Ref. Ares(2019)665120 - 05/02/2019
Ref. Ares(2019)1069189 - 21/02/2019
LITHUANIA’S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO MS ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LANDING OBLIGATION IN 2017
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.
Please specify the measures taken or studies.
Not applicable.
2. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these measures and/or studies apply to?
Not applicable.
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.
Not
applicable.
4. Have you initiated any changes to your quota management system to implement the landing
obligation?
No.
Please specify these changes.
Not applicable.
5. For stocks managed through catch limits, have you conducted a quantitative analysis to identify
potential national choke issues?
No.
Please give details.
Not applicable.
6. Have you pursued any exemptions to the landing obligation (either for high survival or
de minimis) in
the development of regional joint recommendations?
No new exemptions were pursued in 2018.
Please give details of each exemption pursued.
The current discard plans adopted in 2017
(Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/211 of 21 November 2017 establishing a discard
plan as regards salmon in the Baltic Sea and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/306
of 18 December 2017 laying down specifications for the implementation of the landing
obligation as regards cod and plaice in Baltic Sea fisheries) foresee survivability exemption for
cod, plaice and salmon caught with trap-nets, creels/pots, fyke-nets and pound nets, based on
scientific justification provided in 2014.
7. What studies or evidence have you collected or produced in order to support such a request.
Not
applicable, as no new joint recommendations were submitted in 2018.
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?
Not applicable, as de minimis exemptions are
not applied in the Baltic Sea.
9. What has been the utilisation of any granted
de minimis exemptions in the fleet segment/fishery to
which the exemption applies? Please provide the total weight and proportion of catch discarded under
this exemption for each fleet segment/fishery to which an exemption applies.
Not applicable.
10. Have any of your vessels utilised the provision to discard fish which shows damage caused by
predators?
Yes
Please provide the total weight of catch of each species discarded for each fleet segment/fishery
concerned.
The data is available for one vessel, length is over 24 m., operating in 2018:
1
BALTIC SEA, COD – Atlantic cod
YEAR
GEAR
DISCARDS, kg
2018
GNS
1,93
11. For stocks managed by catch limits, did you make use of the provisions for inter-annual or
inter-species flexibility?
No.
Please identify which flexibility (or flexibilities) was used, and the corresponding reallocation of
fishing opportunities for the stocks concerned.
Not applicable.
12. In the development of joint recommendations, has consultation with Advisory Councils and other
relevant stakeholders taken place?
Not applicable, as no new joint recommendations were
submitted in 2018.
Please outline the process of consultation with Advisory Councils.
Please outline the process of consultation with other stakeholders, if relevant.
Not applicable.
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?
Yes.
As the landing obligation for major species in the Baltic Sea came into force in 2015, the main
activities to enhance the knowledge of stakeholders have been carried out in late 2014 and in
2015. During 2018, the fishermen were consulted about the implementation of landing
obligation upon demand.
Please outline the process of ensuring stakeholders understand the obligations that will apply to them.
Consultation of operators and masters of fishing vessels about the legal requirements applied to
their activity and their application (including landing obligation) is conducted according to the
provisions of the Law on Public Administration of Lithuania and is one of the tasks of the
Fisheries Service.
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?
No.
Please specify the measures taken.
Not applicable.
15. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these studies/pilots apply to?
Not applicable.
16. What has the uptake been of these measures in the fleet segments/fisheries to which they are
applicable? Please provide the number and proportion of vessels in the segment/fishery.
Not
applicable.
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?
Yes.
In what format has this information taken:
Initiatives directed to fishermen to improve compliance. Consultations of operators and
masters of fishing vessels on legal requirements were carried out continuously in 2018,
as part of the infringements’ prevention task of the Fisheries Service.
Guidelines on the application of the landing obligation, accurate recording of catches,
etc. No new guidelines were prepared in 2018.
Other. Information on landing obligation and guide to compliance for the fishing
industry is published on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture (in Lithuanian
language)
under
the
heading:
http://zum.lrv.lt/lt/veiklos-sritys/zuvininkyste/bendroji-zuvininkystes-politika
18. Have guidelines been provided by Member States administrations and control agencies for inspectors?
Yes.
In what format has this information taken:
Delivery of guidelines for inspectors on the effective and uniform application of the landing
obligation.
Yes.
Seminars and trainings organized for presenting the guidelines to inspectors at national and
regional level.
Yes.
19. Have new control and monitoring tools been used by Member States?
Yes. Traditional alongside
new control and monitoring tools were used to ensure the compliance with landing obligation.
Please supply information on:
Control tools used in the context of landing obligation, i.e. REM, traditional systems (aerial
surveillance, inspections at sea), reference fleets, etc.
Traditional control tools and systems such as inspections in the sea, on landing, aerial
surveillance were used. Alongside traditional tools the alternative monitoring tool was
also used – monitoring of vessels less than 12 m length through Navy radars monitoring
system. Such tool allows to monitor small vessels which are not equipped with VMS
transponders. In 2018 Navy radar monitoring system was upgraded.
Steps towards implementation of new tools, including electronic monitoring means dedicated
to implementation of landing obligation, haul-by-haul recording, etc.
Not applicable.
20. Have the Member state administrations and control authorities monitored below Minimum
Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) catches at and after landing (traceability)?
Yes.
Please supply information on:
Total number of discards (by fishery, fleet segment) from 2013 to 2018
Baltic sea, Discards, t
YEAR
GEAR COD
FLE
HER
2013
OTB
29
45
8
2013
GNS
4
1
–
2014
OTB
98
93
16
2014
GNS
5
5
–
2015
OTB
–
8,651
0,1
2015
OTM
0,06
2015
GNS
–
0,353
–
2016
GNS
0,410
1,049
-
2016
OTB
–
22,918 0,01
2017
GNS
1
0,6
-
2017
OTB
0,05
16
-
2018
GNS
1,9301
0,53
-
2018
OTB
-
2,157
0,025
Initiatives taken to prevent under MCRS catches from reaching the commercial channels
(pre-notification of landings of under MCRS catches, etc.).
1 Damaged cod fish catches by seals
3
Some fishing vessels voluntary submit pre-notifications of expected landings of under
MCRS catches. Inspections at sea, during landing and regular cross-checking, analysis
and verification of all related data are carried out in accordance with Control
Regulation (EC) No. 1224/2009 to ensure traceability and that catches under MCRS are
not used for direct human consumption. State Food and Veterinary Service carries out
regular checks at retail outlets to ensure that fish under MCRS are sold in accordance
with provisions of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013.
Measures taken to monitor landings at fish markets/auctions adopted.
In Lithuania fishery products can be landed and their first sale can be carried out only
in designated places (approved by the Ministry of Agriculture). The inspections of
landings are carried out in accordance with Control Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (at
least 25% of cod landings are inspected).
21. Has control and monitoring been based on risk assessment?
Yes.
Please supply information on the risk assessment tools used and the results obtained, including those
implemented by the regional Control Expert Groups in cooperation with EFCA.
The risk assessment methodology used has been developed by EFCA, in collaboration with the
MS, within the framework of the Regional Risk Management Project and as previously
communicated to the Baltic JDP Steering Group. The scope of the assessment was focused on
different types of fisheries exploiting the stocks of cod, herring, salmon and sprat in the context
of the Baltic Sea JDP. The assessment was focused on threats classified in groups encompassing
activities that may be in contravention to the legislation in force and similar in their essential
attributes. Assessment results presented to the Baltic Sea JDP Steering Group to facilitate the
planning for the control activities and to support Member States national risk analysis with
regards to their specific vessels belonging to a relevant fleet segment.
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?
Yes
Please give details of the fisheries covered and the extent of sampling.
Baltic Sea Cod fishery was covered by executing 2 “last haul” inspections. Samplings were done.
Information on the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation
23. Using the most appropriate indicators defined below, provide information on the socioeconomics
impacts on:
• The catching sector:
• Upstream businesses:
• Processors:
• Consumption and markets:
• Costs for Member States:
Bycatch rates are low in Baltic sea fishing sector. Therefore no significant socio-economics impact
identified.
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.
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents. Can you quantify these in terms of:
• Number of deaths or serious injuries.
Not applicable.
• No of vessels involved as a % of the specific fleet segment.
Not applicable.
25. Have there been any reported incidents of overloading of vessels forcing them to return to port early?
No.
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents.
Not applicable.
26. Have there been any reported incidents or accidents on board vessels that can be attributable to
excessive workload?
No.
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents or accidents.
Not applicable.
27. Has any national legislation relating to safety on board fishing vessels arising from the landing
obligation been amended or introduced?
No.
Please provide details of this legislation.
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.
Lithuania has not chosen to implement Article 32 of EMFF in
Operational programme for Lithuania’s Fisheries Sector for 2014-2020.
If yes, please specify the number of projects involved and the nature of the measures taken
.
If no, have any measures been taken which have not been funded under the EMFF?
No.
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?
The most popular ways to use catches below the minimum conservation reference size are the
same as in previous years, i.e. fishmeal, pet food and animal feed. The use of these catches
depends on the features of local market around the port of landing, in particular the availability
of specialized firms and processing facilities. The part of the catches below MCRS are sent to
Latvia, the biggest share used in Lithuania.
Can you quantify these catches by species in terms of volumes, price per ton and associated costs for
the different outlets such catches have been sent?
2018
Lithuania
Latvia
BMS (cod) - below MCRS (kg)
5735
105
Average price per 1kg (Eur)
0,175
0,15
30. Have you carried out any studies or pilot projects considering the potential uses for such catches?
No.
Please provide details of such studies or pilot projects.
Not applicable.
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
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
The call for
applications for support under Article 38 of the Operational Programme of Lithuania’s
Fisheries Sector for 2014-2020 was carried out in 2017 and 2018. In total 17 applications for the
support have been received. 12 applications were approved as eligible. Total sum of the
contracts signed is 213 807 EUR. The majority of investments are tailored to fishing gear to
improve selectivity and eliminate discards. 210 243 EUR was paid to beneficiaries.
32. Have you provided 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?
Not yet.
5
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
Not applicable.
33. Have you provided funding under Articles 68 and 69 of the EMFF for investment in marketing
measures and the processing of fishery and aquaculture products?
Not yet.
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
Not applicable.
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, such as:
•
Avoidance and/or selectivity insufficient to avoid unwanted catches
•
Handling, storage and processing of unwanted catches
•
Lack of funding to adapt fishing gears, vessels or port infrastructure
Difficulties relating to monitoring, control and enforcement, such as:
•
Lack of understanding or awareness of the rules
•
Difficulties implementing and monitoring
de minimis or high survivability exemptions
•
Implementation problems with regard to control/monitoring processes or infrastructure (e.g.
adaptation of ERS systems)
•
Refusal to carry observers.
Difficulties in fully utilising fishing opportunities, such as:
•
Problems re-allocating quota to cover catches previously not landed
•
Problems with the timing or availability of quota swaps
•
Fisheries being forced to close early due to choke problems
Lithuanian fisheries sector and administration responsible for control have not indicated major
difficulties in 2018 related to the implementation of the landing obligation.
Questions concerning control and enforcement, added in the questionnaire send in 2018
Additionally reply to the following two questions:
35. How is the effective control and enforcement of the landing obligation at sea and the accurate
documentation of all catches, including quantities discarded, ensured?
During inspections at sea inspectors checked the accuracy of all catch documentation
under the landing obligation (stowage, separation and weights). In case of “last haul”
inspection figures found are included in inspection report and by attaching “last haul”
report. Also, in 2018 within frame of Baltic Sea JDP specific actions “last haul” data was
submitted to the shore teams in landing Member States for inspection on landing and
verifying facts and figures found at sea.
36. How many suspected and confirmed infringements, related to the landing obligation, have
been detected at sea and at landing/marketing? In cases of confirmed infringements please
indicate the circumstances of the offence and the sanctions applied, including penalty points.
In 2018 no infringements, related to the landing obligation, were detected.