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)3197313 - 26/06/2017
 
 
 
 
Date: 2017-01-30 
 
 
 
Dnr: 4047-16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annual report on the implementation of the landing obligation 
in Sweden 
 
Referring to the request of DG Mare (ref: Ares(2016)6601248-24/11/2016) Sweden hereby 
reports on the progress achieved in the implementation of the Landing Obligation (LO).   
 
General comments 
Achieving a level playing field is complicated by diverging interpretations by member 
states of different relevant regulations. 
 
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. 
 
2.  Which fleet segments/fisheries do these measures and/or studies apply to? 
-  N/a.  See question 1. 
 
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.  
-  N/a. See question1. 
 
4.  Have you initiated any changes to your quota management system to implement the 
landing obligation?  
-  Yes. A new system to allocate fishing opportunities was introduced from 
January 1 2017 in order to create conditions for the Swedish fleet to comply 
with the landing obligation. The new system replaces the previous system in 
which the possibility to transfer fishing possibilities was lacking. The new 
system is based on yearly allocation of individual fishing opportunities. The 
fishing opportunities may, with some limitations, be transferred between 
individual fishermen during the year. 
 
 
 

 
 
5.  For stocks managed through catch limits, have you conducted a quantitative 
analysis to identify potential national choke issues?  
-  Yes. A quantitative analysis has been performed based on scientific data on 
estimated discards/catches. 
 
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, for details please refer to the joint recommendations submitted, namely the 
joint recommendations by the Scheveningen group for a demersal discard plan 
for the North Sea (2016) and for pelagic and industrial fisheries (2014), as well 
as the JR for a discard plan for the Baltic Sea submitted by Baltfish 2014. 
 
7.  What studies or evidence have you collected or produced in order to support such a 
request. 
-  See question 6. 
 
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? 
-  Sweden has regularly throughout the year (2016) monitored the reported 
amounts discard that fit under the de minimis in order to monitor the 
established limits are not exceeded. 
 
9.  What has been the utilisation of any granted de minimis exemptions in the fleet 
segment/fishery to which the exemption applies?  
-  During 2016 Sweden have only had a small amount reported as de minimis.  In 
trawl fishery with grid for Norway lobster of total 2 645 kg common sole 10 kg 
(0.4%) was reported as de minimis. 
 
10. Have any of your vessels utilised the provision to discard fish which shows damage 
caused by predators? 
-  Sweden has data on estimated quantities of predator damaged fish, though this 
has not been mandatory reporting until 2016. From 2017, it is mandatory for 
Swedish fishermen to report this under a specific national code (ROV).  
 
The following list outlines the information reported in passive gear, by species 
for 2016, on predator damaged fish (seal bitten). A total of 137 vessels have 
reported predator damaged fish. 
 
 
 

 
 
Species 
Quantity (kg) 
(Alpha 3-code) 
BBB 
2 021 
COD 
181 125 
CRE 

ELE 
120 
FLE 
3 542 
FPE 
1 298 
FPI 
9 718 
FPP 
13 
GGG 
133 
HER 
3 898 
MAC 
460 
MQS 
10 
MZZ 
22 586 
PLE 

SAL 
379 
TRS 
815 
TUR 
6 545 
WHF 
1 409 
WHG 

TOTAL 
234 082 
 
11. For stocks managed by catch limits, did you make use of the provisions for inter-
annular inter-species flexibility?  
-  Yes, Sweden has used the inter-annular flexibility. 
 
12. In the development of joint recommendations, has consultation with Advisory 
Councils and other relevant stakeholders taken place?  
-  For details concerning regional consultation by the Scheveningen group and 
Baltfish in relation to the Advisory Councils please refer to the relevant joint 
recommendations. Concerning national consultation ongoing consultations at 
organised meetings have been held with the national stakeholder organisations 
for commercial fishery. 
 
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?  
-  The national agency responsible for implementation of the CFP (Swedish 
Agency for Marine and Water Management) has sent information to all 
commercial fishermen holding a fishing license. The agency has also organised 
information meetings with stakeholders in collaboration with related national 
authorities (the national agency for Agriculture and the University for 
Agricultural Sciences (SLU), and published detailed information and guides on 
the webpage. 
 
 
 

 
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?  
-  Sweden has administered approximately 1 million euro per year (2014-2017) to 
gear development projects initiated by the stakeholders in order to facilitate the 
implementation of the landing obligation. Please see annual report (in 
Swedish): http://www.slu.se/globalassets/ew/org/inst/aqua/externwebb/sidan-
publikationer/aqua-reports-2016/aqua-report-2016_8-selektivt-fiske_small.pdf 
  
 
15. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these studies/pilots apply to? 
-  See question 14. 
 
16. What has the uptake been of these measures in the fleet segments/fisheries to which 
they are applicable?  
-  Some of the gears developed (see question 14) are now used in commercial 
fishery, for instance trawls separating roundfish and flatfish and pelagic trawls 
with selective grids for saithe.  
 
 
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?  
-  SWaM has sent information (letters and electronic messages) to all commercial 
fishermen holding a fishing license. The agency has also organised information 
meetings with stakeholders in collaboration with related national authorities and 
published detailed information and guides on the webpage.  
 
To facilitate the recording in paper logbook, Sweden has an updated layout with 
preprinted codes (such as LSC, BMS). Instructions and manuals are sent to all 
fishermen concerned and they were also invited to visit the agency to get 
personal help with their logbook-questions.  
 
The software for electronic reporting (vCatch) has been updated to allow for 
catch accounting due to the landing obligation.  
 
 
18. Have guidelines been provided by Member States administrations and control 
agencies for inspectors?  
-  In autumn 2016 there was a two-day-seminar for all Swedish inspectors. The 
seminar was organised by/in cooperation with EFCA and contained topics such 
as the landing obligation. More details can be read in the draft report from 
EFCA, Annex I 
 
 
 

 
 
19. Have new control and monitoring tools been used by Member States?  
 
-  Sweden has taken part in the regional control work to develop a control tool 
scoring matrix with the outcome that CCTV systems or observer programmes 
are the most efficient tools in achieving compliance with the LO. These control 
tools are currently not used in Swedish fisheries control. Until a more efficient 
control system is in place Sweden continues to apply a risk-based approach in 
its landing and administrative control, respectively. The shift at the beginning 
of 2016 from set control benchmarks to a control based on qualified risk 
assessments will enable a more effective control of compliancy.   
In addition, the Swedish Coastguard has carried out last haul observations as a 
mean to compare reported catch of undersized cod with observed catch. SWaM 
and the Coastguard has also continued to work with joint inspections during 
specific times of the year. These joint inspections have focused on certain 
species and risks, respectively, in an attempt to cover fishing activities in an 
entire fishing trip. Inspections at sea are followed by an inspection in port, to 
verify that the catch in the “last haul” also is landed. Sweden has a more 
detailed instruction to their last haul then the one used in the JDP. The last haul 
method and analysis of data will be further developed during 2017.  
 
20. Have the Member state administrations and control authorities monitored below 
Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) catches at and after landing 
(traceability)?  
-  There is a very low volume of catches below MCRS landed (for example 1.9 % 
in the trawl fisheries for cod in the Baltic Sea) when compared to that of 
approximately 20% observed in the last haul inspections.  
 
Total reported discard in Sweden 
Year 
Geartype 
Catch (kg) 
Discard 
Discard (%) 
2013 
FPO 
554 555 
34 001 
6,1% 
Total 0,09% 
FIX 
624 484 
36 521 
5,8% 
GN 
3 506 765 
25 093 
0,7% 
LL 
658 285 
2 927 
0,4% 
SDN 
181 105 
  
0,0% 
OT 
157 681 992 
3 243 
0,0% 
PS 
13 539 521 
  
0,0% 
OTH 
153 893 
70 
0,0% 
2014 
FPO 
569 236 
36 204 
6,4% 
Total 0,10% 
FIX 
549 060 
17 231 
3,1% 
GN 
3 673 337 
30 495 
0,8% 
LL 
474 787 
2 310 
0,5% 
SDN 
243 435 
  
0,0% 
OT 
152 509 319 
5 072 
0,0% 
PS 
13 851 882 
  
0,0% 
OTH 
60 257 
500 
0,8% 
 
 
 

 
2015 
FPO 
602 415 
17 482 
2,9% 
Total 0,12% 
FIX 
508 401 
24 886 
4,9% 
GN 
3 396 594 
11 361 
0,3% 
LL 
414 853 
1 404 
0,3% 
SDN 
221 513 
  
0,0% 
OT 
180 849 688 
5 663 
0,0% 
PS 
15 899 447 
  
0,0% 
OTH 
58 996 
  
0,0% 
2016 
FPO 
562 925 
7 541 
1,3% 
Total 0,14% 
FIX 
538 854 
30 242 
5,6% 
GN 
3 429 737 
17 863 
0,5% 
LL 
389 460 
1 905 
0,5% 
SDN 
271 008 
  
0,0% 
OT 
175 108 871 
13 551 
0,0% 
PS 
14 204 800 
  
0,0% 
OTH 
7 198 
  
0,0% 
 
21. Has control and monitoring been based on risk assessment? 
-  Control and monitoring in Sweden is since 2016 based on compliance levels. 
The risk categories are based on the same categories used in the regional risk 
assessment for JDP and the regional Control Expert Groups in cooperation with 
EFCA. During 2016 an automated system for risk assessment has been 
developed. More details can be read in the draft report from EFCA, Annex I 
 
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?  
-  The Swedish Coastguard has conducted “last haul inspections” within the JDP 
framework since 2014. See question 19 for details about last haul. Since there 
still is a widespread lack of understanding of the LO, all vessels are equally 
interesting at the moment, in order to gather data as well as to inform about the 
LO. The more data and information we receive about the LO, the greater the 
possibility of using the last haul to point out potential targets for inspection is. 
There is also a need for regional cooperation to decide when a vessel is 
considered to be a potential target with regards to the LO. More details can be 
read in the draft report from EFCA, Annex I 
 
 
Number of last haul inspections  
2014 
2015 
2016 
Baltic Sea - demersal 
16 
16 
25 
North Sea - demersal 
 

18 
 
Information on the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation 
 
23. Using the most appropriate indicators defined below, provide information on the 
socioeconomics 
 

 
-  Considering the very low quantities of catch reported under MCRS and the fact 
that the fisheries under LO in 2016 have small problems with choke species, we 
see no socioeconomic impact of the LO for Swedish fisheries so far. 
 
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. 
 
25. Have there been any reported incidents of overloading of vessels forcing them to 
return to port early?  
-  No. 
 
26. Have there been any reported incidents or accidents on board vessels that can be 
attributable to excessive workload? 
-  No. 
 
27. Has any national legislation relating to safety on board fishing vessels arising from 
the landing obligation been amended or introduced?  
-  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? 
-  No.  
 
If no, have any measures been taken which have not been funded under the EMFF? 
-  To the knowledge of the Swedish Board of Agriculture no measures has been 
taken that not have been funded under the EMFF. 
 
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? 
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? 
-  As stated above, reported catch below MCRS were small in 2016 as well as in 
2015. The catches of demersal species under MCRS have mainly been used for 
fodder 
 
30. Have you carried out any studies or pilot projects considering the potential uses for 
such catches?  
-  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. Sweden has granted 551 807 SEK to 8 different projects concerning 
investments in for example selective gear, purchase of gillnet and transition 
from bottom trawling to semi-pelagic fisheries. 
 
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?  
-  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. Sweden has granted 7 278 250 SEK to 20 different projects concerning 
investments for example MSC-certification, formation of producer 
organizations and investments in existing production. 
 
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: 
-  Based on DCF-data and logbook data SE has looked into the possibility to 
increase selectivity for a number of stocks. It is also a challenge to manage the 
quota for a number of stocks and a number of tools need to be implemented. To 
address the issues SE has conducted (and conducts) a number of selectivity 
projects to allow a tool box of gears for fishermen, also a new system for quota 
management is implemented as of January 2017 (please see above). 
 
-  The Swedish fishermen experience that the technical regulations are inhibitory in 
some parts when concerning selectivity. The fishermen also state that they have 
not experienced any problems with storage on board so far. However they have 
expressed some concerns that the situation may change when the LO is fully in 
place. 
 
Difficulties relating to monitoring, control and enforcement: 
-  Sweden agrees with the answers and recommendations from EFCA, produced 
in cooperation with the Scheveningen and NWW Control Expert Groups, see 
Annex II.  
 
Difficulties in fully utilising fishing opportunities: 
-  The extent of these difficulties will become more apparent as the landing 
obligation is gradually covering more fisheries. The new system to allocate 
fishing opportunities is expected to mitigate early closures of fisheries, but the 
challenge of choke species will likely remain on an individual level.