Ref. Ares(2017)3197313 - 26/06/2017
Regional report on the implementation of the landing obligation
in the North Sea and North Western Waters in 2016
During the interregional meeting “Control of Demersal Fisheries in relation to the Landing
Obligation (LO)” organised by EFCA on 6-7 December 2016 in London, the Control Expert Groups
(CEG) of the North Sea and North Western Waters agreed that some parts of the questionnaire
designed by the Commission to support the annual report on the implementation of the LO to be
submitted by Member States, according to Regulation (EU) 2015/812 amending Regulation (EU)
1380/2013, Article 15(14), would be covered in the form of a regional report. In particular,
questions 18, 21 and 22 of the questionnaire were identified as to be responded to on a regional
level. The CEGS requested EFCA to prepare this part as a regional report, in order to summarise
the information that has arisen through the North Sea and Western Waters Joint Deployment Plans
(JDP) and through the CEGs requests for assistance (i.e. Risk analysis for NWW demersal
fisheries and some NS fisheries outside the scope of the NS JDP).
This report intends to cover questions 18, 21 and 22 in the questionnaire and to provide a regional
overview of relevant actions in the NS and NWW areas. For this purpose, the issues are structured
by question topic and following the cooperation areas as summarised in table 1. The report
includes 3 annexes.
Table 1: Summary of steps taken by Member States regarding control of compliance with the landing obligation at regional level in the North Sea and
Western Waters JDP (North Western Waters) areas for issues highlighted in Q18, 21 and 22 of DG MARE’s questionnaire.
DG MARE Questionnaire
NWW
NS
Steps taken by MS regarding control of
compliance with the LO
Q18: Have guidelines been provided by
Yes. Regional workshops for inspectors were
Yes. A regional workshop for inspectors were
Member States administrations and control organised on 5-6 April and 21-22 September organised 8-9 March 2016 for standardising the
agencies for inspectors?
Yes/No
2016 for standardising the implementation of implementation of the LO in the framework of the
the LO in the framework of the WW JDP.
NS JDP.
In what format has this information taken:
The following topics have been dealt with The following topics have been dealt with during
• Delivery of guidelines for inspectors on the during the training workshops:
the training workshop:
effective and uniform application of the
landing obligation.
-
Omnibus regulation
-
Omnibus regulation
• Seminars and trainings organised for
-
Discard plans
-
Discard plans
presenting the guidelines to inspectors at
-
Guidelines for gramme size data
-
Guidelines for last haul inspections
national and regional level.
collection
-
MS Exchange of experience on the
-
MS Exchange of experience on the
landing obligation
landing obligation
-
Data collection procedures
-
Data collection procedures
Q21: Has control and monitoring been
Yes. In cooperation with the JDP Steering
Yes. In cooperation with the JDP Steering Group
based on risk assessment?
Yes/No
Group and regional Control Expert Group and the regional Control Expert Group (CEG),
(CEG), EFCA has developed a methodology EFCA has developed a methodology for risk
Please supply information on the risk for risk assessment. The methodology follows assessment. The methodology follows the
assessment tools used and the results the structure of weighing the likelihood of structure of weighing the likelihood of occurrence
obtained, including those implemented by occurrence of non-compliance against the of non-compliance against the potential impact on
the regional Control Expert Groups in potential impact on the stock. In order to be the stock. In order to be able to perform this risk
cooperation with EFCA.
able to perform this risk assessment for the assessment for the fisheries concerned, EFCA
fisheries concerned, EFCA has produced has produced factsheets by fleet segments to
factsheets by fleet segments to compile and compile and update all relevant information
update all relevant information available for available for each fishery.
each
fishery.
These
factsheets
contain
These fact sheets contain descriptions and tables
descriptions and tables on: gear, target
on: gear, target species, discarding, fishing
species, discarding, fishing season, fishing
season, fishing vessels flag states, fishing areas,
vessels flag states, fishing areas, stock status,
stock status, allocation of the TAC, applicable
allocation of the TAC, applicable regulations,
regulations, catches in previous year and risk
catches
in
previous
year
and
risk
characterisation.
characterisation.
The fisheries segments have been defined
The fisheries segments have been defined
together with the regional group and the steering
together with the regional group and the
group. During joint expert sessions between CEG
steering group. During joint expert sessions
nominees and members of the Steering Group,
between CEG nominees and members of the
the risk assessment has been performed. The
3
Steering Group, the risk assessment has been outcomes of the risk assessment have been an
performed.
The
outcomes
of
the
risk input for the recommendations developed by the
assessment have been an input for the regional CEG and for the planning of the North
recommendations developed by the regional Sea JDP.
CEG and for the planning of the pelagic JDP in
Risk assessment was performed by fleet segment
WW.
for non-compliance with the LO for the JDP
Also for the species not covered by a JDP demersal (cod, sole, and plaice) and for fisheries
(demersal
species
in
the
WW),
risk identified in the request from the Scheveningen
assessment was performed by fleet segment CEG (other demersal species in the NS).
for non-compliance with the LO. These
concerned fisheries identified in the request
from the NWW CEG (main demersal species
subject to the landing obligation). Member
States have been able to use this risk
assessment to develop recommendations for
control of the LO by the CEG and as a basis
for inspections (as EFCA does not have a
coordinating role for control of the demersal
fisheries in this area).
4
Q22: Has the “last observed haul” approach
No.
Yes.
elaborated by EFCA as a tool for monitoring
The last observed haul methodology has been The last observed haul methodology has been
the implementation of the landing obligation
developed to:
developed to:
and to derive potential targets for inspection
been used?
Yes/No
Estimate the likelihood of non-
Estimate the likelihood of non-compliance
compliance with the provisions of the
with the provisions of the LO for risk
Please give details of the fisheries covered
LO for risk assessment
assessment,
and the extent of sampling.
Share information between MS on
Share information between MS on catch
catch composition rates across the
composition rates across the different
different fisheries segments and
fisheries segments and
Facilitate the evaluation of compliance
Facilitate the evaluation of compliance
with the LO provisions.
with the LO provisions.
The last observed haul method is not This is implemented through the JDP in
considered adequate for assessing the catch cooperation with the Member States inspection
composition of large fishing vessels catching services
pelagic species.
The data derived from the last observed haul
As an alternative to the last observed haul inspections is combined with other available data
methodology, for pelagic fisheries subject to on catches and discards and is being used as
the landing obligation, a ‘’gramme size input for risk assessment exercises. In the North
analysis’’ project has been implemented, as a Sea area, also gramme size and grade size
5
tool for collecting catch composition data. The analysis projects were tested for collecting catch
project was englobed in the framework of the composition data. The grade size project has
WW JDP and the SG decided to initiate it in been focused in this initial phase on North Sea
the Mackerel campaign in 2016. The gramme Cod landed during the first semester of 2016. This
size analysis uses the data from the electronic project has been able to use the tool of having a
logbook, production logbooks from the vessels reference fleet, as a number of vessels have
and the sales notes, which contain information CCTV on board. The sales note figures of these
on the average gramme sizes of the fish. The vessels have been compared to those of non-
goal is to develop a tool for risk assessment by CCTV vessels, showing differences in catch
comparing the size distribution in fleet composition that need to be further analysed. In
segments targeting pelagic species. This tool the medium to long term, the data collected
may not be applicable to all pelagic species, through these schemes would serve as a baseline
but to those where specifically the size of the for preparing the development of a compliance
fish determines its value for the fishermen.
evaluation tool in the context of the landing
obligation.
For pelagic fisheries 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
6
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.
List of Annexes:
Annex 1 – Risk Analysis results NWW demersal 2016
Annex 2 – Risk Analysis results WW pelagic 2016
Annex 3 – Risk Analysis results NS 2016
7
Annex 1 – Risk Analysis results NWW demersal 2016
Code
Segment
Gear types
Area
Risk Level
VIa
Low
VIIa
Low
NWW01
GN, GNS, GND, GNC
Generic Gill Net
VIId
Medium
Rest of VII
Medium
VIa
Low
VIIa
Low
NWW02
GTR
Trammel nets
VIId
Medium
Rest of VII
Low
VIa
Low
LL, LLS, LLD, LTL, LX,
VIIa
Low
NWW03
Generic longline
LHP, LMH
VIId
Low
Rest of VII
Low
VIa
Very High
OT, OTB, OTT, PTB, PT,
VIIa
Very High
NWW04
TBN, TBS, TX, SDN,
Generic bottom trawl <100 mm
SSC, SPR, TB, SX, SV
VIId
High
Rest of VII
Very High
VIa
OT, OTB, OTT, PTB, PT,
Generic bottom trawl ≥100
VIIa
High
NWW05
TBN, TBS, TX, SDN,
mm
SSC, SPR, TB, SX, SV
VIId
High
Rest of VII
High
VIa
VIIa
Very High
NWW06
TBB
Beam trawl 80-99 mm
VIId
Very High
Rest of VII
High
VIa
VIIa
NWW07
TBB
Beam trawl ≥100 mm
VIId
Rest of VII
VIa
Low
VIIa
Low
NWW08
FPO,FIX
Pots, traps & creels
VIId
Low
Rest of VII
Low
Annex 2 – Risk Analysis results WW pelagic 2016
Fishery
Segment
Area
Risk level
Polyvalent PS (WW08)
VIII and IX
Medium
ANE
All other segments
IVa, VI, VIId, Rest of VII,VIII
Low
Freezer OTM (WW01)
IVa, VI, VIId, VIII
Low
Freezer PTM (WW02)
IVa, VI, VIId, VIII
Low
RSW OTM (WW03)
VI
Medium
RSW PTM (WW04)
IVa, VI, VIId, Rest of VII
Low
RSW PS (WW05)
IVa, VI, VIId, Rest of VII
Low
HER
IVa, VI, VIId
Low
Polyvalent OTM (WW06)
Rest of VII
High
IVa, VI, VIId
Low
Polyvalent PTM (WW07)
Rest of VII
Medium
Polyvalent PTB (WW10)
Rest of VII
Low
JAX & WHB (Applicable to
Polyvalent OTB (WW09)
IX
Medium
the south as the fisheries
Polyvalent PTB (WW10)
VIII
Medium
are intrinsically mixed)
All other segments
IVa, VI, VIId, Rest of VII, VIII, IX
Low
Freezer OTM (WW01)
IVa, VI, Rest of VII and VIII
Medium
Freezer PTM (WW02)
IVa, VI, VIId, Rest of VII, VIII
Low
MAC
IVa
High
RSW OTM (WW03)
VI & Rest of VII
Medium
RSW PTM (WW04)
IVa & Rest of VII
Medium
RSW PS (WW05)
IVa
Medium
9
Annex 3 – Risk Analysis results NS 2016
Code
Gear
Gear definition
Segment
Area Risk level
IIa
Low
IVa
Very high
NS01
TR1
Otter trawls/ Seines
(OTB, OTT, PTB, SDN, SSC, SPR)
≥ 100 mm
IVb
High
IVc
Medium
IVa
High
NS02
TR2
Otter trawls/ Seines
IVb
High
(OTB, OTT, PTB, SDN, SSC, SPR)
≥ 70 and < 100 mm
IVc
Medium
NS03
TRP
Otter trawls/ Seine (OTB, OTT, PTB, SDN, SSC, SPR)
≥ 32 and < 70 mm
IIIa
High
NS04 TRSK1 Otter trawls/ Seines (OTB, OTT, PTB, SDN, SSC, SPR)
≥ 90 mm
IIIa
Very high
NS05 TRSK2 Otter trawls/ Seines (OTB, OTT, PTB, SDN, SSC, SPR)
< 90 mm
IIIa
Low
IIIa
Medium
NS06
BT1
Beam trawls (TBB)
≥ 120 mm
IVa
-
IVb
Medium
IVb
High
NS07
BT2
Beam trawls (TBB)
≥ 80 and < 120 mm
IVc
Very high
IIIa
Low
IVa
Low
NS08
GN1
Fixed gears (GN)
≥ 120 mm
IVb
Low
IVc
Low
IIIa
Low
IVa
Low
NS09
GN2
Fixed gears (GN)
≥ 90 and <120 mm
IVb
Low
IVc
Low
IIIa
Low
IVa
Low
NS10
GN3
Fixed gears (GN)
<90 mm
IVb
Low
IVc
Low
IIIa
Low
IVa
Low
NS11
GT1
Fixed gears (GT)
GT
IVb
Low
IVc
Low
IIIa
Low
IVa
Medium
NS12
LL
Fixed gears (LL)
LL
IVb
Low
IVc
Low
IIa
IIIa
NS13
OTH
Others not included in segments 1-12
Other
IVa
IVb
IVc