Ref. Ares(2017)3197313 - 26/06/2017
Date: 2017-01-30
Dnr: 4047-16
Annual report on the implementation of the landing obligation
in Sweden
Referring to the request of DG Mare (ref: Ares(2016)6601248-24/11/2016) Sweden hereby
reports on the progress achieved in the implementation of the Landing Obligation (LO).
General comments
Achieving a level playing field is complicated by diverging interpretations by member
states of different relevant regulations.
Steps taken by Member States and producer organisations to comply with the landing
obligation
1. Have you initiated, supported, participated in or implemented any measures and/or
studies relating to the avoidance of unwanted catches through spatial or temporal
changes to fishing behaviour (for example, studies/pilots on real time closures)?
- No.
2. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these measures and/or studies apply to?
- N/a. See question 1.
3. What has the uptake of these measures and/or studies been in the fleet
segments/fisheries to which they are applicable? Please provide the number and
proportion of vessels in the segment/fishery.
- N/a. See question1.
4. Have you initiated any changes to your quota management system to implement the
landing obligation?
- Yes. A new system to allocate fishing opportunities was introduced from
January 1 2017 in order to create conditions for the Swedish fleet to comply
with the landing obligation. The new system replaces the previous system in
which the possibility to transfer fishing possibilities was lacking. The new
system is based on yearly allocation of individual fishing opportunities. The
fishing opportunities may, with some limitations, be transferred between
individual fishermen during the year.
5. For stocks managed through catch limits, have you conducted a quantitative
analysis to identify potential national choke issues?
- Yes. A quantitative analysis has been performed based on scientific data on
estimated discards/catches.
6. Have you pursued any exemptions to the landing obligation (either for high
survival or de minimis) in the development of regional joint recommendations?
- Yes, for details please refer to the joint recommendations submitted, namely the
joint recommendations by the Scheveningen group for a demersal discard plan
for the North Sea (2016) and for pelagic and industrial fisheries (2014), as well
as the JR for a discard plan for the Baltic Sea submitted by Baltfish 2014.
7. What studies or evidence have you collected or produced in order to support such a
request.
- See question 6.
8. What steps have you taken to ensure the amount discarded under granted de
minimis exemptions does not exceed the permitted volume in the delegated act?
- Sweden has regularly throughout the year (2016) monitored the reported
amounts discard that fit under the de minimis in order to monitor the
established limits are not exceeded.
9. What has been the utilisation of any granted de minimis exemptions in the fleet
segment/fishery to which the exemption applies?
- During 2016 Sweden have only had a small amount reported as de minimis. In
trawl fishery with grid for Norway lobster of total 2 645 kg common sole 10 kg
(0.4%) was reported as de minimis.
10. Have any of your vessels utilised the provision to discard fish which shows damage
caused by predators?
- Sweden has data on estimated quantities of predator damaged fish, though this
has not been mandatory reporting until 2016. From 2017, it is mandatory for
Swedish fishermen to report this under a specific national code (ROV).
The following list outlines the information reported in passive gear, by species
for 2016, on predator damaged fish (seal bitten). A total of 137 vessels have
reported predator damaged fish.
Species
Quantity (kg)
(Alpha 3-code)
BBB
2 021
COD
181 125
CRE
3
ELE
120
FLE
3 542
FPE
1 298
FPI
9 718
FPP
13
GGG
133
HER
3 898
MAC
460
MQS
10
MZZ
22 586
PLE
5
SAL
379
TRS
815
TUR
6 545
WHF
1 409
WHG
2
TOTAL
234 082
11. For stocks managed by catch limits, did you make use of the provisions for inter-
annular inter-species flexibility?
- Yes, Sweden has used the inter-annular flexibility.
12. In the development of joint recommendations, has consultation with Advisory
Councils and other relevant stakeholders taken place?
- For details concerning regional consultation by the Scheveningen group and
Baltfish in relation to the Advisory Councils please refer to the relevant joint
recommendations. Concerning national consultation ongoing consultations at
organised meetings have been held with the national stakeholder organisations
for commercial fishery.
13. Following the adoption of the delegated act for a discard plan, have steps been
taken to ensure adequate understanding among stakeholders of their obligations
under the provisions of the act?
- The national agency responsible for implementation of the CFP (Swedish
Agency for Marine and Water Management) has sent information to all
commercial fishermen holding a fishing license. The agency has also organised
information meetings with stakeholders in collaboration with related national
authorities (the national agency for Agriculture and the University for
Agricultural Sciences (SLU), and published detailed information and guides on
the webpage.
14. Are there any other steps not covered by the questions above that you have carried
out to effect compliance with the provisions of the landing obligation?
- Sweden has administered approximately 1 million euro per year (2014-2017) to
gear development projects initiated by the stakeholders in order to facilitate the
implementation of the landing obligation. Please see annual report (in
Swe
dish): http://www.slu.se/globalassets/ew/org/inst/aqua/externwebb/sidan-
publikationer/aqua-reports-2016/aqua-report-2016_8-selektivt-fiske_small.pdf
15. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these studies/pilots apply to?
- See question 14.
16. What has the uptake been of these measures in the fleet segments/fisheries to which
they are applicable?
- Some of the gears developed (see question 14) are now used in commercial
fishery, for instance trawls separating roundfish and flatfish and pelagic trawls
with selective grids for saithe.
Steps taken by Member States regarding control of compliance with the
landing obligation
17. Has information been provided by Member States administrations and control
agencies to fishermen?
- SWaM has sent information (letters and electronic messages) to all commercial
fishermen holding a fishing license. The agency has also organised information
meetings with stakeholders in collaboration with related national authorities and
published detailed information and guides on the webpage.
To facilitate the recording in paper logbook, Sweden has an updated layout with
preprinted codes (such as LSC, BMS). Instructions and manuals are sent to all
fishermen concerned and they were also invited to visit the agency to get
personal help with their logbook-questions.
The software for electronic reporting (vCatch) has been updated to allow for
catch accounting due to the landing obligation.
18. Have guidelines been provided by Member States administrations and control
agencies for inspectors?
- In autumn 2016 there was a two-day-seminar for all Swedish inspectors. The
seminar was organised by/in cooperation with EFCA and contained topics such
as the landing obligation. More details can be read in the draft report from
EFCA, Annex I
19. Have new control and monitoring tools been used by Member States?
- Sweden has taken part in the regional control work to develop a control tool
scoring matrix with the outcome that CCTV systems or observer programmes
are the most efficient tools in achieving compliance with the LO. These control
tools are currently not used in Swedish fisheries control. Until a more efficient
control system is in place Sweden continues to apply a risk-based approach in
its landing and administrative control, respectively. The shift at the beginning
of 2016 from set control benchmarks to a control based on qualified risk
assessments will enable a more effective control of compliancy.
In addition, the Swedish Coastguard has carried out last haul observations as a
mean to compare reported catch of undersized cod with observed catch. SWaM
and the Coastguard has also continued to work with joint inspections during
specific times of the year. These joint inspections have focused on certain
species and risks, respectively, in an attempt to cover fishing activities in an
entire fishing trip. Inspections at sea are followed by an inspection in port, to
verify that the catch in the “last haul” also is landed. Sweden has a more
detailed instruction to their last haul then the one used in the JDP. The last haul
method and analysis of data will be further developed during 2017.
20. Have the Member state administrations and control authorities monitored below
Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) catches at and after landing
(traceability)?
- There is a very low volume of catches below MCRS landed (for example 1.9 %
in the trawl fisheries for cod in the Baltic Sea) when compared to that of
approximately 20% observed in the last haul inspections.
Total reported discard in Sweden
Year
Geartype
Catch (kg)
Discard
Discard (%)
2013
FPO
554 555
34 001
6,1%
Total 0,09%
FIX
624 484
36 521
5,8%
GN
3 506 765
25 093
0,7%
LL
658 285
2 927
0,4%
SDN
181 105
0,0%
OT
157 681 992
3 243
0,0%
PS
13 539 521
0,0%
OTH
153 893
70
0,0%
2014
FPO
569 236
36 204
6,4%
Total 0,10%
FIX
549 060
17 231
3,1%
GN
3 673 337
30 495
0,8%
LL
474 787
2 310
0,5%
SDN
243 435
0,0%
OT
152 509 319
5 072
0,0%
PS
13 851 882
0,0%
OTH
60 257
500
0,8%
2015
FPO
602 415
17 482
2,9%
Total 0,12%
FIX
508 401
24 886
4,9%
GN
3 396 594
11 361
0,3%
LL
414 853
1 404
0,3%
SDN
221 513
0,0%
OT
180 849 688
5 663
0,0%
PS
15 899 447
0,0%
OTH
58 996
0,0%
2016
FPO
562 925
7 541
1,3%
Total 0,14%
FIX
538 854
30 242
5,6%
GN
3 429 737
17 863
0,5%
LL
389 460
1 905
0,5%
SDN
271 008
0,0%
OT
175 108 871
13 551
0,0%
PS
14 204 800
0,0%
OTH
7 198
0,0%
21. Has control and monitoring been based on risk assessment?
- Control and monitoring in Sweden is since 2016 based on compliance levels.
The risk categories are based on the same categories used in the regional risk
assessment for JDP and the regional Control Expert Groups in cooperation with
EFCA. During 2016 an automated system for risk assessment has been
developed. More details can be read in the draft report from EFCA, Annex I
22. Has the “last observed haul” approach elaborated by EFCA as a tool for monitoring
the implementation of the landing obligation and to derive potential targets for
inspection been used?
- The Swedish Coastguard has conducted “last haul inspections” within the JDP
framework since 2014. See question 19 for details about last haul. Since there
still is a widespread lack of understanding of the LO, all vessels are equally
interesting at the moment, in order to gather data as well as to inform about the
LO. The more data and information we receive about the LO, the greater the
possibility of using the last haul to point out potential targets for inspection is.
There is also a need for regional cooperation to decide when a vessel is
considered to be a potential target with regards to the LO. More details can be
read in the draft report from EFCA, Annex I
Number of last haul inspections
2014
2015
2016
Baltic Sea - demersal
16
16
25
North Sea - demersal
-
18
Information on the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation
23. Using the most appropriate indicators defined below, provide information on the
socioeconomics
- Considering the very low quantities of catch reported under MCRS and the fact
that the fisheries under LO in 2016 have small problems with choke species, we
see no socioeconomic impact of the LO for Swedish fisheries so far.
Information on the effect of the landing obligation on safety on board
fishing vessels
24. Have there been any reported incidents of overloading of vessels causing stability
problems?
- No.
25. Have there been any reported incidents of overloading of vessels forcing them to
return to port early?
- No.
26. Have there been any reported incidents or accidents on board vessels that can be
attributable to excessive workload?
- No.
27. Has any national legislation relating to safety on board fishing vessels arising from
the landing obligation been amended or introduced?
- No.
28. Have you provided or received any funding under Article 32 (Health and safety) of
EMFF or Article 3 (Eligible operations on safety) and Article 6 (Eligible operations
on working conditions) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/531 to
mitigate against potential safety issues caused by the landing obligation?
- No.
If no, have any measures been taken which have not been funded under the EMFF?
- To the knowledge of the Swedish Board of Agriculture no measures has been
taken that not have been funded under the EMFF.
Information on the use and outlets of catches below the minimum
conservation reference size of a species subject to the landing obligation
29. What have been the main reported uses and destinations for catches below mcrs?
Can you quantify these catches by species in terms of volumes, price per tonne and
associated costs for the different outlets such catches have been sent?
- As stated above, reported catch below MCRS were small in 2016 as well as in
2015. The catches of demersal species under MCRS have mainly been used for
fodder
30. Have you carried out any studies or pilot projects considering the potential uses for
such catches?
- No.
Information on port infrastructures and of vessels’ fitting with regard to
the landing obligation for each fishery concerned
31. Have you provided funding under Article 38 of the EMFF for modifications on
board vessels for the handling of catches on board?
- Yes. Sweden has granted 551 807 SEK to 8 different projects concerning
investments in for example selective gear, purchase of gillnet and transition
from bottom trawling to semi-pelagic fisheries.
32. Have you provide funding under Article 43 of the EMFF for investment in the
infrastructure of fishing ports, auction halls and shelters for the handling of
unwanted catches?
- No.
33. Have you provide funding under Articles 68 and 69 of the EMFF for investment in
marketing measures and the processing of fishery and aquaculture products?
- Yes. Sweden has granted 7 278 250 SEK to 20 different projects concerning
investments for example MSC-certification, formation of producer
organizations and investments in existing production.
Information on the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the
landing obligation and recommendations to address them
34. Please provide information on the following:
Operational difficulties:
- Based on DCF-data and logbook data SE has looked into the possibility to
increase selectivity for a number of stocks. It is also a challenge to manage the
quota for a number of stocks and a number of tools need to be implemented. To
address the issues SE has conducted (and conducts) a number of selectivity
projects to allow a tool box of gears for fishermen, also a new system for quota
management is implemented as of January 2017 (please see above).
- The Swedish fishermen experience that the technical regulations are inhibitory in
some parts when concerning selectivity. The fishermen also state that they have
not experienced any problems with storage on board so far. However they have
expressed some concerns that the situation may change when the LO is fully in
place.
Difficulties relating to monitoring, control and enforcement:
- Sweden agrees with the answers and recommendations from EFCA, produced
in cooperation with the Scheveningen and NWW Control Expert Groups, see
Annex II.
Difficulties in fully utilising fishing opportunities:
- The extent of these difficulties will become more apparent as the landing
obligation is gradually covering more fisheries. The new system to allocate
fishing opportunities is expected to mitigate early closures of fisheries, but the
challenge of choke species will likely remain on an individual level.