efforts on selectivity has been recently done by the fishery concerned by this
exemption request these last years.
Square mesh panel 120 mm (Annex 1)
In October 2011, the North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council (NWWRAC) issued
advice that the current technical measures in the Celtic Sea should be improved to reduce
discards, especially of haddock and whiting, by requiring the use of an appropriately
positioned square-meshed panel of a specified size depending on the gear type and engine
power of the vessel.
In this context, STECF have undertaken an ad-hoc contract to examine the impact of
potential recruitment events in the Celtic Sea and to consider the impact on cod, haddock
and whiting catches that would result from particular selectivity changes based on current
Union and national measures and also taking account recent recommendations from the
industry of strengthening these measures. In background documents24 preparing the STECF
Plenary meeting 14-03, two scenarios were analysed : A) 120mm square mesh panel for TR1
and TR2 in all areas ; B) 120mm cod-end for vessels not targeting Nephrops (this was
interpreted as the TR1 fleet). Amongst other findings, the proposed technical measures are
expected to lead to a reduction in discards. Because ICES gives catch advice for haddock and
whiting, a reduction in the proportion of discards implies an increase in the landings advice.
For whiting, the current proportion of discards is 23%, which is expected to be reduced to
17% for both scenarios. This would result in increased landings of 6%. These increases in
landings advice should compensate some of the cost of the reduction in CPUE due to the
introduction of technical measures. One of the main conclusions of STECF Plenary meeting
14-03 was that "Increasing the mesh size in this 9-12m panel to 120 mm for all TR1 fisheries
over the entire fishing area (both east and west of 8 degrees West) would reduce to some
extent the “choke” effect of the haddock stock for the fishery but the most effective
proposed measure would be the use of 120mm diamond cod end (DMC120mm). A fairly
basic analysis of the financial implications of the various options was carried out and losses
implied by the reduced landings were considered fairly moderate (10% or less for the most
selective measure)."
24
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/plen1403
50
Following the STECF advice, the French ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and
Energy adopted in November 4th, 2014, a ministerial ruling25 ordering the change of the
mesh size of the regulatory square mesh panel from 100 m to 120 mm for the French TR1
and TR2 fishery. Moreover, the use of the 120 SMP in Irish TR1 and TR2 fisheries was
incentivised by means of quota uplifts from September 2014.
A statement from December fishery council indicates that this improvement in the
selectivity must be extended to all fleet in 2015. The impact of this regulation at the fleet
level will be known in 2016; no results are yet available.
On-going French Selectivity Experiments : CELSELEC
A French study to improve selectivity for trawlers in Celtic Sea is running since June 2014
(CELSELEC; Annex X). Selective devices are tested by vessel in commercial conditions for 12
months. Eight vessels targeting benthic species, gadoids or Nephrops in Celtic Sea and
Western Channel are involved in the scientific program. According to a protocol from
Ifremer, observers sample catches on board at a frequency of one trip by trimester for each
vessel. The use of twin trawls allows a direct comparison in the catches composition
between a standard and the trawl equipped with the selective device.
Three main selective devices are being tested:

T90 mesh in codend : netting turned to 90 degrees
Panneau
à mailles carrées
réglementaire
Gorget
Rallonge 130 mailles
en T90 fil simple 5mm
Jauge 100mm
Fond de cul
65 mailles
en T90 double 4mm
Jauge 100mm
(équivalence : de l’ordre de 13 mailles T90 pour 10 mailles losange en longueur)
Vue latérale « chalut sélectif T90 »
4 mailles T90
25
Arrêté du 4 novembre 2014 portant définition de mesures techniques
dans les zones CIEM VII f, VII g et à
en largeur
une partie de la zone CIEM VII j (au nord de 50° nord et à l’est de 11° ouest)
130 mailles
tournées en T90
(simple 5mm)
51
54 mailles carrées
en longueur
25
mailles
carrées
en largeur
9m du raban de cul
Il s'agit du regroupement de deux panneaux à mailles carrées de 60 mm de côté en PE 4mm
dessus et dessous, qui forment un cylindre, reliés par une bande latérale de chaque côté
réalisée par la couture de 6 mailles au minimum. Ce cylindre comprend 50 mailles en
longueur et 50 côtés de mailles au périmètre hors mailles de couture. Le maillage est en
mailles carrées avec un fil de 4 mm de diamètre au maximum.
Le taux d'assemblage entre les mailles losanges et les côtés de mailles du cylindre est de
une maille carrée pour deux mailles losanges.

100 mm square mesh cylinder
Panneau à
Situé à 9 mètres
mailles
50cm
carrées du raban de cul au maximum
réglementaire
Grille à lotte
En demi-ellipse
Cylindre
à mailles carrées
de 60mm de côté
diamètre de fil 4mm
Projet Sélectivité Mer Celtique 2014
100 mailles simples
PE 4 mm
50 mailles doubles
PE 4mm
Navires BARA MANN (642970), LA PEROUSE (922678), AN TRISKELL II (730412) et
MEN BRIAL (555235) – Navires équipés de chaluts jumeaux.
15,5 m environ
Position de la grille à lottes :
La grille à lottes sera positionnée juste avant le panneau à mailles carrées réglementaire.
Une nappe anti-retour en petit maillage permettra aux petites lottes qui auront traversé
Vue latérale
la grille de ne pas retourner dans le chalut.

Sorting grid for anglerfish
Grille à lottes
Panneau
angle 45°
à mailles carrées
réglementaire
15
Situé à 9 m maximum
du raban de cul
(9m au maximum)
Gorget
Nappe anti-retour
Rallonge
100 mailles 100mm
Fond de cul
50 mailles 100mm
Vue latérale « chalut avec grille à lottes »
The study is not finished yet. Nevertheless, preliminary results show an important
Schéma grille
lottes type 2 by 65%
improvement of the selectivity, especially for the T90 for which discards
areàreduced
in average. Escapement seems very high for haddock juveniles, whiting, horse mackerel, and
20
boarfish (Fig 2). The final results are waited between
the end of 2015 and the beginning of
2016.
22
52
WHG
25
Discards (Kg)
20
15
10
5
0
Standard
T90
Fig 2. Preliminary comparison of whiting discards in weight between standard and T90
trawl trials.
Ongoing Irish Selectivity Experiments : BIM trials
BIM in Ireland have been conducting trials with 120mm SMP and 120mm cod-ends in 2014
in the Celtic Sea. Further trials are planned in 2015 to investigate the optimum placement of
the SMP in relation to the cod-end with the specific objective of minimising the catches of
small whiting and haddock.
Selectivity should efficiently improve these next years thanks to the numerous efforts
recently done by the TR1 fishery in the Celtic Sea and in the Channel. These efforts
underline the will to reduce their unwanted catches. Nevertheless, time will be needed to
evaluate the effective results of the selective measure recently adopted (SMP 120 mm) and
the ones which will probably follow the selectivity projects at the fleet level.
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 26, CELSELEC,
26
http://www.comite-peches.fr/wp-content/uploads/Plaquette_EODE.pdf
53
REDRESSE27, local studies in the Channel) are currently ongoing for the mixed fishery in
France, which will try to assess the economic impacts of the landing obligation at vessel and
fleet levels. European "H2020" research projects (DiscardLess28; MINOUW29) should also
bring some elements on these subjects in several years.
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, 201130), but also for Producers Organisations 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.
1. The fishery using bottom trawls ≥ 100 mm in the Celtic Sea and the Channel is a
mixed fishery financially depending on several species (whiting, haddock, cod,
anglerfishes, megrims, Nephrops, cephalopods, which are often spatially and
temporally associated related). French vessels have long fishing trips (~13 days in
average for the French fleet) at considerable distance from home harbours (up to
2 000 km return). Irish vessels tend to have trip durations around 4-9 days mainly;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. Companies which can enhance the economic value of unwanted catches are still
rare in France and Ireland, 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 ;
5. Development of new market for unwanted catches will take several years before
being economically effective; it will not be reasonably possible before January 1 st,
2016
27
http://www.aglia.org/sites/aglia.org/files/projets-pdf/La%20s%C3%A9lectivit%C3%A9%20en%20action.pdf
http://wwz.ifremer.fr/emh/content/download/83625/1046566/file/DiscardLess.pdf
29
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/fem/projects.html#minouw
28
30
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/sec_2011_891_en.pdf
54
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 fish31. 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.
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 Producers Organisations).





31
Profits based on price of fish for meal: from 20€/ton to 60€/ton ;
Distance from landing ports to the factory: from 2 to 450 km;
Cost of transport: from 0,30 to 0.50 €/ton/km, or 280€/ton;
Cost of icing: ~ 10€/ton
Cost of storage: ~ 40 €/ton/day; …
http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/SR661_Utilising_Discards_bulk_uses.pdf
55
VI Conclusion
According to the facts that:
- The fishery using bottom trawls ≥ 100 mm in the Celtic Sea and the Channel is a mixed
fishery financially depending on several species, operating long fishing trips at
considerable distance from home harbours;
- 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;
- Efforts to increase selectivity in the fishery are ongoing. The 120 mm square mesh size
panel has recently been introduced by Ireland and France and the results of further
experiments will be available soon (CELSELEC, BIM trials). The concrete results at the
scale of the fleet will be known in the coming years, even if the total elimination of
discards by selectivity measures remains optimistic;
- 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% for whiting is requested for the fishery using bottom trawl
gears with a mesh size equal or larger to 100 mm (gear codes : OTB, SSC, OTT, PTB, SDN,
SPR, TBN, TBS, TB, SX, SV ) in Celtic Sea and Channel.
56
References:
Arrêté du 4 novembre 2014 portant définition de mesures techniques dans les zones CIEM
VII f, VII g et à une partie de la zone CIEM VII j (au nord de 50° nord et à l’est de 11° ouest)
Buisman, E., Van Oostenbrugge, H., & Beukers, R. 2013. Economische effecten van een
aanlandplicht voor de Nederlandse visserij.LEI-rapport 2013-062. ISBN/EAN : 978-90-8615657-3. 48 pp.
Catchpole, T., Ribeiro Santos, A. 2014. Discard Atlas of the North Western Waters Demersal
Fisheries. CEFAS, England, 118 pp.
Catchpole, T., Mangi, S. 2012. Utilising discards not destined for human consumption in
bulk uses. CEFAS, England, 51pp.
Commission staff working paper. 2011 Impact assessment accompanying Commission
proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common
Fisheries Policy [repealing Regulation (EC) N° 2371/2002].
Condie, H. M., Catchpole, T. L., & Grant, A. (2013a). The short-term impacts of implementing
catchs quotas and a discard ban on English North Sea otter trawlers. ICES Journal of
Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fst187. pp. 1-11.
Condie, H. M., Grant, A., & Catchpole, T. L. (2013b). Does banning discards in an otter
trawler fischery create incentives for more selective fishing? Fisheries Research (148), pp.
137 - 146.
Cornou Anne-Sophie, Dimeet Joel, Tetard Alain, Gaudou Olivier, Quinio-Scavinner Marion,
Fauconnet Laurence, Dube Benoit, Rochet Marie-Joelle (2015). Observations à bord des
navires
de
pêche
professionnelle.
Bilan
de
l'échantillonnage
2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13155/35856
Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd. (2013). A case study review of the potential
economic implications of the proposed CFP landings obligation. 55 pp.
57
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – 47th Plenary Meeting
Report (PLEN-14-03). 2014. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR
26944 EN, JRC 93037, 138 pp.
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – European Commission
Request for services - Celtic Sea, XXX, 30 pp.
58
Annex 1: Square mesh panel 120 mm
Working document to STECF SG13-01 meeting
In October 2011, the North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council (NWWRAC) issued
advice that the current technical measures in the Celtic Sea should be improved to reduce
discards, especially of haddock and whiting, by requiring the use of an appropriately
positioned square-meshed panel of a specified size depending on the gear type and engine
power of the vessel. This advice was implemented in regulation EU Number 737/2012. The
European Commission has requested the STECF Plenary meeting 13-01 (8-12th of april
2013) to do get preliminary information of the efficiency of the square mesh panel
implemented in the Celtic Sea fisheries.
The conclusion of the STECF Plenary meeting 13-01 were that for both haddock and whiting,
the number of small fish in the catches (and discards) have been substantially reduced in the
second semester of 2012 in comparison to the previous years. However it was difficult to
draw firm conclusions on the full effect of the square mesh panel in this reduction. The
comparison with the EVHOE data was a first attempt to discriminate this change from the
change linked to the magnitude of the recruitment. But other factors have to be taken into
account to properly explain if the observed change in 2012 such as changes in fishing
strategy (fishing areas, vessels, fishing gears). More investigations are therefore needed and
more data needs to be available before concluding on the actual efficiency of the square
mesh panel.
During its Plenary meeting 14-03 (10-14 November 2014), STECF have undertaken an ad-hoc
contract to examine the impact of potential recruitment events in the Celtic Sea and to
consider the impact on cod, haddock and whiting catches that would result from particular
selectivity changes based on current Union and national measures and also taking account
recent recommendations from the industry of strengthening these measures. In this context
STECF are asked to consider the effectiveness of measures under Regulation (EU) 737/2012
and the proposal from the European Association of Producer Organisation's (EAPO) which
contains specific measures to increase the 120mm square mesh panel for the TR1 and TR2
fleet operating in areas west of 8 degrees. In addition, there are also national proposals to
apply the proposed increased increase in panel mesh size across the entire Celtic Sea.
Namely, EAPO proposals stipulate that French vessels would fit a square mesh panel of
increased mesh size in the entire area where regulation 737/2012 applies. However, this
remains to be adopted via national measures. STECF are also asked to consider the
implications of this measure.
59
STECF conclusions of its Plenary meeting 14-03 are presented hereafter
These different analyses provide a coherent picture of the situation of the Celtic Sea gadoid
fisheries in 2015 that can be broadly summarised as follows:
· The three gadoid stocks (cod, whiting and haddock) are largely associated across most of
the fishing area, and the possibilities for spatial decoupling are limited; therefore,
decoupling must primarily be envisaged through selectivity improvements.
· Fishing mortality is currently highest for haddock with regard to FMSY target, and the
required F reductions for this stock (-55%) make it the most limiting stock for the fishery in
2015 under current selectivity patterns;
· The Commission has proposed an equivalent 55% reduction of F2015 for cod, in order to
limit the risks of overquota catches of haddock in the mixed fishery. This would imply a
fishing mortality for cod well below FMSY, and significant amount of foregone yield.
Improved escapement of haddock (all ages) could reduce this “choke” effect to some
extent, and warrant the exploitation of the cod stock closer to its FMSY target.
· This situation of unbalance in the fishing opportunities for the various stocks is being
worsened by the perspective of large incoming recruitment. Anecdotal evidence is pointing
out towards a recruitment pulse in the 2013 year class of both cod and haddock, much
higher than the average recruitment levels currently assumed in the ICES advice. This year
class has already recruited in the haddock fishery at age 0 in 2013, and is now recruiting in
the cod fishery at age 1 in 2014. For both stocks, this year class will make a significant
contribution to the catches in 2015. Under the low TACs currently proposed for 2015, high
levels of discarding can be anticipated. High discarding may limit the future contribution of
these large year-classes to the SSB of both stocks.
· This situation will also create additional difficulties for the implementation of the landings
obligation in 2016.
· Consequently, the scientific advice for 2015 should be updated as soon as the latest survey
data are available, accounting for increased recruitment but assuming unchanged selectivity
60
patterns. The report of the ad-hoc contract has already provided catch options for a range
of possible recruitment scenarios, paving the way for a rapid update process.
· The gear currently used by TR1 fleets includes a 100mm SMP located 9-12 m ahead of the
codend, which itself has a minimum mesh size of 100mm. Increasing the mesh size in this 912m panel to 120 mm for all TR1 fisheries over the entire fishing area (both east and west of
8 degrees West) would reduce to some extent the “choke” effect of the haddock stock for
the fishery but the most effective proposed measure would be the use of 120mm diamond
cod end (DMC120mm). A fairly basic analysis of the financial implications of the various
options was carried out and losses implied by the reduced landings were considered fairly
moderate (10% or less for the most selective measure).
· The additional gear trials undertaken by the UK provides additional information on a range
of alternative measures intended to improve selectivity of the fishery. According to these
trials, when accounting for the loss of marketable fish, and the changes in selectivity
towards haddock, the design incorporating a 100mm square-mesh panel in the code-end
(BACOMA) was the most effective design tested in the UK trials. A square mesh panel of
mesh size of 155mm in a position that is effective for releasing haddock near to the cod-end
resulted in the considerable loss of marketable fish.
· STECF notes that these results are not directly comparable to the selectivity simulations
presented in the ad-hoc contract. It would require translating the catch comparison data
provided into alternative selectivity ogives, and including them into the catch forecast
simulation, to allow for a full comparison. It was not possible to do this additional
comparison during STECF. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the effects of the 100
SMP in the cod end (BACOMA) presented in the UK trial with those of the 120mm diamond
cod end from the ad-hoc study.
· Major changes in selectivity will impact FMSY, and it might be necessary to update
reference points to avoid unintended increase of fishing mortality on the older ages if F on
the younger F decreases.
61
Annex 2: Analyse de l'impact économique de la mise en place de l'obligation de débarquement
pour les chalutiers de fond : amélioration de la sélectivité, traitement des captures indésirées
(Macher et al. 2015). PDF
62
(iv)
De Minimis proposal for TR2 vessels targeting mixed demersal finfish in the Celtic
Sea
1. Request
A request for the maximum de-minimis exemption for Whiting caught in ICES Area VIIb-k
otter trawl fisheries based on technical difficulty in improving selectivity of whiting below
the MCRS (Minimum Conservation Reference Size) is sought. This is due to potential losses
on other target species in a highly complex multi-species fishery. Improvements in
selectivity using existing means such as increases in mesh size are considered unachievable
without significant economic impact. The percentage should be subject to review and
monitoring on an ongoing basis.
2. Introduction
The Irish TR2 fleet operating in the Celtic Sea can be broadly split into vessels primarily
targeting Nephrops and those targeting a broad mix of finfish species. TR2 vessels belonging
to the Nephrops metier are defined as those where Nephrops landings contribute greater
than or equal to 30% of the overall catch. This metier will be obliged to land all Nephrops
catches from 2016 onwards.
Based on landings from 2012 to 2014, overall 146 vessels are engaged in the TR2 fisheries in
the Celtic Sea. Of these, 88 vessels belong to the TR2 Nephrops metier, with the remaining
58 belonging to the TR2 mixed finfish metier (>25% gadoids). In addition up to 18 vessels
have been shown to have ≥ 30% Nephrops and ≥25% gadoids, meaning that these vessels
will be obliged to land all catches of Nephrops and whiting.
Currently, mesh sizes less than 100mm may be used provided that (i) Nephrops landings are
greater or equal to 30%/35% of the overall landings or (ii) provided that the catch
composition comprises of more than 70% of common sole, plaice, megrim, whiting, brill,
white Pollack, lemon sole, dogfish, witch, John dory, queen scallop, monkfish, rays, turbot
and grenadiers. The Irish TR2 mixed finifish metier target these species to varying degrees
(whilst maintaining the overall 70% threshold) and a number of other species including
Nephrops (<30%). There were 34 UK vessels operating TR2 gears in the Celtic Sea in 2013
landing a similarly broad range of commercial finfish species.
63
Figure 2-1 Relative contribution by weight and revenue of key TAC species for the Irish TR2 fleet operating in the Celtic
Sea.
64
Figure 2-2. Comparison of the relative importance of Nephrops by weight (upper figure) and by value (lower panel) to
Irish vessels operating in the Celtic Sea (2012-2014)
It is noted that for the majority of the TR2 fleet, Nephrops forms a very important
component of the overall revenue. Figure 2-2 shows that while Nephrops contributes a
moderate contribution overall landings (upper figure), albeit with a high degree of
variability, given the high unit value of Nephrops (ca. €5,000/tonne) relative to fish (ca.
€2,500/tonne) this species makes up a disproportionate amount of the overall revenue
(lower figure), this shows that for vessels where Nephrops catches constitute 25 and 35% of
the overall landing in weight, the significance of these landings in terms of revenue is much
65
higher representing 50-60% of the overall revenue associated with demersal fleets (all
gears) operating in the Celtic Sea.
Technical difficulties in improving selectivity
As noted by STECF (EWG 13-16), “the conditionality stipulated in article 15.2.c.ii:
“improvements in selectivity are considered to be very difficult” might firstly be interpreted
as a technical restriction in that the gears cannot be improved to become more selective.
EWG 13-16 considered that on purely technical grounds there were numerous ways in which
gears or spatial distribution of fishing could be used to avoid unwanted fish.
The basic problem for fishermen in relation to selectivity, however, is that any change in
fishing practices is likely to lead to a change in their economic performance, either by leading
to lower revenues and or increased costs. This is particularly the case when applying more
selective fishing gear to avoid by-catch. In several cases this may not only reduce unwanted
catches, but it may also reduce wanted by-catch. So it is more likely to be the economic
implications of improving selectivity (lower revenues and/or higher costs) rather than a
technical issue that leads to ‘difficulty’.”
EWG 13-16 considered “that the ‘current revenue to break even revenue ratio’ was
potentially an, betappropriate indicator to use in this scenario. The ratio shows how close
the current revenue of a vessel or fleet is to the revenue required for the to break even from
an economic point of view. If the ratio is greater than 1, then enough income is generated to
cover operational costs and therefore break-even. If the ratio is less than 1, insufficient
income is generated to cover operational costs and therefore the vessel or fleet is in a loss
making situation indicating that the segment is unprofitable. If the ratio is negative, variable
costs alone exceed current revenue, indicating that the more revenue is generated, the
greater the losses will be.”
A general lack of metier specific economic data as well as a lack of selectivity data for a
number of key species landed in the fishery makes the application of the proposed method
problematic. However, it can be anticipated that in order to reduce catches of whiting
<MCSR there will be some reductions in landings of a number of species (particularly
Nephrops, sole, lemon sole and megrim).
While size selection of whiting can be improved through a range of technical measures, it is
unlikely that these will fully eliminate catches of whiting <MCRS particularly in mixed species
fisheries. There are a number of technical measures that can be applied in the TR2
Nephrops fishery including square mesh panels, SELTRA trawls, Swedish grids and increases
in mesh size
(ICES, 2004). However, these have limitations, particularly for small whiting. Swedish grids
for example are effective for the exclusion of “larger” fish (ca. >25cm) but the bar spacing
66
typically used to allow for the passage of Nephrops (35mm) also allow permit “small” fish to
pass through the bars (Valentinson et al¸2XXX). While square mesh panels have been shown
to effectively reduce the retention of small fish, they are not fully effective and this has been
shown to be seasonally dependent (O’Neill et al, 2004).
Species selective gears introduced in the Irish Sea Nephrops fishery (SELTRA trawl, 300mm
square mesh panel, inclined separator trawls and Swedish Grids) have been shown to
effectively reduce by-catches of cod and haddock, but despite their wide scale use across
the fishery, discards of whiting remain very high (ca. 90%) it is considered that due to the
small size of whiting (ca. <20cm) that these fish are unable to use the active escape
behaviour required due to exhaustion and tiring associated with herding and general
catching process associated with towed demersal gears (Breen et al, 2004). With the
currently available tools, it is likely that increases in minimum mesh size or alterations in
mesh geometry (e.g. square mesh cod-ends) will offer the most effective mechanism to
reduce catches of whiting <MCRS. However, this is likely to lead to reductions in catches of
marketable fish and Nephrops.
Given the general paucity in selectivity and metier specific economic data noted above, two
plausible scenarios are presented below which show the potential loss in revenue of (i) a
20% reduction in landings of Nephrops (Figure 2-3) and; (ii) a 10% reduction in landings of
Nephrops, sole, megrim and whiting (Figure 2-4). It is not possible at this stage to predict
the responses of the TR2 fleet to the Landing Obligation and how these may result in an
adjustment of the current species specific exploitation pattern, but it is unlikely that such
adjustments will evolve quickly enough to meet the joint objectives of minimising unwanted
catches of whiting and Nephrops whilst maintaining revenues at levels where individual
businesses remain viable without some level of permissible discarding. This will be even
more challenging for vessels that are obliged to retain and land catches of both Nephrops
and whiting as this will require multiple adaptations.
67
Figure 2-3 Reduction in revenue associated with a 20% reduction in Nephrops landings
Figure 2-4 Reduction in revenue associated with a 10% reduction in landings of sole, whiting, Nephrops and megrim.
The recent trends in net profits for both the IRE DTS 12-18m and IRE DTS 18-24m fleet
segments have been moderate to poor in recent years (Figure 2-5 & Figure 2-6). It is
therefore anticipated, given the scenarios presented above that any substantive reductions
in landings will compound this weak performance even further and therefore presenting a
situation that selectivity will be very difficult to achieve in the short term from an economic
perspective.
68
Figure 2-5 Recent terns in economic indicators for the IRE DTS 18-24m fleet segement
Figure 2-6 Recent terns in economic indicators for the IRE DTS 12-18m fleet segement
Draft data for the 2015 Annual Economic Report shows that profitability in the 12-18m and
the 18-24m DTS fleet segments have been “weak” or “reasonable” respectively. Initial
analysis of the2014 economic data, to be reported in 2016, shows that the situation has
deteriorated despite ongoing low fuel costs.
Combined, these vessel length categories are associated with 62% of the overall Irish
landings in the Celtic Sea (aggregate 2012-2014) and are therefore economically highly
significant in relation to the overall Irish demersal fisheries Figure 2-7).
69
Figure 2-7. Economic significance of the IRE DTS 12-18m and IRE DTS 18-24m fleet segment relative to all landings
associated with demersal gears.
Additional losses of marketable catches associated with substantive improvements in
selectivity to reduce catches of whiting or Nephrops <MCRS will exacerbate this weak
economic position further and is therefore likely to result in current revenue to break even
revenue ratio falling below 1 for individual businesses.
3. Conclusion
Given the high level of diversity and a reliance on species such as Nephrops and other
species for which a smaller mesh size is warranted e.g. common and lemon sole, megrim. In
practice this means that it is not possible to currently identify methods (e.g. increases in
mesh size) that would reduce the capture of whiting below the current minimum size
without having potentially negative impacts on the retention of high value species such as
Nephrops. Further development of measures that are appropriate for highly-mixed fisheries
is required. De minimis levels will be reviewed in light of adaptations to reduced unwanted
catches of both Nephrops and whiting in the Celtic SeaTR2 fishery.
70
References
Breen, M., Dyson, J., O’Neill, F. G., Jones, E., and Haigh, M. Swimming endurance of haddock
(Melanogrammus aeglefinus L.) at prolonged and sustained swimming speeds, and its role in
their capture by towed fishing ears. d ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61:
1071e1079
Fryer, R. J., O'Neill, F. G. and Edridge, A. (2014), A meta-analysis of haddock size-selection
data. Fish and Fisheries
ICES. 2004. The Nephrops fisheries of the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean – A review
and assessment of fishing gear design. ICES Cooperative Research Report, No. 270. 40 pp.
D. Valentinsson, M. Ulmestrand, Species-selective Nephrops trawling: Swedish grid
experiments, Fisheries Research, Volume 90, Issues 1–3
71
(v)
Presentation of evidence in support of a 7% De minimis for Nephrops in Western
Waters (ICES area VII) – Technical and economic difficulties in reducing unwanted
Nephrops catches.
(i)
Introduction
Under Article 15(4)(c) of EU Regulation 2013 No.1380 the landing obligation shall not apply
to catches falling under a de-minimis exemption. Article 15(5)(c) states that de-minimis
exemptions of up to 5% of total annual catches of all species subject to the landing
obligation shall apply:
i. where scientific evidence indicates that increases in selectivity are very difficult to
achieve; or:
ii. to avoid disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches.
This paper presents the case for a de-minimis exemption in relation to small Nephrops
below the MCRS caught in the Nephrops fishery in ICES Area Vll.
Typically, discard rates of for Nephrops in ICES area VII range from 20 to 30% depending on
functional unit and overall market preferences. Clearly, this is undesirable and reducing
discards would provide stock benefits by reducing fishing mortality and also reduce onboard sorting which is generally labour intensive. Macher et al, show that a better
exploitation pattern would benefit fisheries that have high level of discards. Reducing noncommercial Nephrops discards leads to positive net present values of rent with better value
realized from the production potential and limited short-term losses for the fishing units.
However, achieving such improvement in practice is problematic. Here we present a case
for a de minimis exemption on the basis that “scientific evidence indicates that increases in
selectivity are very difficult to achieve” and following on from the STECF (EWG 13-16)
interpretation of this article, that in practice, we demonstrate that significant improvements
are not possible with the currently available tools without incurring significant losses of
marketable catch.
(ii)
Improving size selection in Nephrops trawls
While size selection of Nephrops is an important topic, this area of research has received
comparatively little attention in recent years. To date, the majority of selectivity research
has focussed on reducing finfish by-catch rather than improving size selectivity, for example
under the pan European EU project NECESSITY, as well as national initiatives to reduce cod
by-catch for effort by-back/exemptions. A range of scientific studies have examined
72
selectivity for Nephrops in Nephrops trawls, mainly by increasing the diamond mesh size.
These have found that increases in selectivity are difficult to achieve or if achieved result in
significant losses of marketable larger Nephrops as well as smaller Nephrops. (Briggs, 1984;
Polet and Redant, 1986)
ICES (2007) note that the selection of Nephrops is not consistent, with some hauls showing
a typical ‘S’-shaped or logistic curve of proportion retained against carapace length while
others show little or no indication that retention is a function of length i.e. a constant
proportion captured over the whole range of lengths. Unlike finfish, Nephrops tend not to
swim actively towards meshes and may be more dependent on passive escape. Escape can
be impeded by their shape and appendages, which can hook onto meshes or other animals
in the trawl.
The Scientific Technical and economic Committee for Fisheries report of 2008 (SGMOS-0801) reviewed several scientific publications on reducing Nephrops discards. They stated
that “some gear trials comparing different diamond-net mesh sizes have demonstrated that
an increase in mesh size does not generally affect the selection range for Nephrops, but can
reduce retention across the length range. Consequently, there is little difference in the catch
composition, only in catch numbers.”
When mesh size becomes large enough to release small Nephrops, larger Nephrops are also
lost resulting in significant economic loss. The ICES workshop on Nephrops selectivity
(WKNEPHSEL, 2007) undertook a met-analysis of all the available selectivity data and found
that for traditional diamond mesh cod-ends, increasing cod-end mesh size resulted in a very
slight increase in L50 indicating that selectivity (i.e. selection range) is very flat.
Figure ii-1 Relationship between L50 and mesh size for Nephrops from the meta-analysis of Nephrops selectivity data
undertaken dueing WKNEPHSEL (2007)
Figure ii-1 shows that for a diamond mesh cod-end the length at 50% capture in diamond
mesh cod-ends does not change significantly between 55mm and 95mm. In practice this
means that while increases in diamond mesh size may offer some limited scope to reduce
Nephrops discards, the lack of steepness of the selection curve means that any substantive
73
increase in mesh size, which would be required to reduce discards in any significant way,
will also result in a significant loss of legal-sized catch. This is illustrated in the example
below.
Figure ii-2 Predicted selection ogives for mesh sizes 70 to 100mm using the parameters derived from the WKNEPHSEL
model.
To illustrate the above points we apply the selectivities associated with four different
diamond mesh sizes [70, 80, 90 and 100mm] (Figure ii-2) derived from the WKNEPHSEL
(2007) selectivity model and apply these to a Nephrops population obtained from survey
data.
Figure ii-3. Nephrops population from the Irish UWTV beam trawl stations from 2002 to 2012.
The population (Figure ii-3) is from the Aran grounds (FU17, ICES area VII) which have been
obtained from the small mesh beam trawl survey used as part of the annual survey (2002 –
2014) UWTV survey. This then allows us to assess the potential changes in catches of
Nephrops above and below the current MLS of 20mm.
74
Figure ii-4 Predicted impact on retention of Nephrops for four different mesh sizes (70, 80, 90 and 100).
Figure ii-4 shows that when mesh size is increased from 70 (blue line) to 80mm (red line), it
would result in little or no change in the number of small (~ 10 – 20mm) Nephrops retained,
but would also result in greater losses of larger Nephrops , particularly those between 25
and 33mm. As mesh size is increased, the losses of Nephrops >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
616
604
592
580
% Reduction <MLS ( from 70mm)
2%
4%
6%
% Reduction >MLS (from 70mm)
6%
12%
20%
% Reduction <MLS (from 80mm)
2%
4%
% Reduction >MLS (from 80mm)
7%
15%
Table ii-1 Predicted impacts on catches of Nephrops above and below MLS (20mm) associated with increases in mesh
size of 90 and 100mm for the existing 70mm or 80mm currently used. NB 70mm is typically used by single rig vessels
and 80mm by multi-rig vessels
Table ii-1shows the predicted changes in the retention of Nephrops above and below MLS
associated with the range of mesh sizes. Vessels tend to use either 70mm or 70-79mm
depending on the fishery and gear type (single or multiple gears). This shows that increasing
mesh size has a disproportionate impact on the numbers of Nephrops >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
75
would result in only a 4% reduction in Nephrops <MLS while resulting in a 15% 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 <MLS without incurring losses (ca. 4 times) of marketable
76
Nephrops, it is argued that potential increases in selectivity, using currently available tools,
to reduce unwanted catches to any substantial degree would be economically unviable for
the fleet.
While there are a number of examples of technical devices that have been or are being
developed, further work is required, in particular research into the optimal mesh size for
square mesh cod-ends has been given priority by the Irish Sea Fisheries Board (BIM) as well
as investigations into other devices such as flexible grids which have been previously tested
in the Bay of Biscay. It is worth noting that the majority of research surrounding Nephrops
trawl fisheries has focussed on reducing finfish by-catch rather than improving size
selectivity. While moderate increases in mesh size or mesh orientation (e.g. square mesh
codends) may offer some scope to reduce Nephrops discards, they are unlikely to result in
rates being reduced to very low levels. Given that improvements in selectivity in the short
term are likely to be difficult to achieve without losses of marketable Nephrops there is a
justifiable case for a de minimis exemption of 7% of the Area VII TAC for 2016. This figure
can and will be reviewed as necessary.
R.P. Briggs et al “The consequences of an increase in mesh size in the Irish Sea Nephrops fishery: an
experimental approach”, Fisheries Research 40(1). 1999 pp. 43-53
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries -Report of the SGMOS-08-01 Working
Group on the reduction of discarding practices.
Claire Macher, Olivier Guyader, Catherine Talidec, Michel Bertignac, A cost–benefit analysis of
improving trawl selectivity in the case of discards: The Nephrops norvegicus fishery in the Bay of
Biscay, Fisheries Research, Volume 92, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 76-89.
ICES (2007)Report of the Workshop on Nephrops Selection (WKNEPHSEL) ICES Fisheries Technology
Committee. ICES CM 2007/FTC:01 REF. ACFM
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Landing obligation in EU
fisheries (STECF-13-23). 2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26330
EN, JRC 86112, 115 pp.
77
(vi)
Application for a ‘De Minimis’ exemption for undersized Nephrops in the West of
Scotland Fishery
Request
A request for the maximum de-minimis exemption for Nephrops Norvegicus caught in ICES
Area VIa otter trawl fisheries based on disproportionate costs associated with disposing of
catches below the MCRS (Minimum Conservation Reference Size). The percentage should be
subject to review and monitoring on an ongoing basis.
Introduction
117 United Kingdom (Scottish based) vessels target Nephrops norvegicus in the west of
Scotland trawl fishery fishing in Functional Units 11, 12 and 13. The vessels range in size
from < 10 metres in length to 24 metres in length and use mesh sizes from ≥80 - ≤110mm.
The most recent ICES advice indicates that Nephrops stocks in all three functional units are
harvested sustainably. Abundance Levels are above Bmsy (B Trigger) and Harvest Ratios are
below Fmsy.
Figure 1: Nephrops functional units in VIa (ICES 5.3.20 2014)
Average landings from the previous five years are 11,607t worth £39.5m and compromising
over 50% of the landings by value to the west coast ports of Campbelltown, Mallaig, Oban,
Portree and Stornoway. Quota allocations for Area VI Nephrops are not currently regarded
as a problem as the TAC in recent years has not been fully utilised. Currently discards from
this fishery are mainly animals below the current MLS (70 mm in overall length, 20 mm for
carapace length and 37 mm for tail length); or damaged animals.
78
Disproportionate Costs
The volume of under-sized Nephrops which will be landed and the costs associated will not
be known until the Landings Obligation is fully underway. Catches of under-sized Nephrops
are concentrated in a few areas of the west coast fishery, particularly the Clyde.
For 2016 at least the undersized catch will have to be disposed of as there is little alternative
use for undersized Nephrops - fishmeal is not an option for Nephrops. This reduces the
ability for vessels to recoup some of the disposal costs.
There are 149 ports on the west coast of Scotland with 16 being particularly important.
Currently no ports have any facilities for disposing of undersized Nephrops, therefore all
discards will have to be transported to another location. This will create costs which the
vessels will have to absorb. This will become a more acute problem when ferries have to be
factored into the equation, as they will be for island fishermen.
The nearest potential site for disposing of under-sized Nephrops in Scotland is in
Invergordon in the North-West, at a considerable distance from key west coast ports (284
miles from Portpatrick, 219 miles from Campbelltown 128 miles from Mallaig and 112 miles
plus a ferry journey from Stornoway).
The site at Invergordon would use a process of anaerobic digestion to dispose of the
Nephrops. There are no other regional options currently available for disposal given that
from 2016 it will not be possible to dispose of Nephrops into landfill sites. It is possible to
incinerate Nephrops but the facilities willing to do this in Scotland are very limited due to
the nature of the product. There is a facility in Liverpool (England) which can handle
Nephrops incineration. However, the transportation costs associated with this are
significant and prohibitive. As an example, Liverpool is 367miles from Mallaig.
The largest part of the disposal costs appears to be relatively fixed as it will involve onshore
storage of the catch while waiting for transport and then transportation to a disposal site,
plus the actual disposal. Processors have informed us that environmental health protocols
would not allow them to store or transport product which is not for human consumption in
close proximity with product meant for human consumption, so current Nephrops storage
or transport arrangements could not be used.
The quoted costs for disposal in Invergordon are £50/tonne for disposal. There would also
be a £550 per trip cost to transport the material to the disposal site and a recurring
£100/month for storage. At a 5% discard rate each vessel would have to dispose of
0.5t/month. Even allowing for a proportionate reduction in the disposal costs they would
still incur additional costs of £675/month or £8,100/year per vessel. This would represent
34% of the average net profit for vessels in the fishery which is considered to be
disproportionate.
In the longer term the facilities and infrastructure to handle undersized catches could be
established, with increased scope for economies of scale. However these facilities currently
do not exist and Nephrops are a particularly difficult species to dispose of as they cannot be
79
rendered down into fishmeal. The cost of transporting them to sites for disposal is as
demonstrated significant and the direct impact on vessel profits would be disproportionate.
Additional costs will be incurred through a reduction in productivity because extra time will
be needed to sort the catch under the landing obligation. Currently there is little or no
handling of discarded Nephrops. They are either pushed over the side from the sorting table
or run straight off the conveyor on those vessels that have one fitted. All Nephrops will now
have to be selected along with the rest of the catch and in those cases where the size
between animals above MCRS and those below is marginal they will need to be measured to
ensure compliance with the regulation.
Future
Work is ongoing to reduce catches of under-sized Nephrops, but this will take time to
produce results, though it seems unlikely the undersized catches can be completely
eliminated. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation Gear Sub group supported by the Scottish
Industry Discards Initiative is taking a fresh look at selectivity across the fishery, in an
attempt to reach maximum selectivity whilst maintaining an economically viable fleet.
Additional work is also being carried out into raising the value of Nephrops which are sold,
in order to provide a larger cushion against the costs of disposal of any unsold Nephrops.
We are also considering the feasibility of developing onshore facilities for Nephrops disposal
and there are ongoing projects both in the United Kingdom and in other Member States
examining survivability benchmarks in the otter trawl fishery.
However, these projects are only just getting underway and will not have answers to deal
with undersize nephrops in time for the commencement of the landings obligation from 1st
January 2016. Disposal and selectivity, while at the same time factoring in economic
viability, will be the focus of these projects. Therefore in the interim period a de-minimis
exemption of the amounts requested is necessary to allow the fleet time to adapt to this
new regime and for additional information to be generated through the range of trials.
80
(vii)
De minimis exemption for fishing vessels using a gear with increased selectivity in a
directed fisheries for sole in the Channel (VIIde) and the Celtic Sea (VIIfg) and to
avoid disproportionate costs
For the sole fishery using TBB 80-119 mm gear in areas VIIde and VIIfg a de minimis
exemption is recommended as per Article 15(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) no 1380/2013.
When in the spirit of the landing obligation and in an attempt to reduce the occurrence of
unwanted catches of sole, vessel owners choose to deploy a gear with an increased
selectivity, a de minimis exemption of 3% will apply of total sole catches with the TBB gear
80-119mm in 2016, 2017 and 2018.
For the fishing sector concerned, the sole fishery is the mainstay of its income. Taking into
account that further increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve without losing
further marketable fish, it is necessary to ensure the economic viability of the fishing
industry and to avoid disproportionate costs with the implementation of the landing
obligation.
In the spirit of the landing obligation a de minimis exemption of 3% for 2016, 2017 and 2018
is sought for undersized sole for fishing vessels using a gear for which it has been
demonstrated that it has an increased selectivity effect and to avoid disproportionate costs.
Introduction of new technical measure to increase selectivity
A catch comparison experiment conducted by the Belgian Institute for Agricultural and
Fisheries Research (ILVO) demonstrated that the capture of sole, particularly undersized
sole, was reduced significantly (see annex [y]). The introduction of a large mesh trawl
reduced total sole catch by 19,7%, and reduced undersized sole (<24 cm) by 40,3%. There
was also an important loss of 16% of marketable sole. Increasing the mesh size of the
extension in a beam trawl was shown to be an effective and simple method to reduce the
capture of sole, especially sub-legal sized fish.
STECF made an assessment of this management measure during the plenary meeting of 1317 April 2015 and concluded that the ‘suggested modification of the trawl extension can
potentially result in a reduction in the catch of small fish without dramatically affecting the
catch of fish above the MLS’. STECF made the following generic conclusions: ‘for sole stocks
in areas VIIa*, VIId and VIIfg, any measure likely to reduce mortality on young ages, may
have a positive effect on stock biomass in the short-term and on yield in the medium-term.’
The loss of 16% of marketable sole has a significant effect on the profitability of the fishing
activity and for a lot of vessels this can already make the difference between earning or
losing money. At this stage, it would be very difficult to increase further the selectivity,
81
without increasing further the losses of marketable fish. This latter would mean a
disproportionate cost.
* de minimis exemption is not applicable to this area.
Conclusion
Technical adjustments can limit the unwanted catches to a certain extent but not fully. To
facilitate a smooth introduction of the landing obligation and to stimulate the flatfish
fisheries to deploy more selective trawled gears in the Channel (VIIde) and the Celtic Sea
(VIIfg), a de minimis exemption of 3% is recommended for undersized sole in 2016, 2017
and 2018.
The use of selective gears such as a large mesh extension in a beam trawl is in line with the
spirit of the landing obligation. However, the utilisation of more selective gears means a
considerable loss of economic income in an initial period. The proposed threshold will hence
limit the economic impact of the landing obligation on the industry when using a more
selective gear and encourage it to use these years for the development of even more
selective gear to keep unwanted catches within unavoidable levels.
Annex [y]:
Evaluation of a large mesh extension in a Belgian beam trawl to reduce the capture of sole (Solea
solea)
201502-Bayse-Evalu
ation_of_a_large_mesh_extension_in_a_Belgian_beam_trawl_to_reduce_the_capture_of_sole.
82