Key points made at Discard Action Group catching sector specific meeting on Wednesday 23 January 2013 at the MIC Hotel, London.

Transcription

1 Key points made at Discard Action Group catching sector specific meeting on Wednesday 23 January 2013 at the MIC Hotel, London. What the legislative architecture needs to be to deliver a discards ban. Attendees Angus Cragg Ashley Wilson Barrie Deas Bertie Armstrong Chris Leftwich Dominic Rihan Edouard Delloye Jane Sandell Karen Green Libby Woodhatch Mike Park Paul McCarthy Phil MacMullen Tom Brown Tom Catchpole Defra Defra NFFO SFF Fishmongers Company DG MARE ClientEarth Scottish Producers Organisation Seafish (Minutes) Seafish SWFPA, Seafish Board (Chair) Marine Scotland Seafish NUTFA CEFAS 1. Welcome and Apologies Mike Park. Mike introduced the topic and explained that this was really the second part of the discussion that began in Brussels in November 2012 to consider how we move to discard free fisheries between 2014 and The intention was to draw up a letter to Commissioner Damanaki the debate was over what this should cover and what other activities should be undertaken. 2. EU Commission perspective Dominic Rihan. The aim was to understand what the Commission expects Member States to be doing in the transition to discard-free fisheries, and how they should be planning for this now i.e. what the timeline should look like, what should they be considering, what options are available, is it going to be the same for everyone etc. Dominic gave an overview on the progress of CFP reform: General Approach was agreed in June 2012; PECH Committee voted in December 2012; vote in EP Plenary in February 2013; mandate to negotiate February Council includes new wording for Article 15; trilogues to begin March 2013 and agreement by June Dominic highlighted various areas where the Parliament and the Council were not necessarily in agreement; that institutional issues did have the potential to derail the whole process; and that it was recognized that the reform proposals were low on detail.

2 Dominic highlighted a number of operational issues and that 2014 was a scary deadline): Setting TACs - How TACs will be set is fundamental to the whole process; this must not upset relative stability; need landings data and discard data; a formula is required and clarity is needed on this; it is difficult to even come up with a procedure. Template - Need a template for a discards ban and STECF has been asked to look at this. It is expected an expert group will be set up. This will ensure conformity across Member States. Survivability There has been talk of high survivability rates in some species. This needs to be defined and proven. Practicality Need to consider practical issues ie Nephrops should the head be brought on board when the fishery is targeting the tails. De minimis/quota flexibility rules Need to look at de minimis and quota flexibility. Conservation Reference Size This needs to be determined. Standardisation of discard data This must be actioned. Guidelines for selectivity & discard avoidance Issues raised are required. Technical measures there is a need to amend technical measures that lead to discarding. MLS is relatively simple to resolve but catch composition could be a nightmare and bycatch provisions need to be considered. Control the intention is to cover the recording of catches, stowage, the role of observers, penalty-points and REM in one Regulation (Omnibus). Key next steps Dialogue is crucial want to convene inter-rac workshops. Progress has already been made here. The Baltic RAC has already made progress and the EU/Norway Working Group has been extended to cover North Sea implementation issues. Produce a Roadmap/Discard Atlas of what can and can t be delivered. Pilot studies. Issues raised: Comments on the difficulties the trialogue process could throw up. The Parliament will lead; it is difficult to influence the Council and the Commission will act as peacemaker. Will the Omnibus be a new technical regulation? No it will be a revision of 850/98. STECF and ICES have been asked to review 850/98. There is a danger that the fishing industry will be landed with a well-intentioned but impractical regulation. Will there be an implementation period? We are already looking at different time frames for different species. There are difficulties implementing high arching requirements at a regional level. Comment was that regionalisation has to be flexible but realistically there has to 2

3 be a limitation on how much power can be given to individual MS. MS must come forward with well-thought out plans and inter-area flexibility has to be addressed. There is a consensus that TACs will have to rise to accommodate discards but is this linked to confidence in the catch data? There is the realization that in the short-term we will have to rely on what we have but only official data will be accepted. Increased quota will obviously be the carrot. ICES has been asked to look at available data. The reality is that there will be a discard ban, a legal framework has to be put in place to accommodate this and that there will have to be a TAC uplift, but there is a concern where there are shared stocks, as in the North Sea, and bilateral agreements with Norway. There was a question about the experience in Skaggerak and what had been the view of Norway? Norway was not particularly flexible on this. This was flagged up as a potential problem area as to how this would affect discussions about quota uplift. If the EU had agreed quota but Norway were not in agreement how would this be handled? Comment was that Norway is just one country and that the EU could exert influence. Norway cannot dictate EU fisheries policy but as TACs have to be jointly set it is an issue. It was confirmed that ICES would continue to advise on TACs and STECF would cover the technical/practical aspects. There had been an ICES/RAC meeting the previous week and ICES had indicated it was going to push forward with multi species advice in 2014 because of the importance of trying to find out more about multi-species interaction. There were questions about whether the existing system would be able to deal with the difficulties of a discard ban in a mixed fishery and there were worries about this leading to a whole series of choke stocks. Fewer TACs may be the way forward. Commission view was that ICES was a long way from multi species/mixed fishery advice. Question was raised as to whether the Commission aligns discard-free fisheries with Fully Documented Fisheries? One of the rationale behind FDF leading to discard-free fisheries was to get a much better account of different fisheries and to really quantify the size of the problem. Where does relative stability come in? (Each year the UK and other Member States receive a fixed percentage share of TACs, based on historic fishing activity: this is known as the principle of relative stability between Member States). It is unclear what will happen at a political level in theory there could be a realignment or reallocation and inevitably there would be winners and losers and this could lead to some complex swaps. Putting the emphasis on removals is likely to drive selectivity particularly in high-discard fisheries. The worry is that this could instigate bad behavior with MS building up a discard track record to boast forthcoming TACs. Could swaps be made permanent? It was felt that permanent swaps did not work in a dynamic situation. Saithe was cited as an example of a swap that did not work in a dynamic situation, given that protecting the market was the driver for France to ignore swap requests. 3

4 3. CFP reform planning in England. Angus Cragg/Ashley Wilson, Defra. Defra has now started to look at what would need to be done in order to comply with the provisions contained within the new CFP. Notably this will focus on the landing obligations that are due to start with pelagic species on 1 January Defra is currently identifying an internal team (with MMO and CEFAS) and will be liaising with stakeholders including DAG, the RACs and the Producer Organisations. Defra s public engagement starts on 13 February 2013 with a meeting to look at an interpretation of the obligations and challenges this raises. Defra expect the following issues to be raised: quota management; quota uplifts; how uplifted quota is allocated and where the problem areas lie; how to reduce unwanted catch; whether to roll out the catch quota trials further; what do we know about selectivity and survivability; issues surrounding the under 10 metre fleet; ensuring compliance with the new rules to avoid Commission intervention. There are a number of projects running or completed looking at different aspects of this issue namely catch quota trials, bulk uses and market aspects. Also need to look into survivability (STECF review shows available evidence is patchy) and inshore selfsampling. A gear selectivity review is also underway at CEFAS. A discard-ban study is also underway. Issues raised during the subsequent discussion: Is it appropriate to put a camera on an under 10 metre vessel? What is the capability of STECF to deal with a large increase in the number of enquiries? Onshore infrastructure could be a real issue how to deal with fish for human consumption and how to deal with fish for non-human consumption. It is unlikely that an adequate infrastructure is in place. Working with the devolved administrations - how will any uplifts in TAC be divided out? Comment was that the Concordat allows some flexibility to allow the administrations to come to some agreement. Will this be based on the current fixed quota allocation? (FQAs are held by individual vessels who are members of a group, or by a group collectively. Groups are: producer organisations (POs), who manage quota for the vessels in their membership; non-sector, a group comprising all those vessels over 10 metres in length that are not fishing against quota allocations managed by POs; and the10 metre and under fleet that are not fishing against quota allocations managed by POs. Allocation is based on a vessels historic landings (track record) during a fixed reference period (1994 to 1996 for most stocks). Each group s share of the total UK quota for a particular stock is based primarily on that group s share of the total FQA units for that stock that are held by the UK fleet as a whole). It was stated also noted that article 28(2) of the General Approach requires Member States to take account of likely catch composition in mixed fisheries when allocating fishing opportunities. Member States will, as part of the process to implement the new CFP, need to look at this. This raised questions. Is there 4

5 anything wrong with the current arrangements? They already have some flexibility built in it is important to be clear on priorities. Is there any benefit in re-allocating quota? One view was that we already have a quota allocation system which is being fully utilised some will gain but some will have to lose if this is re-allocated. Defra were clear that at present they needed to identify the questions/issues that had to be considered as a legal consequence of the EU reforms. The questions being posed at the meeting highlighted the complexity and uncertainties that the landing obligation raised. Defra would work with stakeholders openly and transparently. The real issue is doing something with all the fish that is now going to be landed. If it is landed but not then used what has been changed? Some felt more evidence was needed on what the under 10 metre fleet is landing. Is there any consideration being given to incentives to land fish with little commercial value? Options are being considered. Control is the elephant in the room. The Commission has provided very little detail on this but it is important the economic incentives align with management objectives. There also needs to be a mechanism for a vessel to verify it is doing what it says it is doing. 4. CFP reform planning in Scotland. Paul McCarthy, Marine Scotland. The main criteria for Marine Scotland is to ensure that quota limits are not breached and selectivity is encouraged. There was thought to be no need for ring-fenced quota. The expectation is that all of this will be covered by one control measure and the technical regulation will be removed. Issues raised: Is this all under a FDF? And if so cameras or observers? Likely to be under a FDF with cameras. There was concern about how much could potentially be passed to the POs to handle and that with the ban on discards on pelagic species due to introduced in January 2014 no one had yet approached the POs to talk about the 26 large pelagic vessels operating in Scotland. Public perception is that we need to end discarding and we have no alternative but to move to a landings obligation. We need to manage this process of change and build on the work that has already been done. However there is the potential for enormous unintended consequences. It may be worth an insistence on focusing on a limited number of key species (already mentioned in the General Approach). This will be a balancing exercise. The Total Allowable Catch will be the limiting factor technical conservation measures will no longer have the same priority. We need to have confidence in the control measures ie we have a high grading ban in the North Sea but how confident are we that it is not happening? Are we going to set a confidence level ie we are 95% confident that discarding is not occurring? There are certain assumptions about discard levels and conversely an 5

6 assumption about what fish will now be landed but how will this be monitored and what methods best delivers that confidence? How do we ensure there is a level playing field across Europe? Instance of Nephrops boats with incidental by-catch was cited and how this will be accounted for in a quota management system. Will there be pools of quota for issues such as this? Response was that this should be covered by the deminimis rule but needs further discussion of how this is going to be managed. 5. Discard free fisheries in the Skagerrak current state of play. Update from Kenn Frau Fischer by . The agreed measures between the EU and Norway were adopted under Norwegian regulations in autumn The measures, including the discard ban, entered into force in the Norwegian waters of Skagerrak on 1 January 2013 for all vessels fishing in this area. Early indications are that this has not caused any problems for the fishermen probably due to flexibility and pragmatism from the Norwegian authorities (ie Skagerrak has been open for all fisheries from Denmark, Sweden and Norway in January despite no agreement before Clonakilty in January). From 1 February 2013 the agreed new technical measures will be introduced for the Skagerrak by Denmark and Sweden, through national regulation, for their own vessels (The technical measures are part of the Skagerrak proposal from the Commission). Also Norwegian vessels in EU waters will have to follow these technical measures following the Norwegian legislation. The Skagerrak proposal from the Commission is currently before the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament and this process is expected to be finalised during the course of A discussion of the proposal was foreseen in the Council on January 28 but it seems not to be the case any longer. It is not yet clear when the Council is supposed to reach a general approach, but a lot of work still needs to be done on the proposal (among other thing a better cleaning up in the technical measures etc. as regards Skagerrak). It is understood some Member States still see a connection to the reform of the framework regulation. The Fisheries Committee in the Parliament did not finish their work before Christmas. There is still plenty of work going on finalising the report. It is likely discussions will continue in the Committee in February but unclear when the actual voting will take place. The EU and Norway are still working on finalising the access agreement for Skagerrak. It failed in Clonakilty in January on legal discussions (seems to be the process and not the content). However, the EU and Norway has in the Agreed record from Clonakilty made some changes to the agreement on Skagerrak so that it is now foreseen to enter into force from 1 January The technical working group on Skagerrak is now expected to meet in March/April 2013 to deal with some of the technical measures that have arisen as a result of the different reading and implementation of the agreed text concerning technical measures. 6

7 The EU and Norway has agreed in Clonakilty to set a common TAC/quota for Others in Skagerrak at 10,000 t. More work is expected on this issue this year, but the purpose is to have a registration and see how the fisheries develops instead of fixing an other quota at some arbitrary level following different data set in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. 6. Feedback on CEFAS/NFFO Fully Documented Fisheries workshop. Barrie Deas, NFFO. Barrie reported that 30 had attended the workshop from across the industry to discuss how industry collectively can have confidence about catches. This looked at the topdown requirements and the opportunities that moving to FDF would offer ie more quota, exemptions, simplification. Potential benefits were listed as: better science (bearing in mind that data needed for scientific purposes could be very different to data needs for monitoring and control); reduced bureaucracy; greater confidence within the supply chain; increased revenue. Pitfalls could be: idea of Big Brother ; installation costs; issues surrounding safeguarding data. Reality is that: no one size fits all; all fisheries are different; new technology has to be embedded and practical. This workshop is one part of a larger project. Tom Catchpole highlighted the other two parts: a literature review; and interviews with fishermen in the Northern Irish Sea Nephrops fishery, South West netters and South West otter trawlers. A full report on all three aspects is due to be published in February Initial feedback on progress on Seafish regional discard studies. First on Northern Irish Nephrops. Karen Green, Seafish. The aim of the project is to assess the implications of a discards ban on the viability of the UK fishing fleet. Seafish have commissioned Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management to conduct a study that examines a) the impacts of the proposed discard ban on specific fleets and b) how vessels can best achieve the required discard reductions. The consultants will undertake three case studies in total, the first focusing on the Irish Sea Nephrops fleet. For each case study an impact assessment will be undertaken that seeks to answer the following questions: a. What are the estimated costs and benefits associated with specific discard reduction measures? b. How would these affect vessel economics? c. What is the most cost-effective approach to reducing discards for this fleet? d. At fleet level, what would the additional quota requirements be? e. Are there choke species that could limit the operation of the fishery? The consultants will answer these questions using economic modelling and industry consultation. The team will examine how different methods of dealing with a discard ban 7

8 (e.g. purchasing extra quota, increased gear selectivity measures, using real time closures of areas etc) will affect profitability. A first draft of the economic model has been developed and is currently being refined. Initial feedback has been provided by John Anderson of the Seafish Economics team, while Jess Sparks (Seafood Scotland) and Jim Watson (Scottish Government CFP reform team leader) have agreed to evaluate the next version of the model. As part of the industry consultation, meetings with skippers and quota managers will be arranged by Seafish and facilitated by Poseidon in February in Northern Ireland. 8. Initial feedback on progress re CEFAS discard ban trial. Tom Catchpole, CEFAS. The trial is now underway with four vessels landing commercial species. Two vessels are otter trawls operating out of Brixham and Looe, with a bottom trawlers based at Plymouth and a large netter out of Newlyn. There are also discussions with another group of vessels and with the MMO on dispensations. This work is intended to complement the CCTV trials and understand the practical aspects of instigating a discards ban ie issues of sorting/storage; impact on ports; distribution and transports; market impact; best way to collect data; cost of transport; market costs; value of the fish when it reaches Grimsby There have been some teething problems. Over quota/under MLS have to go for fishmeal and smaller, low value fish are going for human consumption, with some to pot bait. Those closer to Grimsby are getting a better price for the fish. 9. Report on TR2 Selectivity Development Brief Scottish Fishermen s Federation (SFF) Independent Observer Programme A recent recruitment process towards the end of 2012 resulted in the return to a staffing complement of four Observers and a Data Analyst. After an initial training programme which included 12 days on the Marine Scotland Research Vessel, the two new Observers have both completed three trips on commercial vessels, and settled in well. In December 2012, SFF was advised by Scottish Government that an application for a continuation of the Independent Observer Scheme for two years had received European Fisheries Fund approval. The first year will see a continuation of the current level of sampling with four Observers with a work program still to be confirmed by Marine Scotland. It is envisaged that through liaison with Marine Scotland Science, the Independent Observer Scheme can be extended to six Observers with an expectation that biological data collected will feed into the stock assessment process. We have recently heard from Marine Scotland Science (MSS) that they are keen to apply for FISA funding for further selectivity work. We have responded to say that we are willing to arrange a meeting to consider project proposals that would be of interest (and currently relevant) to Industry. 8

9 Summary of Scottish Selectivity Measures TR2 Flip Flap Scottish Government (SG) has classed this gear as highly selective. FCAP Fathlie cod avoidance panel After a series of trials and adjustments, this gear is now also classed as HSG SCOTNET - cod box section After initial development by net maker, this option has now focused on a SMP with large escape holes. This is currently with MSS for camera observation and limited trials. 400 SMP with modified Flip/Flap SFF trials carried out early October but only achieved 37% cod reduction. Skipper and netmaker need to consider if this can be progressed. Hybrid Flip flap + escape hole + SMP This is under development and awaiting outcome of discussion between netmaker and skipper. Initial vessel trials were encouraging but no data readily available to SFF. Hope to progress to SFF Observer trials, then MSS trials. Avocet - Net Grid This was trialled by CEFAS for <1.5% cod derogation. During part one of the CEFAS trials a significant number of hauls were carried out in IVa. A 71% reduction in cod numbers was achieved. Awaiting corresponding data on weights and if this supports the data on numbers, SG have agreed in principle to add this to HSG list. Scotnet Internal Cod Flap After successful trials with SFF Observer (achieved a 65% reduction in weight of cod catches), Marine Scotland have now embarked on science trials (17 Jan 2013). This gear was referred to earlier as a Hybrid flip flap + escape hole + SMP. 10. Next steps A full summary to be produced of all the comments made and issues raised. Consideration of writing a letter to Damanaki and what the message would be. View is that the Commissioner needs to know what the UK is doing to comply with forthcoming CFP reform proposals. It was felt to be important to highlight potential stumbling blocks. Agreement was to write a letter to Damanaki highlighting particular issues that have the potential to derail the whole process and should be addressed. Most significantly these include: bi-lateral arrangements with Norway; frequency of ICES assessments; concerns over pressure that will be put on STECF. A DAG workshop/seminar was considered on issues surrounding TACs in a mixed fishery such as the North Sea ie monitoring and control measures, what are the key commercial species, TACs for key driver species and how many there should be, choke species, joint stocks, frequency of assessment etc 9

10 Reports to follow on: FDF workshop and associated work. Seafish regional discard study - Northern Irish Nephrops. Progress of CEFAS discard ban trial. Progress of DEFRA implementation programme. 10