Ref. Ares(2017)3197313 - 26/06/2017
Scheveningen / NWW Control Expert Groups request to EFCA
Possible answers to question 34 of DG MARE questionnaire on the implementation of the Landing Obligation: “Information on the difficulties encountered in the
implementation of the landing obligation (LO) and recommendations to address them” (Difficulties relating to monitoring, control and enforcement)
Difficulties
Recommendations
There is a strong feeling of a wide lack policy legitimacy and widespread lack Better communication and dialogue with industry and other
of understanding of the landing obligation rules amongst the industry.
stakeholders is desirable in this respect.
The LO was built on absence of vital underlying foundation, i.e. no Recording discarded fish (subject or not to the LO) is a key
compliance with pre-existing discard logging obligation (the active declaration
challenge
of > 50kg discards in every trip according to art. 14 of Council Regulation
Lack of
(EU) 1224/2009) resulting in trying to get compliance with that rule at same
legitimacy
and of
time as compliance with LO.
understanding Until MS fully up-grade their systems in accordance with the Commission
of the LO
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1962, the existing provision in the
rules
Fisheries Activity Report (FAR) will continue to be used to report discards.
For the time being, the fishermen are not able to use the codes LSC, BMS
and DIM in this discard report. In the discard report the fisherman will report
by species and weight (it being implicit that de
minimis can be identified from
the species).
Monitoring the
Measures to deal with <MCRS catches and effectively monitor uses are not
use
of
completely established.
<MCRS
Currently the problem is attenuated by the low volume of <MCRS catches
catches
being landed
There is no key control tool in force at a regional or EU level to monitor with There is general agreement on that a combination of control
sufficient guarantees the compliance with the landing obligation provisions.
tools would be needed for monitoring.
Authorities are merely adapting existing control tools, but no control tool REM systems and the control observers emerge clearly as
exists to truly detect, therefore to effectively deter, non-compliance with the
major tools to be considered. The idea of using the “last
LO.
haul” from inspections at sea as reference data to determine
There has been little implementation of REM systems and control observers
a baseline of observed discards is also recommended, in
No obvious
as control tools so far.
combination with data from control observers and REM
monitoring
equipped vessels.
Data gathered through inspections at sea (“last haul”) useful for monitoring,
and control
but not as an enforcement tool.
options
A compliance evaluation of the LO with a goal of developing
available
Currently, the SCIP/JDP in the Baltic Sea does not cover all species subject
intel igence as a ‘reference fleet’ basis for future risk based
to LO.*
control actions should be pursued under demersal fisheries
as well as for some pelagic fisheries.
A revised Baltic Sea SCIP including all species subject to
LO.*
*Answer and recommendation changed from regional to national difficulties by Sweden.