Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
The North Sea Regional Advisory Council Landings Obligation Focus Group 8th April 2014, Paris Paper 3.1 Draft (6) For Discussion Implementation of the EU Landings Obligation Note that this paper is incomplete and requires further input and discussion by the NSRAC The task of preparing advice on the various elements of the landings obligation has been divided into several work streams. Those sections still to be prepared are those on: Control issues, fully documented fisheries Quota management and flexibilities, international swaps New text is shown in colour. development Some of this new text may require comment and further Note that where participants disagree with the text they should – if possible propose new replacement text, rather than simply stating their disagreement with the existing text Page 1 NSRACN NSRAC Table of Contents 1. Background & Antecedents ................................................................................. 3 2. A Vision for the North Sea Demersal Fisheries .................................................. 3 3. The Priority Issues ................................................................................................ 6 Preparing the main elements of a Discard Plan: Meeting the EU Landings Obligation in the North Sea ......................................................................................... 6 Changes to the Control Regime: Revision and Refocusing the Control Regulation .. 6 Developing Mixed Fishery Plans ................................................................................. 6 Achieving MSY for the Mixed Fisheries of the North Sea ........................................... 7 Meeting the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) ....... 7 4. Implementing EU Landings Obligation in the North Sea .................................. 7 Mixed Fishery Management Plans .............................................................................. 7 A Discard Plan for the North Sea Demersal Fleets .................................................... 8 Control and Compliance ............................................................................................. 8 Technical measures .................................................................................................... 9 Selectivity .................................................................................................................... 9 Exemptions from the landings obligations ................................................................ 10 Survival ..................................................................................................................... 11 De Minimis Provisions ............................................................................................... 11 Inter-species flexibility ............................................................................................... 12 Governance ............................................................................................................... 12 The North Sea Advisory Council ............................................................................... 13 Norway ...................................................................................................................... 13 Engagement with the Scheveningen Group ............................................................. 15 Improving fisheries science ....................................................................................... 17 A Learning Process ................................................................................................... 17 Quota Management; Choke Species ........................................................................ 18 Minimum Landing Sizes ............................................................................................ 18 Reducing the Number of TACs ................................................................................. 19 Implications for Fishing Businesses .......................................................................... 19 MSY and the Landings Obligation ............................................................................ 20 Wider Ecosystem Considerations; MSFD ................................................................. 22 Convergence; Setting the Milestones ....................................................................... 23 5. The way forward .................................................................................................. 23 Page 2 NSRACN NSRAC 1. Background & Antecedents A central objective of the proposed reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the progressive elimination of discards in all EU fisheries through the introduction of an obligation to land all catches. North Sea demersal fishing fleets will soon be operating within a CFP transformed by the discard ban and other 2013 reforms. The landings obligation will be applied to the demersal fisheries in the North Sea in January 2016 for some species. Discard Plans will need to be developed and proposed by the NSRAC to cooperating member states well before that target date. Such plans will require fundamental changes to current management and control regimes, and will affect all aspects of the CFP. The NSRAC Executive Committee has agreed that prompt and well thought-out advice on the implementation of the discard ban must now be provided to the Commission and member states. It is evident that STECF and others are struggling to provide advice. It was time to produce its vision for the North Sea demersal fisheries, setting out a destination for those fisheries in the context of introduction of the landings obligations. The next step was to draft a paper setting out proposals for the NSRAC to consider further. This is that paper. Many people have contributed to it, but not all the ideas presented have been fully worked out and there are still some gaps. This version is put forward at this stage for further comment and development. It will be discussed further at the Executive Committee Meeting on the 25th February in London. 2. A Vision for the North Sea Demersal Fisheries First we present a vision of the North Sea demersal fisheries in 2025, both as a destination to strive for and as a guide to the practical implementation of the landings obligation. Implementation of the actions to achieve this vision depends on the time scale. A target date of 2025 would be realistic given all the challenges, and would prepare us for the next series of reforms to the Common Fisheries Policy. However, 2020 also provides its own deadlines in terms of implementing the provisions of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. But there are other, much closer targets that need to be met on a shorter timescale. The vision must therefore incorporate a series of milestones to meet a number of successive targets. Our long-term vision includes the following for the North Sea Demersal Fisheries: Higher Yields Progress towards high yield fisheries, with low fishing mortality rates, will have been maintained. International obligations for meeting Maximum Sustainable Yield objectives will have been fully implemented. Page 3 NSRACN NSRAC Higher Profitability Fishing businesses will be operating in a stable resource environment, with predictable fishing opportunities from one year to the next. Better Food Security Maintenance of food supplies will be a priority. Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for a healthy and active life. Global demand for food is continuing to increase while production growth is slowing, against a background of future climate change. The North Sea has provided an important source of food in the past and must continue to do so. Assurances can and will be provided on food quality, safety and traceability. Improved Fisheries Management Fisheries management in the North Sea will have the full support of fishers and other stakeholders and management will be characterised by a high degree of professionalism, with confident participation by fishers, and full compliance with regulations. Management will operate at minimal cost to taxpayers. Sustainable Ecosystems Management objectives consistent with an ecosystem approach will guide fisheries policy. Although these will be applied within the context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the detail will be determined largely at regional level, by cooperating member states working closely with the North Sea Advisory Council. Relevant Co-decision Taking Co-decision at the European level, will be reserved for overarching, strategic, policy issues; and auditing the functioning of the European fisheries management system as a whole. It will not obstruct practical management of the fisheries. Better Understanding of the Rules There will be a high degree of comprehension about what compliance with the rules in force involves; and there will be full internal consistency and coherence within those requirements. Cooperation with Norway There will be close cooperation and a high degree of mutual understanding between Norway and EU on the application of the landings obligation in the North Sea. Results-based Management, with Full Documentation of Catches Input controls such as effort control, engine power and capacity constraints will have been left behind, and replaced by a system of management focused on outputs and results. There will be a high degree of transparency throughout the system, underpinned by full documentation of catches and willing compliance. The resultant data will be used to strengthen stock assessments within a streamlined and up-to date system of scientific advice, with less pressure placed upon scientists. Page 4 NSRACN NSRAC Mixed Fishery Management Plans Most TACs will be set within the context of long term management plans applicable to mixed fisheries rather than individual fish stocks, incorporating full consideration of interactions between species. Those plans will not be based solely upon scientific considerations. They will also take account of the characteristics and interests of the different fleets. Plans will be approved on a regional basis by cooperating member states, working with the NSRAC and scientific advisers. Economic Incentives Economic Incentives will be aligned with management objectives. Perverse incentives that act against conservation interests will be identified swiftly, and removed promptly. Improved Selectivity Technical conservation rules will have been replaced by selectivity measures, determined at vessel level by each skipper to achieve the optimum catch/ landings consistent with the vessel’s quotas and with the requirements of the landings obligation. Fewer TACs TACs will be set for the main economic driver species with fewer TACS set overall in the North Sea. TACs will, of course, be based on total catch. Alternatively, and where appropriate, TACs may be grouped or combined in a similar way to the way in which the “Norway Others” quota currently works. The resultant flexible management regime will ensure that the problem of choke stocks will be avoided. Less Emphasis on Micro-management There will have been a decisive move away from prescriptive micro-management. This shift, along with the other reforms, will provide the basis for a profitable sector in which fleet renewal without subsidy is not only possible but the norm. Delegated Responsibility Various forms of delegated responsibility will be in evidence, within a framework of external audits, incentives and sanctions. High Survival Rates Within the landings obligation, some quota species will continue to be returned to the sea, when there is confidence that the level of survival of those species is consistent with management objectives of high yield fisheries. A risk assessment approach will be adopted in deciding whether to retain fish or release them to the sea, taking into account the gains or losses to the ecosystem. A similar risk assessment approach will be taken in deciding whether to retain or return by-catch species. Self-auditing Low-cost self-auditing will be common aboard fishing vessels and a range of remote sensing technologies will be in use to provide confidence in the system, releasing resources formerly expended on expensive but largely ineffective controls. Page 5 NSRACN NSRAC Fishing Vessels as Research Platforms Fishing vessels will routinely be employed under contract to provide a range of scientific data, and to participate in reference fleets. Partnership agreements between scientists and fishermen will be the basis for a highly effective information system on which management decisions will be based. Fishers will be trained to deliver information through a process of on-board, self-sampling 3. The Priority Issues In preparing a roadmap with milestones to meet this vision it will be necessary to take account of the whole series of parallel developments that are taking place as part of the reforms to the CFP. Those issues include: Preparing the main elements of a Discard Plan: Obligation in the North Sea Meeting the EU Landings Discard Plans will need to be developed and proposed by the NSRAC to cooperating member states well before that target date. Such plans will require fundamental changes to the current management and control regimes and will affect all aspects of the CFP. Changes to the Control Regime: Revision and Refocusing the Control Regulation Although the discard ban is not seen as a control issue in itself, the ban will require major adjustments to the current control regulation. The implications of full documentation may introduce proposals for new forms of control. Monitoring compliance with the discard ban may raise problems. Remote monitoring of catches is one way to achieve compliance, but it is not the only way. There will be a need for alignment and modernisation of the Control Regulation. Developing Mixed Fishery Plans The Commission sees the development of mixed fisheries plans as the cornerstone of the CFP reforms. That species are mixed within the catch is undoubtedly a factor that needs to be considered, but there is scepticism amongst fishers whether true mixed fishery plans can ever be developed successfully. Currently there are no examples of extant mixed fishery plans that can serve as models, and in their absence there is a risk that simple and naïve principles will be applied (such as stopping fishing when the catch for any one species meets the single stock advice). New mixed fishery plans are required that properly integrate the current single-TAC approach, take full account of the whole fishery system, and are suitably precautionary. The plans must also take account of multi-species interactions and the need to protect key commercial stocks, such as Nephrops, from high levels of natural mortality Page 6 NSRACN NSRAC through increased predation. Trade-offs will be necessary between the interests of different fleets. Some fleets may be targeting species that form part of the by-catch for other fleets. Achieving MSY for the Mixed Fisheries of the North Sea The EU is obliged by international agreements to maintain or restore fish stocks to maximum sustainable yield; MSY. However, there can be no single value for MSY in an ecosystem context, and there is a need to decide on an appropriate value in a multi-species context. The interests of stakeholders must be considered in setting that value. Reaching biomass targets, as some have suggested, is inappropriate in an ecosystem context, and any MSY targets set must be in terms of fishing mortality. Meeting the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) The MSFD defines environmental objectives for European seas, based on sustainable development within healthy marine ecosystems. Individual sectors (e.g. fisheries) need to comply with MSFD objectives. 4. Implementing EU Landings Obligation in the North Sea Because the landings obligation reflects a high level political compromise, and the basic regulation contains a degree of linguistic ambiguity, it is open to wide interpretation. In addition, the co-legislators in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers envisage that the landings obligation would generally be implemented through member states cooperating at regional seas level. This means that there is currently a high degree of uncertainty about how the landings obligation will be implemented. There are fears within the fishing industry, scientific community and the control authorities that the gains of recent years could be lost if this major change to the CFP is mishandled. Vessel operators have anxieties about the economic viability of their operations under a landings obligation. Although work on how the landings obligation will be applied to the demersal fisheries in the North Sea is in its infancy, the timetable for its application is demanding – January 2016 for the first species. In view of the above, NSRAC outlines below how it considers that the new requirements should be implemented, within the specific conditions of the North Sea fisheries, in order to move towards the fulfilment of its vision, and perhaps more pertinently, to avoid the major pitfalls associated with a mishandled implementation regime. Mixed Fishery Management Plans Page 7 NSRACN NSRAC With the implementation of a landings obligation in the North Sea it is envisaged by the Commission that demersal fisheries will take place within the context of a multi-annual management plan, developed at regional level, with close involvement of the NSRAC. We recognise that this worthy ambition faces a number of hurdles, not least: Issues relating to institutional competence within the European institutions but also in relation to the EU Norway reciprocal agreement The evolving science on mixed fishery, multi-species and ecosystem dimensions to managing the fisheries in the North Sea The need to consider differences between fishing fleets The establishment of effective regional cooperation by North Sea member states It may therefore be some time until a comprehensive multi-annual plan is agreed and implemented for the North Sea demersal fisheries. A Discard Plan for the North Sea Demersal Fleets In the absence of a mixed fishery plan member states have the option/responsibility to develop a discard plan. Failing this, the default position would be for the European Commission to step in with their own discard plan which would apply for three years and would set the terms for a de minimis for species for which selectivity is very difficult or the costs of implementing the landings obligation are disproportionate. Against this background, the NSRAC considers it important that North Sea member states, working closely with the NSRAC, make a joint recommendation for a discard plan in good time for the 1st January 2016, when the landing obligation will begin to be phased in across the North Sea demersal stocks. This discard plan should: Be consistent with articles 15, 21 and 22 of the new CFP basic regulation Be implemented progressively, as mentioned in article 15 Take full advantage of the quota flexibilities that are available under the same regulation Learn the lessons from implementation of discard bans in other countries, not least Norway, without following these blindly or slavishly Adopt as far as possible an incremental and pragmatic approach to the implementation of the new regime Control and Compliance The overarching policy objectives with regard to control and monitoring of the landings obligation should be to: Page 8 NSRACN NSRAC Achieve a high degree of compliance, underpinned by a risk based enforcement approach. Ensure that additional costs associated with monitoring and compliance with the landings obligation are proportionate to the revenue generated by that fleet segment Adopt pilot innovative approaches such as reference fleets/catch composition checks/self-audit where possible to achieve a balance between assurance and cost Ensure complete removal of all regulatory requirements inconsistent with the landings obligation Apply an incremental approach linked to a high degree of pragmatic enforcement in order to avoid the widespread criminalisation of fishermen overnight. Technical measures The introduction of a landings obligation renders many of the present regulations redundant. It is the intention of the Commission that a new Technical Measures Framework Regulation will be developed as part of the reforms that, over time, will facilitate full implementation of the landing obligation. It will be essential, however, to adopt this regulation in time to allow new selectivity and other measures to be put in place. One particularly valuable first step would be to remove days-at-sea controls The Minimum Landing Sizes (MLS) that are set by the Commission are said to be "technical measures for the protection of juvenile fish." However, for many species there is no minimum landing size and those that exist are often set below the age of sexual maturity. It is proposed that Minimum Conservation Reference Sizes (MCRS) will now replace MLS and that this will allow immature fish to be landed but not sold at market for human consumption. This change from Minimum Landing Size (MLS) to MCRS will achieve very little. First, there is little conservation value in regulating the use of dead fish. Second, it seems curious to claim that it is a waste of resources to discard fish, but then prevent the use of that fish through other regulations. Incentives to target larger fish could be made through applying a “catch multiplier” to quantities of fish below a certain size. Then of course there is the question of whether it is always better to target large fish. Some scientists have argued that it may be better to harvest surplus small fish, leaving the larger fish to spawn. Regulation on mesh sizes and catch composition should be abolished. As a consequence of this, the one-net-rule should also be abolished. Selectivity Page 9 NSRACN NSRAC We anticipate that the requirement to land all quota species (which will then count against quota) will provide a strong economic incentive to reduce unwanted catch. Disposal costs associated with landing unwanted catch will provide an additional economic incentive. The discard ban therefore provides an opportunity, as well as a strong imperative for a decisive shift away from gear selectivity based on prescriptive legislation (which has not been a notable success over the last 20 years) to a radically more flexible and adaptable approach focused at individual vessel level. This new approach should be embraced and supported by removing all residual technical conservation controls simultaneously with the application of the landings obligation. A protocol for vessels operating in the Norwegian zone of the North Sea needs to be developed, so that vessels can operate their chosen technical solutions freely across International boundaries. Key selectivity issues include: How can we achieve better selectivity - leading to better survival of both unwanted fish and fisheries? Can incentives be provided? Improvements in selectivity will require changes to the technical conservation rules and regulations. How can socio-economic benefits from reducing unwanted catches best be achieved? What benefits will there be to the ecosystem? When will maximum selectivity be achieved? Scientific work will be necessary, with the participation of fishers, to develop new fishing gears; and new nets incorporating escape features of various kinds. The results of pilot trials must then be implemented. Exemptions from the landings obligations Landing fish that would otherwise have survived and added to the stock biomass, is an example of a potentially perverse outcome at odds with management objectives. Determining what counts as a high survival rate poses a challenge to scientists. They may not be able to deliver advice in a useable form because of the high level of variability in the survival rate, reflecting ever-changing conditions (fishing gear, season, age, treatment on deck etc.). A risk assessment approach is required. Will the release of particular fish benefit the ecosystem, or would their retention and landing be more appropriate? Frequently, survival rates can be improved by better on-board handling. For some species, in which selectivity on the seabed is very difficult or impossible, improving the survival rate of Page 10 NSRACN NSRAC returnees offers a viable and reasonable alternative to landing dead fish of limited commercial value and with a negative impact on stock biomass. In some cases it may also be better for the ecosystem to return fish to the sea, rather than retain them on board. A pragmatic solution would be to provide an exemption for all species considered by risk assessment to be capable of survival and to work at a fishery level to enhance the conditions that contribute to survival. Key issues on exemptions include: The Commission can derogate landings obligation if needed to implement international obligations into EU law. There is a need to define those species for which fishing is prohibited. There is a need to define those species for which scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates, taking into account the characteristics of the gear, fishing practices, and the state of the ecosystem. How are the De Minimis provisions to be handled? How can the latter two considerations be taken up in multi-annual plans or discard plans? Survival The landings obligation should not lead to an increase in the actual mortality of fish. Which fish can survive and how do we define a high level of survival? This is not entirely a scientific issue. There is a need to collate the latest findings on survival rates in different fleets, in different areas, at different times of the year. The ICES WGMEDS (Methods for Estimating Discard Survival) is to meet on the 17-21 February and to report to ACOM by 14 April. STECF is also expected to produce guidance on experimental approaches to determining survival rates. However, there will be a need for new experimental work to take place to consider ways of optimising survival through gear modifications, different treatments on deck, sorting methods etc. There will also be a need to analyse existing research on discard survival. De Minimis Provisions In the new regulation up to 5% of the total annual catches of all species subject to landings obligation can be exempt from the landings obligation. For a transitional period of four years, the 5% 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. This provision may operate when, within a multi-annual plan or discard plan: Scientific evidence indicates that increases in selectivity are difficult to achieve Page 11 NSRACN NSRAC Disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches will be avoided There are provisions for the documentation of catches Minimum conservation reference sizes are set The interpretation of ‘5% of total Annual Catches’ is not entirely clear. Is this to be based on the TACs, member state alocations, vessel quotas, aggregate regional quota shares? STECF guidance is being provided to member states for De Minimis provisions in multiannual plans or discard plans. However the following questions must be asked:: What catch records are required to justify a De Minimis exemption (by species)? What additional costs will be involved (additional labour for sorting catch)? What level of aggregation? What level of applicability? Which fleet segments/gears? Note: Interquota flexibilities in article 15 of the basic regulation deal with choke species issues and may not be relevant to issues of selectivity and exemptions. Inter-species flexibility Concrete modalities for applying inter-species flexibility should be defined fishery by fishery. It does not make always sense to count the catches of one species against the quotas of other species, irrespective of the state of conservation of the different species or irrespective of the level of mortality induced by a particular fishery. Governance Experience over the last 20 years tells us that governance structures are absolutely central to the success of fisheries management measures in the North Sea. Past failures in governance and specifically, micro-management by over use of overly-prescriptive legislation, was identified in the CFP Reform Green Paper, as one of the main reasons fisheries policy in the EU had frequently failed to meet its objectives. This analysis and conclusion provided the main reasons why CFP reform has now moved some way towards a decentralised approach to policy formulation in fisheries. Scope for policy formulation by member states cooperating at the regional seas level, in ways that are consistent with EU treaty obligations, is an integral part of Page 12 NSRACN NSRAC the reformed CFP, and by extension to the implementation of the landings obligation. Within parameters laid down by the European institutions, member states now have the option to develop regionally focussed discard plans, or more ambitiously, full multi-annual management plans for their fisheries. Recommendations for discard plans will normally be adopted as proposals by the Commission as a delegated act, whilst full multi-annual management plans will be subject to full co-decision procedure. The CFP basic regulation also makes provision for a default mechanism through which implementing legislation will applied by the Commission if member states fail to deliver discard plans in a timely manner. Learning especially from the shortcomings of the Cod Recovery Plan, and its successor the Cod Management Plan, the reformed CFP contains important elements of a results-based approach. The adoption of an outcomes-focused approach contrasts starkly with prescriptive legislation and micro-management that formerly characterised the CFP, and which resulted in its underlying inability to deliver effective fisheries policy. The North Sea Advisory Council The direction of travel reflected in the current legislative changes are very much in line with the advice provided by the North Sea Regional Advisory Council since its establishment in 2004. We recognise however, that notwithstanding the central importance of having the right governance structures in place, decentralised policy formulation provides the preconditions for success, not success itself. The focus must now shift to the content of fisheries policy and specifically the implementation of the landings obligation. Norway Geography and shared fish resources make it inevitable that the EU and Norway are compelled to find ways of working together to jointly manage shared fish stocks. The annual reciprocal fisheries agreement between EU and Norway is the principal instrument through which this cooperation is achieved. It is however a complex, multi-faceted agreement, in which negotiating leverage in one part of the agreement can create obstacles to a straightforward management approach in another. Despite the negotiating complexities of the relationship between EU/ Norway, in the joint conference on long term management plans held in Svalbard in May 2012, both parties spoke strongly in favour of management plans which: Page 13 NSRACN NSRAC Are developed with a high degree of transparency and participation by stakeholders Focused on long term objectives Provide for high and stable yields Provide a firm framework for TAC decisions and other harvest control rules, whist retaining sufficient flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and scientific advice Agreed EU/Norway management plans do not mean identical management measures in EU and Norway waters but do suggest a commitment to achieve as much harmonisation and coordination as possible. The EU landings obligation poses many challenges to the EU Norway agreement. Equally, the EU Norway agreement will inevitably be an essential element in implementing the discard ban in EU waters. Agreement at EU/Norway level will be required on: TAC uplift to accommodate the landing of fish that would otherwise have been discarded Inter-annual quota flexibility Inter-species flexibility Reducing the number of TACs or grouping TACs for jointly managed stocks Additional quota to incentivise cod avoidance and trial CCTV Some of these may be regarded as potential showstoppers because, along with the de minimis provision, they are the means by which flexibility is introduced by the EU into an otherwise absolute prohibition on discarding of quota species. Norway has its own way of applying its discard ban in a pliable and pragmatic fashion, mainly through its move-on/Real Time Closure approach to the protection of juveniles and through the significant discretion allowed to its coastguard. This approach appears to work for Norway, a single country with exclusive control over its own fisheries. A direct application of the Norwegian system to EU fisheries would be unworkable because of the different and more complex species-mix in EU waters and the realities of shared jurisdiction. The imminent arrival of the landings obligation in the demersal fisheries in the North Sea will add a significant pressure to the EU Norway agreement to develop solutions through practical and workable flexibilities. What is certain is that it will not be possible to apply the landings obligation without those flexibilities, whilst retaining an economically viable fleet. Against this background, the North Sea RAC advocates: 1) The early introduction of pilot projects to trial the application of the landings obligation with and without: - Quota uplift Page 14 NSRACN NSRAC - Inter-species flexibility - Grouped quotas for non-target stocks The pilot studies that have been undertaken so far have raised serious concerns about the ability of vessels subject to a landing obligation, with quota uplift, to average estimated discard levels in the previous year, to fish their quota allocations because of choke stocks. The results of the pilots should inform the EU/ Norway negotiations 2) The closest cooperation between EU and Norway in the implementation of a practical and workable landings obligation. The NSRAC met with the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association in Trondheim in April 2013 to foster the kind of cooperative relationships and mutual understanding that will be essential in the context of the development of multi-annual management plans at a regional-seas level. 3) The avoidance of paper solutions (such as the 2011 high grading ban, which may have worked at the level of public relations but had absolutely no effect at vessel level and in fact was legally unenforceable in the EU) 4) Minimising the scope for perverse outcomes. In applying an instrument as broad in potential effect as the landings obligation there is enormous scope for unintended consequences. The best way to guard against perverse outcomes is to move forward through trial and error (what in some circles is referred to as an adaptive approach). The challenging timetable for implementation and the limited funds available for trials and pilots are undoubted constraints. But it is difficult to see how a workable approach to the landings obligation will evolve without an extensive programme of pilots and trials. The application of a big bang approach with minimum preparation is not one that we wish to contemplate. 5) Dialogue at vessel level: Port level dialogue is going to be essential if the practical implications of the landings obligation are to be understood fully. The difficulties encountered in the EU/Norway discussions over the application of the landings obligation in the Skagerrak has provided some insight into the issues that are likely to be encountered in the North Sea. Engagement with the Scheveningen Group Within the new CFP basic regulation there is an obligation on member states to consult with the relevant advisory council(s) in the development of their discard plans (article 14a.) The advisory councils’ privileged status, reflecting their expertise and composition as stakeholders, and their enhanced role within the reformed CFP, would lead us to expect an obligation for them to be consulted. However, it is the NSRAC’s ambition and we believe the North Sea member states’ also, to move beyond formal consultation towards a more embedded and pervasive partnership approach - without however, compromising the respective competencies. Engagement of this sort has already begun through the Page 15 NSRACN NSRAC involvement of the NSRAC in the development of a discard “atlas” for the North Sea demersal fisheries, under the framework of the Scheveningen Group of cooperating member states. A partnership approach relies less on formal governance structures and the production of advice in relative isolation from each other and more on developing ways of cooperating that build mutual trust and confidence. Much has already been done to integrate stakeholders into the production of fisheries science at a formative stage, where it matters (STECF expert working groups, ICES benchmark and data compilation meetings) and now the task in hand is how this evolution can be extended to the policy sphere. Despite some initial concerns and reservations, the integration of stakeholders into the key scientific deliberations is regarded by almost everyone involved as a wholly successful and positive development. Although there are logistical, practical and resource implications, we see no reason why the integration of AC stakeholders into policy formulation should not follow a similar trajectory. In terms of a comparable model of engagement to that which has evolved between scientists and stakeholders, an annual meeting between ICES and the RACs (MIRAC) is held each January to discuss high level strategic issues, whilst the main engagement comes through a series of different benchmark meetings, workshops, briefings and fisheries science projects throughout the year, at which a range of stakeholders attend, dependent on their experience, interests and availability. Accepting the reality of constraints associated with the EU/Norway agreement, the advantages of transparency and shared knowledge, leading to legitimacy and shared understanding, is such that the NSAC considers that the highest priority should be afforded to achieving a similar kind of arrangement in the policy realm. At a practical level this will mean: Using available opportunities to develop a continuous constructive dialogue between member states and the North Sea Advisory Council Developing collaborative initiatives to trial untested aspects of the landings obligation Finding new ways of sharing information Defining ways in which the Scheveningen group and the NSAC can jointly develop a shared strategic vision for the implementation of the landings obligation and multi-annual management plans Avoiding duplication in favour of transparency and cooperation Working jointly with the European Fisheries Control Agency to: - Strike the right balance between an even playing field and regional distinctiveness - Deal with trans-boundary issues Page 16 NSRACN NSRAC - Develop a low-cost, risk-based approach to monitoring and enforcement Improving fisheries science There is always a need to collect more scientific information to aid stock assessment. There has been a problem with the long time lag in collecting scientific data and applying them to fish stock assessments. There is a particular problem when the stock assessments do not accurately reflect the actual state of the stocks - discarding then becomes inevitable. There is strong danger of particular species becoming choke species if their TACs are not set at realistic levels. Fishing fleets are able to assist with the collection of relevant real time data. They are, for example, able to collect up to date data on the physical and biological conditions on the fishing grounds. These data from the fishing fleet should be used systematically in the future to improve fish stock assessments, and to ensure that the assessments reflect the actual conditions on the fishing grounds. On board sampling of length distributions, together with and electronic logbook data will enable fast track updates of assessments. Real time monitoring and fast track procedures are essential if we are to align the fishing regulations and fishery measures with the actual abundance of fish. A Learning Process It is important to recognise that for all involved, the transition from a top-down, command and control approach to managing the North Sea demersal fisheries and implementing the landings obligation will be a learning process. The experience of the regional advisory councils in providing the foundations for trans-national dialogue within the fishing industry and also with other stakeholders, including the e-NGOs has been quite remarkable. Member states have always communicated with each other to some degree or other but the kind of close collaborative work which is now expected of them was not required, or not even considered decent within the previous more hierarchical CFP regime, in which member states were as often as not supplicants rather than equals. The undoubted opportunities that regional cooperation brings also carry serious challenges. Member states are finding modus operandi amongst themselves at regional level, whilst at the same time there is an expectation that they should engage more closely with the advisory councils. And then there are the Norwegian and other Third Country dimensions to manage successfully. The truncated timetable for implementing the discard ban is a less than helpful context in which to develop these new and hopefully positive relationships. Nevertheless that is the reality and it is the NSAC’s aspiration that a quickly establish a working relationship will quickly be established. It is certainly the NSAC’s intention to accept any invitation to participate in this process at every level. Page 17 NSRACN NSRAC Quota Management; Choke Species Within the context of a landings obligation, flexible and adaptable management arrangements are required to prevent the exhaustion of quota of minor by-catch species from preventing the uptake of the major economic species. These should be agreed at regional level but might include: Quota Flexibility Maximum scope for quota swaps and transfers Vessel to vessel, Producer organisation to producer organisation Member state to member state, Member state to Third Country (this would not be favoured by all parties) Two different scenarios may avoid problems with choke species: Ensure that all TACs are set in good agreement with the occurrence of each species in the catches within the fisheries. The use of real-time data from fishing vessels will assist in improving stock assessments. It should be remembered, however, that even if sufficient resources were allocated to collect the data needed in order to perform analytical assessments for all stocks in the catches, there is no guarantee that these assessments would be “right”. Analytical assessments may allow actual numerical values to be assigned to F, SSB and TSB, but this does not necessarily mean that the estimated values are correct. There is a need to avoid setting TACs for non-target species. This is simply not realistic and the setting of inappropriate TACs can lead to major problems with discarding. Estimates of discards are at best highly uncertain and for many species they are often wrong. There is a need to establish the “true” catch figures – for example by allowing fishers to land all catches (i.e. through a dispensation from the catch composition rules) in a period before the new regulation is enforced. Quota uplifts should not be limited by stability clauses within long-term management plans e.g. 15 % for year-to-year changes. Minimum Landing Sizes Text to be developed Page 18 NSRACN NSRAC Reducing the Number of TACs We are open for discussion on the suggestion that reducing the number of TACs set and confining TACs to the main economic driver species would make application of the landings obligation very much easier. By-catch species or “associated stocks” do not generally influence fishing behaviours or patterns. They are caught (and within a landings obligation, landed) in proportion to which they appear in the nets. Whilst it is true that some targeting of what are generally considered by-catch species can take place, one would have to examine the respective costs and benefits of, on the one hand substantially removing the potential for choke stocks and on the other lifting quota constraints on a minor species. We note that fewer quotas are imposed upon Norwegian vessels than upon EU vessels. Thus, we believe that the idea that TACs should be set for groups of target species should be considered further. Primary TACs might be set for the gadoid round fish (excluding ling, blue ling and tusk), monkfish, Nephrops, and flatfish such as plaice, sole and megrim. MSY targets for these primary species should be set as ranges in order to enable maximal yields for fisheries, rather than for single species. Transfer of TAC between species, as well as between years might be allowed – as long as the range of acceptable Fmsy values for the species is not compromised. If the idea of fewer TACs is not accepted then there is a need to discuss what to do with: Two species TACs? Zero TACs for skates, rays, dogfish, spur dog? Implications for Fishing Businesses Fishers will view success of the landings obligation not in term of its effectiveness, or whether it delivers wider societal confidence, but in terms of how the fishing business fairs during the transition phase and beyond. Fishers will be exposed to new pressures as the business of fishing tranforms. It will be extremely important, therefore, to understand the speed and depth at which change should be delivered if we are to protect fishers from any unnceccassry financial pressures or business failure. The obligation to land all catches will mean that fishers will be allowed to land for commercial purposes part of the weight of fish previously discarded. This would present great potential for fishers to improve economic performance were it not for obvous hurdles, such as selectivity and choke species, which form a significant barrier to transforming potential for gain into actual economic benefit. The opportunity to land more commercially marketable fish will act as a stimuls for fishers to put in place appropriate measures to maximise opportunity; it is natural for business to move to the point of maximum efficiency which, in the case of the landing obligation, means ensuring as far as possible that all fish landed is of commercially marketable size. This will Page 19 NSRACN NSRAC mean the introduction of the best possible selectivity married with improved temporal and spatial awareness. The cost to fishers of providing improved selectivity will not be insignificant, given that most solutions will be at the individual vessel level, although some solutions will undoubtedly come at the metier level with groups of similar vessels finding common solutions. The cost entailed in creating, building and trialling new ideas and concepts can be extensive; down time and periods of low revenue during any trial phase add significant costs to business and, whereas some trials will be funded or part funded, there will be a vast number that receive zero or very little funding. There will be an additional cost to fishers associated with the landing of low value, regulated species, below the MCRS. It has yet to be tested whether the level of value returned from such landings will come close to the cost of returning them to shore. There will also be cases where vessels will be forced to return to port prematurely due to the pressures of stowage. Similarly, it is unclear how this will affect vessel profitability. However, it is clear that in almost all cases it will lead to reduced income and may even lead to gradual business failure. The biggest threat to the fishing business is the premature cessation of fishing activity which will occur in situations where a mismatch exists between the abundance of a particular stock and the available opportunity to catch it (the choke species situation). The legislative requirement for a vessel to have in place fish quota to cover expected catches before it puts to sea dictates that many vessel operators will be faced with the choice of either paying the high cost of leasing quota (where the option of leasing exists) to gain continued access to the fishery for other species, or lay up the vessel in port. Both courses of action have a similar effect on business although the latter has a higher probability of being terminal. MSY and the Landings Obligation Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) was developed as a scientific concept in fisheries management in the 1970s. Its utility for mixed and multi-species fisheries was almost immediately challenged within the scientific community. However, the concept gained political and legal (as opposed to scientific) traction during the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. MSY has now taken the form of legal obligations within the CFP Basic Regulation. Leaving aside arid disputes about the relevance of MSY to multi-species fisheries, the practical challenge facing fisheries managers and fisheries stakeholders is how to maintain the progress that has been made over the last decade towards stable high yield fisheries in the North Sea, whilst: Simultaneously maintaining the economic viability of the fleets Implementing the landings obligation. Taking account of the multi-gear character of our demersal fisheries Page 20 NSRACN NSRAC Taking account of multi-species interactions The European institutions have chosen to use the concept of fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (Fmsy) as the legally required benchmark for the achieving low mortality, generally regarded as a precondition for high yields. This is wise, as the alternative, using biomass MSY, would be to assume control over natural processes, such as recruitment over which humans have fact at best, limited influence. The elimination, as far as possible, of unwanted mortality, is a key objective of the landings obligation. Nevertheless, implementation of the landings obligation has itself the potential to generate unwanted mortality, which has implications for achieving and maintaining MSY: By preventing the return to the sea species that would otherwise have survived and contributed to the biomass By shifting mortality to older (more valuable) year classes, thereby increasing the average mortality across the stock By destabilising current quota allocations and fishing patterns that appear to be consistent with a trajectory to MSY These risks must be managed as far as possible. It is clear therefore that future management measures must negotiate both the legal realities enshrined in the CFP basic regulation and also the biological realities in the North Sea marine ecosystem, and in particular species interactions through various predation patterns. Whilst inadequate data and questionable assumptions on actual, current predation patterns create significant challenges for the implementation of management decisions based on multi-species advice, it is clear that ignoring multi species interactions would be the greater error. Clearly, this is a complex arena in which the evolution of practical scientific and management advice is most definitely work in progress Against this background, maintaining progress towards MSY in the North Sea demersal fisheries, whilst implementing the landings obligation requires both flexibility and caution. In order therefore not to lose the gains made in recent years we advocate: An adaptive step-wise approach which carefully balances the competing priorities described above and provides for adjustments to take account of new information Making TAC decisions on the basis of both biological and economic advice and phasing progress towards MSY to take account of the latter Progressively building multi-species considerations into management decisions as the quality of scientific advice on species interactions strengthens Learning from but not necessarily slavishly following the Norwegian experience of implementing a discard ban, and in particular the incremental and pragmatic features of the Norwegian approach Page 21 NSRACN NSRAC Understanding MSY as a range of fishing mortalities on the effort/yield curve rather than an individual fixed point, as outlined in the North Sea RAC’s 2006 Report on the Long Term Management of North Sea Fisheries Ensuring that the high levels of compliance experienced in recent years and which are an intrinsic aspect of progress to MSY, are maintained by: Securing and maintaining the support of resource users through their close involvement in management decisions Ensuring high levels of clarity about requirements Aligning economic incentives with management objectives as far as possible Ensuring that fleet profitability is not dramatically undermined by management decisions The use of management plans to secure incremental, step-wise progress towards high yield fisheries without destabilising the economic viability of the fleets Wider Ecosystem Considerations; MSFD In 2008 the European Parliament has adopted the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSDF) with the aim of reaching Good Environmental Status (GES) for European marine waters by 2020. Each Member State is expected to take the necessary measures to achieve GES, being defined as maintaining or restoring marine waters to a healthy status, while maintaining an efficient and economically viable fishing industry. Most Member States have acknowledged that the use of existing management measures, including the reformed Common Fishery Policy (CFP) are the main drivers to achieve GES. The landing obligation is one of the new regulations included in the reformed CFP that is a cause of concern for both fishing industry and environmental NGOs, given the many uncertainties about its exact implementation and potential loopholes. In addition, the MSFD requires the achievement of GES for 11 descriptors, of which 4 are most relevant from a fisheries perspective. Of major influence for the industry will be the aim of the MSFD to achieve GES for descriptors 1 (biodiversity), 4 (food webs) and 6 (seafloor integrity), which cover impacts on the wider ecosystem, and descriptor 3 which addresses the status of exploited fish and shellfish stocks according to three criteria: fishing mortality, stock biomass and size and age structure. The necessity of reaching GES for these 4 descriptors in combination with implementation of a landing obligation requires evaluation of possible implications for the fishing industry in the North Sea. A key element in achieving GES for these 4 descriptors is selectivity. The fishing industry has substantially invested to promote selectivity. This process must be maintained and aided by incentives to further reduce discards. Financial aids should be given to fishermen investing in selective gears. Further incentives could be priority access for fishermen using Page 22 NSRACN NSRAC selective gear, additional quota for fishermen using CCTV cameras, as well as additional measures, such as temporal and spatial closures; as well as moving on incentives. A main source of concern is uncertainty over how TACs and quotas will be adjusted under a landing obligation, or in relation to achieving GES for commercial fish and shellfish. The mixed nature of the catches of most fisheries requires a move from single species advice to mixed fisheries advice. This move however requires knowledge about multispecies interactions within the ecosystem, which is currently still lacking. Also in question is the decision making process to define the priorities for mixed fisheries advice, as currently ICES provides a set of models all based on different potential scenarios. One solution would be a list of priority species to achieve GES on which the choice of model could be based, such as cod. In addition, limiting quota for by-catch species can result in choke species if selectivity does not increase substantially. Species such as dab or ray especially could lead to an early cessation of fishing activities due to quota being fully utilised before the end of the year. The occurrence of choke species, however, remains difficult to predict because this depends heavily on the definition of by-catch species, the adjustments of quota and possible innovations in fishing methods. Another aspect of uncertainty is the determination of the survival percentages for commercial and by-catch species. A high survival rate of a species implies that it can be discarded. This raises the question of who determines the threshold of a high survival rate. If the estimated survival rate is below this threshold all catches must be landed resulting in a 100% mortality of the catch. While recent scientific studies on the use of indicator based assessments have been published, it is important to think carefully about the meaning of GES and how the indicator species and criteria chosen can be brought into line with given policy measures, such as the landing obligation. One example could be the use of the status of certain seabird species as an indicator of GES, as their survival depends on discards. Another might be to define a healthy size structure for a fish stock. Convergence; Setting the Milestones Text on the timetable to implementation to be developed 5. The way forward There is little doubt that the transition from the current arrangements to a fully-fledged landings obligation will be complex, difficult and even painful. It will result in changes to the ecosystem that are only dimly perceived and difficult to predict. It will require behavioural and institutional change, not only from the fishing sector but from fisheries managers, control authorities and fisheries scientists. Page 23 NSRACN NSRAC However as our vision statement makes clear, if handled well, the landing obligation also has the capacity to be the catalyst that brings profound and positive change to the North Sea demersal fisheries. There is much to be gained by the NSRAC continuing to engage with implementation of all the reforms to the Common Fisheries Policy. Page 24 NSRACN NSRAC