Ulrich, Clara

Online Research Database In Technology

  General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.   Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal  If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.         Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Mar 30, 20193years in the landing obligation in Europe: Where do we stand, what have we learnt?Ulrich, ClaraPublication date:2018Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordLink back to DTU OrbitCitation (APA):Ulrich, C. (2018). 3years in the landing obligation in Europe: Where do we stand, what have we learnt?. Paperpresented at IIFET 2018, Seattle, United States.Pr. Clara Ulrich, DTU Aqua, Denmark, coordinatoron behalf of the DiscardLess Consortium3 years in the landing obligation in Europe: Where do we stand, what have we learnt?H2020 DiscardLess (2015-2019)www.discardless.eu18/07/2018IIFET 20182 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkThe EU Landing ObligationPreparationImplementationFitzpatrick and  Nielsen, 201618/07/2018IIFET 20183 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkWhere do we stand in the middle of 2018?Progresses on the regulatory side….• 19 Regional Discard Plans adopted since 2014, laying down the calendar of implementation (species*fisheries) and the exemptions (high survivability, de minimis)• A lot of progresses on scientific foundations for evaluation of plans and progresses (ICES, STECF) : exemptions, monitoring of undersize landings, member states reporting• Changes in the control operations (“Last Haul” Eur. Fisheries Control Agency) STECF PLEN 18-01, SWD/2018/329 Percentage of TACs partially or fully subject to the LO by sea basin and year18/07/2018IIFET 20184 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkWhere do we stand in the middle of 2018?Progresses on reaching common understandings on discard causes and choke species ….Choke categories: Category 1: Sufficient quota at Member State level, issue at PO/individual level Category 2: Insufficient quota at Member State level, relative stability issue Category 3: Insufficient quota at EU level, overfished stock Category 4: Economic choking.NSAC 2017Choke situation not observedyet! Only speculations on whatmay happen if the landing obligation is fully enforced18/07/2018IIFET 20185 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkWhere do we stand in the middle of 2018?But very little visible progresses so far….• Reported / Landed discards very low• No obvious changes in selectivity/behaviour• Very little use of EU operational funding (EMFF) allocated to landing obligation• Still strong reluctance of the fishing industryBut also… TAC increases (“top-ups”) but discarding continues… Removal of TACs (dab and flounder)… Changes to prohibited species (dogfish)… MultiAnnual plans with Fmsy upper… Reduction in the number of stocks with MSY advice…STECF PLEN 18-01, SWD/2018/329 18/07/2018IIFET 20186 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkThe landing obligation dilemmaFlexibilityneeded to keepfishingConstraintsneeded to incentivisechangesDifferent approaches in different Member StatesFrom STECF, 2018 and Fitzpatrick & Nielsen, 201818/07/2018IIFET 20187 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkDiscardLess: What can Science do to help??18/07/2018IIFET 20188 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkAt regional scale:• Seabirds most sensitive• Foodweb effects beyond scavengers are limited • Reduction in mortality is the largest ecological effect (achieving Fmsy!)• Local effects are less well knownLead: Marie Savina, IFREMER, FranceQuestion 1: Is a discard ban good for the ecosystem?Fishing pressure Amount of discards18/07/2018IIFET 20189 DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark• Bioeconomic models• stakeholders interviews: fishers, administrators, EnvNGO‘s, auction houses, processing industries.• Short-term economic impacts• Negative view of the LO• Incentives discussedLead: Peder Andersen & Ayoe Hoff, IFRO, Denmark /  Katia Frangoudes, UBO, FranceQuestion 2: Can a discard ban be good for fishers?18/07/2018IIFET 201810 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkSelectivity catalogue, >60 factsheets, Factors influencing fish vertical distributionLead: Barry O’ Neill, DTU, DKOngoing analyses of the effects of lighthttp://www.discardless.eu/selectivity_manualQuestion 3: Rethinking gear selectivity18/07/2018IIFET 201811 DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark Plet-Hansen, in prep.Lead: Dave Reid, MI, Ireland• Tentative prediction of ”hot-spots”• Real-time closures• Is this useful to fishers?Question 4: Reducing unwanted catchesby changing when and where to fish18/07/2018IIFET 201812 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkQuestion 5. Onboard handling of unwanted catchesLead: Jonas R. Viðarsson, MATIS, IcelandCoastal Vessel 11m Bottom trawler 23 mBottom trawler 39 m Large trawler 50 m• Many options already exist… mainly for largertrawlers• Investment Payback time estimated 1-2 years18/07/2018IIFET 201813 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkQuestion 6. Valorisation of unwanted catchesLead: Begoña Perez Villareal, AZTI, Spain• More than 30 options identifiedfor fish<MCRS• Food, bio-products, feed, industrial uses, energy, agronomicuses• Use of heads and visceras18/07/2018IIFET 201814 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkQuestion 7: Telling our storiesLead: Kåre Nolde Nielsen, UiT, Norway; Clara Ulrich, Denmark• Policy briefs• Stakeholders interviews• Scientific papers, opinion articles, videos, flyers, posters, newsletters• workshops, meetings, conferences18/07/2018IIFET 201815 DTU Aqua, Technical University of DenmarkWhat can Science do to help?• Bringing information / discussing solutions• Scientific support to discard reduction by– Analysing issues at EU, regional, national, fishery and individuallevels– Making knowledge on existing options easily available and shared– Exploring new ideas, including technical feasibility, cost-benefits, ecological and economic sustainability, and controllability• A lot of direct contacts and meetings across all areas and all types of stakeholders, analysis of incentives and reluctances• Landing Obligation: There is no way back… but we are not there yet!18/07/2018IIFET 201816 DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark Lisa Borges, 200240 kg box of dis ardswww.discardless.eu

3years in the landing obligation in Europe: Where do we stand, what have we learnt?

http://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/163228892/Publishers_version.pdf

3years in the landing obligation in Europe: Where do we stand, what have we learnt?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Online Research Database In Technology