SDSG 4.10b – 4 June 2014
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION PURPOSES
Proposal for a specific discard plan for the North West Waters region
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 Article 15.6 and 18.1
of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 to the European Commission to adopt such measures
by means of delegated acts, the Member States of the North West Waters region submit
a joint recommendation, as per Article 18.2, to the European Commission for a specific
discard plan for the relevant geographical area.
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 decide regional management measures
specific to their fisheries and submit these to the European Commission for adoption via
delegated acts.
b. The scope of these measures is provided for in Article 18 of the Common Fisheries
Policy by way of reference to Article 15.6, 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, Member States may cooperate, in accordance with Article 18, in the
drawing up of a specific discard plan with a view to the Commission adopting those
measures 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, including specific descriptions of any exemptions
gained.
f. In association with this discard plan, it is anticipated that there will be complementary
changes in technical conservation and control measures, to be specified in revisions to
the Technical Conservation Regulation and the Control Regulation. This is to ensure
there is no conflict between the technical and control measures and the proper
implementation of the landings obligation.
g. If such revisions to the technical and control measures required to support the
implementation of the landings obligation are not ready in time for the start of the
landings obligation on 1st January 2015, alternatives will need to be explored in order to
ensure compliance.
h. It is desirable that any technical, control or compliance measures adopted for the North
West Waters region be efficient, proportional, and enforceable across all vessels
operating under this discard plan.
i. It is the position of Member States that increased selectivity, where possible, is the most
desirable way to deliver compliance with the landings obligation.
j. The securing and use of exemptions is to be considered as a last resort, following the
acceptable uses specified in Article 15.4, further specified under paragraph 5(c), and
will be based on a thorough, evidence-based process as indicated by the Commission.
k. 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 landings obligation for pelagic fisheries. It is considered to be the
joint responsibility of the Commission and Member States 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 shows is not fit for purpose.
l. The North West Waters group considers it desirable to achieve consistency between all
the recommendations for specific discard plans being drafted by regional groups in EU
waters.
m. In accordance with Articles 18.2 and Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the
North West Waters group consulted the relevant Advisory Councils in the drawing up of
this recommendation for a specific discard plan.
3. Definitions
a. For the purposes of this discard plan the definitions used shall be those specified in
Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
4. Duration
a. As per Article 15.6 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, this specific discard plan shall have
a duration of no more than three years.
5. Subject matter and scope
a. This specific discard plan is applicable to small and large pelagic fisheries and fisheries
for industrial purposes in the North West Waters, comprising ICES sea areas Vb, VI and
VII, as per Article 15.1(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
b. This discard plan will apply to all fishing vessels engaging in directed pelagic fisheries
in the North West Waters without prejudice to rules applicable outside the
aforementioned Union waters under Member State jurisdiction.
c. Pelagic fisheries and species targeted are listed in the tables below.
d. [These tables are still to be completed subject to contributions from all Member States.
Once completed, it is likely they will be moved to an annex]
Table 1. Fisheries in ICES Vb, VIa, VIb
Code
Pelagic fishing gear
Quota species caught
OTT/OTM
Otter trawls – bottom, midwater,
other
Mackerel, herring, horse mackerel,
blue whiting, boarfish, argentine
PTB
Pair trawls – bottom (other)
Mackerel
PTM
Pair trawls – midwater
Herring, mackerel
PS
Purse seines
Mackerel, blue whiting
LMH
Handline
Mackerel
LTL
Trolling
Mackerel
Table 2. Fisheries in ICES VII (excluding a, d and e)
Code
Pelagic fishing gear
Quota species caught
LMH
Handline
Mackerel
LTL
Trolling and poles and lines
Albacore tuna
PTM
Pair trawls – midwater
Blue whiting, mackerel, horse
mackerel, albacore tuna
OTM
Otter trawls – midwater
Blue whiting, mackerel, horse
mackerel, boarfish
OTB
Otter trawls - bottom
Herring
PS
Purse seines*
Mackerel, horse mackerel
Table 3. Fisheries in ICES VII d-e
Code
Pelagic fishing gear
Quota species caught
OTB
Otter trawls (not specified)
Sprat
OTB
Otter trawls – if mesh size from 3254mm
Herring, mackerel, horse mackerel
GND
Driftnets
Mackerel, herring
LMH
Handlines and polelines
Mackerel
OTM
Otter trawls – midwater (other)
Sprat, horse mackerel, mackerel,
herring, boarfish
PTM
Pair trawls – midwater (other)
Horse mackerel
PS
Purse seines*
Mackerel, horse mackerel
Table 4. Fisheries in ICES VIIa
Code
Pelagic fishing gear
Quota species caught
OTM
Otter trawls – midwater
Herring
PTM
Pair trawls – midwater
Herring
LMH
Handlines
Mackerel
LMH
Gillnets
Herring
* These vessels fish mainly in Area VIII but a very small part of their activity falls in parts of Area
VII.
6. Timeline for implementation
a. As per Article 15.1 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, this discard plan notes that, in
accordance with paragraph 7 below, the landings obligation shall be introduced in the
fisheries specified in this discard plan from the 1st January 2015.
b. Other pelagic species caught during fishing activities in Union waters shall be
progressively subject to the landings obligation, as specified in Article 15.1(c)(ii) and
(iv) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 referring to the North Western Waters,.
c. Specific discard plans for those fisheries referred to in Article 15.1(c)(ii) and (iv)
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 shall be developed for the North Western Waters in the
future, as per the timeline for implementation in that Regulation.
7. Landings obligation
a. As per Article 15 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 all catches in fisheries specified in
Article 15.1(a) and listed in paragraph 5 of this discard plan made during fishing
activities in Union waters also specified in paragraph 5 shall be brought and retained on
board the fishing vessels, recorded, landed and counted against the quotas where
applicable, except when used as live bait.
b. In addition, by-catches of all other species subject to catch limits, including demersal
species, caught during fishing activities by Union vessels in the fisheries defined in this
discard plan shall also be included in the landings obligation from 1st January 2015,
except when used as live bait.
c. The obligation to land all catches as specified in part (a) of this paragraph shall not
apply to species for which there is a specific exemption, as detailed in paragraph 8 of
this discard plan, as specified in Article 15.4(a) to (c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
8. Exemptions
a. 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.
Prohibited Species
b. Regarding prohibited species, for pelagic fisheries these are currently specified in
Article 12 of Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014, and will continue to be specified in
ongoing annual Council TAC and Quota Regulations.
c. Taking into account that Regulation (EU) N° 1380/2013 Recital (16) states that the CFP
should pay full regard, where relevant, to animal health, animal welfare, food and feed
safety and Article 3 point h) recalls that the CFP shall respect consistency with other
Union policies, catches of aquatic animals for which flesh contaminants would exceed
the maximum limits set by EU rules for human or animal consumption would also be
covered by this exemption. According to food safety prescriptions 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 contaminated fish shall not be
kept on board a vessel. This fish has to be disposed directly into the sea.
d. [Possible addition of text to cover zero TAC species]
High survivability
e. Regarding high survival, as detailed in Article 15.4(b) of Regulation (EU) No
1380/2013, species caught by certain gears and taking into account fishing practices and
the ecosystem may be exempted from the landings obligation based on scientific
evidence of high survival (see paragraph (d)).
f. Where there is a case for high survivability exemptions these should be recommended
by Member States in this specific discard plan on a case-by-case basis.
De minimis
g. Regarding de minimis, as detailed in Article 15.4(c) and further in 15.5(c) of Regulation
(EU) No 1380/2013, there is provision for de minimis exemptions of up to 5% of total
annual catches of all species subject to the landing obligation. The de minimis 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, for those
fishing gears where unwanted catches per fishing gear do not represent more
than a certain percentage, to be established in a plan, of total annual catch of
that gear.
iii. For a transitional period of four years, the percentage of the total annual
catches specified shall increase: by two percentage points in the first two years
of application of the landing obligation; and by one percentage point in the
subsequent two years.
h. Although the catches discarded under de minimis will not be counted against quotas,
any amount of catch discarded under application of de minimis shall be fully recorded
and taken into account by ICES in preparing their annual scientific advice.
i. Where there is a case for de minimis exemptions these should be recommended by
Member States in this specific discard plan on a case-by-case basis. These exemptions
shall be applied at Member State level and it shall be for Member States to decide how
to allocate this exemption.
j. The Member States recommend that a de minimis exemption should apply in the
following cases:
i. A maximum of 7% for years one and two, and 6% for year three for blue
whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) of the total annual catches in the industrial
pelagic trawler fishery targeting this species and processing it on board as
surimi in ICES sea areas V, VI and VII. See Annex A for supporting evidence
ii. A maximum of 7% for years one and two, and 6% for year three for albacore
tuna (Thunnus alalunga) of the total annual catches in the albacore tuna
directed fisheries using midwater pair trawlers (PTM) in ICES sea areas VII
and VIII. See Annex B for supporting evidence.
iii. [There is an outstanding request on boarfish caught in the pelagic fisheries
targeting horse mackerel by Union pelagic freezer trawlers using midwater
trawls (OTM) in ICES sea areas Vb, VI and VII. See Annex C for supporting
evidence.]
9. Documentation of catches
a. In accordance with Article 15.5(d), specific discard plans can make provisions on
documentation of catches.
b. Catches of species subject to catch limits shall be recorded with the correct scientific
species name 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. For 8(h), all discards shall be recorded in the electronic logbook with appropriate codes
denoting species discarded. The utilization of the de minimis exemption shall be
monitored by the competent authority.
d. [There is an outstanding issue on the possibility of taking into account any advice issued
by the Control Experts Group relating to the documentation of catches in due course.]
10. Fixing of Minimum Conservation Reference Sizes (MCRS)
a. In accordance with Article 15.5(e) and 15.10 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, MCRS
may be established in specific discard plans with the aim of ensuring the protection of
juveniles of marine organisms.
b. If MCRS is already established in another Regulation, such as in the Technical
Conservation Regulation, then Member States may submit regionally-agreed
recommendations for the fixing of MCRS as part of specific discard plans
c. The fixing of MCRS could take into account a variety of issues, such as: the setting of
MCRS for market considerations; limiting the supply of particular size ranges to prevent
oversupply; social or ethical reasons; biological and ecologic considerations.
d. Changes to MCRS are under consideration in the Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulations (EC) No
850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, No 254/2002,
(EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing (EC) No 1434/98 as regards
the landing obligation (otherwise known as the “Omnibus Proposal”).
e. [There is an outstanding issue over the North Sea Group’s proposal to have no MCRS
for herring, horse mackerel and mackerel. This issue remains for further consideration.]
11. Revision and adaptation
a. Taking into account that the landings obligation constitutes a wholly new regime in the
management of fisheries in Europe, and that specific discard plans are a new
management tool, it has been agreed that this discard plan shall remain open to revision
and adaptation throughout its duration.
b. It is considered to be the joint responsibility of the Commission and Member States to
maintain oversight of the implementation of the provisions of this discard plan and to
call into question any element which may be in need of revision and adaptation at any
time.
c. 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
MCRS to be specified at any time.
Annex A – Supporting evidence for application for de minimis for blue whiting in ICES sea areas V, VI
and VII
Context and level
The pelagic fishery of blue whiting with processing on board for surimi production in the North West Waters
consists of a factory trawler processing on board the catches to produce surimi base using mid water trawls
(gear type OTM).
A de minimis exemption for this specific activity on blue whiting is needed. Indeed, on a surimi factory
trawler, filets are the input of the surimi base processed on board. So, every blue whiting caught by the
vessel must be headed, gutted and fileted skin off. This is done by fileting machines, each processing
hundred fish per minute. Then, filets are processed into mince. The mince is washed with refrigerated fresh
water produced on board. Then it is refined into surimi base, which is a pulp of fish protein. Surimi base is
frozen on board. The fishing and processing requires of roughly 58 fishermen crew on the 90 meters long
factory trawler.
Frozen surimi base is used in food industry factories ashore, more particularly for production of surimi sticks
which is a cooked mix of surimi base (33%), wheat, white of egg, flavors, paprika and water.
About 200.000 tons of surimi sticks are produced every year by EU food industry on land, mainly in
Lithuania, France, Spain and Poland factories. This requires an input of about 65.000 tons of frozen surimi
base every year. 95% of this surimi base is imported, mainly from USA (Alaska), Vietnam, Peru and Thailand.
Only 5%, i.e. about 3000 tons, are produced in the EU.
Tough food security rules apply. Therefore, frozen surimi base must be free of bacterial development.
Consequently :
* Any damaged blue whiting will not be filleted. Fish can be damaged in case of bad weather while staying in
the trunk of the trawler before being headed gutted and fileted: movements and hits of the fish in the trunk
damages some fish.
* Some fish can be too small to be correctly headed gutted and fileted. Any not-correctly fileted fish (for
example: fish too small make the machine unable to separate correctly guts or skin) will not be processed
into surimi base.
Altogether, this may reach 5% - 7% average discard at the end of the year for blue whiting fileting surimi
trawler, depending on average weather condition and abundance of blue whiting in the sea.
The total estimated discards of blue whiting are shown in table [x] below:
Table X. Discards compared to the catches of blue whiting by factory trawler processing on board the
catches to produce surimi base , in tonnes. Discard rate estimates come from a professional source.
species
2010
2011
2012
2013
Catches of blue
whiting
10,000
4,261.3
9,788
7,181.6
Estimated discard
rate
5-7 %
5-7 %
5-7 %
5-7 %
Estimated
discarded catches
(catches*discard
rate)
500-700
213-298
489-685
359-503
Selectivity
The fishery is a directed one on blue whiting, this specie being the only target specie.
The fish may be damaged in the trunks because of the bad weather. The main blue whiting fishing season
takes place between mid-January and mid-April in North Atlantic, when sea is often very rough. But, even if
conditions at sea are bad, vessel at sea cannot stop fishing and wait for weeks as the fishing season is too
short.
Regarding unwanted catch of fish too small to be correctly headed gutted and fileted, there is no way to
improve selectivity: the fishing fleet already uses 54 mm mesh size in the codend when the official mesh size
allowed by the EU regulation is from 32 to 54 m.
Besides, blue whiting schools are generally composed of fish aged 3 and more, which are all big enough to be
correctly fileted. Biggest blue whiting use to stay in the lower part of the school. So it is possible to catch
mainly big blue whiting by operating the trawl in this lower part. But sometimes, especially if there is much
fish and very big schools, ages may be more mixed. In this case, the Skipper cannot avoid the trawl to catch
some small fish.
Conclusions
The conclusions from past and current research efforts combined with the reported low discard rates by ICES
and STECF in pelagic fisheries strongly indicate that the state of the art technology cannot increase
selectivity in pelagic fisheries any further. However, as technology advances selectivity might be increased in
the future and this issue should be revisited again once progress has been made. New results are expected
to be available in two to three years.
Costs of landing and handling damaged blue whiting fish or fish too small (or not correctly headed gutted
and fileted) would be disproportionate
The duration of the fishing campaigns is 40 days in average. Should damaged fish and too small fish not be
discarded, it would have to be frozen. It would be mainly whole fish. So, it would mean that roughly 5% to
7% of the catch would occupy about 15% of the room in the frozen hold. As the vessel steams back to
harbour only when the hold is completely full (cf photographs below), this would shorten the duration of the
fishing campaign by 15%.
The vessel would have to perform 5 campaigns in the year instead of 4 for the same catch volume. In the
end of the year, this would have caused extra costs as more days of route (fuel consumption) going from
France to fishing grounds and back would be needed, for the same total catch. An extra campaign represents
8 extra days of route to get to the fishing areas and come back to port. A day at sea direct costs are
estimated to be around 19,000 euros. Thus, it is estimated that 8 extra days of route would thus be needed,
causing an extra cost of roughly 150,000 euros.
Besides, there would also have extra costs of handling and storing. No commercial use is expected for this
damaged fish or too small fish as the fishery is specialized in fish for human consumption.
Figure 1 : processed fish is turned into a frozen surimi base and stored in a standardized carton box.
Figure 2 : the hold of the ship at his return to its departure harbour (Saint Malo) on the 1st May 2014.
Figure 3: the hold of the ship at his return to its departure harbour (Saint Malo) on the 1st May 2014.
Figure 4: the hold of the ship at his return to its departure harbour (Saint Malo) on the 1st May 2014.
Conclusion
The issue of discarded fish on the factory trawlers processing on board the catches to produce surimi base is
a very specific issue met in the North West Waters. This issue has been identified and documented in the
pelagic regional advisory council’s recommendations on implementing the EU landing obligation in pelagic
fisheries1. Consequently, this fishery does not fin in the average level of discards of 1% for blue whiting
evaluated by ICES and STECF.
Pelagic regional advisory council’s recommendations on implementing the EU landing obligation in pelagic fisheries?
April 2014, p.80-81
1
Annex B – Supporting evidence for application for de minimis for albacore tuna in ICES sea areas VII
and VIII
Level
The French pelagic fishery consists of 36 trawlers, working by pairs with pair midwater trawls (gear type
PTM) in area VII and VIII.
Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) is the targeted specie but discards of catches of albacore tuna occurred in
this fishery due to damaged fish that cannot be sold for human consumption..
The total estimated discards of albacore tuna from the OBSMER discard sampling are shown in table [x]
below. The discards sampling by scientific observers on board is done in light of the data collection
framework. The OBSMER program started on 2010 and consequently no data related to discard can be
presented for the period prior to 2010.
Table [x] Discards of albacore tuna in the French pelagic fishery. The catches are data form FIDES. The
discard rate is based onOBSMER discard sampling raised to the whole fleet and for all areas.
Catches (in tonnes)
Discard rate of
albacore tuna
Estimated discards
volume
(catches*discard rate)
2010
2011
2012
1,056
3,198.4
4,571
3%
2,6 %
11,8 %
31.68
83.15
560.6
Conclusion
From the tables it can be concluded that the discards of albacore tuna are highly variable. The discards are
damaged fish that cannot be sold for human consumption..
So far, the Standing Committee for Research and Statistics of the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna has not estimated the discard rate in the albacore tuna fisheries.
Taking into account these uncertainties, FR proposes to use the maximum percentage of de minimis that is
allowed by the current CFP regulation, i.e. 7% for the first two years of implementation of the discard plan
and 6% for the third year.
Selectivity
The data from the OBSMER program shows that albacore tunas are discarded because they are damaged
and cannot be sold for human consumption. The discards happen whatever the size of the catches as shown
in the tables below [X for 2011 and X for 2012].
Selectivity is already very high in the French pair trawl fishery as albacore tuna is the only targeted specie
and the mesh size used by the trawlers is 100 mm, which is an adequate mesh size for catching albacore
tuna.
A minimum landing weight of 2 kilograms for albacore tuna came into force in the French law by July 16th
2009 through a ministerial decree and has acted as a driver for increased selectivity in the albacore tuna
fishery. The graphs below show there are no discards or almost no discards under the minimum landing
weight. Indeed, according to the age/length/weight relationship (Santiago, J. 1993. A new length-weight
relationship for the north Atlantic albacore. ICCAT Col. Vol. Sci. Pap,. XL(2) : 316-319), albacore tunas that
weight 2 kilograms are 46 centimetres long.
Annex X : size structure of the albacore tuna catches retained on board (white part of the column) and
discarded (blue part of the column) in the Atlantic pair trawl fishery, 2011
Annex X : size structure of the albacore tuna catches retained on board (white part of the column) and
discarded (blue part of the column) in the Atlantic pair trawl fishery, 2012
Conclusions
It clearly appears from the data above that selectivity is already very high in this fishery. Consequently,
increasing selectivity in pelagic fisheries is extremely difficult with the technology currently available.
Besides, improving selectivity would not be the solution to prevent discards in this fishery as the discarded
fish are damaged ones and are of very different sizes.
Costs of landing all the catches of albacore tuna
The fishing areas are, for a large part, far away from the landing harbours of the vessels2, as shown in the
figure below. Therefore, the vessels try to full their holds before leaving the fishing areas and going back to
their harbour in order to be profitable.
Keeping on board the fish currently discarded would limit the hold capacity available to stow and stock the
marketable fish (ie fish to be sold for human consumption) and would impact the income of the fishermen.
As an example, and using the data derived from Obsmer sampling and raised to the whole fleet for the year
2012:



Landed catches of albacore tuna : 3,481.8 tonnes,
Discarded catches of albacore tuna : 411.9 tonnes,
an average price of 1,8 € per kg,
Considering that the total maximum landing volume of this fishing fleet is 3,481.8 tonnes, the volume used
for marketable fish would be (3,481.8 – 411.9) 3,069.9 tonnes instead of 3,481.8 tonnes previously,
representing a loss of 11,8% of the available stowing and stocking capacity on board.
The financial losses would be (411,900 kg*1.8 euros) of 741420 euros, representing a loss of 11,8%
(741420/6267240) of the total income of the fishery.
2
The main fishing harbours are : Le Guilvinec, Lorient, La Turballe, Les Sables d’Olonnes, Saint-Gilles-Croix-de-Vie
Figure X : fishing areas observed (circles) and total fishing effort (rectangles) in day at sea (2012)
Conclusions
This loss represents a disproportionate cost for an already very selective fishery.
References
Cornou Anne-Sophie, Dimeet Joel, Tetard Alain, Gaudou Olivier, Dube Benoit, Fauconnet Laurence, Rochet
Marie-Joelle (2013). Observations à bord des navires de pêche professionnelle. Bilan de l'échantillonnage
2012
Dube Benoit, Dimeet Joel, Rochet Marie-Joelle, Tetard Alain, Gaudou Olivier, Messannot Cecile, Fauconnet
Laurence, Morizur Yvon, Biseau Alain, Salaun Michele (2012). Observations à bord des navires de pêche
professionnelle. Bilan de l'échantillonnage 2011
Fauconnet Laurence, Badts Vincent, Biseau Alain, Dimeet Joel, Dintheer Christian, Dube Benoit, Gaudou
Olivier, Lorance Pascal, Messannot Cecile, Nikolic Natacha, Peronnet Isabelle, Reecht Yves, Rochet MarieJoelle, Tetard Alain (2011). Observations à bord des navires de pêche. Bilan de l'échantillonnage 2010
ICCAT REPORT for biennial period, 2012-2013 part II (2013), vol. 2 SCRS, executive summary on albacore
tuna, pages 63-90
Arrêté du 28 janvier 2013 déterminant la taille minimale ou le poids minimal de capture et de débarquement
des poissons et autres organismes marins pour la pêche professionnelle
Arrêté du 15 juillet 2010 déterminant la taille minimale ou le poids minimal de capture et de débarquement
des poissons et autres organismes marins
Arrêté du 16 juillet 2009 déterminant la taille minimale ou le poids minimal de capture et de débarquement
des poissons et autres organismes marins
Annex C – Supporting evidence for application for de minimis for boarfish in ICES sea areas Vb, VI
and VII
Level
Boarfish (Capros aper) is an unavoidable by-catch in the pelagic fisheries targeting horse mackerel by Union
pelagic freezer trawlers using midwater trawls (OTM) in ICES sea areas Vb, VI and VII. The fisheries on
western horse mackerel takes place in spring (January-May) and autumn (September-December). There are
some 21 pelagic freezer trawlers involved in the fisheries on western horse mackerel (Netherlands, United
Kingdom, Germany, France, Denmark), yet not all fish in the NWW waters region. Gear type used is OTM 3254 mm.
Remarks on boarfish discard estimates
STECF has no accurate discard estimates for boarfish in any of the relevant areas and fisheries. It is therefore
very difficult to conclude on appropriate discard estimates and to relate them to any specific fishery, as
there are concerns regarding both methodological and data coverage aspects. Member States should be
encouraged to submit their information in accordance with the annual DCF data calls.
Ideally, the boarfish discards should be related to catches of horse mackerel (target species), including the
discards of horse mackerel. Now, STECF has estimated the discards of horse mackerel in Div. VI, VII and VIII
taken by pelagic trawls (OTM) as being very low, so that landings data may be used as a reference to
estimate the discard rates of boarfish.
The data provided below come from national institutes and ICES. France assumes that the fisheries is similar
to the Dutch fisheries and that the by-catches are of the same order.
Level
Dutch data
The total estimated discards of boarfish from the IMARES discard sampling are shown in table 1 below. The
discards sampling by scientific observers on board is done in light of the data collection framework.
Table 1 Discards of boarfish in the Dutch pelagic Fishery. Based on IMARES discard sampling raised to the
whole fleet and for all areas (in tonnes per year).
Boarfish
discards
Area
All
1998
837
733
411
23
738
1258
512
185
88
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
average
678.3
Table 2. Discards compared to the catches of horse mackerel by NL vessels, caught in NWW region (20032012), in tonnes. Catch data from VIRIS.
species
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
horse mackerel 46781 45009 37889 38590 40350 49419 48248 76964 74143 78008
Discards
boarfish
1998
837
733
411
23
738
1258
512
185
88
%boarfish of
total
4,3%
1,9%
1,9%
1,1%
0,1%
1,5%
2,6%
0,7%
0,2%
0,1%
German data
The following table 3 represents the German landings for horse mackerel and discards for boarfish in ICES
Div. VI, VII and VIII by pelagic trawls, the only fishing method deployed for the two species. Discard estimates
are based on few direct haul by haul observations. It should be noticed, that the available information on
boar fish discards is scarce.
Two methods are applied to derive discard estimates. The Method 1 is based on raising of observed average
discards by effort deployed, the effort being measured in number of hauls. The Method 2 is based on raising
the observed average discard volumes in terms of weight ratios between the discards and the landings.
Inter-annual variation in discard estimates is high, and both methods derive at discards in similar orders of
magnitude. Method 2 is the recommended method, as it is consistent with the standard approach by STECF.
The estimated discard rates of boarfish in relation to horse mackerel landings vary from 1.4% in 2006 and
10.6 % in 2009.
Table 3. German data on horse mackerel landings, number of boarfish discard observations and boarfish
discard estimates for OTM in ICES Div. VI, VII and VIII.
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2009
2010
2011
2
6
8
8
1
8
17836
.8
17171
.4
11488
.5
15121
.5
21240
.9
24480
.0
German
discardestimates (t)
2640.
2
322.1
159.3
422.4
156.1
1761.
5
Discard rate
0.148
0.019
0.014
0.028
0.007
0.072
17836
.8
17171
.4
11488
.5
15121
.5
21240
.9
24480
.0
German
discardestimates (t)
463.6
160.8
1602.
9
934.6
1126.
1
Discard rate
0.027
0.014
0.106
0.044
0.046
n discardobservations
2007
2008
2012
Method 1
STECF landings (t)
15713
.8
5778
.2
11714
.8
21896
.9
Method 2
STECF landings (t)
15713
.8
5778
.2
11714
.8
21896
.9
Conclusion
From the tables it can be concluded that the discards of boarfish are highly variable. Furthermore, the
scientific institute IMARES notes that anecdotal information from skippers suggest that the by-catches of
boarfish can be substantially higher. IMARES concludes therefore that the actual discards figures are
underestimated. ICES estimates that in 2012 some 8% of the total catches was discarded in non-directed
fisheries (ICES 2013). Taking into account these uncertainties, the Netherlands, Germany and France propose
to use the maximum percentage that occurred in the 10 year period, i.e. 4,3%.
Selectivity
The Dutch pelagic industry has in cooperation with private tech companies and/or through industry-science
partnerships developed acoustic imaging techniques as well as revising gear to increase both size and
species selectivity.
Acoustics
Advancements in acoustic technology might prove more successful. For more than ten years the Dutch
pelagic freezer-trawler fleet has engaged in the so-called TWINSON project (Storbeck & De Theije 2006)
which aimed at increasing selectivity using two sonars in a bi-static setup. It was concluded that in the future
acoustic equipment might be capable to deliver a high enough resolution to differentiate between species
such as mackerel and horse mackerel even in cases in which they occur in close proximity. However, further
adaptations of the sonar will be necessary as well as the development of new hard- and software to realize
real-time calculations which could not be delivered by the manufacturer. New projects investigating future
possibilities are currently ongoing. These include the SOFIC project (2010-ongoing), the multi frequency echo
sounder project (2013-2014) and the broadband multi frequency echo sounder project (2014 onwards). As
the experimental stages of these projects are still running the first results will not be available before the
implementation of the landing obligation.
Gear adaptations
An EU funded project (SELMITRA) was carried out in the 1990s with the objective to improve species and size
selection in midwater trawls through behaviour studies and gear modification. This study, however, showed
that separating pelagic species was difficult (van Marlen et al. 1994) and no further work was carried out. A
typical problem associated with size selection devices is the high mortality of escaping fish. In Norwegian
mackerel pelagic trawl fisheries, a grid with 42 mm bar spacing was developed to reduce small mackerel, but
was not introduced into regulation due to suspected high mortality of the escaping fish (Kvalsvik et al. 2002).
Square mesh codend have been tested in the English Channel mackerel fishery, but this did not improve size
selectivity of mackerel (Casey et al. 1992) and led to large-scale meshing of legal size mackerel. A grid system
was tested for size selectivity in the Baltic herring fishery (Suuronen 1991) which showed it was possible to
increase selectivity but at the same time showed mortality of escaping fish was very high and no further
trials were carried out.
Pilots
In the first half of 2013, the Pelagic Freezer-trawler Association (PFA) already recognized the need to prepare
well for the new regulation even though the regulation had not been formally agreed at that stage. The PFA
initiated a pilot project to explore possible mitigation strategies to avoid unwanted bycatch, to handle and
use unwanted bycatch and to find feasible strategies to document and control the catches. The results of the
pilot project would also feed into discussions on the future technical measures regulations that impact on
discards. The project started in August 2014 and finished in February 2014. IMARES was commissioned to
lead the project with inputs from a consortium consisting of the fishing companies that are members to the
PFA, the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs, the Dutch inspection agency NVWA, Maritiem BV and
Archipelago Marine Research. As regards the selectivity, two different types of gear modifications (grids or
escape panels of flexible tubes, Dyneema) were tested. Camera footage has demonstrated the escapes of
mackerel and horse mackerel. No observations on boarfish were done at this time. Further research on
acoustics and selectivity by the Dutch pelagic industry will be continued in 2014.
Conclusions
The conclusions from past and current research efforts combined with the reported low discard rates by ICES
and STECF in pelagic fisheries strongly indicate that the state of the art technology cannot increase
selectivity in pelagic fisheries any further. However, as technology advances selectivity might be increased in
the future and this issue should be revisited again once progress has been made. New results are expected
to be available in two to three years.
Costs of landing by-catch for the Dutch pelagic freezer fleet
In 2013, the Agriculture Economic Institute (LEI) in the Netherlands has estimated the cost of the landing
obligation, on the basis 2011 data. According to Buisman et al. (2013) the net costs of landing by-catch for
the Dutch pelagic freezer fleet would amount to 0.6 to 1.5 Million euro3 (44 to 109 thousand euro per vessel)
depending on the price obtained for bycatch (table 4). This does not include the possible extra costs of CCTV
or observers onboard. The study assumes that bycatch will be processed as fishmeal and on basis of that a
price for bycatch is assumed between 0.15 and 0.30 euro/kg. Assuming all catches equal to that of 2011and
that all bycatch can be landed within the catch-quota this implies total revenues for bycatch between 0.9
and 1.8 Million euro for the whole fleet or 66 to 131 thousand euro per vessel. Extra labour costs are
estimated at 130 thousand euro per vessel and extra costs of freezing, transport and steaming would
amount to 44 thousand Euro per vessel.
Table 4
Annual costs and benefits of a landing obligation for
Dutch pelagic freezer trawlers for two price scenarios
Dutch pelagic fleet
Per vessel
Million euro
1.000 euro
Price of bycatch
0,15€/kg 0,30€/kg 0,15€/kg 0,30€/kg
Revenues
0,9
1,8
66
131
Extra labour costs
1,8
1,8
130
130
Costs of freezing and
transport
0,2
0,2
14
14
Extra steaming costs
0,4
0,4
30
30
Costs
2,4
2,4
175
175
Net benefits
-1,5
-0,6
-109
-44
This is the conclusion from ‘scenario 1’ which assumes that catch quota will be big enough to land all by catch of quota
species within the quota. If this is not the case costs of landing by-catch will be higher (Buisman et al (2013))
3
Camera's
1,0
1,0
71
71
Net benefits incl. costs of -2,5
cameras
-1,6
-180
-114
Observers onboard
3,6
3,6
258
258
Net benefits including
costs of observers
-5,1
-4,2
-367
-302
a) Excluding one-off costs (11.500 € per vessel) of installation of CCTV.
Source: Buisman et al. (2013)
In case catch-quota are not sufficient to land all by-catch the net costs of the landing obligation will be
higher. Moreover, if by-catches for which the fleet has no quota are counted against quota of target species
the net costs of landing will be higher. In that case the costs will amount to the difference in revenues from
the foregone catches of the target species and the revenues from the landed bycatch.
Extra costs of landing boarfish in the quota for horse mackerel
In case the boarfish cannot be discarded, this would lead to additional costs. Extra costs are the handling of
the catches, the freezing of the catching, storage (+ loss space for targeted species), handling and storage on
land. It is assumed that the boarfish catches in that case are deducted from the horse mackerel or mackerel
quota.
On average between 2003 and 2012 the Dutch pelagic fleet caught 678 tonnes of boarfish. The extra costs of
landing boarfish in the quota of horse mackerel would be between 678*(150-450=) 101,700 euro and
678*(300-450=) 203,400 euro (for a price obtained for boarfish of 0.15 - 0.30 euro/kg). In these calculations
LEI has used an internal price for horse mackerel of 0.45 €/kg (2011). The internal price is the price used
within the company for payment of the crew. Average export market price for horse mackerel in 2012 was
€1,27 €/kg (http://www.trademap.org).
Conclusion
There are higher costs of landing boarfish in terms of foregone catches (but this also depends on possible
differences in the costs of selling for horse mackerel and landed by catch for which data are not available).
Boarfish in the Northeast Atlantic: the basis for the ICES advice and how it relates to the landing obligation
Martin Pastoors and David Miller (IMARES)
The ICES advice for boarfish in the Northeast Atlantic was based on a full assessment in 2013. This was the
first time that the assessment model was applied for this stock. ICES noted that: “The 2012 and 2013
acoustic survey data were considered reliable, but there is high uncertainty in the estimates of total biomass
due to the short time-series. Bottom-trawl survey indices were considered indicative of trends in their
respective areas. The commercial catch data are thought to be quite complete, including discards from other
fisheries from 2003 onwards. It is thought that discarding due to bycatch fisheries prior to 2003 were likely
to have been small in comparison with subsequent catches.” (ICES 2013, section 9.4.6).
The ICES expert group dealing with this stock (WGWIDE) commented on the discard data (Table 6.1.2.4)
available for boarfish as follows: “Discard data were available from Dutch and German pelagic freezer
trawlers (areas not specified) and from Irish, Spanish and Portuguese demersal fleets (Prista et al.,WD 2013;
Valeiras et al., WD 2012; van Overzee and van Helmond, 2013). The Portuguese data relate to Division IXa
and are not relevant to this stock. (...) Discard data were included in the calculation of catch numbers at age.
All discards were raised as one métier using the same age length keys and sampling information as for the
landed catches. In the absence of better sampling information on discards, this was considered the best
approach.” (WGWIDE 2013)
This means that discard data have been integral part of the stock assessment procedure and the ICES advice.
This also means that the calculation of recent fishing mortality and Fmsy takes into account the discards that
have been generated since 2003.
There appears to have been a weak relationship between discards and landings over the period that a
targeted fishery has developed (2007-2012). In the table below (based on WGWIDE 2013), the estimated
discards have been relatively stable whereas the landings have fluctuated substantially. This is also visible
from the higher Coefficient of Variation (CV) for the landings compared to the discards. This indicates that
the landings are probably related to targeted fisheries for boarfish, whereas the discards are generated as
bycatches in other fisheries for horse mackerel or whitefish.
Year
Ireland
Denmark
Scotland
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
458
675
165
2772
17615
21585
68629
88457
20685
55949
0
0
0
0
0
3098
15059
39805
7797
19888
0
0
0
0
772
0.45
0
9241
2813
4884
Avg 2007-12
StDev 2007-12
CV 2007-12
45487
29849
66%
14275
14523
102%
2952
3619
123%
Total
Discards Total catch %disc
landings
458
10929
11387
96%
675
4476
5151
87%
165
5795
5960
97%
2772
4365
7137
61%
18387
3189
21576
15%
24683
10068
34751
29%
83688
6682
90370
7%
137503
6544
144047
5%
31295
5802
37097
16%
80721
6634
87355
8%
62713
46381
74%
6487
2201
34%
69199
46616
67%
13%
Because the discards have already been taken into account in the assessment and advice, setting a catch
quota in line with the ICES advice would include the level of discards observed in the recent three years.
Whether these discards would be landed under the agreed landing obligation or whether they would be
discarded under a de minimis exemption would not matter for the resulting fishing mortality, and hence
setting the TAC, as long as these catches are fully and verifiably documented. It could be debated whether a
catch quota would need to be established if a de minimis exemption would be applied.
References
Buisman, E., van Oostenbrugge, H. & Beukers, R. 2013. Economische effecten van de aanlandplicht voor de
Nederlandse visserij. LEI rapport 2013-062, Den Haag. (in Dutch).
Casey, J., Nicholson, M.D. & Warnes, S. 1992. Selectivity of square mesh codends of pelagic trawls for
Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus L.). Fisheries Research, 13 (3): 267-279.
ICES. 2013. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2013, ICES advice, 2013. Book 9, section 9.4.22.
Kvalsvik, K., Misund, O.A., Engås, A., Gamst, K., Holst, R., Galbraith, D. & Vederhus, H. 2002. Size selection of
large catches: using sorting grid in pelagic mackerel trawl. Fisheries Research, 59 (1-2): 129-148.
Pastoors, M., van Helmond, E., van Marlen, B., van Overzee, H. & de Graaf, E., in prep. Pelagic pilot project
discard ban, 2013-2014. IMARES report. IJmuiden.
Storbeck F & de Theije P (2006): Voortgangsrapportage TWINSON 2005, rapport nr. C046/06.
Van Marlen, B., Lange, K., Wardle, C. S., Glass, C. W. & Ashcroft, B. 1994. Intermediate results in EC project
TE-3-613 "Improved species and size selectivity of midwater trawls" (SELMITRA), ICES CM 1994/B:13.
WGWIDE. 2013. Report of the Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks (WGWIDE), Copenhagen, 27
August-2 September 2013. ICES C.M. 2013 / ACOM:15.