Ref. Ares(2017)3197370 - 26/06/2017
Annual report on the implementation of the landing obligation (Regulation (EU)
2015/812 amending Regulation (EU) 1380/2013, Article 15.14)
United Kingdom update on the landing obligation
This document provides information from the United Kingdom on the implementation of the
landing obligation in 2016. This information has been requested by the European
Commission in order to compile its annual report on the implementation of the landing
obligation to the European Parliament and the Council.
Since its introduction on 1 January 2015, the implementation of the pelagic landing
obligation has been operating well and overall the industry has successfully adapted to it.
Meanwhile the introduction of the demersal landing obligation in 2016 has proceeded
with no significant negative impacts, which is as expected given the fisheries covered in
the first year. We will continue to engage with UK fleets to ensure they continue to adapt to
the landing obligation and to its progression in 2017 and beyond. The UK recognises that
there will be more challenges in implementation with the introduction of increasingly
complex fisheries over the next couple of years. The work we are carrying out on choke
species within the regional groups will be important in devising measures to help support
the industry to adapt.
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)?
Please specify the measures taken or studies
Since 2011, the UK Government has run Fully Documented Fisheries (FDF) trials.
Vessels were fitted with Remote Electronic Monitoring/CCTV camera systems and
operated as if they were under a landing obligation, with the trial participants
landing all their catch in exchange for additional quota.
Marine Scotland and England ran North Sea Catch Quota schemes using REM.
The 2016 report is scheduled for publication, while the 2015 report can be found
here.
2. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these measures and/or studies apply to?
The trial was applied toTR1 vessels in the North Sea.
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.
The English North Sea trial had an uptake of seventeen English (out of 63) vessels
in 2016.
4. Have you initiated any changes to your quota management system to
implement the landing obligation?
Please give details
The UK already operates a transferable quota system within the majority of the fleet
which allows industry groups to exchange quota and as a result there is no
regulatory barrier to fisherman better aligning their quota holding with catches. This
flexibility also helps with the avoidance of choke scenarios; for example pelagic
operators have had to source additional herring quota to cover landings of
unintended by-catch.
Within the non-sector, which is provided with periodic catch limits set by the
administrations, consideration has been given to the option of reserving quota to
hedge against a choke scenario, avoiding premature fishery closure. This
mechanism has not been called on to date as there are limited stocks currently
subject to the landing obligation.
Quota limits and closures are managed through licence conditions. Pre-landing
obligation the condition related to prohibition of retaining on-board catches in
excess of certain limits or from areas subject to closure. These conditions have now
been amended to prohibit fishing but without prejudice to the landing obligation
requirements.
5. For stocks management through catch limits, have you conducted a
quantitative analysis to identify potential national choke issues?
Please give details
The UK administrations are currently considering all the stocks and their potential to
choke fisheries under the landing obligation.
For the UK English fleet the main choke issues that have been identified are:
Species
Area
Cod
North Sea
Whiting
North Sea
Haddock
Area VIa
Cod
Area VIIa
Cod
Area VII b-c, e-k
Haddock
Area VII b-c, e-k
Megrim
Area VII
Plaice
Area VII hjk
Whiting
Area VIIa
For the UK Irish Sea fleet the main choke species in order of volume are:
Species
Area
Whiting
Area VIIa
Cod
Area VIIa
Sole
Area VIIa
These species have very low or zero quotas and are currently fished below safe
biological limits, presenting a particular problem especially to fleets targeting
Nephrops using TR2 gear. Area VIIa haddock and plaice should be manageable
through the provision of adequate quota uplifts.
For the UK Scottish fleet they can be broken down into three broad categories:
Zero TAC stocks – when the TAC is zero then fishing should either not take
place or be tightly restricted in order to prevent the catch of a stock which no
quota is available to cover.
Species
Area
Cod
West of Scotland
Picked Dogfish
All EU waters
(Spurdog)
Very low TAC stocks – these are stocks where the TAC is so low that it
prohibits effective fisheries management as even very small catches may
exhaust the available quota.
Species
Area
Deep sea sharks
All EU waters
Alfonsinos
All EU Waters
Whiting
West of Scotland
Black scabbardfish
North Sea
Roundnose grenadier
North Sea
Red seabream
West of Scotland
Greater forkbeard
North Sea
Finally there are a number of TACs where it may be possible to introduce a
landing obligation without choking fisheries, however, to do so requires
changes in the fishing industry, top-up quotas and continued access to quota
swaps from other Member States. It is difficult to predict with any certainty
whether these measures can be achieved before they are required.
Species
Area
Cod
North sea
Hake
North Sea
Ling
North Sea
Saithe
North Sea
Anglerfish
West of Scotland
Dab
North Sea
Flounder
North Sea
Witch
North sea
Turbot and Brill
North Sea
Pollock
West of Scotland
Skates and Rays
North Sea
6. Have you pursued any exemptions to the landing obligation (either for high
survival or de minimis) in the development of regional joint
recommendations?
Please give details of each exemption
The UK has sought several exemptions during the development of the regional joint
recommendations. For 2017, new high survivability exemptions were submitted for
sole caught by TR2 vessels in inshore waters (in both the North Sea and North
West Waters), and Nephrops caught with selective Netgrid gears by TR2 vessels
(in the North Sea). In 2016, the UK proposed and made use of exemptions for
Nephrops caught in pots, traps and creels plus a
de minimis exemption for
undersized nephrops caught in trawls for the North Sea and North Western Waters.
Please see the relevant discard plans for details.
7. What studies or evidence have you collected or produced in order to support
such a request.
The supporting evidence is included in the relevant discard plans.
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 quantities of fish discarded under
de minimis exemptions are required to be
reported in logbooks. This requirement has been highlighted in published guidance
and through direct advice. It can be difficult to establish compliance with this
requirement as discards are not routinely observed. So far, the data collected to
date looks to be incomplete and not of a high quality.
9. What has been the utilisation of any granted de minimis exemptions in the
fleet segment/fishery 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 final figures on landings and use of
de minimis will not be available until later in
2017. Indicative figures suggest that Scottish vessels using TR2 gear discarded a
combined 2t of nephrops in the North Sea and North Western Waters under
de
minimis.
10. Have any of your vessels utilised the provision to discard fish which shows
damage caused by predators?
Please provide the total weight of catch of each species discarded for each
fleet segment/fishery concerned.
We do not have good quality data on this. Unfortunately, reported discard data is
considered unreliable. We have a limited amount of information on unmarketable
discards from REM trials but the reason for discarding cannot be established from
the information collected.
11. For stocks managed by catch limits, did you make use of the provision for
inter-annual or inter-species flexibility?
Please identify which flexibility (or flexibilities) was used, and the
corresponding reallocation of fishing opportunities for the stocks concerned.
No
12. In the development of joint recommendations, has consultation with Advisory
Councils and other relevant stakeholders taken place?
Please outline the process of consultation with Advisory Councils.
Please outline the process of consultation with other stakeholders, if relevant.
Details of the consultations between the relevant Regional Groups and Advisory
Councils are included in the relevant Joint Recommendations.
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?
Please outline the process of ensuring stakeholders understand the
obligations that will apply to them.
Each administration of the UK has published guidance online for its industry on the
landing obligation and the content of the relevant delegated acts. This guidance has
been highlighted to the industry through correspondence, meetings and face to face
advice on the quayside and through local officers.
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?
Please specify the measures taken.
No.
15. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these studies/pilots apply to?
N/A
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.
N/A
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 fisherman?
In what format has this information taken;
Initiatives directed to fisherman to improve compliance
Guidelines on the application of the landing obligation, accurate
recording of catches, etc.
Other
The requirements of the relevant delegated acts has been transposed into published
guidance by each UK fisheries administration which has been drawn to the attention
of industry by letter and through meetings and face to face advice on the quayside
and through local officers.
An example of the guidance published can be found
here.
18. Have guidelines been provided by Member States administrations and control
agencies for inspectors?
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.
Fisheries Officers are kept fully informed of all developments and Enforcement
Policy Instructions are drafted and amended as required. Guidance continues to be
rolled out to all offices via written communication, Videoconferencing seminars, face
to face meetings and Workshops organised both locally and by EFCA.
19. Have new control and monitoring tools been used by Member States?
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 UK Government is adopting a range of data gathering tools.
The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is continuing the North Sea FDF
scheme on a voluntary basis for 2017, allocating quota uplift from the 2017
negotiated TACs as an incentive to participating vessels.
In the UK all tools available to compliance officers are utilised including traditional
techniques such as aerial surveillance, inspections at sea, and monitoring in port.
These have been supplemented with new tools and techniques such as CCTV and
fitting forward look infrared cameras (FLIR) to our surveillance aircraft allowing them
to keep a check on activities during the hours of darkness. Marine Scotland now
follow up any boarding at sea where last haul analysis has been carried out with a
full monitoring of the vessel on landing; this is then analysed against the landings of
other vessels fishing in the same area. All pelagic vessels are now required to give
their average gramme size and all vessels gramme sizes are compared against
vessels from the same fishery, allowing them to be used as reference vessels.
20. Have the Member state administrations and control authorities monitored
below Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) catches at and after
landing (traceability)?
Please supply information on:
Total number of discards (by fishery, fleet segment) from 2013 to 2016
Initiatives taken to prevent under MCRS catches from reaching the
commercial channels (pre-notification of landing of under MCRS
catches, etc.)
Measures taken to monitor landings at fish markets/auctions adopted.
Below MCRS fish entering direct human consumption outlets has not manifested as
a risk to date. Officers routinely monitor vessels at sea and in port checks are made
on the size of all fish. Fish that have been retained below the minimum size are
kept separately and landed to specific areas which have been set up in all auction
halls. Fish within these specific areas are subject to specific controls and are
normally used for bait by local creel vessels or dispatched to a meal plant where
they are turned into meal and oil. Guidance has been provided to industry on the
potential markets for below MCRS fish, specifying that food hygiene or Animal By-
Products legislation should be adhered to, depending on the markets the fish is
being directed to.
21. Has control and monitoring been based on risk assessment?
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.
Risk assessments are currently being used to categorise the highest risk fisheries
with a view to implementing appropriate and proportionate control tools. Control
activities are risk based although the highest risks are not necessarily linked to the
landing obligation. They have thus far focussed on control and technical risks to
compliance not associated with the landing obligation.
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?
Please give the details of the fisheries covered and the extent of sampling
The UK has been fully involved with the implementation of the last observed haul
approach elaborated by EFCA, for both pelagic and demersal fisheries.
Information on the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation
23. Using the most appropriate indicators defined below, provide information on
the socio-economic impacts on:
The catching sector
Upstream businesses
Processors
Consumption and markets
Costs for Member States
Detailed statistics on 2016 will not be available until later this year and we anticipate
that it will be difficult to disentangle the effects of the landing obligation from wider
movements in the fishing industry due to the lack of an identified control group
fishing outside the landing obligation to which we can compare.
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?
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
There have not been any reported incidents in the UK.
25. Have there been any reported incidents of overloading of vessels forcing
them to return to port early?
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents
It is possible that the landing obligation could result in fish holds being filled quicker
than normal where previously discarded fish is retained as a result of the landing
obligation. However, any vessel overloading with catch would be in breach of MCA
safety and stability rules, as well as putting lives at risk. We are not aware of any
such situations.
26. Have there been any reported incidents or accidents on board vessels that
can be attributable to excessive workload?
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents or accidents
The UK is not aware of any reported incidents.
27. Has any national legislation relating to safety on board fishing vessels arising
from the landing obligation been amended or introduced?
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 operation 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?
If yes, please specify the number of projects involved and the nature of the
measures taken
If no, have any measures been taken which have not been funded under the
EMFF?
Under Article 32 of the EMFF England, Wales and Northern Ireland have not funded
any projects but there is provision to fund such projects if an application is made.
Under Article 32 of the EMFF Marine Scotland have committed a total of
£357,658.63 (£228,851.08 EMFF, £128,807.55 National) to 22 projects. These
projects were for man overboard retrieval equipment, shelter decks, non-slip
coverings, upgrading crew quarters, EIRPB’s/PLB’s. However, article 32 of the
EMFF does not ask if such measures are being requested as a result of the landing
obligation, therefore it is not possible to separate out projects which specifically
mitigate risks introduced by the landing obligation.
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?
The main reported uses of below MCRS fish are for fish meal and pot bait.
Guidance to industry does list a wider potential list of markets, but in reality these
are the most readily accessible ones. We will evaluate whether this changes over
subsequent years.
30. Have you carried out any studies or pilot projects considering the potential
uses for such catches?
Please provide details of such studies or pilot projects.
CEFAS published a report in October 2014 on the English Discard Ban Trial which
considered the handling of undersized catch and the markets it could potentially be
directed to. The trial involved eight vessels of different sizes, gear types and from
different ports along the south coast of England who were involved for up to five
months. All fish caught were documented and there was a high level of confidence
in the compliance and in the quantities and reported destination of those catches at
first sale. Overall, 128 fishing trips were conducted during the trial of which 40 had a
scientific observer on-board. During the trial, the total recorded weight of otherwise
discarded catches caught by all vessels was 27,171kgs (an average 212 kg per
trip).
The report and its recommendations can be found
here.
Information on port infrastructure and of vessel’s 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?
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
Under Article 38 of the EMFF the UK has provided funding:
Marine Scotland has committed £9,572.50 (£4,786.25 EMFF funding and,
£4,786.25 National funding) to two projects for equipment to improve the handing of
catches on board.
England has approved 32 projects, predominantly to support the purchase of more
selective gear types, with an EMFF value of £234K.
In Northern Ireland no projects have been funded but there is provision to fund such
projects if an application is made.
32. Have you provided funding under Article 43 of the EMFF for the investment in
the infrastructure of fishing ports, auction halls and shelters for the handling
of unwanted catches?
Please specify the number, nature and total amount of invested in such
projects.
Under Article 43 the UK has provided funding:
Marine Scotland has committed £5,079,000 (£2,549,750 EMFF funding and,
£2,529,250 National funding) to 3 projects for the handling of unwanted catches.
These projects were to extend a fish market, and ice making facilities.
England has approved 19 projects, primarily focusing on harbour improvements,
with some equipment included in these projects, with EMFF funding of £608K.
In Northern Ireland no projects have been funded but there is provision to fund such
projects if an application is made.
33. Have you provided funding under Articles 68 and 69 of the EMFF for
investment in marketing measures and the processing of fishery and
aquaculture products?
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
Under Article 68 and Article 69 the UK has provided funding:
Under Article 68 Marine Scotland has committed £298,181 (£163,036 EMFF
funding and, £135,145 Scottish Government funding), to three projects which aim to
secure accreditation for inshore fisheries & develop exports. Under Article 69
Marine Scotland has committed £1,794,393 (£1,288,052 EMFF funding and,
£506,341 Scottish Government funding), to 8 projects which aim to increase
processing capacity & utilise salmon by-products.
England has approved two projects under Article 68 and 22 projects under Article
69 with a combined value of EMFF funding of £1.87m.
In Northern Ireland no projects have been funded but there is provision to fund such
projects if an application is made.
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
There are continuing issues with avoidance and/or selectivity measures in
pelagic fisheries, where herring is taken as an unintended bycatch in horse
mackerel fisheries.
Evidence from REM trials suggest that even with optimised selectivity it is
difficult to avoid some species such as Celtic Sea haddock where abundance
is widespread. This is problematic as quota availability for this species is very
low for the UK.
Handling, storage and processing of unwanted catches
At present, we have not seen significant problems with this which is probably
due to the limited number of fisheries affected by the landing obligation at
present. The main bulk of fisheries impacted by the landing obligation are the
North Sea TR1 and general pelagic fisheries.
Freezer vessel operators appear to be able to accommodate their previously
discarded catches although there is some confusion about whether
marketing facilities should handle this fish if it is intended for non-human
consumption.
Lack of funding to adapt fishing gears, vessels or port infrastructure
The UK is not aware of any specific issues in this area. However, in England
funding for selective gears is limited to one application per person/company.
Difficulties relating to monitoring, control and enforcement, such as:
Lack of understanding or awareness of the rules
Detailed guidance and advice is available however the rules are complex
during the transitional phasing period.
Difficulties implementing and monitoring de Minimis or high
survivability exemptions
There are concerns around the reliability of discard data. It is not possible to
monitor these levels of discards whilst self-reported discard data remains
unreliable and unvalidated. Some indication of discard levels can be gleaned
from observer and inspection data. Whilst such data may provide an
indication of discard levels it will not be possible to ascertain a precise figure
of de minimis use during the course of a year as the percentage of total
catches can only be established at the year’s end.
Implementation problems with regard to control/monitoring processes
or infrastructure (e.g. adaptation of ERS systems)
A new data exchange schema is being introduced in 2017, at which point
new/different coding will be put in place for landing obligation related
reporting requirements. Until then the UK is having to use temporary
solutions to the data requirements.
Refusal to carry observers
N/A.
Difficulties in fully utilising fishing opportunities, such as:
Problems re-allocating quota to cover catches previously not landed
Difficulties have arisen principally in the pelagic fisheries where operators have
had to purchase quota to cover unintended catches. Whilst the quota has so far
been available the leasing price has made such landings uneconomic – it is not
possible to quantify this, however.
Problems with the timing or availability of quota swaps
The UK is unaware at this stage of problems with timing or availability of quota
swaps
Fisheries being forced to close early due to choke problems
The VIIe/f herring fishery has been closed for unintended catches and further
landing could lead to the closure of the VIId/e spat fishery.
The main challenge facing the Nephrops fleet in the Irish Sea using TR2 gear is
the avoidance of small whiting which is abundant across the fishing grounds.
Selectivity measures that rely on selection for size to retain Nephrops tend not
to be capable of selecting out small whiting.