Elsevier

Marine Policy

Volume 64, February 2016, Pages 64-71
Marine Policy

The EU landing obligation and European small-scale fisheries: What are the odds for success?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.008Get rights and content

Highlights

  • A landing obligation was recently put in place as part of the EU Common Fisheries Policy.

  • By 2019, it will cover all EU fishing sectors, including small-scale fisheries (SSF).

  • The odds for success of a landing obligation in SSF are likely to be small at present.

  • More negative social, economic and ecological impacts than benefits are anticipated.

  • Research on the suitability of the obligation and creation of appropriate measures for SSF are needed.

Abstract

A landing obligation was formally implemented in the European Union (EU) for the first time, as part of the recent reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Given the reasonable success of the landing obligation in some countries such as the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway, this policy is seen as a viable approach to tackle the long-recognized discarding problem in EU waters. However, there has been some debate on whether there is sufficient evidence to support the feasibility of such a measure in the EU-CFP. The EU landing obligation will implicitly include all small-scale fisheries (SSF) provided the species captured are subject to catch limits or minimum sizes (in the case of the Mediterranean). SSF were included irrespective of the fact that the discarding problem in the EU has been historically associated with medium- to large-scale fleets (in particular largely mixed species trawl fisheries). Additionally, past experiences with a discard ban policy are still limited to specific countries and/or specific fisheries. This paper examined the appropriateness and feasibility of the recently implemented EU landing obligation in SSF. The effects in the long-term are unpredictable, but available evidence suggests that in the short to medium-term a landing obligation is likely to bring more negative social, economic and ecological impacts than benefits.

Introduction

Discards, which represent the fraction of fish and other aquatic organisms that have been caught by a fishing gear and are returned to the water, alive or dead, have long been regarded as one of the key issues in commercial fishing worldwide [1], [2]. They represent production and yield forgone, resulting in a waste of resources and consequently future economic losses to fisheries [2], [3], [4], as well as population, community and ecosystem level impacts [5], [6]. In European waters, discards represent a significant component of fishing related mortality in many important fish stocks, and the high levels of discards have been considered one of the main shortcomings of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) [7], [8]. According to Kelleher [2], around 19% (1.3 million tons) of the global discarding is reported for FAO area 27, which includes much of the European Union’s (EU) Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). Part of this is because many EU fisheries, particularly trawl fisheries, are still amongst those with highest discard rates in the world [2]. Enever and others, for example, estimated that between 2003 and 2006 Nephrops trawlers and other otter trawlers contributed to 33% and 24% of the total discards in the North Sea, respectively [9].

Despite the importance of discards in Europe, overall information on discard rates is still limited. In some areas, such as the Mediterranean, studies on discards are poor and cover only a small proportion of the total fishing activity [2], [10]. However, some progress has been made following the implementation of the EU Data Collection Regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001 [11]; and more recently, the Data Collection Framework (DCF), Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 [12]).

Understanding the reasons for and factors affecting discarding is an important step towards the management of the discards issue [1]. Under the existing legal framework in the EU, there are a vast number of inter-connected reasons contributing to the practice of discarding [1], [2], [13]. Many are regulatory in nature, imposed by the increasing number of legal constraints such as the type of licensing and the existence of quota systems or minimum landing sizes (MLS) (leading to discarding of over-quota or undersized fish). However, a vast number of discarding practices are discretionary, i.e., voluntarily conducted to maximize profitability. Examples include: highgrading, the practice of discarding low value species or sizes to maximize the value of catch; slippage, similar to highgrading but distinguished by mass discarding of fish from purse seines prior to being hauled onboard, occurring in certain pelagic fisheries; or discarding of fish in poor condition. Highgrading and slippage are significantly related to economic and market condition; the use of unselective gear or the existence of vessel constraints in terms of freezing capacity or onboard storage space may also be important reasons to explain highgrading [14]. Slippage can also in many cases be related to legal constraints (e.g., quota limits or fish size restrictions) [15].

Several efforts have been made over the past few decades by the European Commission (EC) to address the discards issue. These included, for example, a number of research initiatives to improve selectivity and reduce discards [e.g., [16], [17], [18], [19]], as well as implementation of specific regulatory measures to mitigate bycatch. In terms of research, there was significant funding to find policy and technical solutions to reduce discards [5], [20]. According to Fischler [21], from the mid-90s to the mid-2000s the EU funded more than 400 projects at a cost of c. €8 million per year; these included programs to control and/or monitor discards, to evaluate the impact of bycatch/discards on the ecosystems, and to develop mitigation measures to reduce bycatch and discards. At the same time, a number of management measures — such as minimum mesh sizes and closed areas to protect juveniles (e.g., “the Norway pout box”) — were also tested and put into force in some fisheries [20]. Despite all these efforts, the proportion of fish that is discarded has remained significantly high in many EU areas, both at the fishery and/or species level [e.g., [10], [22], [23]].

Acknowledging the growing public opinion against discarding practices, the reduction of discards was assumed as one of the key priorities to be addressed in the CFP reform [7], [13]. In this regard, the EC published a proposal in 2011 that, amongst other measures aims at reducing discards, and foresees a gradually implemented landing obligation1 for the commercially important EU stocks [7]. If effectively implemented, it is expected that such an obligation will encourage fishers to use more selective fishing gears and practices in the long term, working as a driver to reduce the bycatch of unwanted catch in the first place [7], [24]. Additionally, it is expected to also improve the reliability of stock assessments by reducing the uncertainty associated with unaccounted fishing mortality due to discards [1], [2]. The landing obligation was formally implemented in 2015, and at this stage includes only small and large pelagics, fisheries for reduction purposes, and fisheries for salmon and cod in the Baltic Sea (Fig. 1). By 2019, it is planned to be in force in all EU waters, covering all fisheries that capture commercial species covered by the obligation [25], regardless of the fishery segment, i.e., small-scale fisheries (SSF) or large-scale fisheries.

There has been some debate on whether there is sufficient evidence to support the feasibility of the landing obligation in the EU-CFP. Currently, this policy will implicitly include all types of fisheries provided the species captured are subject to catch limits (or minimum sizes in the case of the Mediterranean). This was done irrespective of the fact that the discarding problem in the EU has been historically associated with medium to large-scale fleets, and mostly with particular fisheries (e.g., mixed species trawl fisheries) [2], [10], [22]. It was also based on a model that is in place in very particular fisheries or management systems (e.g., Iceland, New Zealand, or Norway), and with very different features from the EU, particularly in terms of the complexity of the fisheries sector and management systems (Appendix A). In a management system with extensive mixed fisheries such as the EU, a landing obligation could be particularly challenging for the viability of these fisheries, due to the high potential for ‘choke’ species (species with the lowest quota in a mixed-fishery, which restrict the fishing opportunities for other quota species) [26].

The EU has one of the largest and most heterogeneous fishing fleets of the world, with a total of 85,744 registered fishing vessels as of January 2015 [27]. From these, SSF fleets are by far the most important fishing segment in terms of numbers of vessels and fishers employed. Assuming the definition proposed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) for statistical purposes [28], SSF are defined here as fisheries with vessels under 12 metres in length using static or passive gears. SSF account for almost 80% of the EU fleet by number (67,235 active vessels), the majority of which operate in the Mediterranean [27]. SSF also play a vital role in the EU coastal regions by: creating/maintaining jobs in rural coastal communities with low employment opportunities; maintaining the social structure and economic health of coastal communities; as well as contributing to the supply of high quality fresh fishery products to the EU market [29], [30]. Despite their importance, most SSF have generally been subject to little attention by the scientific community and managers, compared to the industrial fishing sector [31], [32]. One of the main constraints has been the absence of a formally agreed definition of SSF, which has resulted in a lack of biological, economic and social knowledge and other types of indicators, essential to develop adequate and targeted management strategies [30], [33]. In order to address this problem, the reformed CFP includes a number of measures to support SSF, namely the potential exemption from transferable fishing concessions schemes, and additional operational programs for the development and increased sustainability of the SSF segment [33], [34]. However, some of the measures, such as the recently implemented EU landing obligation, are likely to pose additional challenges to this often marginalized fishing sector [35].

A fully enforced landing obligation imposed on SSF is likely, at least in the short term, to have considerable social, economic and ecological implications [4], particularly in some regions such as southern Europe [e.g., [4], [31], [36]. This paper examined the appropriateness and feasibility of the recently implemented EU landing obligation in SSF. It also considers the trade-offs of the social, economic and ecological impacts as applied to the SSF sector, to determine the costs and benefits the sector is likely to experience.

Section snippets

Available evidence on the feasibility of the EU landing obligation

Discard bans are a relatively recent approach to addressing the discards problem, and so far limited to only a few countries (e.g., Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand), or specific fisheries (e.g., US Alaskan and Canada’s British Columbian groundfish trawl fisheries) [31], [37]. As argued by Condie and others [37], finding the right accompanying measures to support a discard ban, and ultimately incentivize more selective fishing, is not a simple process. It depends on a number of

Foreseeable challenges and shortcomings of a potential exemption of the SSF sector from the EU landing obligation

The potential socioeconomic and ecological consequences, as well as the odds for success of an EU discard ban in SSF, should be considered before such a measure is fully implemented in this sector. However, a potential provisional exemption of SSF from the discard ban would also bring some challenges and constraints. The first and probably most important would be how to determine the cut-off point defining what part of the EU fishing fleet qualifies as SSF. The current definition proposed by

Conclusions and recommendations

The main goal of the EU discard ban is to eliminate discards, and in the long term to reduce bycatch by promoting more selective fishing [25]. However, discard bans are a relatively novel approach to address the discards problem, and still only used in a relatively small number of countries or particular fisheries [37]. Furthermore, past evidence shows that banning discards only works if supported by considerable data collection on the fishery (discarding rates, reasons for discarding, etc.)

Acknowledgments

The research leading to this paper was funded by “EcoFishMan – Ecosystem-based Responsive Fisheries Management in Europe”, Project co-financed by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7–265401).

References (83)

  • H.M. Condie et al.

    Does banning discards in an otter trawler fishery create incentives for more selective fishing?

    Fish. Res.

    (2013)
  • J.M.S. Gonçalves et al.

    Discards from experimental trammel nets in southern European small-scale fisheries

    Fish. Res.

    (2007)
  • G.G. Shester et al.

    Conservation challenges for small-scale fisheries: bycatch and habitat impacts of traps and gillnets

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • H.P. Benoît et al.

    Assessing the factors influencing discard mortality of demersal fishes using a semi-quantitative indicator of survival potential

    Fish. Res.

    (2010)
  • Ó.K. Pálsson et al.

    Survival experiments of undersized cod in a hand-line fishery at Iceland

    Fish. Res.

    (2003)
  • S. Sigurðardóttir et al.

    How can discards in European fisheries be mitigated? Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of potential mitigation methods

    Mar. Policy

    (2015)
  • S. García-Rivera et al.

    A quantitative and qualitative assessment of the discard ban in European Mediterranean waters

    Mar. Policy

    (2015)
  • F. Maynou et al.

    Small-scale fishery in the Balearic Islands (W Mediterranean): a socio-economic approach

    Fish. Res.

    (2013)
  • E. Tzanatos et al.

    Principal socio-economic characteristics of the Greek small-scale coastal fishermen

    Ocean. Coast. Manag.

    (2006)
  • V. Laptikhovsky et al.

    Scavenging by fish of discards from the Patagonian squid fishery

    Fish. Res.

    (1999)
  • C. Pita et al.

    Stakeholders' participation in the fisheries management decision-making process: fishers' perceptions of participation

    Mar. Policy

    (2010)
  • M. Hauck

    Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance

    Mar. Policy

    (2008)
  • L. García-Flórez et al.

    A novel and simple approach to define artisanal fisheries in Europe

    Mar. Policy

    (2014)
  • T.A. Branch et al.

    Replacing trip limits with individual transferable quotas: implications for discarding

    Mar. Policy

    (2006)
  • J.L. Santiago et al.

    Is Europe ready for a results-based approach to fisheries management? The voice of stakeholders

    Mar. Policy

    (2015)
  • C. Silva et al.

    Development of a responsive fisheries management system for the Portuguese crustacean bottom trawl fishery: lessons learnt

    Mar. Policy

    (2015)
  • J. Feekings et al.

    Fishery discards: factors affecting their variability within a demersal trawl fishery

    Plos One

    (2012)
  • K. Kelleher, Discards in the world's marine fisheries: an update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470. Rome, 2015....
  • S.S. Uhlmann et al.

    Mitigating unaccounted fishing mortality from gillnets and traps

    Fish. Fish.

    (2013)
  • F. Sardà et al.

    Overlooked impacts and challenges of the new European discard ban

    Fish. Fish.

    (2015)
  • D. Tingley, K. Erzini, I. Goulding, Evaluation of the state of knowledge concerning discard practices in European...
  • J. Bellido et al.

    Fishery discards and bycatch: solutions for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management?

    Hydrobiologia

    (2011)
  • European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries...
  • STECF, Landing obligation in EU fisheries (STECF-13-23), Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheris...
  • K. Tsagarakis et al.

    Mediterranean fishery discards: review of the existing knowledge

    ICES J. Mar. Sci.

    (2013)
  • European Commission, COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1639/2001 of 25 July 2001 establishing the minimum and extended...
  • European Commission, COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 199/2008 (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008, concerning the...
  • L. Borges

    The evolution of a discard policy in Europe

    Fish. Fish.

    (2015)
  • D. Anonymous.

    1.5: Implications of the implementation of the landing obligations provisions in small pelagic fisheries in Mediterranean (LANDMED)Final Report

    (2014)
  • A. Marçalo et al.

    Behavioural responses of sardines Sardina pilchardus to simulated purse-seine capture and slipping

    J. Fish. Biol.

    (2013)
  • J.M.S. Gonçalves et al.

    Reducing discards in a demersal purse-seine fishery

    Aquat. Living Resour.

    (2008)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text