• European Marine Science
• Other research productsclose
• EU close
• ZENODO close
• European Marine Science close
• SDSN - Greece close

This deliverable presents the results of the bio-economic modelling assessments carried out under tasks 2.3 and 2.4. Task 2.3 covered the choice and initial parametrisation of relevant bio-economic models for the included case studies, and formulation of scenarios to be analysed. Models were chosen on the basis that they were already operational (i.e. had been used in other applications previously to Discardless) and as such thoroughly tested and documented in peer-reviewed journals, to secure a high scientific standard of the models and the expected assessment results. The selected scenarios firstly included, for all considered case studies, two benchmark scenarios; (i) ‘Business as usual‘, i.e. how the economic outcome of the fishery would evolve if the Landing Obligation (LO) was not implemented, and (ii) ‘Full implementation‘, i.e. what the predicted economic consequences for the fishery will be given a full implementation of the LO with no exemptions or mitigation measures implemented. Secondly a number of relevant scenarios were defined for each case study based on either expectations on or direct knowledge about how the LO, and possible exemptions and mitigation strategies will be implemented in the specific case study. And finally, each case study has assessed and applied outputs from Work Packages (WPs) 3-7, to the extend possible given the bio-economic model in use. Task 2.4 has firstly throughout the project updated the parametrisation of the chosen bio-economic models given the newest knowledge about the fisheries in question. Secondly task 2.4 has covered the running of the models, given the scenarios identified in task 2.3, and documentation of the resulting outputs. The following case studies have been analysed (parenthesis displaying the bio-economic model used): The Danish North Sea Demersal fishery (Fishrent) The UK mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea, West of Scotland and Area 7 (SEAFISH model) The French mixed demersal fishery in the Eastern English Channel (ISIS-Fish) The Spanish mixed demersal fishery in the Bay of Biscay (FLBeia) The Icelandic mixed demersal fishery (Model for various use of unwanted catches) The Spanish demersal fishery in the Western Mediterranean (MEFISTO) The Greek demersal and small-scale fishery in the Thermaikos gulf (MEFISTO) The outcomes of the simulations are mixed and indicate that the economic effects of the LO for affected fishing fleets depends on both the fishery in question, on the management system on which the LO is superimposed, and on applied exemptions and mitigation strategies. A full implementation of the LO with no quota-uplifts and no exemptions or mitigation strategies applied will in the long run lead to on the average (average over all fleet segments considered in a given case study) reduced or at best similar economic outcomes, compared to the situation with no LO, for the considered fisheries. Application of mitigation strategies and exemptions improves this result for most considered cases, but has in few cases been predicted to make the economic situation worse given redistributional effects, i.e. that the applied mitigation strategy or exemption will have further consequences for the stocks and other fleets, and thus indirectly make the economic situation worse for the considered fleet. When individual fleet segments are considered the picture becomes even more complex as it is in most case studies predicted that some fleet segments will profit while others will loose out given the LO, both without and with added exemptions and/or mitigation strategies. Thus, in all it is concluded that the economic effects of the LO for affected fisheries are, according to model predictions, very varied, going from losses to actual gains. And that the effects to a high degree depends on (i) the management system on which the LO is superimposed, and (ii) on which and how exemptions and mitigation strategies are implemented. Finally, it must be emphasized that the work performed in tasks 2.3 and 2.4 has built up a valuable model library that can be used for ongoing assessments of the economic outcomes of introducing exemptions and mitigation strategies in relation to the LO in the case studies covered. Understanding the consequences of various approaches to the implementation of the LO, and possible mitigation strategies, on economic performance of affected fishing fleets (using these models) is of broad interest for fishers, policy makers and stakeholders, as well as for anybody interested in sustainable fisheries and life in the oceans. The Deliverable report consists of two sections. Section 1 presents a synthesis of the work performed in the seven case studies, and as such gives a short introduction to each case study, to the applied models, to the scenarios analysed and a final synthesis and discussion of the results. Section 2 includes individual case study chapters, that present in-depth information about the case study, the applied model, the reasoning behind the chosen scenarios, discussion on interaction with WP3-7, and detailed outline and discussion of the assessment results. Box 1: Highlights from the bio-economic model assessments The in-depth analysis of the effects of the landing obligation on the economy of the case study fishing fleets has been conducted in the project using complex bio-economic models. The results of these simulations indicate: In Denmark, the ITQ management system applied is predicted to mitigate the economic effects of the LO in the long run and use of exemptions and improved selectivity may reduce possible economic losses further. In UK, the LO will mean losses in revenue due to choke in the medium long run after full implementation of the policy in 2019. However, application of various mitigation strategies, including quota adjustments, catch allowances for zero TAC stocks, TAC deletions, vessel movements between metiers, quota swaps (both nationally and internationally) and selectivity measures, all to some degree mitigate these negative economic consequences. In West Mediterranean, a full implementation of the LO will lead to reduced profitability, but other measures such as reduced fishing mortality and improved selectivity, may lead to increased profitability in the long term due to increased SSB and Yield. In E. Mediterranean, a full implementation of the LO and partial implementations with reduced fishing mortality will lead to slightly reduced profitability, but improved selectivity may lead to increased SSB that will in turn increase catches and profitability in the long term. In Bay of Biscay, the Basque trawler fleet is better off with a fully implemented LO than without in terms of Gross value added (remuneration of labour and capital), as long-term gains outweigh short term losses. Inter-species year-to year flexibility and de minimis reduces this result and makes the fishery worse off than without the LO. On the other hand, application of improved selectivity makes the fishery significantly better off than without the LO. In the Eastern English Channel ISIS-Fish runs suggest that full implementation of the LO induces a slight increase in long-run gross revenues at about 2.5% relative to the no-LO case. Introducing de minimis increases this to about 12.5% relative to the no-LO case. However, fleet opportunism, i.e. how flexible the fishers are in their choice of metiers, may affect these results both negatively (low flexibility) and positively (high flexibility). Closures of fishing grounds to protect whiting and sole has a negative effect for the economic outcome but allows delaying TAC exhaustion. For Iceland the model works opposite to the other models in the WP2 modelling, as the baseline is a fishery under LO. This case is used to contrast the results of the other case studies and reflect the possible value of landing UUC. It is found that the combined yearly value of products produced from these UUC is around 12.5 M Euros. Box 2: The Methods/Approaches followed Existing numerical bio-economic models have been applied with focus on assessment of the effects of the LO on the economic performance of European fishing fleets affected by the LO, and to test the economic effects of possible discard mitigation strategies. Analysed scenarios have been designed based on the problems faced, given the LO, by the specific case study and the management system on which the LO is superimposed. These problems may differ depending on whether the case study fishery is managed primarily through quotas or through Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) regulation. Analysed scenarios have been designed based on current knowledge on how the LO will be implemented and on mitigation strategies expected to be introduced in the given case study. Interaction with Discardless Work Packages 3-7 and implementation of results from these have been performed where possible in the different case study models. Box 3: How these results can be used and by whom Understanding the consequences of various approaches to the implementation of the LO, and possible mitigation strategies, on economic performance of affected fishing fleets (using bio-economic models) is of very broad interest for fishermen, policy makers and stakeholders, as well as for anybody interested in sustainable fisheries and life in the oceans.

This Policy Brief provides an overview of the current status, initial experiences, barriers, and opportunities with regard to applying the LO in mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea, North Western Waters and South Western Waters, the Mediterranean and the Azores. This area covers the all DiscardLess case studies, including the North Sea/West of Scotland, Celtic Sea, Eastern Channel & Bay of Biscay, the western and eastern Mediterranean, and the Azores. In quota managed fisheries, Mixed demersal fisheries provide the biggest challenge for implementation of the LO due to the difficulty of matching quotas with catches for multiple species which are caught simultaneously but in varying proportions. The policy brief reviews where we are with the LO now and what the main issues are. The main orientation of the policy brief is forward looking: what do stakeholders and researchers consider as the main approaches are to deal with the issues in each region until the next CFP reform? To conclude, we take a longer perspective, providing suggestions for how to implement a workable discard policy with the next reform of the CFP. The Policy Brief is written for policy makers, the fishing industry, NGO’s and citizens with an interest in fisheries management and is based on policy documents, stakeholder interviews, meetings and literature. Box 1: Report Highlights Implementation of the LO is occurring across all DiscardLess case studies with measures such as trials of selective gears, provision of information on implementation requirements and the use of exemptions among the aspects most evident. There is very little evidence to date of changes in discard rates or fishing practices although that is not confirmation that these are not occurring but reflects a lack of data to draw such conclusions at present. Recording of discards under exemptions and unwanted catches remains lower than expected although there is evidence of some increase in these practices in early 2019. It is difficult to assess whether changes in fishing practices to promote selectivity and avoid discards are taking place. Given some delays in sanctioning and gradual uptake of new gears (e.g. for trawlers catching Baltic Cod), recent changes to permitted gears (e.g. new mesh size and TCM requirements in the Celtic Sea) and the upcoming implementation of the new Technical Measures framework some improvements in selectivity and discard rates would be expected. The quality of discard data is not improving due to industry fears about the potential negative impact of providing discard data and subsequent decrease in observer coverage in some Member States. Stakeholders across all backgrounds have expressed concerns about the risks associated with potential rises in fishing mortality. Concerns about efficient and effective monitoring of the LO are increasingly being channeled into calls for electronic monitoring across all fleets or on a risk assessment basis. These calls are particularly strong in some MS such as Denmark. A move towards a Results Based Management approach involving electronic monitoring is being advocated with some industry stakeholders specifying that it would require changes to the LO in order for it to gain industry support. Despite a general negative attitude towards the LO among fishers contributions to the final DiscardLess conference in January 2019 including from fishers outlined both positives, such as the incentivising of change, as well as implementation barriers. These are described in greater detail in Section 8.2 below. Box 2: The methods/approaches followed Interviews with a broad range of stakeholders from Commission level, through national administrators, industry and NGO representatives and individual fishermen. Participation in relevant national, regional and EU meetings. Analysis of relevant policy statements, regulatory documents and academic literature. Box 3: How these results can be used and by who? The policy brief on guidelines for the implementation of the discard policy in European regions is of interest to stakeholders at all levels in EU fisheries as the question of what is actually happening with the LO in other fisheries and regions is asked regularly. Box 4: Policy Recommendations Data shortfalls make it difficult to make a reliable assessment of the extent of LO implementation and it’s impact. Improvements in the following areas of data provision would greatly assist with this assessment process. Recording of discards and unwanted catches at vessel level is poor across all case studies and has been identified by STECF as the most significant problem with monitoring LO implementation. MS will have to develop stronger accounting measures based on last haul analysis if this trend continues. As part of annual reporting on LO implementation MS should provide data not just on selectivity trials undertaken but also on the uptake rates for the use of such gears beyond trial situations. This would allow assessments of changes in selectivity patterns within fisheries to be made. The uptake rates of selective gears could be potentially accelerated by incentivising their use with additional quota. Negative industry attitudes towards the LO across all case studies point to the necessity to find workable discard reduction plans at regional level. The evolving regionalisation process which now incorporates technical measures, multi-annual plans, discard plans and in some cases bycatch reduction plans may provide the necessary framework to overcome industry fears particularly regarding choke closures. Reduced uncertainty regarding the use of measures such as inter-species flexibility and it’s effect on relative stability would assist with mitigating potential chokes. The need for effective monitoring and control of the LO is clear. Calls for the use of electronic monitoring as the solution will also require some degree of industry acceptance in order for this to be viable. Implementing an electronic monitoring approach either on a risk basis or as part of a wider results-based management approach could make this a more feasible option.

Box 1: Report Highlights Proto type light-emitting devices for use on trawl fishing gears have been developed and tested Laboratory experiments investigating the behavioural response of haddock and cod to light of different wavelengths, intensity and strobing rates. Continuous lines of light have been shown to influence the height at which some species enter a trawl gear Illuminated grids in the extension section can be used to direct fish out of the trawl gear or to different codends where further selection can take place. Adding white and purple LED lights into baited traps significantly improved the catch per unit effort of snow crab Box 2: The methods/approaches followed Design and development of physical hardware, software and user interfaces. Laboratory experiments with captive fish. Catch comparison fishing trials. Box 3: How these results can be used and by who? Fishers and net makers – to develop gears that utilise light to select for fish that best match their quota allocation. Fishing gear scientists – to better understand how light can be harnessed to improve trawl gear selectivity and the fishing efficiency of traps. Box 4: Policy recommendations This report demonstrates the potential of using light to improve the selective performance of gears, which if to be fully exploited requires (i) committed research support and (ii) a regulatory framework that is sufficiently flexible to accept readily new technologies and novel gears.

This Policy Brief provides an overview of the current status, initial experiences, barriers, and opportunities with regard to applying the LO in mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea, North Western Waters and South Western Waters. This area covers the DiscardLess case studies of the North Sea/West of Scotland, Celtic Sea, Eastern Channel & Bay of Biscay. Mixed demersal fisheries provide the biggest challenge for implementation of the LO due to the difficulty of matching quotas with catches for multiple species which are caught simultaneously but in varying proportions. The Policy Brief is written for policy makers, the fishing industry, NGO’s and citizens with an interest in fisheries management and is based on policy documents, stakeholder interviews, meetings and literature. Box 1: Report Highlights The overwhelming issue for industry stakeholders in mixed demersal fisheries remains the choke problem. Despite intense efforts to come up with solutions involving national and transnational workshops a significant number of fisheries will have residual choke problems even after all available mitigation measures are applied. The assessment of which mitigation measures can have the greatest effect and how is slowly moving from a qualitative to a quantitative approach. This issue is dealt with in further detail in D4.4. Quota distribution is a significant issue for choke scenarios there may be enough quota but it may not be available to those who need it most. Accordingly flexibility in quota allocation and swopping is key. Significant changes in management in order to deal with residual chokes, for example by removing a stock from the TAC process, may only be permitted when all other available measures under Article 15 are applied. In 2016 only 1 member state reported a choke closure, reflecting that a very significant gap in the implementation of the LO remains For environmental NGOs an increasingly important issue is the lack of recording of unwanted catches and controls. Some NGOs cite the example of the Baltic as a cautionary tale, as they claim discard rates there have increased since the implementation of the LO. The ACs generally favour a risk based approach leading to stronger controls for identified high risk vessels. The issue of how to deal with catches below MCRS remains a hypothetical as very small quantities of unwanted catches have been landed across these fisheries. Industry fears about the potential negative impact of providing discard data and subsequent decrease in observer coverage in some Member States is an issue for science. Box 2: The methods/approaches followed Interviews with a broad range of stakeholders from Commission level, through national administrators, industry and NGO representatives and individual fishermen. Attendance at relevant national, regional and EU meetings. Analysis of relevant policy statements, regulatory documents and academic literature. Review of first 2 years of the LO in demersal fisheries and guidelines for improved implementation over coming years. Box 3: How these results can be used and by who? The policy brief on experiences with the LO in mixed demersal fisheries is of interest to stakeholders at all levels in EU fisheries as the question of what is actually happening with the LO in other fisheries and regions is asked regularly. The experiences of the first 2 years reported in the policy brief were taken from interviews from fishermen, industry reps, control officers, NGOs and EU commission staff. In addition the guidelines and future implications outlined in the policy brief are relevant to policy makers and higher level stakeholders as they seek to build on previous successes and and avoid past mistakes with the broadening of the LO to other fisheries. The policy briefs will be presented for selected target audiences and are available on the project website. Box 4: Policy Recommendations A major policy challenge is to catalyse action at the management level (see also D4.4). A top-down process could be used whereby failure to implement measures available in Article 15 would preclude the MS from the potential use of other measures such as the removal of choke problem stocks from the TAC system. This process could also link applied measures to discard reduction targets, as MSs currently are not required to demonstrate such reductions. This top-down process must be matched by a bottom-up process, realigning incentives for fishers to provide data in support of discard mitigation. Without this the quality of scientific data will be negatively effected and implementation will be overly reliant on control and enforcement rather than collaboration. The issue of overcoming short-term losses without going out of business is key for fishers. Some NGOs have proposed specific cases where industry should only receive support if they have implemented effective selectivity measures. A more general application of this approach could incentivise progress while reducing industry fears of bankruptcies. The first amendment to the LO was made in recognition of the fact that it is taking longer to develop multi-year management plans than originally envisaged. Similarly, it may be recognised that LO implementation takes longer than originally hoped for. This amendment also shows that difficulties with making changes to Article 15 may be more political than legal in nature.

The ocean makes planet Earth a habitable place to live and the marine environment is a source of vital human health benefits. Some of the invaluable benefits and services the ocean provides include: Food: Seafood is a major food staple and protein source. Transportation: 90% of all EU external trade is transported by sea and European ship owners control almost 40% of the world fleet (1). Recreation: The benefits that can be derived from spending time around the ocean are intangible. Marine tourism is the second most valuable world marine industry after shipping and transport (2). Inspiration: The ocean has provided the inspiration for many great works of art. Medicine: Biomedical products derived from marine plants and animals provide important medicinal products and health benefits. Climate Regulation: The ocean plays a key role in climate regulation especially in buffering the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures. Economy: Ocean-related industries provide revenue through fishing, seafood distribution, tourism, recreation and transportation. According to the EU Blue Growth programme, the ‘blue’ economy in Europe represents 5.4 million jobs and generates a gross added value of almost €500 billion a year, with further growth possible (3). The ocean is vitally important to Europe. The EU Member States have between them the largest maritime territory in the world and all of us depend on the ocean and its resources. Despite the importance of Europe’s sea areas, their sustainable development and protection faces threats from natural and human pressures. By better understanding the relationships between ourselves and the sea, we will be better able to protect these precious resources.

The Ocean makes planet Earth a habitable place to live and the marine environment is a source of vital human health benefits. Some of the invaluable benefits and services the Ocean provides include: Food: Seafood is a major food staple and protein source. Transportation: 90% of all EU external trade is transported by sea and European ship owners control almost 40% of the world fleet. Recreation: The benefits that can be derived from spending time around the Ocean are intangible. Marine tourism is the second most valuable world marine industry after shipping and transport. Medicine: Biomedical products derived from marine plants and animals provide important medicinal products and health benefits. Climate Regulation: The Ocean plays a key role in climate regulation - especially in buffering the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere and by moderating rising global temperatures. Economy: Ocean - related industries provide revenue through fishing, seafood distribution, tourism, recreation and transportation. According to the EU Blue Growth programme, the ‘blue’ economy in Europe represents 5.4 million jobs and generates a gross added value of almost €500 billion a year, with further growth possible. The Ocean is vitally important to Europe. The 28 Member States have between them the largest maritime territory in the world (approximately 3.9 million km2 ) and all of us depend on the Ocean and its resources. Despite the importance of Europe’s sea areas, their sustainable development and protection faces threats from natural and human pressures. By better understanding the relationships between ourselves and the Ocean, we will be better able to protect these precious resources.

The ocean makes planet Earth a habitable place to live and the marine environment is a source of vital human health benefits. Some of the invaluable benefits and services the ocean provides include: Food: Seafood is a major food staple and protein source. Transportation: 90% of all EU external trade is transported by sea and European ship owners control almost 40% of the world fleet. Recreation: The benefits that can be derived from spending time around the Ocean are intangible. Marine tourism is the second most valuable world marine industry after shipping and transport. Medicine: Biomedical products derived from marine plants and animals provide important medicinal products and health benefits. Climate regulation: The Ocean plays a key role in climate regulation especially in buffering the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere and by moderating rising global temperatures. Economy: Ocean-related industries provide revenue through fishing, seafood distribution, tourism, recreation and transportation. According to the EU Blue Growth programme, the “blue” economy in Europe represents 5.4 million jobs and generates a gross added value of almost €500 billion a year, with further growth possible. The ocean is vitally important to Europe. The 28 Member States have between them the largest maritime territory in the world (approximately 3.9 million km2) and all of us depend on the ocean and its resources. Despite the importance of Europe’s sea areas, their sustainable development and protection faces threats from natural and human pressures. By better understanding the relationships between us and the ocean, we will be better able to protect these precious resources.

The documents in these folders represent part of the qualitative data collection documentation. Research has been performed in Flanders (Belgium) in 2016 and 2017. Involved stakehodlers were flemish sugar beet farmers, processors as well as other value chain members. Though, the main stakeholders involved were farmers. The raw data cannot be published. Anonymized interview transcripts and focus group transcripts exist. However, as indicated in the informed consent, farmers did not agree to the raw data being published. The codes that resulted from data analysis are in this folder. Interview questions differed slightly from farmer to farmer as follow up questions may have been posed if needed. First interviews were performed, then focus groups were conducted and finally a workshop was organized. The qualitative reserach followed the research strategy and plan determined by the SUFISA project. On the project webpage (https://www.sufisa.eu/) more information can be found.

Potential consequences of implementing the EU Landing Obligation on marine ecosystems can be listed in two categories: Food shortage: Reduction in the discard flow may lead to a food shortage for some scavenger species including birds, benthic and demersal fish and invertebrates. Altered exploitation: New constraints for fishing fleets are expected to translate into changes in the exploitation (reduced fishing mortality, changes in the spatial and seasonal distribution of effort, improved selectivity …) having a direct effect on fish stocks. Both can then lead to longer term effects arising from changes in the relative abundance of different species or group of species.These effects are considered as“ecosystem effects” since they arise from the interactions between species and the change in energy flows through the system. In this work package, using existing or developping modelling tools implemented across the DiscardLess case studies, we had two objectives: i) Addressing the question of the long term ecosystem effects of the LO in the most homogeneous way across models and case studies: what are the impacts of reduced discard flows into marine environments and how does it compare with the impact of changes in the exploitation? Overall, the trophic models used found little effect of a discard ban (landing the fish previously discarded, with no changes in the fishing pressure) on the ecosystem, except for birds. On the other hand, not catching the fish that were previously discarded had a significant effect in our simulations, which confirms that the ecological effects of the Landing Obligation will be through reduced fishing pressure rather than anything else. i) Exploring the question of the altered exploitation: how the LO will change the fishing strategies and how will it impacts the fish stocks? and the ecosystem? (for some case studies) In the Eastern Channel, the 2 models used (Isis Fish and Osmose/DSVM) suggest that the implementation of the LO will benefit fish stocks, although in the case of Osmose/DVSM the biomass increases are buffered by trophic interactions, particularly through cod and whiting predations on other commercial species. Both models also suggest a long term benefit to fleets, following a 10 year long period of decreased revenues. In the Bay of Biscay, the results of the FLBEIA bioeconomic model (WP2) have been used to drive forecast simulations with EwE, to analyze the status of the Bay of Biscay ecosystem in the short-medium term (from 2013 to 2024). The results illustrate “winners” and “losers” and particularly how seabirds and carnivorous benthic invertebrates are likely to be those suffering from the LO, while hake will increase its overall abundance. Finally in the North Sea, the StrathE2E model was extended spatially and refined in terms of the description and dynamics of the fishing fleets. The general outcome is similar to what was stated in the previous version, i.e. simply changing discarding practices while fishing as usual, has a negligible conservation benefit at the level of the ecosystem as a whole. On the other hand, tacking the curtailment of discarding by reducing the capture of unwanted fish has the potential to deliver noticeable conservation benefits.