Next step in the creation of a discard plan for the Baltic fisheries
This paper is intended to provide input on how the landing obligation as stipulated by Regulation
(EC) No 1380/2013 can be implemented.
The paper produced by BALTFISH and named “Outline of a discard plan for the Baltic Sea” has
provided valuable input to the discard plan for the fisheries. However – much is still needed before
a fully fledged discard plan is ready. This paper set out to translate the outlines in the BALTFISH
paper into practicalities.
On various occasions, Commission officials have pointed out, that some of the issues mentioned in
the BALTFISH paper should not be a part of a discard plan, as they are already stipulated in the
Basic Regulation. The BSAC cannot argue this from a legal point of course, but nevertheless finds
that it makes sense to include all elements with relevance to the successful introduction of a
manageable landing obligation in the plan – regardless of their legal origin. The plan will thus
become a fully equipped toolbox for the establishment of the landing obligation in a particular
fishery.
Species/fisheries to be included – and the timeline for this
Fishery is the key word in the next point that needs to be mention initially. The way the BALTFISH
paper is written – and in deed the way the so called Omnibus regulation is drafted – can lead to the
interpretation, that a landing obligation is to be introduced on a species by species basis. This should
not be the case. The introduction of a landing obligation should be on a fishery by fishery basis – as
is clearly stipulated in the preambles (27) to the Basic Regulation as well as in article 14 and 15 of
that Regulation.
Article 15 also sets out the timeline for the different fisheries – clearly stating that a landing
obligation is introduced in the pelagic fisheries as well as in the fishery for salmon by January 1 st
2015. In the BALTFISH paper the same date is envisaged for the fishery for cod and plaice in the
Baltic – with the underlying ambition to introduce a simultaneous discard ban for all species
regulated by TACs in the Baltic from the same date. The BSAC is not primarily concerned about the
fast introduction of the landing obligation, it is more important that the obligation is introduced in a
successful than in a fast way. If course it needs to be in line with the regulation, but for the AC it
would be quite fine if the timeline scheduled in the Basic Regulation is adhered to, meaning that the
pelagic fisheries as well as the fishery for salmon is the starting point – and that discard of species
defining those fisheries and regulated by TACs in those fisheries are prohibited from the first of
January 2015.
Discard plan for the pelagic fisheries
The first step in establishing a discard plan for the Baltic Sea is to tackle the problems that will be
encountered by the fisheries performed with active fishing gears using mesh sizes below 90 mm –
randomly also named “pelagic fisheries” or “small mesh fisheries”. In the Baltic this primarily
encompasses fisheries for two target species – the trawl fishery for herring and the trawl fishery for
sprat. The catches from both fisheries can either be used for direct human consumption or for
reduction purposes.
Discarding or releasing of fish in the small mesh fisheries today occurs for many different reasons:






A catch composition that is not in line with the rules stipulated in the technical regulation
A catch composition that is not in line with the vessel’s quota
Catch surpasses the capacity of the vessel’s fish hold
Losses from the fishing gear during hauling and handling of the gear
Catch is released because the gear is stuck to an object on the bottom
Fast changing weather conditions makes it unsafe to retrieve the catch
To allow continued fishing under a total ban on discarding of sprat and herring, measures to tackle
the following situations will have to be introduced:
Exemptions
Release of catch due to the following reasons is not considered discarding:


“Force majeure” – the catch is released due to bad weather conditions
Losses during normal fishing procedure (spill over, loss from the trawl)
Flexibility
Flexibility of 10 % from year to year – to cover situations where occurrence of herring in the catch
is higher (or lower) than expected. The mixture is often dependent on weather condition as much as
on relative strength of the stocks. The decision to use this flexibility should be allocated to member
states, but it should be possible regardless of the stock status.
Total abolishment of all regulations pertaining to the mixture of sprat and herring in each haul as
well as at the time of landing.
Even though the vast majority of catches consist of a mixture of sprat and herring – other pelagic
species – such as mackerel – may occur in periods. Landings of mackerel are today regulated by a
TAC that also covers catches in the Baltic. None of the pelagic vessels in the Baltic has any of this
quota however, and in order to avoid discard, the 9 % species flexibility could be used. The catch
should of course be registered as mackerel, but it is counted against the TAC of herring.
Bycatch of cod in the pelagic fisheries is not expected to be covered by the landing obligation in the
first step. The present rule on a maximum of 3 % cod in small mesh fisheries should be abolished as
soon as cod is included. Pelagic vessels catching cod must acquire the needed quota.
Selectivity and MCRS for pelagic species
Today, it is illegal to keep catch intend for industrial purposes together with catch for human
consumptions. If MCRS is introduced for the pelagic species (not relevant today) it will become
impossible for vessels to fish for herring for human consumption and keep the fish above MCRS
separate from the fish below. The whole catch will therefore have to be used for reduction purpose.
Together with the assumption of a low survivability of pelagic species after passing through the
meshes, this is a strong case for either not setting MCR for pelagic species – or to set the MCRS to
zero.
Although it is possible to reduce the catch of sprat in a herring trawl, there is – presently – not any
established gear technology that enables the exclusion of small herring in such a trawl, and there is
certainly no known efficient fishing gear for sprat that allows for herring to be selected out.
The number of trawl catches that are “slipped” because the catch composition did not agree with the
rules (most often due to the proportion of herring in the fishery for sprat is higher than allowed) – is
unknown. There is a need to find a solution where an amount of herring – above the present TAC –
is allocated to fisheries with a history for sprat fishing.
If a solution to this problem is not found, herring will become a choke species and lack of herring
quota will prevent fishing for sprat in local communities where this fishery is a precondition for the
whole existence of a fishery.
A way to handle situations where a choke species situation can develop is used by Canada which
has introduced a system where a percentage of the species that likely will be limiting is set aside at
the beginning of the year. At a point later in the year fisheries can purchase the right to use part of
this quota at the cost of the present marked price. The main purpose is to let vessels that need more
quota of the limiting species in order to continue fishing to be able to do so. The level of the price
means that it cannot be done to increase profits from this specific species but will enable vessels to
use the remaining parts of other quotas.
Discard plan for salmon
Many of the problems that are foreseen with the introduction of the landing obligation in other
fisheries are not considered problematic in the fishery for salmon.
The BSAC wishes to see a simplified and regionally harmonized discard plan for the Baltic salmon
and overall in salmon management. The BSAC does not support national exceptions unless there is
strong scientific evidence to support this. Shouldn’t this be under “exemptions”?
A minority of the BSAC believe that there should be harmonized and standard rules should apply
throughout the Baltic Sea region for both salmon and sea trout, primarily to simplify fishing
restrictions and control. Therefore they also see the need for inclusion of sea trout sea trout in the
Baltic discard ban.
According to the basic regulation salmon should be included from 2015 and the minority group,
who believes that sea trout should be included, finds that this should be at the latest from 2017.
Exemptions of gears, periods, local exemptions (weak stocks etc...)
In principle the BSAC support that exemptions can be made for gears where the survivability of
unintended and returned catch is high as long as this is based on scientific evidence.
As salmon and sea trout stocks are weak in many regions of the Baltic the AC believe it important
that exemptions from the discard ban can be granted in cases where high survivability is
documented or could be achieved already from the introduction of the discard ban. Such exemptions
should be applied for salmon and sea trout caught via angling and trapnets. If handled correctly,
survivability of these species released by anglers has been well documented as being higher than 80
% 1. However, derogations from the discard ban for gillnets which has been proposed by some
Baltic member states are not supported, since survivability of released salmon and sea trout caught
in gill nets is considered as poor.
Instead, we suggest that measures such as regulating when and where nets are set (e.g. seasonal
closure of waters not shallower than 3m) should be utilized. Also, spatial and temporal closures to
secure migration corridors for weak stocks during spawning migration are needed.
We see a need of improved selectivity of fishing gears and fishing practices to implement the
discard ban in the Baltic salmon fisheries. It is crucial that this work is developed in close
collaboration with the fishing sector, the Baltic Sea AC and other interested stakeholders, as
engagement of all stakeholders in the development of selective gears and other new technical
measures will increase understanding and compliance. This red text is unacceptable to me (Michael)
Gear modifications and improved handling of catch and release
The BSAC recommend that guidelines and techniques on how to reduce mortality when searching
gears and releasing fish back into the water are developed, e.g. minimum handling time and physical
contact with released fish. Modifications to trap nets and push-up traps facilitating improved
survivability are also needed, including measures to protect the fish as traps are emptied.
De minimis rule
There are different opinions among the BS AC members on how to categorize seal damaged fish. In
general BSAC find that the “de minimis rule” for salmon could be applied for seal damaged fish.
The view that seal damaged fish should be considered as a part of the natural mortality has been
discussed. Environmental NGO representatives want them to be classified as part of fishing
mortality since these individuals would not be exposed the same way for seals if they are not
trapped in fishing gears. However, environmental NGOs accept to use the “de minimis rule”, not
counting seal damaged fish against the quota, as long as it is below 5 % as an acceptable solution, as
long as the damaged fish is still recorded in the log book. Furthermore, environmental NGOs stress
1
Bartholomew, A. and Bohnsack, J. A. 2005. A review of catch-and-release angling mortality with
implications for no-take reserves. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 129–154. DOI 10.1007/s11160005-2175-1
that problems with seal damaged catch calls for a more widespread use of seal-safe gears, e.g.
trapnets.
Flexibility, 10 % flexibility and 50 kg rule
It is important that the reporting accuracy of salmon and sea trout catches will be as high as possible
for stock management purposes. As the quota for salmon is small (< 107 000 fish) and the bulk of
the fishery is conducted with small coastal vessels and relatively small catches, in the case of
salmon and sea trout catch reporting there should be no derogation from the proposed 50 kg rule for
log book registration of catch. However, the 10% rule may be a too strict margin of error for
estimation of weight proportions of catches at sea. As catch regulations for salmon are given in
number and not kilos, instead we propose that the mean estimate of weight may exceed 10 % but
should not be above 15 %. Are you serious??? However, the margin of errors of number of caught
fish should never exceed 10 % of the total catch numbers. Considering that the commercial catches
only account for a fraction of the total catch of salmon this is really quite ridiculous.
MCRS for salmonids
The BSAC believes that MCRS for salmon and for sea trout should be a harmonized and that the
current MLS should be utilized as the MCRS for salmon a new regionally harmonized MCRS
should be created for sea trout.
Technical measures
The BSAC welcome the BALTFISH proposal that measures to support the recovery of wild salmon
stocks and reduce the catch of undersized individuals, such as reduction of the salmon longline
season and regulation of hook size, are considered and assessed scientifically by ICES/STECF. The
scientific evaluation should be carried out no later than by the end of 2014.
Discard plan for the demersal fisheries
Of less urgency – if the BSAC’s advice to follow the timeline of the basic regulation rather than that
of BALTFISH’s own ambition – but also of a more complex nature, is the development of a discard
plan for the demersal fisheries in the Baltic. Even if the Baltic demersal fisheries are characterised
by a relatively small number of species, a landing obligation is expected to create substantial
problems – unless pragmatic solutions can be found. The first step to finding these solutions is to
identify the problems.
The problems encountered are of course heavily dependent on which species are encompassed. The
most important demersal fishery in the Baltic Sea is a directed fishery for cod – either by active
gears such as trawl or Danish seine – or by passive gill or trammel nets. In the Western parts of the
area a fishery targeting various species of flatfish is also performed. Varying in proportion with time
and area, flounder is a common bycatch. Flounder is – at present – not regulated by a TAC. Another
common bycatch is plaice, for which a regulation via TAC is in place. The BSAC is of the opinion,
that in the first step, plaice should not be included in the discard plan for demersal species. This is
based on the knowledge that ICES will benchmark the species in 2015, and the BSAC would like to
await the outcome of that exercise before including it in the landing obligation.
Further to the fairly common and predictable bycatch of some of the flatfish species, other flatfish
occur – as do many other roundfish species – such as whiting, saithe and pollack.
Coastal fisheries targeting a wide range of demersal species – at present unregulated, but with a
potential bycatch of cod – are they subject to LO?
For matter of simplicity, the following paragraphs of this paper are written on the assumption, that
only cod will be subject to LO in the first step. The problems that are already now foreseen by
including plaice as well, are mentioned where it is deemed relevant.
Discarding in the demersal fisheries today takes place for many of the same reason as has already
been mentioned under the pelagic fisheries. These are:







A catch composition that is not in line with the rules stipulated in the technical regulation
o fish below MLS
o “wrong” composition of species (if using mesh size below 105 mm)
A catch composition that is not in line with the vessel’s quota
Catch of species that it is not possible to sell (or the cost is higher than the profit)
o damaged fish
o low value species
Catch surpasses the capacity of the vessel’s fish hold
Losses from the fishing gear during hauling and handling of the gear
Catch is released because the gear is stuck to an object on the bottom
Fast changing weather conditions makes it unsafe to retrieve the catch
Although the reasons for discarding are much the same, the problems a LO will cause are not
necessarily the same – and the solutions are very often quite different.
A way to reduce unwanted bycatch is to shift fishing grounds. Effort restrictions away…
MLS – MCRS reduced to 35 cm – minority position?
De minimis – seal/cormorant damage – polluted – “waterdead” – lice bitten
10 % year to year – yes.
9 % species to species – if only one species…?
Special chapter on control issues
The BSAC is concerned that control issues will be given so much focus and that so many rules will
be added to the already very detailed measures, that the ambition to create a more healthy fishery
regime will be lost in bureaucratic micromanagement. For the fishers, it is not the landing obligation
that is the main problem – it is the anxiety that the regulation will make it impossible for them to
fish without breaking some rule.
The BSAC is convinced, that during the phasing in of the LO – there is no obvious need for
introducing new control measures as well. The control regulation is in dire need of a revision, but
this revision must be done from the basis. It will not do to add more draconic paragraphs to an
already incomprehensible document.
Rules about logbook tolerance (by whatever percentage) gives no meaning in a system where all
fish are weighed at landing – and where it is the landed weight that is counted against the quota. In
this case regulations on logbook tolerance only serves to criminalise fishermen.
It must also be realised, that a perfect system for controlling the compliance of a LO is unrealistic.
The only way to make it work is by buy-in from the fishers. In this context (also) the method of the
carrot will work much better than the stick.