Ref. Ares(2017)664583 - 07/02/2017
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)? Yes/No
Yes
Please specify the measures taken or studies.
A report on a study of the impacts of the landing obligation on Irish vessels was issued in 2016.
Two vessels were chartered to undertake the trial predominantly in the Celtic Sea but were
also permitted to move to other areas to reflect normal fishing practices: Vessel 1, a 23 m
quad-rig trawler targeting
Nephrops; Vessel 2, a 23 m single-rig trawler targeting mixed
demersal whitefish species. The study was split into two phases. Full catch documentation
meant that it was possible to assess business as usual and landing obligation scenarios during
each phase of the project. In Phase 1, vessels operated as normal. In Phase 2, the skippers were
presented with the results of the first phase of the trial and were challenged to reduce levels of
unwanted catch as much as practically possible by choosing from a range of existing mitigation
tools and/or by adjusting their fishing behaviour and tactics. Cod and haddock were the main
choke species. The
Nephrops vessel was able to maintain vessel profitability under the landing
obligation scenario possibly due to the use of technical measures. Spatial changes in fishing
operations by the mixed demersal trawler in Phase 2 resulted in reduced catches of the main
target species whiting, and greatly reduced profitability. In addition, scenarios of quota uplift
and de minimis provisions were found to be of little use in addressing the challenges faced by
the mixed demersal vessel in relation to low quota species such as cod and haddock. The
absence of available gear modifications to separate haddock from whiting, and a major
imbalance between available quotas and catches of these species is likely to raise major
challenges in the mixed demersal whitefish fishery when haddock is phased in under the
Landing Obligation.
http://www.bim.ie/media/bim/content/publications/Lo%20report%202016_final.pdf
Ireland continues to carry out gear studies and trials to aid in the development of appropriate
measures that enable fishermen to avoid juvenile or unwanted catches, which will be very
important in the successful full implementation of the policy between now and 2019. In 2016
An Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) concluded a programme of work aimed at reducing catches of <
MCRS Nephrops. With an estimated value of €49m at first point of sale in 2015,
Nephrops is
Ireland’s most commercially important demersal species, and the species was phased in under
the landing obligation in 2016. Assessments of an increase in codend mesh size, customised
sorting grids, and square mesh codends revealed that an increase in minimum mesh size from
70 mm to 80 mm was the more effective measure for reducing catches of < MCRS
Nephrops.
Customised rigid sorting grids are also reasonably effective at reducing catches of < MCRS
Nephrops and can also be used to substantially reduce fish catches when needed. A new
national regulation (S.I. No. 510 of 2016) in October 16 requires an increase in minimum
codend mesh size from 70 to 80 mm for all Irish vessels >= 12 m that deploy more than one
demersal trawl from January 2017. Over 90% of Irish
Nephrops are landed by vessels >= 12 m
using more than one trawl so this new regulation will greatly improve the sustainability of Irish
demersal trawl fisheries and assist in addressing landing obligation requirements.
http://www.bim.ie/media/bim/content/publications/BIM%20Cod-
end%20Mesh%20Size%20Report%202015_Oct.pdf
http://www.bim.ie/media/bim/content/publications/BIM%20Report%20Assessment%20of%20
rigid%20sorting%20grids%20in%20an%20Irish%20quad-
rig%20trawl%20fishery%20for%20Nephrops.pdf
http://www.bim.ie/media/bim/content/publications/BIM%20Report%20Assessment%20of%20
square%20mesh%20cod%20ends%20in%20an%20Irish%20Nephrops%20fishery%20May2016.p
df
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/si/510/made/en/pdf
With an estimated value of ~ €8m in 2015, whiting is also a species of major commercial
importance in Ireland which was phased in under the landing obligation in the Celtic Sea in
2016. Major success was achieved in a gear trial of T90 mesh aimed at reducing catches of
undersize whiting in a mixed demersal trawl fishery targeting that species. Catches of small
whiting below market size were reduced by 67% in an 80 mm T90 mesh codend compared with
a standard 80 mm diamond mesh codend. The quality of the catch was also greatly improved in
the T90 codend, a further incentive for Industry to use this gear.
http://www.bim.ie/media/bim/content/publications/5536%20BIM%20Assessment%20-
%20T90%20mesh%20-%20Whiting%20-%20Celtic%20Sea%20-%20ONLINE.pdf
A new dual codend with net separator panel was successfully tested in the
Nephrops fishery.
This device separates fish catches from
Nephrops catches into two codends facilitating different
selectivity measures to be applied to different species within the
Nephrops trawl. Building on
BIM’s other work to improve
Nephrops and whitefish selectivity, an 80 mm diamond mesh
codend was deployed in the bottom codend and a 90 mm T90 mesh codend was deployed in
the top codend. Catches of undersize whiting and haddock were reduced by 72% and 49%
respectively with no reduction in catches of
Nephrops compared with the standard 80 mm
control codend. Larger mesh sizes could be used in the top codend to further improve
selectivity of fish species as required. No loss in catches of flatfish, monkfish and cod occurred
in the test gear. By simply removing the top codend the gear can also effectively be used as a
fish exclusion device when fish quotas are very low given a high separation rate for key fish
species: 98% monk, 94% whiting, 90% cod, 90% hake, 83% haddock, 82% flatfish. Automated
species separation greatly reduced catch sorting times and improved fish quality, thereby
further incentivising use of this gear. The dual codend with net separator panel has major
potential to address a range of challenges posed by the landing obligation but some legislative
changes are needed to maximise benefits and use of this measure. Under EC regulation No.
850/98 vessels targeting
Nephrops are generally limited to using nets of the same mesh size
range. Depending on the species composition, these mesh size ranges are 70 mm to 79 mm,
and 80 mm to 90 mm. Ability to use larger mesh sizes in the top codend would make sense to
facilitate greater reductions in fish catches when needed, but regional agreement on such an
approach would likely be required.
http://www.bim.ie/media/bim/content/publications/5987-BIM-Stella-Nova-Trial-Brochure.pdf
2. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these measures and/or studies apply to?
These measures apply to the Nephrops fishery, and mixed demersal fishery targeting whiting
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.
An increase in minimum codend mesh size from 70 to 80 mm will apply to all Irish vessels >= 12
m that deploy more than one demersal trawl from January 2017.
T90 mesh is currently being used by a number of vessels targeting whiting in the Celtic Sea on a
voluntary basis but the precise number of vessels using the gear is unknown.
Further uptake of these measures is expected in 2017 as part of Fishery Improvement Projects
(FIPs) which are being established In Ireland for
Nephrops and Whitefish fisheries in 2017. FIPs
offer a mechanism to bring together an alliance of fishermen, seafood buyers and suppliers, to
talk through the challenges from the landing obligation faced in the identified fishery or
fisheries, identify data needs, agree on a set of priority actions that should be undertaken to
improve the fishery, and then oversee an action plan. (See under question 14).
4. Have you initiated any changes to your Quota Management system to implement the
landing obligation? Yes/No
Please give details.
Yes. A number of changes have been made to the Irish quota management system with
significant amendments to the Monkfish notifications & fishery management notifications as
well as the monthly whitefish data. In addition to this a significant IT project has been initiated
to look at a new Quota management system capable of dealing with quota management once
the landing obligation is fully phased in.
An additional catch-limit is made available each month
for obligated vessels for obligated species over and above the catch limits in place to mitigate
the potential choke effect on non obligated fisheries.
5. For stocks managed through catch limits, have you conducted a quantitative analysis to
identify potential national choke issues? Yes/No.
Yes
Please give details.
During 2016 DAFM, BIM and the Marine Institute completed a quantitative analysis of national
choke species issues as part of ongoing work with the North Western Waters Regional Group.
This analysis categorised choke species into the following categories:
1. That within the Sea basin (e.g. North Sea) there is enough quota to cover total catches
but that some member states individually do not have enough. An issue that member
states can resolve between themselves in a regional context.
2. Within the member state there is enough quota to cover catches however there is a
region or fleet segment which does not have enough. The member state can resolve
this issue itself.
3. 1 and 2 above do not apply and within the relevant sea basin there is not enough of the
species allocated to cover present catches or catch levels that can be realistically
reduced to resulting in a total cease to fishing for a member state.
The analysis identified the following as the most problematic choke species:
Cod - VIa, VIIa, VIIb-k
Whiting – VIa, VIIa
Sole – VIIa, VIIf,g
Haddock VIIb-k
Spurdog
Bluefin tuna
DAFM, BIM and MI have also been working on a choke species case study considering Irish
demersal fisheries in the Irish Sea. This study describes the relevant fisheries in the Irish Sea,
identifies the choke species and details solutions to mitigate against choke situations through
the use of existing measures under the landing obligation (e.g. improved selectivity, de
minimis, Inter species quota flexibility etc) and the residual problems that these measures will
not be able to solve. This study is currently being discussed with the UK and Belgium.
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/No
Yes
Please give details of each exemption pursued.
Of relevance to Ireland 3 de minimis exemptions and 1 high survivability exemption were
established in the discard plan for North western waters under Commission delegated
Regulation (EU) No 2016/2375 for the following:
De minimis exemption for whiting, for vessels obliged to land whiting and using bottom
trawls and seines of not less than 100 mm to catch whiting in ICES divisions VIIb-VIIj.
De minimis exemption for whiting, for vessels obliged to land whiting using bottom
trawls and seines of less than 100 mm to catch whiting in ICES subarea VII (excluding
VIIa, VIId and VIIe).
De minimis exemption for Norway lobster, for vessels obliged to land Norway lobster in
ICES subarea VII.
High survivability exemption for Norway lobster caught by pots, traps or creels in ICES
division VI and subarea VII
7. What studies or evidence have you collected or produced in order to support such a
request.
A detailed analysis of previous selectivity data was completed to support the de minimis
exemption for whiting for vessels using bottom trawls and seines of less than 100 mm to catch
whiting in ICES subarea VII. This analysis compiled selectivity data from trials carried out in this
fishery with different selective gears over the period 2010-2014. The gear options tested were
increased codend mesh size and square mesh panels of 100mm, 110mm and 120mm. Data for
whiting, haddock and megrim were analysed. The main findings were:
Increasing selectivity for whiting over and above the current 80mm + 120mm smp
regulation gear by increasing mesh size and/or the size of the smp leads to significant
reductions in marketable whiting.
The combination of losses of whiting and other associated species such as megrim,
haddock and hake resulting from the increased selectivity observed in these trials would
make this fishery uneconomic.
A gear trial testing T90 mesh codends aimed at reducing catches of undersize whiting in the
mixed demersal trawl fishery targeting that species was carried out in 2016. Catches of small
whiting below market size were reduced by 67% in an 80 mm T90 mesh codend compared with
a standard 80 mm diamond mesh codend.
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 amount of discards logged has been low and not close to any limit. An SFPA leaflet has
reminded fishers of their de minimis allowances. Discards logged which are potentially within a
de-minimis discards, are assumed to be de-minimis and not due to other reasonse.g predator
damaged .
From a coastal state perspective, SFPA has noted discards logged which are assumed to be de
minimis, specifically freezer trawler boarfish, but the reckoning against volume permitted is
impossible without awareness of flag state total. Similarly a difficulty in all fisheries subject to a
de minimis allowance is the absence of coastal state awareness of the manner in which this de
minimis allowance is distributed amongst its flag vessels. The solution would be active push of
such information from flag state to coastal state.
9. What has been the utilisation of any granted de minimis exemptions in the
fleetsegment/flshery 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.
During 2016 Irish Vessels logged a total of 360,920kg of discards.
Of this there were 32,758kg of Nephrops discards from vessels which were Landing-Obliged for
Nephrops, and 12,602kg of Whiting discards from vessels which were landing-obliged for
discards. Adding these together gives a figure of 45,360kg of discards which is the maximal
potential amount of discards under de minimis provisions.
In the absence of an ERS facility to differentiate the reason for discarding, those figures assume
that discards logged, which are potentially within a de-mininis discards, were in fact to be de-
mininimis and not due to other reasons e.g predator damaged .
10. Have any of your vessels utilised the provision to discard fish which shows damage
caused by predators? Yes/No Please provide the total weight of catch of each species
discarded for each fleet segment/fishery concerned
The ERS schema does not allow the reason for discarding to be noted. Discards logged by a LO
vessel with a de minimis allowance are potentially within a de-minimis discard allowance, are
assumed to be de-minimis and not due to other reasons e.g predator damaged. No predator-
damaged fish have been logged as discards.
11. For stocks managed by catch limits, did you 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.
No
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? Yes/No
Please outline the process of ensuring stakeholders understand the obligations that will aply
to them.
Yes. A number of meetings and workshops have been held around the country to
disseminate information in relation to the landing obligation. In addition to this all vessels
with a landing obligation have been written to outlining their obligations and also giving
them an information booklet with all necessary information. The Control authorities (SFPA)
have also provided helpful handouts about the landing obligations.
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? Yes/No
Yes
Please specify the measures taken.
Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) which are being established In Ireland for
Nephrops,
Whitefish and the Albacore Tuna fisheries in 2017.
Nephrops
The main issue in this fishery that the FIP will address is the implementation and the impacts of
the landing obligation in particular technical solutions to the reduction of unwanted catches of
undersized
Nephrops and reduction of unwanted bycatches. The FIP should also consider on
board handling, marketing and quality issues relating to frozen and fresh
Nephrops.
Whitefish
As with the
Nephrops FIP the main issue that the FIP will address are the implementation and
the impacts of the landing obligation in particular technical solutions to the reduction of
unwanted catches of target and bycatch species The FIP should also consider on board
handling, marketing and quality issues.
Albacore Tuna
The main objective of the FIP for this fishery will be to achieve MSC certification. The FIP will
act as a forum to initiate and address any problems that might hinder this process.
15. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these studies/pilots apply to?
Nephrops trawlers
Whitefish vessels targeting hake, megrim, anglerfish and haddock
Pair pelagic trawlers targeting albacore tuna.
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.
The FIPs have only been established towards the end of 2016 so no information is available in
terms of proportion of vessels involved.
17. Has information been provided by Member States administrations and control agencies
to fishermen? Yes/no
Yes
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
Inter-agency LO briefing sessions
Leaflets
Information sent to all vessels with a landing obligation
18. Have guidelines been provided by Member States administrations and control agencies
for inspectors? Yes/no
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.
Seminars run by SFPA for regional port offices late 2015.
Similar seminar run by FP for Navy Ships captains late 2016
19. Have new control and monitoring tools been 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,
Ireland has participated in the NWW Control Expertes Gropup and the recceomendations of
that group are still being considered by the NWW High Level Group..
Irish fishery control has harnessed available traditional tools of landing inspection and at-sea
inspection to assess risk of noncompliance with LO, but new definitive tools have not been put
in place
20. Have the Member state administrations and control authorities monitored below
Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) catches at and after landing
(traceability)? Yes/No
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 landings of under MCRS catches, etc.).
• Measures taken to monitor landings at fish markets/auctions adopted.
Yes Ireland’s 2016 fishery control plan requires ongoing checks for such fish during at-sea and
landing inspections, and post landing inspections of transports auction halls or processing
plants. Figures provided and numbers of trips quantities logged as small, and primarily in
volumes terms are pelagic and <10%. In all cases such fish are sold to processing plant
approved under the Animal By-products regulations, and this is a second-sale. Therefore the
<MCRS fish are included in the initial sales note from first buyer to vessel, and then traceable
from first buyer to ABP plant by means of a commercial document mandated under the ABP
regulations from the first-buyer to the ABP plant.
21. Has control and monitoring been based on risk assessment? Yes/no.
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.
Fishery control and monitoring is generally based upon assessment of non-compliance risks and
LO noncompliance is now amongst the many relevant noncompliance risks that are assessed
when deploying control resources e.g. to a landing or at-sea inspection. Risk assessment can
take place at different levels including preformatted assessment of risk per fishery or fleet, or
dynamic assessment of risk for individual vessels or landing. The bulk of pelagic fishing in the
Irish EFZ and landed in Ireland is from vessels assessed as inherent high risk of LO non
compliance by NWW CEG. There is also an entirely different subsequent level of risk
assessment, which is materially affected by catch opportunity for example a vessel fishing for
horse mackerel with an authorization for that species only, will pose a substantially higher risk
of LO noncompliance than a vessel fishing for horse mackerel and also possessing an allowance
to retain potential by-catches e.g. mackerel, whiting, boarfish.
For demersal fisheries the NWW CEG has devised a risk assessment of various fisheries with
significant input from EFCA. Notwithstanding risk-assessment efforts, those demersal fisheries
LO vessels in 2016 have all had remarkably little change in catch profiles pre-and post LO
despite significant scientifically-modelled discards, so therefore pose high risk of
noncompliance with LO. In particular instances of catches indicating particularly high risk of LO
non compliance, vessels may be targeted for at-sea observed hauling..
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? Yes/No Please give details of the fisheries covered and the extent of sampling.
Observation of the sorting of the most recent haul, during at-sea has been used at a relatively
low-frequency within context of the NWW Pelagic SCIP and also the Cod Irish Sea JDP. The
primary utility of this data is that when collated this haul data provides useful data by way of
reference for anticipated catches for particular gear in particular fisheries. This could
subsequently contribute to understanding of baseline expectations against which individual
vessel catch profiles might be compared, to inform assessment of declared catches e.g. in ERS
to assess risk of noncompliance. In addition to species mix, the last haul work also gives
grammes size information which could be used to inform risk assessment with landed catches,
although not currently transmitted in ERS.
Additionally observation of most recent haul has also some utility as a specific follow-up risk-
based targeting when a vessel has been assessed to pose particular LO noncompliance risks
However it is exceedingly difficult to extrapolate findings beyond anything other than further
assessment of non-compliance risks, as difference between such observed haul and catches
retained from previous non-observed hauls on that trip, might be justified through the normal
inter-haul variation.
Observation of most recent haul has been found to be extremely resource intensive, and
difficult to reconcile with the normal inspection time-limit within Art 104 of 404/2011. A
sampling-based methodology, whereby a representative portion of the haul is characterized
has more utility from a fishery control perspective.
Information on the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation
23. Using the most appropriate indicators defined below, provide information on the
socioeconomics impacts on:
The catching sector
Upstream businesses
Processors
Consumption and markets
Costs for Member States
Economic data collected under the DCF for 2015 is being analysed. The only fisheries within this
data set that were subject to the landing obligation in 2015 were the pelagic fisheries.
Indicators from this dataset do not show any socioeconomic impacts that can be directly
attributed to the landing obligation.
A socioeconomic project which follows on from a previous BIM/MI supported project,
DAMARA, aims to develop a bio-economic model the Celtic Sea and the active fleets within it to
simulate the effect of the landing obligation. This project began in late 2016 and it will apply
the model to the Irish Sea and the Northwest seas off Ireland to devise fishing strategies that
will optimize the economic return for Irish fleets active in these waters.
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? Yes/No
None reported
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
25. Have there been any reported incidents of overloading of vessels forcing them to return
to port early? Yes/No
No
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents.
26. Have there been any reported incidents or accidents on board vessels that can be
attributable to excessive workload? Yes/No
No
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents or accidents.
Fishermen are vocal on the impact that might accrue in terms of vessel stability and workload
from sorting and logging previously-discarded catches. However in the context to-date of no
appreciable quantity of previously-discarded fish, including <MCRS fish being retained and
landed, such concerns are phrased in a hypothetical context.
27. Has any national legislation relating to safety on board fishing vessels arising from the
landing obligation been amended or introduced? Yes/No
No
Please provide details of this legislation.
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? Yes/No
Yes
If yes, please specify the number of projects involved and the nature of the measures taken.
Five projects have been funded under Article 32 of the EMFF principally for Personal Protection
Equipment, manual handling and improving working conditions. These projects are not directly
attributable to the landing obligation but have benefits for safety on board vessels subject to
the landing obligation.
If no, have any measures been taken which have not been funded under the EMFF?
A total of 255 grants for safety equipment were paid out in 2016 under a national Fleet Safety
Scheme. These grants are for a variety of safety equipment and while not directly attributable
to the landing obligation have benefits for safety on board fishing vessels subject to 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?
Fish meal, bait for shellfish fisheries and low grade pet food. It has been reported that some
unwanted catches have gone to landfill.
All of the small volume and number of landings of <MCRS fish landed to Ireland have gone for
processing at an approved animal byproduct plant, whose output is a feed ingredient for
various animal feeds. Some of these quantities have been supplied as bait for commercial
fishers. Most of the landings and quantity are pelagic and <10% of the overall quantity,
therefore allowable for direct human consumption, but they are graded out in the first sale
processing plant and sold for ABP processing or bait. The main fish ABP processor in the
country pays approximately €180 per tonne which would result in some value to the seller of
such material if in close proximity, and would merely pay for the transport if the suppliers are
distant from the ABP processor. Selling this as fish bait can attract higher prices in the order of
€350 per tonne when boxed and frozen.
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?
Price per tonne for fish meal is €145-€240/tonne (this is without transportation costs to the fish
meal plant). Taking transportation costs into account the return to the boat is around €80-
€180/tonne. The higher price is for small herring and mackerel.
Price per box for shellfish bait is approximately €10-€12 per 20kg carton for round whiting and
up to €16/carton for pelagics (mackerel, scad, herring).
For petfood, the current scenario is that the companies collect for free and absorb the cost of
transport thus negating the cost of disposal for fish processors who would otherwise have to
pay for disposal in landfill. There is no return to the vessel.
30. Have you carried out any studies or pilot projects considering the potential uses for such
catches? Yes/No
Yes
Please provide details of such studies or pilot projects.
BIM and NOFIMA are exploring potential collaborative projects in the area of SMART
Ingredients. BIM is in discussion with Biotep, a state-of-the-art Bioprocessing facility in Tromso,
for developing nutraceutical and bioactive ingredients. The potential for utilising unwanted
catches for dry and wet pet foods was commenced in 2016. This project concentrates on
scoping optimal emulsification and freezing technologies for use in pet food with a view to
placing unwanted catches in the high end petfood market. This project will finish in 2017.
BIM will also host the annual West European Fish Technologists Association (WEFTA) in
October. This conference will bring together numerous international seafood R&D specialists to
discuss Technological innovations across all species categories. The theme of by-product
utilisation and use of underutilised marine-origin material will be discussed in terms of
potential for further value-adding and value generation from unwanted catches emanating
from the landing obligation.
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/No
Yes
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
Nine projects with a total investment of €117,000 and EMFF funding of €56,500 were approved
in 2016. These projects were principally for environmentally friendly fishing gear including
selective gears such as square mesh panels, coverless trawls and codends of mesh sizes in
excess of the legal requirements.
In addition eleven projects were funded under Article 42(1a) (adding value to fishery products)
and Article 42(1b) (investments on board that improve quality) of the EMFF. These projects
involved the provision of equipment on board vessels to improve the quality of fish subject to
the landing obligation; the provision of weighing scales and improvements to on board
handling to improve the quality of catches subject to the landing obligation (i.e. insulated fish
bins; ice machines and refrigerated storage). Total investment in these projects is €535,000
with EMFF grant aid of around €218,000.
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? Yes/No
No
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
Two applications under Article 43 for major infrastructure projects to handle unwanted catches
and add value to catches subject to the landing obligation have been received and are being
assessed. These projects involve the provision of cold storage facilities for handling unwanted
catches grading and packing and grading systems. Total investment for these two projects is
estimated to be close to €500,000.
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/No
Yes
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
Five applications were received under Article 68 (1cii) for investments that support the
certification and promotion of sustainable fishery products, at sea and ashore. These
applications involved 45 demersal vessels and 4 onshore premises, all of which are directly
impacted by the landing obligation. These projects related to certification under BIM’s
Responsibly Sourced Seafood Standard (RSS). Total investment in these projects was €28,000
with grant aid of €17,000.
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
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
Celtic Sea herring
There was a large bycatch of whiting in the Celtic Sea herring fishery during 2017. Fishermen
observed this year that the herring shoals tended to be close to the seabed meaning they had
to fish their trawls “tight” to the seabed to catch herring. By doing so the bycatch of demersal
fish such as whiting was higher than normally experienced in this fishery.
Reducing this bycatch in this fishery is difficult as the size and shape of the target species
(herring) and bycatch species (whiting) is very similar, making sorting to the two species or
releasing the whiting bycatch using escape panels very difficult. In addition the species tend to
be in the same geographic areas making avoidance difficult as well. There is no obvious
technical solution to this problem.
A de minimis exemption for this whiting catch may be possible but as the catches from these
vessels are generally pumped aboard vessels and stored in bulk in RSW tanks, sorting the
whiting bycatch from the herring catch is difficult. Currently sorting is carried out in the
processors.
• Lack of understanding or awareness of the rules
Specific difficulty in fishermen choosing to refer to all previously-discarded landing-obliged fish
as ‘discards’. This confuses discussions on dealing with MCRS catches compared where the
overwhelming misconception continues to be one of all previously discarded fish being
something of a special case for at-sea storage and post-landing marketability.
• Difficulties implementing and monitoring de minimis or high survivability exemptions
Inability of ERS system to denote reason of discarding is a difficulty here, so control authority is
not aware of reason for discarding.
Lack of visibility of other Member States de-minimis allocation systems, so all Control
Authorities will see is a logged discard, assume it is a de minimis discard, and assume that flag
MS will reckon against the limit in the delegated act.
We are not aware of instances of the use of a high survivability discard exemption in the Irish
EFZ. Some limited purse-seine pelagic fishing occurs in Irish EFZ, with potential applicability of
that high-survivability exemption. However Ireland as Coastal State has not seen any logged
discards logged in such fisheries There is no fishing by Irish boats, nor in the Irish EFZ for
nephrops using pots/traps/creels, so Ireland has nothing to report on that high-survivability
exemption.
• Implementation problems with regard to control/monitoring processes or infrastructure
(e.g. adaptation of ERS systems)
The ERS has always facilitated logging of discards, but these aren’t included in the PNO. The ERS
does not facilitate logging of discarding reason, they are just logged as discards without reason,
and this is an issue. As the incoming (2018) FLUX standard was devised before the LO,
particularly the additional predator-damaged discarding reason introduced in 2015, the
forthcoming FLUX introduction is not likely to fully address this issue.
• Refusal to carry observers
There has been a decline in the numbers of vessels taking scientific observers which has
impacted on the scientific data available. Steps are being taken to address this in order to
comply with the Data Collection Framework.