Ref. Ares(2018)6366147 - 11/12/2018
Ref. Ares(2019)586055 - 01/02/2019
Ref. Ares(2019)1069189 - 21/02/2019
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES
Fisheries Policy Mediterranean and Black Sea
QUESTIONNAIRE TO MS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LANDING OBLIGATION
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)?
Yes.
Please specify the measures taken or studies.
2. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these measures and/or studies apply to?
Trawlers.
3. What has the uptake of these measures and/or studies been in the fleet segments/fisheries
to which they are applicable? The feedback we have relates mainly to the difficulties on
improving selectivity in mixed fisheries without economic losses for fishermen.
Please provide the number and proportion of vessels in the segment/fishery.
4. Have you initiated any changes to your quota management system to implement the
landing obligation?
Yes
Please specify these changes.
For mackerel, quota have been attributed individually to candidate vessels, to improve and
better control the utilization of the quota.
5. For stocks managed through catch limits, have you conducted a quantitative analysis to
identify potential national choke issues? Yes Please give details. PT identified potential
national choke issues for anglerfish, red seabream, megrim, skates and rays (namely
raja
undulata) and deep-water sharks.
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
Please give details of each exemption pursued.
In the purse seine fisheries:
High survivability: catches of anchovy, horse mackerel, jack mackerel and mackerel in
artisanal purse seine fisheries. All such catches may be released, provided that the net is
not fully taken on board.
De minimis: in ICES zones 8, 9 and 10 and in CECAF areas 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2.0
targeting the following species: up to a maximum of 4 % in 2018, of the total annual
catches of horse mackerel (
Trachurus spp.) and mackerel (
Scomber scombrus); and up to
a maximum of 1 % in 2018, of the total annual catches of anchovy (
Engraulis
encrasicolus).
In demersal fisheries:
High survivability: Norway lobster (
Nephrops norvegicus) caught in ICES subareas 8 and
9 with trawls.
De minimis: for hake, up to 6 % in 2018 of the total annual catches of this species by
vessels targeting this species in ICES subareas 8 and 9 with trawls.
7. What studies or evidence have you collected or produced in order to support such a
request.
In the purse seine fisheries:
High survivability: Scientific evidence supporting high survivability was provided in the
Joint Recommendation of the SWW Group, which made reference to a specific scientific
study on fish survival from slipping in purse seine fisheries of European Southern waters.
The study found that survival rates depend on the crowding time and the density of fish
within the net, which are typically limited in these fisheries. This information was
reviewed by the STECF which concluded that the proportion of slipped fish surviving
would likely be greater than 50 %. This survivability exemption does not affect the
prohibition in force, since the release of the fish will occur at a stage of the fishing
operation where the fish would have a high survival rate after release.
De minimis: exemption in the purse seine fishery horse mackerel (Trachurus spp.),
mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) was evaluated by
STECF which concluded that this exemption was supported by reasoned arguments which
demonstrate the difficulties of improving the selectivity in this fishery.
In demersal fisheries:
High survivability
Norway lobster, as existing scientific evidence indicates possible high survival rates,
taking into account the characteristics of the gears targeting this species, the fishing
practices and the ecosystem. The STECF in its evaluation concluded that the latest
experiments show survival rates in the range of the survival rate observed in the previous
work.
De minimis
The de minimis exemption for hake was based on the fact that viable increases in
selectivity are very difficult to achieve. The STECF concluded that additional selectivity
information should be provided to demonstrate that selectivity is very difficult to achieve
for the métiers involved.
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?
2
Definition of a statistical system with a sub quota concerning the allowed de minimis for
each stock. All reported discards are counted against these sub quotas. If the sub quota
level is reached, fishermen are informed that from that date on all catches have to be
landed. This information is provided using the same channels then for fishing stops.
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.
discards
de
catches 2018
discards/
gear
code
Species
(kg)
ICES division
minimis
(kg) (*)
catches
(*)
purse
ICES 9a
ANE
Anchovy
21 642
4%
8 349 759
0,26%
seines
purse
Horse
ICES 9a
JAX
1 206
4%
19 357 631
0,01%
seines
Mackerel
ICES 9a
demersal
HKE
Hake
2 351
5%
1 739 488
0,14%
(*) provisional.
Discards figures relate only to electronic logbooks
10. Have any of your vessels utilised the provision to discard fish, which shows damage
caused by predators? No
Please provide the total weight of catch of each species discarded for each fleet
segment/fishery concerned. (Previous table)
11. For stocks managed by catch limits, did you make use of the provisions for inter-annual
or inter-species flexibility? Yes, for inter-annual flexibility
Please identify which flexibility (or flexibilities) was used, and the corresponding
reallocation of fishing opportunities for the stocks concerned.
Inter-annual flexibility for alfonsinos, greater forkbeard and undulate ray (ALF 3X14-;
GFB 89-and RJU 9-C). These are still provisional as some swaps to cover quota
overfishing are still pending.
TAC for GFB was removed, for 2019 and 2020, and therefore this stock was removed
from the landing obligation.
12. In the development of joint recommendations, has consultation with Advisory Councils
and other relevant stakeholders taken place? Yes
Please outline the process of consultation with Advisory Councils.
The development of joint recommendations was done in consultation with the relevant
Advisory Councils, namely SWWAC and PELAC. Those Advisory Councils were
invited to participate in all the Technical or High Level Meetings of the SWW Group.
Please outline the process of consultation with other stakeholders, if relevant.
The Portuguese Research Institute is consulted frequently on a case by case basis.
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
Please outline the process of ensuring stakeholders understand the obligations that will
apply to them. Disclosure of information – guide book in DGRM internet site and
3
dissemination by e-mail to the fishermen’s associations, and meetings involving
fishermen’s associations and organisations.
- Increase of the information given by the producer organisations to their members
relating to: minimum sizes, correct use of fishing gear, promotion of the use of more
selective fishing gear, avoidance of catches in areas where juveniles are located,
promotion of closed seasons and of observers on board (in the Azores and in some deep
sea fisheries).
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? No Please specify the
measures taken.
15. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these studies/pilots apply to?
Trawlers
16. What has the uptake been of these measures in the fleet segments/fisheries to which they
are applicable?
More than 80% of the fleet is currently under the obligation for at least part of the fishing
licenses.
Please provide the number and proportion of vessels in the segment/fishery.
TOTAL
NUMBER
DEMERSAL
PELAGIC
FLEET SEGMENT
NUMBER OF
VESSELS
(*)
(*)
VESSELS
UNDER LO
FIXED GEAR
3052
2802
2796
136
TRAWL
76
76
76
-
PURSE SEINE
146
98
98
1
(*) some vessels are involved in both demersal and pelagic fisheries
FISHING
AUTHORIZATIONS
FISHERY
LO
SPECIES/GEAR
NUMBER (*)
HAKE
DEMERSAL
2592
LLS
ALFONSINOS
DEMERSAL
6
LLS
HAKE
DEMERSAL
1182
GNS
HAKE
DEMERSAL
76
OTB
NORWAY LOBSTER
DEMERSAL
23
OTB
BLUE WHITING
DEMERSAL
83
OTB
SOLE AND SKATE
DEMERSAL
2256
GNS/GTR
HORSE MACKEREL
PELAGIC
139
GND/SB
(*) one vessel may have several authorizations
Steps taken by Member States regarding control of compliance with the landing
obligation
Each vessel that is subject to LO in 2018 had a fishing authorization included in its fishing
licence with the specific terms applied to that vessel. Therefore, control and inspection
authorities have the possibility to confirm compliance at sea or on port.
4
17. Has information been provided by Member States administrations and control agencies to
fishermen? Yes
In what format has this information taken:
• Guidelines on the application of the landing obligation, accurate recording of catches
and discards;
• Fishing authorizations included in its fishing licences with the specific terms of LO
for each vessel.
18. Have guidelines been provided by Member States administrations and control agencies
for inspectors? Yes
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.
19. Have new control and monitoring tools been used by Member States? Yes Please supply
information on:
• Development of a new electronic logbook (DPE+) which allows the accurate
recording and transmission of discards (at sea and at landing), haul-by-haul recording,
discards reasons.
20. Have the Member state administrations and control authorities monitored below
Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) catches at and after landing
(traceability)? Yes
Please supply information on:
•
Total number of discards (by fishery, fleet segment) - 2018;
Discards
ICES
gear
code
Species
(kg)
Division
2018
ICES 9a
purse seines
ANE
Anchovy
21 642
ICES 9a
purse seines
JAX
Horse Mackerel
1 206
ICES 9a
demersal
JAX
Horse Mackerel
1 103
ICES 9a
demersal
HKE
Hake
2 351
ICES 9a
demersal
MAC
Mackerel
360
ICES 8c
demersal
JAX
Horse Mackerel
600
ICES 8c
demersal
BOC
Boardfish
13 050
ICES 8c
demersal
MAC
Mackerel
2 720
ICES 9a
fixed gear
RJC
Thornback ray
25
•
Initiatives taken to prevent under MCRS catches from reaching the commercial
channels (pre-notification of landings of under MCRS catches, etc.);
Whenever an inspection takes place in port, all landings are subject to MCRS
control.
Whenever any quantity of a species under the landing obligation is found at the
market a traceability system is applied to identify the fishing vessel. The fish is
also confiscated.
•
Measures taken to monitor landings at fish markets/auctions adopted.
5
In Portugal, first sale of fresh and refrigerated fish is compulsory done at the first
sale auction. Sales of undersized fish for human consumption are not allowed.
21. Has control and monitoring been based on risk assessment? Yes
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.
Several inspection mixed teams took place in the framework of JDP Pelagics. In 2018,
particular work was developed to increase master’s awareness of LO procedures and
obligations.
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, whenever inspectors are on board the last haul is always observed and a
record of all discards is made by the inspectors. It is also confirmed if the masters do all
the required records in the electronic logbook, as specified.
Please give details of the fisheries covered and the extent of sampling.
Information on the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation
23. Using the most appropriate indicators defined below, provide information on the
socioeconomics impacts on: (not evaluated yet)
•
The catching sector;
•
Upstream businesses;
•
Processors;
•
Consumption and markets; Costs for Member States.
Information on the socioeconomic impact of the landing obligation
24. Have there been any reported incidents of overloading of vessels causing stability
problems? No
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? 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? No
Please specify the number and nature of such incidents or accidents.
27. Has any national legislation relating to safety on board fishing vessels arising from the
landing obligation been amended or introduced? No
Please provide details of this legislation.
6
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 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?
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?
Mainly fishmeal.
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? Not available
30. Have you carried out any studies or pilot projects considering the potential uses for such
catches? Yes
Please provide details of such studies or pilot projects.
Relevant Bibliography on utilization of unwanted catches for the creation of added value:
Fish protein hydrolysates
BATISTA, I., 2013. Biological Activities of Fish-protein Hydrolysates. In Se-Kwon Kim (Ed.) Marine Proteins and
Peptides. Biological activities and applications. A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester,
West Sussex, UK. p. 111-138.
CENTENARO, G. S.; SALAS-MELLADO, M.; PIRES, C.; BATISTA, I.; NUNES, M. L.; PRENTICE, C., 2014.
Fractionation of protein hydrolysates of fish and chicken using membrane ultrafiltration: Investigation of antioxidant
activity. Appl Biochem Biotechnol., 172 (6): 2877-2893.
GODINHO, I.; PIRES, C.; PEDRO, S.; TEIXEIRA, B.; MENDES, R.; NUNES, M. L.; BATISTA, I. Antioxidant
properties of fish protein hydrolysates prepared from cod protein hydrolysate by Bacillus sp. Applied Biochemistry and
Biotechnology (accepted for publication) DOI 10.1007/s12010-015-1931-5. Published on line: 21 November 2015.
PIRES, C.; BATISTA, I., 2013. Functional properties of fish protein hydrolysates. In Raul Pérez Gálvez and Jean-
Pascal Bergé (Eds.) Utilization of fish waste. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton. p. 59-75.
Protein recovery
TOMÉ, A. S.; PIRES, C.; BATISTA, I.; SOUSA, I.; RAYMUNDO, A., 2015. Protein gels and emulsions from
mixtures of Cape hake and pea proteins. Journal of the Science and Food Agriculture, 95(2): 289-298.
Relevant research projects
BE-FAIR – Benign and environmentally friendly fish processing practices to provide added value and innovative
solutions for a responsible and sustainable management of fisheries
BIOTECMAR – BIOTEchnological exploitation of MARine products and by-products
FAROS – Integrated Networking of Fishing Sector Actors to Organize a Responsible, Optimal and Sustainable
Exploitation of Marine Resources (www.farosproject.eu)
HYDROFISH – Bioactive compounds in fish and crustacean hydrolysates
MARMED – Development of innovating biomedical products from marine resources valorisation
PROPEPHEALTH – High-added value functional seafood products for human health from seafood byproducts by
innovative mild processing”
7
UP – Upgrading of industrially available fish and crustacean wastes
VALBIOMAR – Valorisation biotechnologique des ressources marines
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? No
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
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
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
One project- 425 000 euro
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
Please specify the number, nature and total amount invested in such projects.
Two projects – 1.368.230 euro
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:
•
Avoidance and/or selectivity insufficient to avoid unwanted catches. In mixed
fisheries, unwanted catches are proportionately scarce but difficult to avoid;
•
Handling, storage, and processing of unwanted catches.
Difficulties relating to monitoring, control and enforcement:
•
Implementation problems with regard to control/monitoring processes or
infrastructure (e.g. adaptation of ERS systems).
Difficulties in fully utilising fishing opportunities:
•
Problems with the availability of quota swaps.
Questions concerning control and enforcement, added in the questionnaire sent in 2017
35. How is the effective control and enforcement of the landing obligation at sea and the
accurate documentation of all catches, including quantities discarded, ensured?
New logbooks provide information on catches and discards. Decisions are taken to
inspect vessels based on the analyses of that information under a risk assessment.
36. How many suspected and confirmed infringements, related to the landing obligation,
have been detected at sea and at landing/marketing? Not available
In cases of confirmed infringements please indicate the circumstances of the offence and
the sanctions applied, including penalty points.
8