24th April 2013
Discussion paper for DAG, London 2nd May 2013
Elements for the discard ban
Background
The CFP landing obligation entails a fundamentally new situation for fishermen. How will it be
implemented in the legislative follow-up and how can the industry adapt in a manner that allows
the new management to become a benefit rather than a burden.
I am convinced that for the latter to happen, a maximum of freedom must be given to the
industry. This will not be possible to obtain in the traditional legislative process where the
process will show the Commission fighting for control and the industry negotiating the modalities
of regulation rather than the abolition of regulation which is the logic consequence of full catch
accountability.
The bridge to a results based management based on full accountability and no technical rules is
large scale trials demonstrating the effects of this management and serving as the vehicle for a
transition to a discard ban serving sustainability as well as economic performance.
In this note I will discuss the most pertinent elements of CQM. I do not discuss secondary
ecosystem effects (Maritime Strategy Framework Directive and MPA issues).
Catch Quota Management (CQM) - principle and CFP elements
The objective of fisheries management is to fish the stipulated amount of fish and not more and
to obtain a size composition of the caught fish that maximizes the profit of the fishery.
CQM, including full documentation is the vehicle for a results based management, where only
results: performance/targets/objectives – or in our case the TAC/quotas, are fixed and where the
operator is free to choose method and technology to optimize his profit within.
So how should it work in context of the CFP discussion and the discard ban? Let’s have a look at
on the main elements.
Setting TAC’s: MSY
Maximum Sustainable Yield is a yield concept.
In single species fisheries with no species interaction MSY is relative easy to fix. Such fisheries
hardly exist.
In single species fisheries where species interact in a prey predator relationship or competition for
food, MSY must be balanced for the species in a portfolio manner. This entail policy decisions
balancing Member States interests in context of preferences, value and Relative Stability. Setting
the initial MSY for the predator or the prey makes a difference.
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
In multispecies fisheries the same applies with the added problem of balancing the TAC portfolio
and quota portfolios to ensure that no single quota restriction results in an in-optimal utilization
of the mixed fishery. I have elaborated on this in annex 1. and 2.
MSY balancing is a job for regional advisory committees.
Setting TAC’s: Catch Quotas
There is a strange discussion on the calculation of the “up-lift” in the TAC to “compensate” for full
catch accountability. “How should the discard be estimated and what should be added?” I fail to
follow this logic.
When ICES advice on TAC’s the advisable fishing mortality is translated into the equivalent
outtake. Then ICES estimate the level of discards that should be deducted to reach the proper
TAC. In CQM this deduction should not take place in the first place and consequently a discussion
on “how much should be added” is obsolete. The TAC is equivalent to the fishing mortality that
politicy level chose to apply.
Clearly, if a group of vessels cannot document their total catches they must suffer a deduction
that reflect the estimated discards for their group.
Relative stability CQM and flexibility
The present application of the CFP is in breach with the principle of Relative Stability as decided in
1983 where catches were catches. The 1983 CFP-allocation of quotas between Member States
never included discards. In 2002 when the discard problem had grown to size the Basic Regulation
definition was unnoticeably, formulated as “(m) ‘catch limit’ means a quantitative limit on
landings of a stock.” This led to a situation where low discarding fleets could see their allocations
dwindling away to pay the losses caused by high discarders.
As CQM and the discard ban is introduced in 2013 the text in General Approach February 2013 is
brought back to the original understanding: “catch limit' means a quantitative limit on catches of
a fish stock or group of fish stocks subject to an obligation to land”
The obligation to land all the fish caught therefore is in accordance with Relative Stability. The
obligation and right to discard outside quotas never constituted a right to the fish.
Relative Stability is rigid. The “system does not allow fishermen to match their fishing
opportunities to catches on the ground” (UK minister 2010). That is a choke species problem. Take
Spain with 10.000 tons of hake in area VII and no quota for haddock. As haddock is a by catch the
hake fishery should not be opened for Spain. The General Approach solutions are not very helpful
– and the idea of writing haddock catches off the hake quota is contradictory to i.a. MSY. However
it is within MS competence and reach to develop solutions. Again for the sake of putting things to
the concrete, a specific and a generic solution:
1. On a one-by-one year basis MS allocate a haddock quota to Spain which is equal to half of
Spain’s discards on the condition of full catch accountability incl. full documentation. Even if
the allocation is free both parties are to gain. The hinge factor is trust. This is worth some
effort of negotiation.
2. Member State A allow individual fishermen or a PO to do in-year swaps or leasing with
opposites in other MS. MS A puts down the necessary conditions : a cap on the share of
quota that can be traded and perhaps a condition regarding balance on in and outgoing
leasing. The amount is notified according to EU rules - some interpretation is probably
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
needed here, as the Commissions proposed article 32 is out at the moment.
Once the fisher/PO has his allocation he can trade freely in a transnational pool. The
existing Danish Pool: www.puljefiskeri.dk can be adapted for that purpose.
A solution here is a priority issue if the discard ban is to work properly.
Exemptions from the ban – some approaches
It is clear that protected species should be released as gentle as possible, and that it is sound
management to release juveniles if the release can be argued to lead to higher valued catches at a
later stage. But how do we make the incentive work. If high-level survivors are discarded without
counting on the quota there is no incentive to avoid it, and if the rationale of discarding is survival
we must ensure high survival by regulating area, trawling time, time on deck etc. I suggest that
model 2 (or 3) below is used.
1. Discards don’t count on the quota. Then a strong documentation for survival is needed and
so are detailed rules on how and where to fish to ensure a sufficient survival. This is a bad
model (an example: The GA’s de minimis – where fishermen failing to discard to the limit of
the allowed 9 % will lose money)
2. Discards count on the quota. A proof of survival is not important as the fish is counted as
dead, no need of prescriptive catch methods. High discarders have an incentive to reduce,
and surviving fish will benefit stocks and result in higher subsequent TAC’s.
3. As 2. But it may be argued that the fisher discarding should have a direct benefit from
surviving fish. So: if average survival is 50% his discards should count 50% on his quota. The
incentive is still there.
Removal of micro management
We want to catch the exact TAC (fishing mortality) and we want a certain size of the fish. To-days
“size paradigm” relates to the MSY objective but probably more to the common view that larger is
better. With CQM we do not fish more than the TAC. But what about sizes and the issue of mixed
fisheries? Let’s have a look at two approaches:
1. Technical regulations on gear may technically speaking ensure a certain minimum size of the
fish.
There are some technical drawbacks and problems related to generic rules.
They apply irrespective of concrete circumstances thereby depriving the fisher of the best
solution. Changing of rules cannot take account of changes in stock and size compositions. In
co-decision EU may use two years to make a change on gear regulations.
There are some compliance drawbacks on gear regulation. If the regulation allows for
marketable sizes or species to escape the gear it is likely to be manipulated.
There are some economic drawbacks attached to gear regulation. In mixed fisheries size
large-meshed gear will entail loss of valuable by-catches including non-protected species,
and there is little room for small meshes and alternative selective solutions.
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
2. Without prescriptive rules on gear the fisher will optimize and innovate his gear to obtain the
highest profit. In single species fisheries the price will guide his selective behavior. Large fish
are higher priced and he will target large fish. In cases with few large fish and large incoming
year classes he may save fuel and settle for a lower average size.
In mixed fisheries the fisher may fish one species at a smaller size than he would do in a
single species fishery in order to obtain the desired species portfolio. At the same time there
will be a user-driven innovation to enhance selectivity.
As can be seen it is a balancing issue. It is my view that MSY, economic performance and the
discard ban are all better served with the no- prescriptive gear approach in Northern waters.
Basically this is what the large scale pilot is about. I areas with more complex species
structure (a.o. Mediterranean) it is necessary to move forward on a case by case basis.
What does ICES say about prescriptive regulation – even for a single species fishery as in the
Baltic: “The Baltic cod fishery would seem a candidate fishery to move to a target based
system, allowing fishermen to adjust their gear or fishing pattern to meet appropriate
management targets set for the fishery. This would remove the need for the large scale and
frequent changes to the current technical measures regulations, which have occurred over the
last decade in the Baltic cod fishery and caused many of the current problems. It would allow
fishermen to use the gears that most suit their operation and fine-tune them to suit the
situation on the grounds.” (ICES 2009)
Reference sizes
The reference size system blocks fish from going to consumers. It should be phased out. I see two
situations:
1. In northern areas full catch accountability and relative prices will ensure that fishermen will
target large fish. Abolishing reference sized will allow the fish to go to the market and it will
allow some spread of sizes depending on age structure (large incoming year classes) and type
of fishery (mixed fishery). I don’t see any drawbacks and I could argue that this approach
gives better utilization and also a more even pressure on stocks (balanced harvesting). But I
don’t have figures to prove.
2. In some areas abolishing reference sizes will make fishermen target juveniles as the market
asks for small fish (small hake, not to speak of glasseel, or roe!). juveniles – or roe, may of
course be fished in a sustainable way. There are two issues however:
a. Directed fishery for juveniles may be sustainable, but is does not conform with MSY, it
may conform with MEY.
b. If a juvenile fishery were allowed, the relationship: fishing mortality/economic benefit
should be balanced - for example by counting fish in the smaller size classes with a
factor larger than 1.
If the fishery is not allowed it might still be advisable to allow the fish on the consumer
market and “confiscate” the profit by way of counting against quotas rather than
confiscating the fish and deprive consumers of the food. The Norwegian model of
confiscating some of the profit is not feasible in EU.
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
Demonstrating how it’s done
A large scale CFP phasing-in pilot is suggested as the way forward for the operationalization of the
discard ban. See DK proposal for a pilot project.
Traceability
Traceability is crucial for documentation and market access. And it is an EU requirement.
Denmark has a full flown system open for anybody to access. See annex 3
Full documentation and smart technology
Full documentation of catches is the fundamental prerequisite for CQM. In Denmark
www.Anchorlab.dk is developing new technologies and more intelligent control solutions
What to do with the discard-fraction
Making money from the discard-fraction is a success parameter for the new CFP. Aquamind wants
to challenge the reference size barrier and to establish a commercial outlet for low the value
fraction. The idea is to make silage from it. It is easy to conserve, easy to store and transport. We
have already established a commercial project with the Danish PO, Biomar, a silage equipment
producer, the fur-producers and not least a university specialist in DNA techniques.
Making mince or silage onboard requires a solution for the quota accounting problem. CCTV is
one solution. We are very confident that a DNA identification in itself will be manageable, we
work on the control protocol issue (if for example a cod has been eating herring you will register
herring for which you should have a quota)
Allocation of quotas
I will not elaborate more on this here. Material on the Danish TFC system can be found at
www.aquamind.dk under “Fisheries management”
What do we do in Aquamind
We are a consultancy. Retrieving the wealth from our natural resources must be done in a supply
chain approach. From policy and management to the on-board decision of fishing vessels to
processors, retailers and finally profiting from consumers appreciation of the product.
Our business is to support and enhance the performance of each link in this chain.
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
Annex 1
24th January 2013
Dealing with choke species in mixed fisheries
The concept of catch quota management (CQM) is stated in the Council of ministers General
Approach of June 2012, article 15. CQM entails, that once the quota has been taken, all catches of
the species have to stop. If the species is a component of a mixed fishery, the mixed fishery must
stop. The least plentiful quota allocation will “choke” the mixed fishery.
It is the responsibility of the fisherman to plan for the best use of his fishing rights, but a number
of conditions will influence his success. In the following these conditions are discussed from the
level of policy to the level of fishing methods.
To put it simply, the catches lost due to lack of quota availability should not reach a level
comparable to the level of discards if a stringent application of CQM is to work in practical
management. For that reason the Mediterranean is not ripe for CQM, some fisheries south of
Bretagne will require a prudent phasing in, and most fisheries in the North are ready for CQM
now, and preferably before the final CFP is implemented.
Relative Stability
Relative Stability constitutes a systemic choke species problem. Relative Stability is not to be
changed, but it is necessary to establish more efficient transfer mechanisms between Member
States. The Commission’s proposal (425) article 32 was taken out in the Council general approach.
It should be reinserted. It establishes flexibility and respects the prerogative of the MS.
More permanent solution should be found in cases where we have gross imbalances between
catch compositions and quota portfolios. Article 15, 4 in the General Approach indicates some
solutions. Another solution might be for MS on a by- or multilateral basis to enter agreements
regarding balancing of quota portfolios.
Conclusion: The Basic Regulation must provide the necessary tools for MS to make the desired
choice of quota exchange model. EU should not police this by instituting common by-catch quotas
or the like.
MSY- application
According to the CFP proposal the regional bodies shall develop and recommend conservation
measures including multiannual plans and the application of MSY. MSY is by definition a yield
concept. In multispecies context MSY should be fixed to obtain the desired optimal catch
compositions taking into account both the prey predator relationship as well as the obtainable
species composition in catches. In other words if in certain situations more yield can be gained
from one stock by fishing another stock beyond its individual MSY reference point this is a
sensible way to go. More so as a range F’s (fishing mortality) for one species may make little
difference for the yield of that species but may markedly influence the yield of another species
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
(e.g. saithe with an F of 0.5 instead of 0.4 will result in little loss of saithe and a markedly increase
in haddock).
An ecosystem based precautionary level must always prevail. This condition may lead to a
biomass target above or below BMSY depending on the concrete circumstances.
Also it should be borne in mind that if “choke species balancing of MSY” takes place in a system
with rigid application of fishing methods and technology it will result in a loss of wealth. The fisher
must have a free choice of gear and methods to optimize his result, and science and innovation
must assist and provoke his user driven innovation.
Conclusion: The sensible MSY management is to optimize the total biomass outtake or economic
yield for the sea basin under the restriction that the ecosystem based precautionary levels for
individual species are respected.
Year to year flexibility
Who says that quotas have to follow the quota year? Year to year quota flexibility is a necessary
tool in a result based fisheries management. In a more broad perspective the quota year
approach as such might be challenged. Improved data from fully documented fisheries, speedy
data transmission and more stable year classes allow us to think in terms of real time advice and
real time adjustments of TAC’s and quotas.
Management at Member State level
If a Member State is stuck with an in-optimal quota balance the following options could be
considered in order to establish flexible quota utilization.
National management could induce instruments for optimal use.
 A TFC-like system will improve flexibility (Denmark has a market for fishing rights that enables
a willing seller and buyer to make a quota transfer even after catches has been landed and
sold. A number of design solutions for TFC systems – individual or community based, exist.
 A “buffer quota” could be established on national basis for the use in certain mixed fisheries
 MS could interfere in the quota allocation – requiring that a certain amount should be used in
mixed fisheries (advisable only in extreme situations)
The fishing community and the individual fisher
The fishing community may establish risk-pools or shared management. Fishing communities may
also consider developing information sharing systems for fishermen at sea. Real- time sharing of
catch compositions and even hydrographic data etc. will improve the ability of the individual
fisher to target the right fish.
Results based management is the ultimate tool to incentivize the fisher to fish selectively by
choice of time, area, depth, gear, towing time etc.
Dealing with the choke species once the quota portfolio is given will be a user driven process for
the fisher trying to innovate the best methods. For science and technology platforms the task is to
serve the fisher.
References: This paper and more material can be found at http://aquamind.dk/en/yield-of-fish
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
Annex 2
Suggestion: Commission or ICES member request to ICES on the choke species issue
Establishing full catch accountability according to the Council General Approach article 15 entail
that discards are exchanged with the problem of choke species (imbalance of quota allocation in
mixed
fisheries.
Reference
to:
Calculating
effects
of
choked
species
at
http://www.fvm.dk/cqm_(catch_quota_management).aspx?ID=42783 )
In order to consider the magnitude of the problem and possible solutions the following
information should be provided.
1. An overview of the portfolio of quotas allocated to each MS. This would give indicative
information on fisheries where the choke species problem may occur for each MS. EU
Commission will provide.
2. ICES should establish guiding indicators on the problem for each Member State. The
indicators are calculated on basis estimated non-quota discards as a proportion of total
fisheries for the relevant species for each MS. Other ways of calculating may be considered.
The main issue is to identify “green, yellow and red” choke species areas for each MS.
3. ICES should on a general level qualify the reason for the indicator level. I some cases it may
be an unavoidable situation e.g. caused by Relative Stability rigidity. In other cases a red
light may be turned green by simple changes in management or fisheries approaches.
This is a desk study. It should be kept simple. It will rely on MS supplying the information.
A mathematical model awaits translation into a computerized simulation: “Calculating effects of
choked species” at the webpage mentioned above.
Note: It would be interesting to have the list to see how many of the quotas allocated to MS could
be said to be in the choke species “red area” 10% 30%? The magnitude of the problem has a
bearing on the difficulties we face when the accountability and landing obligation is to work. The
list would be a first step to a qualified discussion on the nuances of the problem and the possible
solutions.
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
Annex3
SIF – The Danish Traceability solution
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
A common traceability platform for fish?
The electronic traceability solution for the Danish fishing industry is now
up and running. Throughout the past 3 years a lot of knowledge and
experience has been gathered and exploited to design and implement
the SIF solution – fulfilling the requirements of the fishing industry,
EU1224/2009 and other relevant standards.
We are now ready to share our knowledge and experiences and help
guide you through the process.
SIF – The Danish fisheries traceability system
The Danish electronic traceability system (SIF) provides full tracking from
vessel and all the way to the consumers, providing relevant information as
required by the EU1224 – art 58.
SIF is designed and developed to enable tracing of any fish product back to
the point of catch and to provide relevant information to buyers, processing
companies, authorities and consumers. SIF renders necessary documentation,
spans the complete supply chain and allows an indefinite number of
transformation operations, such as; merging or splitting of lots, processing,
renaming, repacking, etc. Effort has been made to ensure affordability for
small-scale operators.
To reflect the requirement from different container types used in the fishing
industry from catch to consumer packing, SIF is designed to accommodate any
input, whether RFID, bar- code or manual and any ID whether company
specific ID’s or proprietary ID’s such as EAN or EPC/GS1 (EPCIS). Data
interfaces are established in order to reduce the workload of re- sellers and
processing companies enabling them to automatically exchange updated
tracking information with SIF.
SIF is developed by the fishing industry as a tool to support tracking and
documentation requirements in the business – from fisherman to retailer.
Major emphasis has been on ensuring compliance with international standards
on trace- ability for fish, such as: ISO 12875 “Traceability of Finfish products”
and European legislation (EU1224). SIF is prepared to document discard and
register compliance to MSC or other eco-labels.
SIF – the way it works
1. Fishermen provide tracking information in the same time as they upload
data to their electronic logbook.
2. After the first sale, tracking information is updated automatically by the
auctions as they form lots for sale.
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
3. Companies can download and upload updated tracking information on
purchased fish. All users have access to tracking information on the fish,
but not on previous owners except their own supplier of the relevant lot.
4. Consumer information is available, using a consumer presentation
portal, such as foodtag.dk
Reliable tracking data
To ensure reliable and relevant data in SIF, data collection is automated and
originates as close to the catch as possible in order to ensure that data is
precise, instant and trustworthy.
Tracking-wise, SIF is developed to support the finest granular possible, but
agreed procedures and input data defines the level of granularity achieved.
SIF is prepared to include full documentation by CCTV.
Through SIF, source relevant data can be made available to consumers,
companies, researchers and authorities all over EU.
International use
Fish is no doubt the most international of all food sectors. No other food items
are sold internationally to the same extent. SIF is therefore designed to work
with suppliers from all over EU and with buyers all over EU.
From the beginning a number of other EU vessels is uploading data for fish
sold on Danish Fish auctions or to Danish buyers. In the same way, buyers of
finished products in other EU countries will have access to traceability data on
SIF on the fish they have bought.
The database is open for use by those who are interested. The cost of using it
is very limited as it is run by the stakeholders as a non-profit organization and
because the database itself has been paid for by EU developments funds.
For more information contact us:
Ole Helledie: Responsible for Project and Communication oh@sif-eu.dk
Poul Tørring: Partner in Aquamind pt@aquamind.dk
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou
ww.anchorlab.dk
mogens.schou@outlook.com
www.aquamind.dk
http://dk.linkedin.com/in/mogensschou