STECF Fisheries Dependent Information – FDI (STECF-19-11)

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. The STECF reviewed the report of the EWG on Fisheries-dependent Information during its winter 2019 plenary meeting

STECF Fisheries Dependent Information – FDI (STECF-19-11)

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. The STECF reviewed the report of the EWG on Fisheries-dependent Information during its winter 2019 plenary meeting

Synthesis of the landing obligation measures and discard rates

Article 15 of the reformed European Union (EU) Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) came into force on 1 January 2015. It introduced a phased implementation of a discard ban: a prohibition on discarding catch, generally described as the Landing Obligation (LO). The introduction of the LO was essentially a change from a 'landing' to a 'catch quota' system. In January 2019, the phased implementation was completed and the LO was fully implemented, covering all quota stocks in EU waters and those with Minimum Sizes in the Mediterranean. However, the transition towards a fully implemented catch quota regime has proved very challenging for some fisheries. The ultimate objective of the landing obligation is to reduce the wasteful practice of discarding, to create incentive to fish more selectively and avoid unwanted catches. Member States undertook several initiatives and voluntary measures to facilitate the LO. Most were related to selective gear trials. Stakeholder interviews and questionnaires conducted in this study showed that the process for approving newly developed gear is long and severely delayed implementation of these measures. Avoidance (or 'move-on') rules were facilitated by voluntary agreements and helped to increase knowledge of areas with high discard levels in pelagic and demersal fisheries. These move-on rules, together with improvements in fishing gear selectivity, were considered the most effective in facilitating the implementation of the LO. Despite this, these technical measures were considered less viable from an economic point of view, as they require extra investments from vessel owners in new fishing gear and, also, the potential loss of efficiency in catching the most valuable target species. Other examples of measures taken to facilitate the LO were: adaption of national quota management to better fit the challenges the LO presented, initiatives to increase survivability, weekly catch limits and initiatives focused on improving accountability and quota alignment. Consultation with stakeholders through interviews, questionnaires and online workshops pointed out that areal closures were classified as 'less effective', as were TAC removals and changes in Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS). There was concern among some stakeholders that the removal of TACs as a management measure would be solely based on the desire to avoid choke species problems and, therefore, bypass the need to protect vulnerable stocks in mixed fisheries in the first place. As a result, removing TACs was thought to be un-precautionary, as it would have negative effect on sustainable management of stocks. When aiming to mitigate potential lasses in fishing opportunities due to choke considerations, adaptions of national quota management to better fit LO challenges and quota swaps between Member States were the preferred options, followed by high survivability exemptions

Bestandsoverzicht van snoekbaars, baars, blankvoorn en brasem en de evaluatie van potentiële oogstregels voor snoekbaars en baars : In het IJssel-/Markermeer 2020

Het beheer van de visserij op snoekbaars, baars, blankvoorn en brasem in het IJssel-/Markermeer is in visseizoen 2014/2015 aangepast als eerste stap richting verduurzaming van deze visserij. De aanpassing bestond toen hoofdzakelijk uit verminderde toegestane inspanning in de visserij met staande netten en zegens, om verdere achteruitgang in de bestanden een halt toe te roepen. Het Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit werkt aan een verdere verduurzaming van de visserij op deze bestanden. In 2019 is in het Bestuurlijk Overleg een drietal beheerdoelstellingen opgesteld, die gehaald dienen te worden in 2027: (1) de hoogst mogelijke commerciële vangsten die duurzaam opgevist kunnen worden, waarbij wel (2) meer grote vis in het bestand aanwezig moet zijn, zoals gevraagd vanuit de Kaderrichtlijn Water en (3) voedselreservering moet plaatsvinden voor het potentieel aan vogels, zoals omschreven in de Natura2000-doelstellingen. Voor deze beheerdoelstellingen zijn oogstregels ontwikkeld voor snoekbaars en baars. Ook worden de ontwikkelingen in de vier bestanden gepresenteerd, met als belangrijkste vraag: zijn sinds het aangepaste beheer in visseizoen 2014/2015 verbeteringen in het bestand te zien, in zowel de bestandsgrootte als de bestandsopbouw