This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Access to Member State documents on implementation of the landing obligation in 2016'.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ref. Ares(2017)808342 - 14/02/2017 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MARITIME AFFAIRS AND 
FISHERIES 
POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND CO-ORDINATION 
STRUCTURAL POLICY AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 
Questionnaire to MS on the implementation of the landing obligation 
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)? Yes/No Please specify the measures taken or studies. 
Yes. The Thiinen Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries (OF) has conducted one in-depth analysis on the 
role ofplaice as choke species in Baltic Sea demersal fisheries, along with potential solutions. The 
study was issued by the European Parliament and is publicly available (at 
http://www.e
uroparl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/563399/IPOL_STU(2015)56339 
9_EN.pdf). One aspect of the study was the avoidance ofplaice through a change in the temporal 
and/or special pattern of fishing. The results were promising, albeit the effect on reducing unwanted 
bycatch were higher with technical developments (more selective gear). Also, the authors identified 
that the resolution of their date (mainly by ICES statistical rectangle) was not sufficient to derive 
clear guidelines for changed behaviour of the fishery. It is expected though that the fishery has access 
to data in much higher resolution. 

As said above, modified gears proved to be very effective in reducing unwanted bycatch. OF 
conducted a number of studies and field experiments relevant for the implementation of the landing 
obligation over the last 3 years in different fisheries, namely: 
•  the reduction of unwanted flatfish bycatch in mixed demersal trawl fisheries in the Baltic 
•  the reduction of unwanted roundfish/cod bycatch in mixed demersal trawl fisheries in the Baltic 
•  the reduction of unwanted bycatch in brown shrimp beam trawl fisheries in the North Sea 
•  the reduction of unwanted by catch in the Nephrops fishery in the North Sea and 
Kattegat/Skagerrak. 

The results of these studies were very promising, specifically when it comes to improving multi-
species selectivity (i.e. catching the wanted size range of the target species but excluding unwanted 
bycatch), either utilizing differences in morphology or in behavior of the different species. The 
research team focused on cost effectiveness (modifications of the gear should be as cheap as possible) 
and ease of practical use. In the first approach, for example, flatfish bycatch in demersal Baltic 
fisheries could be reduced by 80%, using a gear called FLEX, which is a modification of 
conventional tunnels worth less than 200 €. The sorting efficiency could even be increased to 90% 
with the inclusion of a rigidframe, however with a higher cost. In addition, the fisher could decide on 
a haul-by-haul basis whether flatfish should be caught or released. In 2016 OF successfully adapted 
FLEX to perform in the opposite way. The new device called I-FLEX aims at catching flatfish while 
reducing cod catches significantly. Also, a gear called SORTEX was developed, a system which 
integrates the two concepts described above. SORTEX is basically a SORTing Extension able to split 


roundfish and flatfish into separate codends. The high sorting efficiency of SORTEX demonstrated in 
experimental fishing would enable fishermen to adapt their exploitation patterns without further 
modifications of their gear. For example, a fisherman could largely avoid the catches of flatfish 
simply by opening the lower codend during towing, while keeping the upper codend closed to catch 
cod. The opposite strategy could be easily done in the following haul, if a fisherman decided to catch 
cod avoiding flatfish. 

2.  Which fleet segments/fisheries do these measures and/or studies apply to? 
See answer to question 1 - for the spatio-temporal changes, only the Baltic mixed groundflsh fishery 
was analysed; the list is longer for gear modifications (as provided above). 

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. 
Since the study for the European Parliament was conducted (in 2015), the status of Baltic cod stocks 
deteriorated and catch opportunities had to be reduced significantly, while the plaice stocks in the 
Baltic are thriving and their catch opportunities could be doubled. Focus shifted therefore from an 
avoidance ofplaice bycatch to an avoidance of cod bycatch. This has limited the uptake of the 
recommendations and technical developments, but the same rules can also apply to the reduction of 
other species in the mix. The interest of the fishery specifically in the technical developments for 
flatfish reduction is high, and it appears likely that gears reducing cod bycatch will gain attraction 
once this bycatch becomes restrictive. This is expected to happen later in the year. 

4.  Have you initiated any changes to your quota management system to implement the landing 
obligation? Yes/no Please specify these changes. 
Yes. Since 2014 Germany endeavours continuously to avoid too detailed catch rules and to replace 
them by general rules, for instance to accommodate for unavoidable by-catches. In cooperation with 
the fishing industry this works quite well as there are regular contacts with the industry on the 
current catch compositions in the target fisheries 

5.  For stocks managed through catch limits, have you conducted a quantitative analysis to identify 
potential national choke issues? Yes/No 
Please give details. 
Yes, in 2013 a so-called discard atlas on the catch data of 2012 was produced with a view to identify 
potential choke species. There are regular contacts with the industry on problems related to the 
landing obligation, the stocks concerned and by-catch allowance needed. 

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/No 
Please give details of each exemption pursued. 
Yes. As far as the German fishery is concerned, exemptions to the landing obligation both for high 
survival and de minimis were agreed in the regional groups for the North Sea (Scheveningen Group) 
and the Baltic Sea (Baltfish). The joint recommendations of these groups to that effect have been 
transposed by the Commission in the relevant delegated acts into applicable EU law. 

7.  What studies or evidence have you collected or produced in order to support such a request. 
So far the requests for exemptions were presented by the most interested Member States based on 
studies of their relevant scientific institutions. Germany did not initiate any of these requests in 
particular. 


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? 
The attention of the industry is drawn regularly to its obligation to register all by-catches falling 
under a de minimis exemption. As there is as yet no reporting obligation to the Commission on 
discards under de minimis exemptions and no entry field in the electronic logbook, monitoring was 
organised at national level. Fishermen were advised to enter DIM in the observation field of the 
logbook. 

9.  What has been the utilisation of any granted de minimis exemptions in the fleet segment/flshery 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. 
The de minimis exemption for Norway lobster of up to 6% according to Regulation (EU) no. 
2015/2440 was used by 0,6% (i.e. catch of 861.9t and de minimis of 5.3t; however data collection for 
2016 is not yet finalized). 
With respect to the de minimis exemption for boarfish according to Regulation (EU) no. 1393/2014 
Germany discarded 4t. 

10.  Have any of your vessels utilised the provision to discard fish which shows damage caused by 
predators? Yes/No 
Please provide the total weight of catch of each species discarded for each fleet segment/fishery 
concerned. 
No. 
11.  For stocks managed by catch limits, did you make use of the provisions for inter-annual or inter-
species flexibility? Yes/No 
Please identify which flexibility (or flexibilities) was used, and the corresponding reallocation of 
fishing opportunities for the stocks concerned. 
a.  As to the inter-annual flexibility according to Article 15(9) of Regulation (EU) no. 1380/2013 the 
Commission transferred in 2016 remaining quotas of 2015 for all possible stocks of all Member 
States even without a request by Member States. As to Germany an overutilisation has occurred in 
2016 for the mackerel stock MAC/2CX14. 

b.  So far Germany has not made use of the inter-species flexibility. Following consultations among 
Member States this possibility is only to be used as a last resort for the implementation of the landing 
obligation in view of its potential impact on the stocks. Before that all possible means as f. ex. 
international quota swaps should be used. 

12.  In the development of joint recommendations, has consultation with Advisory Councils and other 
relevant stakeholders taken place? Yes/No 
Please outline the process of consultation with Advisory Councils. 
Please outline the process of consultation with other stakeholders, if relevant. 
Consultations with the Advisory Councils occur regularly in the preparation of a joint 
recommendation. It is undertaken by the incumbent chair of the different regional groups on their 
behalf when the draft for a joint recommendation is reasonably advanced but when there is still time 
to take on board any pertinent observations of the Advisory Councils. As Advisory 
Councils are supposed to also reflect stakeholders others than the industry itself, no other process of 
consultation with other stakeholders is being undertaken, nor is it considered necessary. 

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/No 

Please outline the process of ensuring stakeholders understand the obligations that will apply to them. 
As a first step questions on the interpretation of individual articles were clarified in the regional 
groups. In the Baltflsh group a flyer was prepared to explain the discard plans to the industry in an 
illustrative manner. On this basis, Germany developed its own flyers for the Baltic Sea andfor the 
North Sea as well. Apart from that an internet portal was opened in which questions on the landing 
obligation can be raised. The answers to these questions are published on the internet portal. 
Furthermore the fisheries protection vessels as well as the competent authorities at federal and 
regional level are available, i.a. by way of meetings, for extensive information on the implementation 
of the landing obligation. 

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? Yes/No 
Please specify the measures taken. 
Over several years, in the cod fishery pilot projects under scientific control were undertaken for the 
monitoring of the landing obligation by cameras (so calledfully documentedfishery) 

15.  Which fleet segments/fisheries do these studies/pilots apply to? 
Such studies were made in the segment of larger cutters targeting cod. 
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. 
As part of the fully documentedfishery fishing vessels equipped with cameras were allocated 
additional cod quotas in line with the relevant TAC and quota regulations at the time. This concerned 
two vessels above 24m fishing for saithe and cod. However, with the next level of the landing 
obligation the possibility for allocating additional cod is not available anymore. The scientific 
Thiinen institute analysed the data finding that the fully documented fishery system is capable of 
producing much more detailed data than the electronic logbook 

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/no 
In what format has this information taken: 
•  Initiatives directed to fishermen to improve compliance 
•  Guidelines on the application of the landing obligation, accurate recording of catches, etc. 
•  Other 
Yes. On the website of the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) www, ble, de/fischerei a 
flyer with an extensive explanation of the landing obligation was published. On this website there is 
also a link to the questions and replies portal on fisheries on the internet. 

18.  Have guidelines been provided by Member States administrations and control agencies 
for inspectors? Yes/no 
In what format has this information taken: 
•  Delivery of guidelines for inspectors on the effective and uniform application of the landing 
obligation. 
•  Seminars and trainings organised for presenting the guidelines to inspectors at national and 
regional level. 
Yes. 

Regional workshops for inspectors were organised for the North Sea on 8-9 March 2016 and in the 
Baltic  Sea  on  5-6  October  for  standardising  the  implementation  of  the  LO  in  the  framework  of  the 
North Sea and Baltic Sea JDPs. 
The following topics have been dealt with during the training workshop: 

-  Omnibus regulation 
-  Discard plans 
-  Guidelines for last haul inspections 
-  MS Exchange of experience on the landing obligation 
-  Data collection procedures 

Furthermore in  2015, upon request  of  Baltjish, EFCA assisted Member States in  the preparation of 
guidelines for inspectors in the context of the introduction of the LO in the Baltic Sea. In 201
these 
will be reviewed. 

At national level, information flyers were conceived as guidelines both for the industry and control 
services. At the end of 2016 a specific seminar for inspectors was organised in Damp (Northern 
Germany) in which the Commission, federal and regional authorities could exchange their 
experiences. 

19.  Have new control and monitoring tools been used by Member States? Yes/no 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. 
•  Steps towards implementation of new tools, including electronic monitoring means dedicated to 
implementation of landing obligation, haul-by-haul recording, etc. 
The existing data bases have regularly been searched for entries on undersizedfish („ bms “) as well 
as on discards („ dis “) and de minimis discards (“dim ”). It was tried to identify areas with higher 
rates of undersized fish with the view of concentrating controls there. 
The  introduction  of  remote  electronic  monitoring  (CCTV)  on  larger  pelagic  vessels  is  being 
studied.  Its  implementation  will  depend  i.a.  on  similar  actions  by  other  Member  States  whose 
vessels are operating in the same fisheries. 

20.  Have the Member state administrations and control authorities monitored below Minimum 
Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) catches at and after landing (traceability)? Yes/No 
Please supply information on: 
•  Total number of discards (by fishery, fleet segment) from 2013 to 2016 See 
Annex 3
 
•  Initiatives taken to prevent under MCRS catches from reaching the commercial 
channels (pre-notification of landings of under MCRS catches, etc.). 
Apart from monitoring data of undersized fish (‘BMS’) by federal authorities the competent 
authorities of the regions (‘Lander ) surveil that undersized fish does not reach the market for direct 
human consumption. 

•  Measures taken to monitor landings at fish markets/auctions adopted. 
Cross-checks of data from logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes are done with the aim to 
discover any possible marketing of undersized fish. The necessary controls are undertaken by the 
regional authorities. 

21.  Has control and monitoring been based on risk assessment? Yes/no 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. 
Yes 
In  cooperation  with  the  JDP  Steering  Group  and  the  regional  Control  Expert  Group  (CEG)  of  the 
Scheveningen  Group  and  Baltfish,  EFCA  developed  a  methodology  for  risk  assessment.  The 
methodology follows the structure of weighing the likelihood of occurrence of noncompliance against 
the potential impact on the stock. 
In order to be able to perform this risk assessment for the fisheries concerned, EFCA  has produced 
factsheets by fleet segments to compile and update all relevant information available for each fishery. 
Fisheries segments were defined together with the CEGs and the Steering Groups. These fact sheets 
contain  descriptions  and  tables  on:  gear,  target  species,  discarding,  fishing  season,  fishing  vessels 
flag  states,  fishing  areas,  stock  status,  allocation  of  the  TAC,  applicable  regulations,  catches  in 
previous year and risk characterisation. 
During a joint session between experts nominees by the CEGs and members of the Steering Groups, 
the risk assessment was performed by fleet segment for non-compliance with the LO for the JDP 
species and in the North Sea additionally for fisheries identified in a request of the Scheveningen 
CEG (other demersal species in the North Sea). The outcome of the risk assessments (annex 1 for the 
North Sea and annex 2 for the Baltic Sea) has been a key input for the recommendations developed by 
the regional CEGs andfor the planning of the JDPs in both areas. 

Also on national level control and monitoring have been based on risk assessment. Where new 
potential risks were identified that were not linked to a particular data basis, new data bases were 
established. This analytical evaluation has been conceived for permanent evolution and the 
possibility for easy modifications as the identified risk scenarios and the fisheries rules are subject to 
permanent changes 
The risk scenarios of individual vessels is being analysed with separate data bases which are 
incorporated in a so-called Live RatingSystem in a modular form. Each of these analysis modules 
issues risk points for vessels with noticeable results which relate to the identified risk using traffic 
light colours. 
The following risks are analysed: 

•  overshooting of the tolerance margin 
•  JDP results 
•  results of other control activities 
•  catch evaluation 
•  fishing in closed areas 
•  misreporting of catch areas 
•  tempering with engine power 
•  results of last hauls 
•  evaluation of various observations of inspectors relating to risks in inspection reports (f. ex. 
“amount of discards is not logical”) 
On the basis of this LiveRatingSystem a list of negative high scores is established in which the 
individual results are incorporated. As a consequence this high score list is related to an individual 
fishing vessel and takes stock of its actual risk level. Consequently every fishing vessel can rise or fall 
on this list in line with its identified catch behaviour. 
The so-called „ target lists “in view of common controls with other Member States result from the 
outcome of this system. When the risk is not real anymore the vessel is immediately deleted from the 
“target list”. However, it continues to appear in the LifeRating list. 
The results of the LiveRating system can also be applied to a fleet segment. In this context the system 
uses several levels from “low” to “high”. This way the highest possible flexibility in the risk analysis 
and a better use of the system is achieved. 


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/No 
Please give details of the fisheries covered and the extent of sampling. 
Yes 
The last observed haul methodology has been developed to: 

•  Estimate the likelihood of non-compliance with the provisions of the LO for risk assessment, 
•  Share information between MS on catch composition rates across the different fisheries 
segments and 
•  Facilitate the evaluation of compliance with the LO provisions. 
This is implemented through the JDP in cooperation with the Member States inspection services. 
The  data  derived  from  the  last  observed  haul  inspections  is  combined  with  other  available  data  on 
catches and discards and is being used as input for risk assessment exercises. In the medium to long 
term,  the  data  collected  through  the  last  haul  scheme  would  serve  as  a  baseline  for  preparing  the 
development of a compliance evaluation tool in the context of the landing obligation. 
In the North Sea area, also gramme size and grade size analysis projects were tested for collecting 
catch  composition  data.  The  grade  size  project  has  been  focused  in  this  initial  phase  on  North  Sea 
Cod landed during the first semester of 2016. This project could use the tool of a reference fleet in the 
North Sea as a number of vessels have CCTV on board. The sales note figures of these vessels have 
been compared to those of поп-CCTV vessels, showing differences in catch composition that need to 
be  further  analysed.  In  the  medium  to  long  term,  the  data  collected  through  these  schemes  would 
serve as a baseline for preparing the development of a compliance evaluation tool in the context of 
the landing obligation. 
For pelagic fisheries in the North Sea subject to the landing obligation, a ‘ ’gramme size analysis” 
project has been implemented, as a tool for collecting catch composition data. The project was 
englobed in the framework of the WW JDP and the SG decided to initiate it in the Mackerel campaign 
in IVa in 2016. This will be continued into 2017. The gramme size analysis uses the data from the 
electronic logbook, production logbooks from the vessels and the sales notes, which contain 
information on the average gramme sizes of the fish. The goal is to develop a tool for risk assessment 
by comparing the size distribution in fleet segments targeting pelagic species. 
In the Baltic Sea area the cooperation between Member States and EFCA in the implementation of 
the LO has been quite successful since it started in 2014. The last haul scheme has been embedded in 
the Baltic Sea JDP and the data collection is being implemented routinely by national inspectors. The 
data collected at regional level is shared with all MS so it can also feed national risk management 
programmes. 

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 
The pelagic fisheries have low bycatch rates and do not face major challenges due to the landing 
obligation. A similar situation applies to the saithe fishery. The fishing pattern can be adjusted in a 
way that unwanted bycatch is avoided. Juvenile and mature saithe often do not occur in the same 
area. As the fishery is able to shift, quota choke species have not been a major issue. 
A certain practice of discarding is likely to persist, mainly of undersized cod. Lowering the minimum 


landing size from 38 cm to 35 cm lowered the amount of fish below minimum landing size. So far no 
considerable limitations to fishing activities due to the landing obligation have been observed. 

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? 
Yes/No 
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents. 
Can you quantify these in terms of: 
•  Number of deaths or serious injuries 

•  No of vessels involved as a % of the specific fleet segment 
No incidents are known. 
25.  Have there been any reported incidents of overloading of vessels forcing them to return to port 
early? Yes/No 
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents. 
No incidents are known. 
26.  Have there been any reported incidents or accidents on board vessels that can be attributable to 
excessive workload? Yes/No 
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents or accidents. 
No incidents or accidents are known. 
27.  Has any national legislation relating to safety on board fishing vessels arising from the landing 
obligation been amended or introduced? Yes/No 
Please provide details of this legislation. 
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? Yes/No 
If yes, please specify the number of projects involved and the nature of the measures taken. 
No. 
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 mers? 
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? 

Most undersizedfish was used for the production offish meal. 
Undersized catches in 2016: In total 94t of which 
25t distant water fleet: in particular pelagic species such as mackerel. 
69t cutter fleet: in particular cod, but also saithe and mackerel 

30.  Have you carried out any studies or pilot projects considering the potential uses for such 
catches? Yes/No 
Please provide details of such studies or pilot projects. 

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/No 
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects. 
No. 
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? Yes/No 
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects. 
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/No Please specify the number, 
nature and total amount invested in such projects. 
In the preceding period German fish processing companies received 697,990.92€ in funds from 2012-
2015for the establishment of a traceability system. For the current period requests for EMFF funds 
are administered by the regions (Bundesländer) 

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 
Scientific research to improve selectivity and escape possibilities is under way. However, more 
selective nets are not used in all fisheries as yet. Continued research and subsequent implementation 
of its results in relevant EU regulations could still bring about further improvements. 

•  Handling, storage and processing of unwanted catches See question 20 
•  Lack of funding to adapt fishing gears, vessels or port infrastructure 
There has been one project in the past for the improvement ofport infrastructure. Under the new 
EMFF funds are available for the adaptation offishing gear, vessels and port infrastructure. 

Difficulties relating to monitoring, control and enforcement, such as: 
•  Lack of understanding or awareness of the rules 

In the North Sea the very detailed rules of the various discard plans make it difficult for the fishermen 
to know which species are actually falling under the landing obligation and which exemptions, 
possibilities for discards, still exist. 

•  Difficulties implementing and monitoring de minimis or high survivability Exemptions 
Indeed  it  is  difficult  for  the  individual  fisherman  to  distinguish  between  normal  discards  and  de 
minimis discards. As a consequence there were only relatively few DIM entries as also  de minimis 
discards were often recorded as DIS. 
Apart  from  that  the  possibility  of  de  minimis  discards  renders  the  enforcement  of  the  landing 
obligation substantially more difficult  as the distinction  between legal and illegal discards is  very 
difficult the make in practice for the control authorities. 

•  Implementation problems with regard to control/monitoring processes or infrastructure (e.g. 
adaptation of ERS systems) 
Only with the introduction of new ERS formats by the Commission as from autumn 2017 the technical 
conditions will exist to implement all legally required recordings. Until then in 
Germany all DIM entries on de minimis discards are done in the observation field. This excludes 
electronic processing. 

•  Refusal to carry observers No such incident is known 
Difficulties in fully utilising fishing opportunities, such as: 
•  Problems re-allocating quota to cover catches previously not landed 
As yet Germany did not have any problems of this sort. The German quota management is focused on 
the economically most important species with the necessary quotas for by-catches. In case of 
insufficient by-catch quotas it is tried to obtain additional fishing opportunities through international 
quota swaps or adjusting rules on by-catch to available quotas. 

•  Problems with the timing or availability of quota swaps 
There are no problems with the timing or availability of quota swaps. The cooperation among 
Member States is excellent. At the end of a year, as available fishing opportunities dwindle, swaps are 
refused in cases of a need of the own fleet for such opportunities 

•  Fisheries being forced to close early due to choke problems 
So far such a case has not occurred as yet. However, due to the landing obligation no target salmon 
could be allowed in 2015 and only partly in 2016 in Germany as there was only sufficient salmon 
quota as a by-catch. 


Annex 1 - Risk Analysis results North Sea 2016 
Code 
Gear 
Gear definition 
Segment 
Area 
Risk level 
 
 
 
Otter trawls/ Seines 
Ila 
Low 
 
NS01 
TR1 
> 100 mm 
IVa 
Very high 
 
 
 
(0TB, OTT, PTB, SDN, SSC, SPR) 
IVb 
High 
 
 
 
 
IVc 
Medium 
NS02 
TR2 
Otter trawls/ Seines 
>70 and <100 mm 
IVa 
High 
 
IVb 
High 
 
 
(OTB, OTT, PTB, SDN, SSC, SPR) 
 
IVc 
Medium 
NS03 
TRP  Otter trawls/ Seine (отв, OTT, PTB, SDN, SSC, SPR) 
> 32 and < 70 mm 
Ilia 
High 
NS04  TRSK1  Otter trawls/ Seines (отв, OTT, PTB, SDN, SSC, SPR) 
ž 90 mm 
Ilia 
Very high 
NS05  TRSK2  Otter trawls/ Seines (отв, OTT, PTB, SDN, SSC, SPR) 
<90 mm 
Ilia 
Low 
Ilia 
Medium 
NS06 
BT1 
Beam trawls (твв) 
> 120 mm 
IVa   
 
 
 
 
IVb 
Medium 
NS07 
BT2 
Beam trawls (ТВВ) 
>80 and <120 mm 
IVb 
High 
 
 
 
IVc 
Very high 
 
 
 
 
Ilia 
Low 
NS08 
GN1  Fixed gears (GN) 
>120 mm 
IVa 
Low 
 
 
 
IVb 
Low 
 
 
 
 
IVc 
Low 
 
 
 
 
Ilia 
Low 
NS09 
GN2  Fixed gears (GN) 
>90 and <120 mm 
IVa 
Low 
 
 
 
IVb 
Low 
 
 
 
 
IVc 
Low 
 
 
 
 
Ilia 
Low 
NS10 
GN3  Fixed gears (GN) 
<90 mm 
IVa 
Low 
 
 
 
IVb 
Low 
 
 
 
 
IVc 
Low 
 
 
 
 
Ilia 
Low 
NS11 
GT1  Fixed gears (GT) 
GT 
IVa 
Low 
 
 
 
IVb 
Low 
 
 
 
 
IVc 
Low 
 
 
 
 
Ilia 
Low 
NS12 
LL 
Fixed gears (Щ 
LL 
IVa 
Medium 
 
 
 
IVb 
Low 
 
 
 
 
IVc 
Low 
 
 
 
 
Ila 
 
Ilia   
NS13 
OTH  Others not included in segments 1-12 
Other 
 
IVa 
 
 
 
 
IVb   
 
 
 
 
IVc   
 
 

Annex 2 - Risk Analysis results Baltic Sea 2016 
S E G M E N T  
G E A R   G R O U P  
G E A R   T Y P E  
A R E A  
R I S K  
L E V E L  
Demersal 
1 
OT (>105) 
22-24 
High 
Active 
Demersal 
2 
SDN (>105) 
22-24 
Low 
Active 
3 
OT (>105) 
Demersal 
25-27 
Medium 
Active 
4 
ОТ, PT (16< and <32) 
Pelagic Active 
22-27 
Low 
5 
OT, PT (32< and <90) 
Pelagic Active 
22-27 
Low 
ΟΤ,ΡΤ (16< and <105) 
Pelagic Active 
28-32 
Low 
6 
7 
GN (>157) 
Pelagic 
22-29 
Low 
Passive 
LL 
Pelagic 
22-29 
Low 
8 
Passive 
9 
FIX (nat. rules) 
Pelagic 
30-32 
Low 
Passive 
Demersal 
10 
GN (110< and <156), LL 
22-24 
Medium 
Passive 
Demersal 
11 
GN (110< and <156), LL 
25-27 
Low 
Passive 
Pelagic 
12 
GN (32<and<110), 
22-32 
Low 
Passive 
TTTV t ______  4.: ---------- 1 
13 
Other non-reported in 
Demersal 
22-32  1
segments 1-12 
Active 
 
 
 

Discards 2013 total: 3.075 
Catch Areas (FAO) 
Catch areas 
Name 
Number of entries 
Discard in kg 
21.1.C 
NAFO 
Greenland halibut 
170 
7.312 
27.3.C und D 
Baltic Sea 
Cod and flatfish fishery 
1.750 
187.522 
27 AA und B 
North Sea 
Flatfish fishery 
715 
180.312 
27.5-7 
West British waters 
Pelagic fishery 
110 
78.385 
27.14.b 
East Greenland 
Greenland halibut and redfish 
330 
17.322 
 
Discards total 2013: 
 
3.075 
470.853 
 
 
 
Discards 2014 total: 4.219 
Catch Areas (FAO) 
Catch areas 
Name 
Number of entries 
Discard in kg 
21.1.C 
NAFO 
Greenland halibut 
127 
5.999 
87 
XIN /Free waters) 
Pelagic fishery 
84 
23.516 
27.3.C und D 
Baltic Sea 
Cod and flatfish fishery 

2.598 
520.487 
27.4.A und B 
North Sea 
Flatfish fishery 
828 
197.142 
27.5-7 
West British waters 
Pelagic fishery 
139 
90.836 
27.14.b 
East Greenland 
Greenland halibut and redfish 
443 
19.841 
 
Discards total 2014: 
 
4.219 
857.821 
 
 
Discards 2015 total: 1.270 
Catch Areas (FAO) 
Catch areas 
Name 
Number of entries 
Discard in kg 
21.1.C 
NAFO 
Fischerei Schwarzer Heilbutt und Rotbarsch (GHL u. RED) 
4 
4.762 
34 
MAR (Marocco) 
Pelagic fishery 
168 
262.599 
27.3.C und D 
Baltic Sea 
Cod and flatfish fishery 
768 
98.466 
27.4.A und B 
North Sea 
Flatfish fishery 
155 
39.795 
27.5-7 
West British waters 
Pelagic fishery 
139 
44.840 
27.14.b 
East Greenland 
Greenland halibut and redfish 
36 
15.272 
 
 

 
Discards total 2015: 
 
1.270 
465.734 
 
 
 
Discards 2016 total: 3.322 
Catch Areas (FAO) 
Catch areas 
Name 
Number of entries 
Discard in kg 
34 
MAR (Marokko) 
Pelagische Fischerei 
41 
95.991 
27.3.C und D 
Baltic Sea 
Cod and flatfish fishery 
1.913 
219.626 
27.4.A und B 
North Sea 
Flatfish fishery 
1.291 
97.558 
27.5-7 
West British waters 
Pelagic fishery 
2 
4.000 
27.14.b 
East Greenland 
Greenland halibut and redfish 
75 
12.909 
 
Discards total 2016: 
 
3.322 
430.084