SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
DRAFT: Strategy on Implementing the Landing Obligation
Background
1. As part of the reformed EU Common Fisheries Policy, EU Fisheries Ministers and
the European Parliament have agreed that fish that are subject to catch limits will
no longer be allowed to be discarded at sea when caught by commercial
fishermen. Instead, all of the catch1 will have to be landed and counted against
quota. The introduction of this landing obligation represents a very significant
change in both fisheries management and in how EU fishing fleets will operate.
2. The landing obligation is being phased in over a number years, starting in 2015
with pelagic fisheries (including non-pelagic by-catch), being extended to
targeted demersal fisheries (cod, haddock, whiting & saithe and nephrops) in
2016 and fully implemented across all fish stocks, which are subject to catch
limits, by 2019. Fish below Minimum Conservation Reference Size, which will
replace Minimum Landing Size, will also have to be landed, but will not be
allowed to be sold for human consumption.
Vision
3. Scottish Ministers believe that gradually eliminating discards through the landing
obligation will improve fisheries management, making the system fairer and more
transparent and, through more accurate measurements of what is being
harvested, lead to the benefits of better stock assessments and stock
sustainability. This is because discarded fish are usually dead/dying but are not
limited by quota, meaning there is an increased (and often unknown) mortality on
these fish stocks. Eliminating discards allows for a precise measurement of what
is taken from the sea (as opposed to what is landed) and thereby an accurate
assessment of mortality. Achieving this level of control over the catch is
fundamental to effective fisheries management.
4. Scottish Ministers are also keen to avoid the significant waste of mature
consumable fish which results from discarding perfectly good fish back into the
sea. For example, in the North Sea some 5,000 tonnes of cod were discarded by
Scottish vessels in 2013. However, it is important to note that sustainable fishing
does not preclude a level of discarding, as long as discard rates can be
reasonably accurately assessed; the two are not mutually exclusive. The focus
is on controlling the overall level of mortality on any one stock, not on whether
the stock is discarded or landed.
Guiding principles
1
The following exemptions apply to the landing obligation:
 Prohibited species, defined in the annual TAC and quota regulations (e.g. currently
porbeagle, common skate etc.)
 High survival species, where justified by scientific evidence and specified in discard plans.
 Catches under de minimis exemptions as specified in discard plans in evidence-based
situations, up to a maximum of 7% of total annual catches, where:
- scientific evidence indicates increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve; or
- to avoid disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches.
1
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
5. The Scottish Government recognises that the landing obligation will require
significant change to the existing system of fisheries management and fleet
behaviour. It also recognises that the mixed fishery pursued by the Scottish fleet
may present disproportionately greater management challenges compared to
other fleets in the EU. If applied in too rigid a fashion the landing obligation could
cause serious and lasting socio-economic damage to the Scottish fishing industry
and be at risk of inviting collective non-compliance. As such, the Scottish
Government will take an incremental and proportionate approach to delivering its
legal obligations and ensure that management decisions on implementation, as
far as possible, respect these principles .
6. The Scottish Government will therefore work jointly with industry and NGO
stakeholders through the Scottish Discards Steering Group to implement a
workable and effective landing obligation that maintains a viable Scottish fishing
fleet whilst continuing progress towards sustainable fishing.
Approach
7. The Scottish Government, acting on the advice of the Scottish Discards Steering
Group as well as advice from scientists, control experts and economists, aims to:
•
take a sensible, coordinated and evidence-based approach to deploying
exemptions and flexibilities which will enable the fleet to address
particularly acute challenges, whilst respecting the health and stability of
commercial fish stocks;
•
work with regional Member States to achieve equivalent compliance
outcomes and ensure that costs of implementation are proportionate;
•
work together to achieve progressive changes to fishing practices,
particularly in terms of avoidance and selectivity;
•
work in a targeted and proportionate way to identify fleet segments which
are particularly challenged by the landing obligation and to address these
challenges in a proportionate, pragmatic and supportive fashion; and
•
be prepared to think creatively and imaginatively and to advocate radical
solutions where existing exemptions and flexibilities do not appear to be
sufficient to resolve specific challenges.
8. The Scottish Discards Steering Group will be informed by the work of six
workstreams pulling together the views of stakeholders and available scientific
advice. The workstreams, described in more detail in the following pages, are:






Regionalisation: developing discard plans
Optimising the Catch: improving selectivity
Delivering a Level Playing Field: documentation and enforcement
Quota: Quota Management and Licensing
Turning Trash Fish into Cash Fish: onshore sector
Business Models
2
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
9. The Scottish Government will also continue work towards simplifying the
framework of technical measures at an EU level, such that technical rules will be
flexible and adaptable in the face of unpredictable events and changes in stock
distribution and relative abundance.
Wider engagement
10. In addition to working with the Scottish Discards Steering Group, the Scottish
Government will engage with the North Sea and North West Waters regional
groups to ensure they are effective fisheries management groups that represent
the best outcome for Scottish fisheries and fishermen.
11. Furthermore, the Scottish Government will continue to work with the relevant
Advisory Councils (ACs) in order to ensure they too promote effective and
regionalised fisheries management, and will set up specific gear-use groups (see
workstream 6) to ensure effective implementation that is appropriate for different
segments of the Scottish fleet.
12. Finally, to ensure the continued engagement with the general public the Scottish
Government will proactively put out periodic press releases during the
implementation of the landing obligation to (a) report on progress resulting from
the regionalisation procedure, (b) highlight the benefits resulting from the discard
ban, and (c) seek consumer support for eating a variety of locally caught fish.
3
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
Workstream 1: Regionalisation: developing discard plans
13. The reformed Common Fisheries Policy sees a much greater role for regions in
setting fisheries management rules amongst relevant Member States. This
means that rules can be different in different sea basins, moving away from the
previous one-size-fits-all approach across the EU. The prime focus of the
regions is currently on development of discard plans, in the absence of agreed
multi-annual plans for fish stocks.
14. There is no legal definition of the regions, allowing groups of Member States to
come together as they deem best fit for purpose. Scotland is part of the UK
delegation in two regions:

The North Sea Region (‘Scheveningen Group’), alongside the UK, France,
Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden;

The North West Waters Region, alongside the UK, Ireland, France, Spain,
Belgium and the Netherlands.
15. Member States within a region need to unanimously agree on measures
necessary for complying with the landing obligation. In the context of developing
discard plans, this means that the regions need to agree which exemptions2 are
available and should be requested. The discard plans will then be submitted to
the European Commission who, after consultation with STECF, will adopt the
plans under the process of delegated act. The Commission will seek approval
from STECF for any exemption requests contained within the plans requiring
scientific justification. Where these are not approved the Commission can be
expected to reject them. It is expected it will take at least six months for
submitted ideas to be adopted into legislation by the Commission.
16. There is still some discussion as to the full extent of the powers available to the
regions – particularly with respect to technical measures. We are working to
ensure that the legal framework gives as much power to the regions as possible.
17. This workstream will focus on:

Developing regional discard atlases, and considering conclusions from the
collated data;

Considering specific requests for exemptions from the landing obligation,
and ensuring these are relevant and underpinned by robust evidence;

Developing safeguards to ensure the appropriate use of the flexibilities
and exemptions – particularly de minimis and quota convertibility3 – and
The de minimis exemption allows 5% of ‘total annual catches of all species subject to the landing
obligation’ to be discarded. This, as well as exemptions for high survivability, needs to be agreed by
the region.
2
Catches of a ‘non-target’ species can be deducted from the quota of the ‘target species’ provided
that they do not exceed 9% of the quota of the target species and provided that the non-target stock is
within safe biological limits. There is no legal requirement for this ‘quota convertibility’ flexibility to be
agreed within a region, though it would be sensible to do so.
3
4
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
how these can be used in parallel with our objectives for stocks to be
fished at Maximum Sustainable Yield (fMSY);

Considering whether Minimum Conservation Reference Sizes need to be
amended for any species subject to catch limits;

Ensuring the discard plans are flexible and responsive to change;

Ensuring there is a coordinated approach taken across each region which
avoids unintended damage to stocks through uncoordinated actions by
Member States; delivers a level playing field in the provisions and
exemptions which are agreed; and avoids ‘double standards’ developing
between comparable fleets.
5
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
Workstream 2: Optimising the Catch: improving selectivity
18. There are risks (biological, control and in terms of quota use) associated with
using the flexibilities and exemptions – particularly in the present absence of
agreed safeguards and with our objective for fisheries to be fished at Maximum
Sustainable Yield. On the other hand, they also hold the opportunity of ‘loosening
up’ current shibboleths related to concepts such as Relative Stability, which may
bring a welcome flexibility among Member States in matching fish stock
distribution with available quota.
19. However, we expect that in a number of scenarios the use of such flexibilities
and exemptions will not be sufficient to meet the needs of our fleet. In addition,
we believe such provisions should be relied upon only after clear attempts have
been made to change behaviours. Consequently, the landing obligation is likely
to require substantial change in fishing practice.
20. The Scottish Government will continue to facilitate the development and trialling
of new gears and other methods of fishing that improve the match between catch
composition and quota holdings. We will use financial support from the EMFF
fund where appropriate.
21. A number of selective gears already exist, and further refinements of gear/fishing
behaviours would be best driven by active skippers, who could consider the most
appropriate type of gear to deploy based on their own mix of quotas and target
species.
22. Furthermore, fishermen have a good knowledge of when and where fish of a
given species are likely to be caught. Consequently spatial and temporal
measures are also likely to be heavily informed by active skippers.
23. This workstream will focus on:

Ensuring that all conflicting technical regulations, including those that
compel the fleet to discard in certain circumstances, are removed;

Identifying likely choke species, and considering how best to avoid them;

Facilitating trials of selective gear and/or spatial/temporal changes in
fishing patterns, in order to optimise the value of the catch under a landing
obligation; and

Considering how best to reduce catch of low-value species including,
where appropriate, fish below Minimum Conservation Reference Size that
cannot be sold for human consumption.
6
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
Workstream 3: Delivering a Level Playing Field: documentation and enforcement
24. Enforcement is a key requirement for the successful implementation of the
landing obligation. This needs to be delivered equally amongst comparable fleets
operating within EU waters, including non-EU vessels such as those from
Norway, in order to provide a fair level playing field.
25. Marine Scotland also recognises the importance of developing an appropriate
mix of control and enforcement measures for different fleets, such that the tools
remain proportionate for different fleet segments, whilst operating effectively.
26. We recognise that no Member State currently has a proportionate, affordable and
effective solution for enforcing the landing obligation on all their vessels particularly on smaller vessels. Consequently the variety of potential options will
need to be refined, which might include reference fleets, real time and seasonal
closures, minimum gear standards, effort limits, control observers and selfauditing.
27. This workstream will focus on:

Developing tools to control documentation and enforcement of the landing
obligation during the transition period (2016-2018), to safeguard against a
potential temporary increase in discards and decrease in accountability;

Developing and putting in place proportionate and appropriate methods to
enforce the landing obligation from 2019 onwards, that delivers effective
enforcement that is proportionate to the different fleet segments;

Ensuring that the e-logbooks are changed where appropriate to allow the
appropriate data to be collected both during the transitional period (20162018) and beyond; and

Considering who will cover the regulatory cost of enforcing the landing
obligation, for example the cost of any monitoring equipment.

Scoping approaches to monitoring and auditing data captured from control
of the landing obligation, including scope for sharing or centralising the
processing and monitoring of data across Member States.
7
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
Workstream 4: Quota, Quota Management and Licensing
28. The landing obligation will require catches which were previously discarded to be
landed against quota. This will mean that low-value catches that have
traditionally been discarded will now need to be covered by quota. Access to this
quota will be important in ensuring that fishing operations can continue, as
insufficient quota will result in the fleet being required to tie up.
29. Whilst the CFP states that fisheries managers can take into account the move to
the landing obligation when setting TACs, this needs to be balanced with the
requirement for fishing mortality to be in line with Maximum Sustainable Yield
commitments. Consequently, although we expect scientists to advise that the
‘discard column’ will be moved into the ‘catch column’ (the so-called ‘quota
uplift’), this may not result in quotas actually increasing; indeed it will likely
require confidence that discards have been minimised/eliminated.
30. The forthcoming quota consultation exercise will provide industry with an
opportunity to address views about the future allocation of quota within Scotland.
31. As the landing obligation beds in then we will have greater and more accurate
information on what the fleet is catching and can consider our overall approach
towards the minor stocks, including whether they should continue to be controlled
by quotas and MSY limits, at that stage.
32. This workstream will focus on:

Considering allocation of quota and any ‘quota uplift’, including when to
allocate the ‘quota uplift’ given the phased approach of implementation;

Considering when quota convertibility and de minimis should be applied,
collating sufficient evidence to ensure they are applied appropriately, and
developing safeguards to ensure their use does not result in unsustainable
fishing;

Considering whether POs should have further responsibilities to allow
quota and effort to be managed on an individual vessel basis;

Ensuring an efficient and effective process for international swaps;

Considering options to ensure access to sufficient quota for fishermen to
remain profitable, possibly including: combing/removing TACs, combining
management areas or increasing flexibility between these, multi-year
TACs, move-on provisions and redefining Relative Stability;

Ensuring licence conditions are appropriate for the landing obligation,
including for species where the number of vessels prosecuting a fishery is
limited (e.g. albacore tuna); and

Developing approaches to deal with zero and low TAC species, as well as
other choke species.
8
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
Workstream 5: Turning Trash Fish into Cash Fish: onshore sector
33. The landing obligation will see a change in the type of fish being landed to port,
with fish that were previously considered low value being required to be landed. It
is important to ensure that landing these fish does not come with a
disproportionate cost, and that appropriate markets are in place to maximise the
value. We do not want to replace discarding at sea with discarding on land.
34. The people who know most about what is currently being caught and how that
may change after the introduction of the landing obligation are skippers. The
people who know most about what markets exist for landed fish are processors
and retailers. The Scottish Government will facilitate discussion between these
sectors, with public support available through the EMFF where appropriate.
Further Marine Scotland and the Food and Drink will work together to help
address the issues raised.
9
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
Workstream 6: Business Models
35. A core challenge of implementing an effective landing obligation will be to ensure
that the necessary change in fishing practices occurs without putting the majority
of the Scottish fishing fleet out of business. Consequently, it is important to
consider business models for the various different fleet segments that constitute
the Scottish fishing fleet and to understand why some current practices exist, and
the consequences if these practices cannot be changed.
36. This workstream will underpin the other five, by focusing on the following fleet
segments (listed in order of likely complexity), their concerns and any necessary
research to inform how best to phase-in a proportionate and effective landing
obligation:

North Sea, West of Scotland and Irish Sea demersal trawls;

North Sea Nephrops vessels;

Seines (demersal and pair trawl);

West of Scotland Nephrops vessels;

Vessels using other gear.
Marine Scotland
28 August 2014
10
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
11
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
Discard grid of Marine Scotland and SFA projects
Work stream
Key workstreams
Priority
Aim
Milestones and Timings
Total cost
and spend
to date
1. Data compilation, modelling and analysis
1.1 Cost of discards
NA
Medium
Complete
n/a
1.2 Historic discard data input
1 (Regionalisation);
4 (Quota) &
6 (Business Models).
High
To demonstrate the financial benefits
of not discarding fish.
To gain a more accurate picture of
historic levels of discarding,
particularly of non-target species.
To be completed by
November 2015.
£80,000
1.3 Economic modelling of
Scottish fleet
1 (Regionalisation);
4 (Quota);
5 (Onshore) &
6 (Business Models).
High
1.4 Multidisciplinary approach to
discard reduction (to run
until March 2017)
2 (Selectivity);
4 (Quota) &
6 (Business Models).
High
Comprehensive Economic Impact
Assessment (EIA) of a move from
status quo fisheries management
measures to various potential
scenarios under the new CFP Landings
Obligation (LO).
Identify and assess options for actions
to support achievement of a landing
obligation – including quota and
economic measures.
Detailed project plan
start July. Contracts
commissioned during
summer.
Fleet results end 2014.
Onshore results 2015.
Initial review of
management options
complete summer 2014.
MS has
committed
£15k, with
a further
£70k from
others
n/a
1.5 Analysis of expected cost of
handling unwanted catches
(de minimis)
1 (Regionalisation);
4 (Quota);
5 (Onshore) &
6 (Business Models).
High
To provide a rational for access to de
minimis
Project complete June
2014.
£10k
1.6 Compile Scottish, STECF and
ICES discard rates and
estimates of MSY, flim & Blim
for all TAC and quota stocks.
1 (Regionalisation);
4 (Quota) &
6 (Business Models).
Medium
To bring together information in one
document.
n/a
12
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
Work stream
Key workstreams
Priority
Aim
1.7 The impact of landing
obligation on onshore sector
4 (Quota);
5 (Onshore) &
6 (Business Models).
High
Assess impact of landing obligation on
onshore sector
1.8 Compilation of observer
coverage and market
sampling.
4 (Quota) &
6 (Business Models).
Medium
To provide information to SAFPO to
aid GAP analysis.
1.9 Expected short and mediumterm impact of landing
obligation
1 (Regionalisation);
4 (Quota) &
6 (Business Models).
High
1. Predict scale of an uplift (if any),
and likelihood of that resulting in an
increased TAC.
Milestones and Timings
Total cost
and spend
to date
£TBD
Complete
n/a
2. Model consequences of behavioural
responses to the landing obligation: i)
where the new advised catch forecast
and TAC (which implies landings
+discards) is adhered to and ii) where
the new advised catch forecast and
TAC is taken and where there is
discarding on top of this.
13
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
Work stream
Key workstreams
Priority
Aim
2.1 Spurdog FISA project
4 (Quota).
Low
2.2 Shetland fleet discards selfassessment scheme (SFA
led).
1 (Regionalisation);
2 (Selectivity);
4 (Quota);
5 (Onshore) &
6 (Business Models).
Medium
To gather and analyse bycatch data on
spurdog to consider case for potential
bycatch quota.
To identify discard rates from
Shetland vessels as a benchmark for
implementation measures.
2.3 Shetland fleet discards selfsampling FISA project
1 (Regionalisation);
2 (Selectivity);
4 (Quota);
5 (Onshore) &
6 (Business Models).
Medium
Milestones and Timings
Total cost
and spend
to date
2. Collection of data
3. Measures to reduce unwanted catch
3.1 Remove contradictory
2 (Selectivity) &
technical measures and
6 (Business Models).
marketing regulations.
3.2 Highly selective gear and cod
avoidance.
2 (Selectivity) &
6 (Business Models).
£43k FISA
grant.
Full year data available
in June 2014.
Zero.
To corroborate discard rates from SFA
self-analysis and identify what’s
currently being discarded.
Quarterly reports to
Marine Scotland
Science.
£30k FISA
grant in
four equal
quarterly
instalments
High
To prevent rules preventing fishermen
from landing or discarding catch.
n/a
Low
Developing cod-avoidance measures.
Political Agreement by
the Council of Ministers
in July. Now to go
through co-decision
Report on 2013 scheme
to be commissioned.
New scheme for 2014
under consideration.
n/a
14
SDSG – 2014/09/03 – 3
Work stream
Key workstreams
Priority
Aim
Milestones and Timings
3.3 Protection for
juvenile/spawning haddock.
2 (Selectivity) &
6 (Business Models).
Medium
To protect spawning haddock.
To start after
agreement in Coastal
States is reached.
Completed by NEAFC
AGM 2014
4. Landing obligation trials
4.1 FDF: North Sea TR1 discard
trial
3 (Control).
High
To develop approaches for fully
documenting demersal catches.
3 (Control).
High
To develop approaches for fully
documenting pelagic catches.
4.2 FDF: pelagic monitoring
evaluation
Trial to complete in
December 2014
Total cost
and spend
to date
n/a
Allocation
of scientific
quota.
n/a
15