Ref. Ares(2017)3197350 - 26/06/2017
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 though spatial or temporal changes to fishing behaviour ( for
example, studies/pilots on real time closures)?
The geographical aspects of discards is part of a project currently
conducted by the sector with support from the European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund.
2. Which fleet segments/fisheries do these measures and/or studies
apply to?
Not applicable.
3.
What has the uptake of these measures and/or studies been in the
fleet segments/fisheries to which they ae applicable? Please provide
the number and proportion of vessels in the segment/fishery.
Not applicable.
4. Have you initiated any changes to your quota management system to
implement the landing obligation?
Yes
The Netherlands has a system of individual transferable quota (ITQ’s)for
the most important commercial species. The system is also used to limit
the number of vessels that can target those species, by limiting the
number of basic rights in the system. Without a basic right, a vessel
cannot acquire ITQ’s.
Under the Dutch system a vessel was not allowed to land species for
which ITQ’s are needed and for which it had no ITQ. However the ban to
land fish without quota was considered to be non-compliant with the
landing obligation. It was therefore necessary to adjust the system.
From the 1st of January 2017 the ban to land fish without ITQ’s was
added with a ban to leave the port with a certain fishing gear when a
vessel does not have ITQ’s for the species that can be expected to be
caught with this gear. The threshold for expected catches is set at 10 per
cent. In order to determine for which gears the threshold applies a
scientific study was undertaken by Wageningen Marine Research.
Vessels without a basic right to acquire itq’s are banned to use certain
gears for which it was scientifically proven that the catches of ITQ species
Questionnaire Landing Obligation The Netherlands
are expected to exceed the threshold. In the period 2012-2015 those
gears were only rarely used by those vessels. However a ban was needed
to ensure that no new targeted fisheries would develop. Apart from a ban
to use those gears, it is also forbidden to carry those gears on board.
When a vessel does not have ITQ’s for a species for which the landing
obligation applies and for which ITQ’s are needed, it has to acquire so-
called ‘landing quota’ from the Netherlands Enterprise Agency. To
minimize the risk of new targeted fisheries on species for which an ITQ is
needed, the price of landing quota is set at about 90% of the market
price. A reservation was made on a national level to cover those cases.
For members of a producer organization it is not necessary to acquire
landing quota’s as the excess catches will be deduced from the catch
possibilities from the entire group.
5. For stocks managed through catch limits, have you conducted a
quantitative analysis to identify potential national choke species?
Yes, Wageningen Marine Research has identified potential choke species,
as input for a interregional workshop on choke species organised by the
United Kingdom. In this meeting the problems and possible solutions
were discussed. The work on choke species needs to be continued as it
necessary that the occurrence of choke species needs to be resolved
before the landing obligation comes into full effect in 2019.
6. Have you pursued any exemptions to the landing obligation (either for
high survival or deminimis) in the development of regional joint
recommendations?
For the joint recommendation of the North Western Waters Group for
pelagic species in 2014 the Netherlands has asked for a deminimis
exemption for the by catch of boarfish up to 1% in 2015 and 0.75 per
cent in 2016 for vessels targeting horse mackeral with pelagic freezer
trawlers.
For the joint recommendation of the Scheveningen Group in 2015 the
Netherlands has asked for a de minimis exemption for common sole
smaller than 19 cm, up to a maximum of 3.7% of the total annual
catches of this species by vessels using beam trawl with a mesh size of
80-90 cm in ICES Subarea IV. This deminimis is based on the fact that
increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve and handling those
fish will lead to disproportionate costs.
Exemptions are proposed by member states, but once adopted by the
regional group in the joint recommendation and included in a delegated
act, can be used by fishermen from all member states that fit the criteria.
For Dutch vessels the deminis for sole caught with the so called Belgian
net device is in particular relevant.
As regards the use of the deminimis, the deminimis for boarfish was used
extensively, there was moderate use of the deminimis for vessels using
Questionnaire Landing Obligation The Netherlands
the so called Belgian net device, limited use of the deminimis for
undersized sole. Furthermore there was limited use of the deminimis to
discard nephrops below the MCRS.
7. What studies or evidence have you collected or produced in order to
support such a request?
A quantitative analyses to determine the percentage of this undersized
fish present in the catches and an estimation of the costs of handling the
undersized fish.
8. What steps have you taken to ensure that the amount discarded
under granted deminimis exemptions does not exceed the permitted
volume in the delegated act?
The registration of the deminimis was explained in various meetings with
fishermen and/or producer organisations. Informative meetings on the
landing obligation were organised the end of November and the
beginning of December 2015 in Stellendam, Urk and Den Helder.
The landing obligation was also discussed at meetings between the
Producer Organisations and the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO),
the agency in charge of fisheries management. Individual fishermen with
catches that would fall under the landing obligation received a letter from
RVO explaining the rules applicable to them, including how to use the
deminimis.
Information on the landing obligation was also provided in various
information leaflets sent to fishermen by RVO, among which the leaflet
from December 2015.
Furthermore a set of questions and answers was developed in
collaboration with sector representatives.
The use of the deminimis was monitored during the year and discussed
with representatives of the sector.
9. What has been the utilisation of any granted deminimis exemptions in
the fleet segment/fishery to which the exemption applies? Please
provide total weight and proportion of catch discarded under thisl
exemption for each fleet segment/fishery to which an exemption
applies.
In 2016 it was is not yet possible to quantify the use of the deminimis
exemptions for the demersal sector due to limitations in the electronic
logbook. It is not possible to distinguish between discards falling under a
deminimis and discards falling under other exemptions (damaged) or not
yet falling under the landing obligation.
Questionnaire Landing Obligation The Netherlands
However in the monitoring it was assumed that all discarded sole fell
under the deminimis and even in this case the deminimis was not
exhausted.
In the pelagic sector the use of the deminimis for boar fish was heavily
used, but not exhausted.
10.Have any of your vessels utilised the provision to discard fish which
shows damage caused by predators?
Unknown, there is no specific code in the electronic logbook for this.
11.For stocks managed by catch limits, did you make use of the
provisions for inter-annual or inter-species flexibility?
No
12.
In the development of joint recommendations, has consultation with
the Advisory Councils and other relevant stakeholders taken place?
Yes
The North Sea Advisory Council (NSAC), the Pelagic AC and the North
Western Waters Ac were invited to closely collaborate with the regional
groups. The AC’s were invited to advise on the phasing in of the landing
obligation, they were given the possibility to identify challenges and
solutions as well as advise in formulating exemptions, in light of Article
18(2) of the Basic Regulation. There has been regular and detailed
engagement between the Regional Groups and the ACs. The ACs have
been invited to attend, in part, meetings of the Scheveningen High Level
Directors group and the Technical group. Additionally, Member State
representatives have attended the meetings of the Advisory Councils.
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, see answer to question 8
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 In 2015 the Netherlands has adopted a implementation agenda in
collaboration with the sector organisations. The support for the landing
obligation among fisherman is very low. The implementation agenda was
started to allow the government and the sector organisations to work
together despite a difference in view with regard to the landing
obligation. Sector and Government agreed that the aim of the landing
Questionnaire Landing Obligation The Netherlands
obligation is to increase selectivity by reducing discard. It was agreed
that the demersal sector should reduce discards with 35% in return for
support from the government to achieve a workable landing obligation,
with exemptions where necessary. Funding from the European Fisheries
Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund was made available
to the sector to start projects to increase selectivity, investigate and
enhance the survivability rate of discards, investigate how to best handle
catches on board and after landing and investigate how the unwanted
bycatch can best be marketed. Also a project on fully documented
fisheries was conducted.
15.Which fleetsegments/fisheries do these studies/pilots apply to?
Both the pelagic and the demersal sector
16.What has the uptake been of these measures in the fleet
segments/fisheres to which they are applicable? Please provide the
number and proportion of vessels in the segment/fishery.
Not applicable.
Steps taken by member states regarding control of compliance with
the landing obligation
17. Has information been provide by Member States administrations and
control agencies to fishermen?
Yes see answer to question 8.
18. Have guidelines been provided by Member States administrations and
control agencies for inspectors?
Yes
The work procedures are described in work protocols and the inspectors
are instructed to work accordingly. Also a hand out was developed for
use during at sea inspections. The hand out contains a flow chart with the
obligations per area, gear and species and information on registration
and (de minimis) exemptions.
Furthermore a training for inspectors was organised by the Food Safety
Authority.
19. Have new control and monitoring tools been used by Member States?
No, but the Netherlands has participated in the “last observed” haul
project from EFCA. Data gathered through this tool are useful for
monitoring, but not as an enforcement tool. The results of this project
will be used as input for a future risk based approach.
Questionnaire Landing Obligation The Netherlands
With regard to control the Netherlands has chosen a step wise approach.
In 2016 the inspection agency in the Netherlands has focussed on
providing guidance and explanation with regard to the landing obligation.
In 2017 the focus of inspections will be on the correct registration of
discards.
The Netherlands emphasizes that there should be a level playing field
with regard to the control and inspection of the landing obligation across
the various inspection agencies of the different member states. Therefore
the Netherlands actively participates in the control expert group meetings
of the regional groups. In the Scheveningen Goup the development of a
compliance evaluation tool is currently discussed. This tool is based on
data from various sources, a reference fleet, inspections et cetera and
can be used to assess compliance with the landing obligation, so that
where necessary extra measures can be taken.
In the context of level playing field Dutch inspectors have participated in
a training session for inspectors from North Sea Member States
organised by EFCA
20. Have the member states administration and control authorities
monitored below Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) catches
at and after landing (traceability)?
Yes. The monitoring of the MCRS was done during the supervision of the
common marketing standard.
The producer organisations in the Netherlands have agreed to take
measures to prevent the marketing of demersal fish under MCRS for
human consumption on a voluntary basis. The fish is made unsuitable for
sale in the regular commercial channels and sold as category three
material.
The pelagic sector freezes the below MCRS fish together with the
damaged fish.
21. Has control and monitoring been based on risk assessment?
The new tools that are being developed are risk based. At the moment
the regional groups are still discussing the use of these tools.
22.Has the last observed haul approach elaborated by EFCA as a tool for
monitoring the landing obligation and to derive targets for potential
inspections been used?
Yes, the information that was gathered during this approach was sent to
EFCA. There the information was used for the development of a risk
assessment tool.
Questionnaire Landing Obligation The Netherlands
Information on the impact of the landing obligation
23.
The costs of the landing obligation depend on the exemptions that will be
granted when the landing obligation is fully implemented and also on the
question to what extend the sector will succeed in increasing selectivity.
In 2016 the sector estimated the costs at over €25 million per year.
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, because of the stepwise approach the Scheveningen Group and the
North Western Waters Group have taken with regard to the
implementation of the landing obligation for the demersal sector, these
problems have not yet occurred. However during a pilot project in which
a Dutch vessel complied with the landing obligation it became apparent
that overloading is an issue, certainly for smaller vessels. Those vessels
will be forced to return to port early and will be very fully loaded.
25. Have there been any reported problems of overloading vessels forcing
them to return to port early?
No, but the landing obligation is not yet fully implemented. An estimation
from the fisheries sector is that when the landing obligation is fully
implemented around 70 per cent of the smaller vessels (<221 KW) will
be forced to return to port early.
26.
Have there been any reported incidents or accidents on board that can
be attributable to excessive workloads?
No but during the pilot project conducted, it became soon apparent that
the resting times of the manning was significantly reduced. To address
this a vessel will have to take extra staff on board (two men) or reduce
the amount of hauls.
27.
Have any national legislation related to safety on board of 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 Commision Delegated
Regulation (EU) 2015/531 to mitigate against potential safety issues
Questionnaire Landing Obligation The Netherlands
No. No funding is provided under article 32 of EMFF or article 3 and
article 6 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/531. There has
been no other funding provided to mitigate against potential safety issues
caused by the landing obligation
.
29.
What have been the main reported uses and destinations for catches
below mcrs? Demersal: non human consumption, category 3 material according to the
animal byproducts regulation (EC) 1069/2009
Pelagic:This fish is mainly sold as animal feed, e.g. to tuna farms.
30.Have you carried out any studies or pilot projects considering the
potential use for such catches?
The sector has in a project with support from the European Fisheries
Fund explored several possibilities. It turned out that finding high value
markets was not straight forward. Potential (new) users need a
continuous supply of high quality product. However this requires amongst
others that the discards are treated the same way as the fish for human
consumption. Which is costly.
It became apparent that the development of new markets for discards
might take years. The initial aim of the project was to find markets that
would at least cover the costs of landing the fish. This goal was not
achieved. However the project results gave a good insight in the issues
that need to be addressed to find higher value markets and how
complicated this process is.
31.Have you provided funding under Article 38 of the EFF for modifications
on board vessels for the handling of catches on board?
No not yet.
At the moment the Netherlands is in the process of creating the national
regulation for an application process for investments under this article
32.Have you provided 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 provided funding under Articles 68 and 69 of the EMFF for
investment in marketing measures and the processing of fishery and
aquaculture products?
Article 68: Yes. At this moment there is a tender for subsidies for € 2,8
million. We have not yet selected the projects.
Article 69: No
Questionnaire Landing Obligation The Netherlands
Information on the difficulties encountered in the implementation
of the landing obligation and recommendations to address them.
The landing obligation is a major challenge in a mixed flatfish fishery.
Increased selectivity is very difficult to achieve without significantly
increasing the costs.
Experience in pilot projects shows that with the current fishing practices
and a landing obligation without exemptions vessels will have to acquire
extra labour (on average two men) on board or reduce the amount of
hauls per journey. Furthermore an estimated 70 per cent of the Dutch
vessels will need to get back to port early.
The total costs of the landing obligation for the demersal sector is
estimated at over €25 million. The costs of handling the undersized fish
on board and after landing are significant. For example the fish still needs
to be washed and iced in order to be preserved in an acceptable
condition. So far the sector has not succeeded in finding destinations for
the unwanted by catch that will at least cover those costs.
An assessment by Wageningen Marine Research shows that there are
various species risking to choke the Dutch fisheries when the landing
obligation is fully implemented. This issue needs to be addressed in order
not to have to close the fisheries for target species early.
There is currently no key control tool in force at a regional level or EU
level to monitor the compliance with the landing obligation with sufficient
guarantees. Systems like the Electronic Report System are not upgraded
in accordance with the landing obligation. Authorities are merely adapting
existing control tools but no control tool exists to truly detect non-
compliance with the landing obligation.
The major problem however is the lack of support for the landing
obligation by the ( Dutch) demersal sector. Therefore it is necessary to
find solutions that make the landing obligation workable for fisher men.
The landing obligation should be used as a tool to increase selectivity and
not as a goal in itself. Finally in order to increase the support in the
sector for the landing obligation it is important that there is a level
playing field with regard to control of the landing obligation.
Questionnaire Landing Obligation The Netherlands