Ref. Ares(2017)3197563 - 26/06/2017
Malta’s feedback for the Questionnaire to MS on the implementation of the landing
obligation
Steps taken by Member States and producer organisations to comply with the landing obligation
No
Question
Input
1.
Have you initiated, supported, participated in or
Yes. With regard to measures: Closure of nursery areas as per GFCM
implemented any measures and/or studies
Recommendation GFCM/40/2016/4 has been observed.
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.
2.
Which fleet segments/fisheries do these measures Otter Bottom Trawls
and/or studies apply to?
3
What has the uptake of these measures and/or
All Vessels
studies been in the fleet segments/fisheries to
which they are applicable? Please provide the
number and proportion of vessels in the
segment/fishery.
4.
Have you initiated any changes to your quota
Not Applicable
management system to implement the landing
obligation? Yes/No
Please specify these changes.
5.
For stocks managed through catch limits, have
Not Applicable
you conducted a quantitative analysis to
1
identify potential national choke issues? Yes/No
Please give details.
6.
Have you pursued any exemptions to the landing Yes. Malta has the possibility of applying exemptions under the ‘De
obligation (either for high survival or de
Minimis’ for the Lampara fishery as per Regulation (EU) 1392/2014.
minimis) in the development of regional joint
However it should be noted that in this fishery it has been noted that no
recommendations? Yes/No
undersized fish are normally caught and that the primary destination of the
products are for feed in tuna farms, i.e., non-human consumption.
Please give details of each exemption pursued.
7.
What studies or evidence have you collected or
Evidence has been based on observations and records collected by
produced in order to support such a request.
observers on board.
8.
What steps have you taken to ensure the amount
Monitoring of logbooks and landings made in the presence of inspectors.
discarded under granted de minimis exemptions
does not exceed the permitted volume in the
delegated act?
9.
What has been the utilisation of any granted de
No discards were recorded. The majority of catches are used as feed for
minimis exemptions in the fleet segment/flshery
Tuna farms.
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.
10. Have any of your vessels utilised the provision to The provision to discard damaged fish has not been utilised.
discard fish which shows damage caused by
predators? Yes/No
2
Please provide the total weight of catch of each
Not Applicable
species discarded for each fleet
segment/fishery concerned.
11.
For stocks managed by catch limits, did you
Not Applicable
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.
12.
In the development of joint recommendations,
Yes, Malta has participated in meetings with MEDAC in view of the
has consultation with Advisory Councils
Landing Obligation.
and other relevant stakeholders taken place?
Yes/No
Meetings with stakeholders were carried out through MEDAC where
fishermen were invited to air their views and deliver advice according to
Please outline the process of consultation with
their experience at sea.
Advisory Councils.
Please outline the process of consultation with
other stakeholders, if relevant.
13.
Following the adoption of the delegated act for a YES. A letter explaining the landing obligation was sent to each licence
discard plan, have steps been taken to
holder authorised for the lampara fishery.
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
3
apply to them.
14.
Are there any other steps not covered by the
No.
questions above that you have carried out to
effect compliance with the provisions of the
landing obligation? Yes/No
Please specify the measures taken.
15
Which fleet segments/fisheries do these
Not Applicable
studies/pilots apply to?
16.
What has the uptake been of these measures in
100% of the Lampara Fleet.
the fleet segments/fisheries to which they
are applicable? Please provide the number and
proportion of vessels in the segment/fishery.
17.
Has information been provided by Member
Fishermen have been advised that landings of the Lampara Fishery have to
States administrations and control agencies to
be carried out in the presence of an Officer from the fisheries competent
fishermen? Yes/no
authority for accurate recording of the catches landed.
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
18.
Have guidelines been provided by Member
Yes – 100% of landings and a number of outlets involving the reference
States administrations and control agencies
species were inspected and the cases were followed up accordingly.
for inspectors? Yes/no
4
Landing obligations are outlined regularly during briefing meetings.
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.
19.
Have new control and monitoring tools been
No
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.
20.
Have the Member state administrations and
Yes
control authorities monitored below Minimum
Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) catches at
and after landing (traceability)? Yes/No
Please supply information on:
Inspections at landing.
5
No catches below the minimum conservation reference size of a species
subject to the landing obligation were registered
• Total number of discards (by fishery, fleet
segment) from 2013 to 2016
Inspections at the markets.
• Initiatives taken to prevent under MCRS
catches from reaching the commercial
channels (pre-notification of landings of under
MCRS catches, etc.).
• Measures taken to monitor landings at fish
markets/auctions adopted.
21.
Has control and monitoring been based on risk
No
assessment? Yes/no
Please supply information on the risk assessment
tools used and the results obtained,
100% inspections of landings from Lampara and Trawlers
including those implemented by the regional
Control Expert Groups in cooperation with
EFCA.
22. Has the “last observed haul” approach elaborated No
by EFCA as a tool for monitoring the
implementation of the landing obligation and to
derive potential targets for inspection
been used? Yes/No
6
Please give details of the fisheries covered and
the extent of sampling.
23.
Using the most appropriate indicators defined
None to date.
below, provide information on the
socioeconomics
impacts on:
• The catching sector
• Upstream businesses
• Processors
• Consumption and markets
• Costs for Member States
24.
Have there been any reported incidents of
No
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
7
25.
Have there been any reported incidents of
No
overloading of vessels forcing them to return
to port early? Yes/No
Please specify the number and nature of such
No
incidents.
26.
Have there been any reported incidents or
No
accidents on board vessels that can be
attributable to excessive workload? Yes/No
Please specify the number and nature of such
Not Applicable
incidents or accidents.
27.
Has any national legislation relating to safety on
No
board fishing vessels arising from the
landing obligation been amended or introduced?
Yes/No
Please provide details of this legislation.
28.
Have you provided or received any funding
No
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
8
involved and the nature of the measures
taken.
If no, have any measures been taken which have
not been funded under the EMFF?
29.
What have been the main reported uses and
Not Applicable
destinations for catches below mcrs?
Can you quantify these catches by species in
No
terms of volumes, price per tonne and
associated costs for the different outlets such
catches have been sent?
30. Have you carried out any studies or pilot projects No
considering the potential uses for such
catches? Yes/No
Please provide details of such studies or pilot
projects.
31.
Have you provided funding under Article 38 of
No
the EMFF for modifications on board
vessels for the handling of catches on board?
Yes/No
Please specify the number, nature and total
9
amount invested in such projects.
32. Have you provide funding under Article 43 of the Yes – request for funds still in progress
EMFF for investment in the
infrastructure of fishing ports, auction halls and
shelters for the handling of unwanted
Cold Storage Facilities for the conservation of seized undersized fish.
catches? Yes/No
Please specify the number, nature and total
EU Funds
amount invested in such projects.
Name of Project: The Construction and Finishing of an Office on the Fish
Landing Site in the Marsaxlokk Designated Port
Funding: EMFF Funds
Budget: E 249,950 exc vat (Public Eligible)
33.
Have you provide funding under Articles 68 and No
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.
34.
Please provide information on the following:
None as discards have been few at the moment.
Operational difficulties, such as:
• Avoidance and/or selectivity insufficient to
avoid unwanted catches
10
• 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
11
12