Brussels, 19/03/2012 (Agence Europe) - The European Commission is prepared to scale back the level of its ambition on measures to combat discarding fish at sea in the light of the complexity of the issue and the difficulties that a discard ban would create for fishermen. At the Fisheries Council on Monday 19 March, several ministers (those of France, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Poland, Cyprus, Malta and others) were critical of the initial arrangements proposed by the Commission in July 2011 to end discards. Most countries, though with slight differences, advocate a significant reduction in discards, which could go as far as a ban in certain fisheries, but always based on a prior assessment of the causes of discards and the economic, social and environmental consequences of these measures. A number of countries, such as France, Germany and Ireland, argued that discard reduction measures should be built into multi-annual stock recovery plans (there are currently recovery plans for cod, hake and horse mackerel, for instance) rather than form part of the basic CFP (common fisheries policy) regulation. The Commission, for the moment, rejects this approach.
Mette Gjerskov, the Danish fisheries minister, felt the Commission proposal on the reform of the CFP to be ambitious and said the policy on discards impacts on the credibility of the reform. CFP reform is one of the priorities of the Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU, she recalled.
European Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki acknowledged that ending discards would take time and money. She argued for a “step by step” approach to ending this practice. She suggested (additional) quotas for by-catches (fish not targeted by fishermen) and acknowledged that creating a market for juveniles (young fish) had to be avoided. Ending discards would mean that fishermen would have to land their entire catch in ports, including unwanted fish (juveniles or species with not commercial value). The commissioner pointed out that the Commission is proposing to allocate aid to fishermen (to assist with more selective gear, and pilot projects, for example) to encourage them to avoid discards. It intends to publish a list of species of fish which have a high survival rate, so that there is no requirement to land all species. If a rule leads to discards, it will have to be amended, she added.
The United Kingdom argued that efforts must be made to end discards, which are wasteful, and to improve the economic management of European fisheries. There had to be ambition and the correct measures had to be found at regional level, that is, the requirement to land entire catches must be tailored to each fishing activity. The UK also said that it was important to know what was landed and to respect the principle of relative stability (allocating quotas to countries on the basis of past fishing histories). It also came out against marketing juvenile fish and highlighted the importance of public funding for more selective fishing gear, encouraging fishermen to land their whole catch, and for electronic surveillance of vessels.
Sweden supported the Commission in the desire to end discards, arguing it was a waste of resources which makes no economic sense. It said that the discards ban should cover all commercial species and not only those on which there were quotas. Sweden took the view that species caught in nets, which had a high survival rate, could be released. “There still have to be stocks to catch and it must be ensured that the Commission's proposals are not watered down and that they allow the targets to be met”, Sweden stated.
Finland said it backed the discards ban. It supported measures to increase selectivity and to restrict catches of juveniles. The issue of ending discards has to be dealt with “on a case by case, species by species basis”, it argued.
Spain highlighted the importance of carrying out scientific studies to discover when discards take place, and said that things must not be over-simplified. Madrid was very insistent on a fishery by fishery analysis of the issue and on measures to improve the selectivity of fishing gear. Spain is open to suggestions on putting in place quotas for by-catches and called for it to be possible for unused quotas to be exchanged.
Belgium advocated rules to “reduce and avoid by-catches and promote the selectivity of fishing gear”. It cannot support the Commission proposal as it stands at present, however, arguing that a discards ban is not possible in mixed fisheries.
Estonia said it backed a ban on discards when the fish is injured and could not survive if thrown back into the sea. It said, too, that discards should not be banned when fishermen use trap nets which allow still living fish to be released into the sea. Introduction of the discards ban should be according to a “realistic” timescale and alongside a re-evaluation of technical measures designed to protect stocks. The country supports: “realistic” TACs (total allowable catches), the introduction of quotas for by-catches, and more selective fishing gear and quotas for juveniles. It also argued the products made from juvenile fish should be authorised for human consumption.
Germany “supports the requirement that the entire catch be landed and the discards ban”, a key factor for ensuring sustainable fishing. It called for this ban to be brought in “gradually in multiannual plans”. Multiannual plans affect a number of species. The requirement to land entire catches should apply to all commercial species, Berlin said, with exceptions, perhaps, for fish which have a high survival rate. Commercialisation of all catches, including unwanted catches, should be authorised, argued Germany, suggesting, too, that small fish with a lower commercial value should be authorised for human consumption - while avoiding the creation of a parallel juveniles market.
It was with “great interest” that France noted the commissioner's comments at the start of the debate. According to France, the commissioner had acknowledged that practical, step by step solutions had to be found to bring about reductions as large as possible in discards, based on a definite approach by fishery, not by species, with priority given to selectivity measures. “If that is indeed the case, we warmly welcome these comments”, France added. Paris is calling for the reduction in discards to be implemented through the multiannual plans, not the basic regulation. France also called for a detailed analysis of the type of discards and where they occurred to be carried out in partnership with fishermen and scientists. It called, too, for a “tool kit” that aimed to determine the most appropriate measures for each fishery in addressing the issue of discards. These measures should be funded through the new fund and should, above all, look to improve selectivity. “To protect the resource, selection has to be in the sea rather than on vessel decks or quaysides”, argued France. The suggestion of a quotas bonus is one that may have some interest for certain fisheries but could not be rolled out across all of the EU's waters and had to comply with the principle of relative stability, France argued.
Malta also took the view that anti-discards measures were needed as part of the multiannual management plans and that there should be no requirement to land species which have a high survival rate when thrown back into the sea. It should be made possible to sell juvenile fish for products for human consumption; juvenile fish should not end up as fish meal, Malta argued.
Slovenia urged a flexible discards measure for small-scale inshore fishing. Lithuania said it backed a discards ban but phased in over several years and not for coastal fisheries.
Portugal called for a timetable of at least five years to bring about an end to discards and stressed more selective fishing practices and a regional approach.
Greece said discards policy had to take account of the characteristics of each country and promote selectivity of fishing gear.
Latvia argued for a species-specific ban, with quotas bonuses to take account of the requirement to land entire catches.
Italy said the practice of discarding fish had to be tackled determinedly. It called for measures to reduce discards to be part of the multiannual recovery plans and argued that there should be flexibility to take account of regional differences. It was very concerned by the issue of juvenile fish. It must be ensured that landing juveniles does not feed an illegal market, Rome stated. Italy took the view, then, that juveniles should be thrown back into the sea rather than landed. It did not see it as a realistic option that, because of landings of unwanted fish, a system for the production of fish meal be created.
Bulgaria supported efforts to reduce discards but recognised that implementation of such a ban could prove complicated, particularly with regard to the turbot fishery in the Black Sea. The best answer, it argued, was the introduction of more selective gear and discarding fish that would survive. For Poland, the discards ban had to be gradual and be based on regional rules. It argued, too, that there should be no ban on discarding species that could survive at sea. The new European fisheries fund for 2014-2020 must make provision for substantial aid for the ending of discards, introducing more selective gear, and modernising vessels (with areas for storing unwanted catches on board).
The Netherlands was in favour of requiring all species (apart from those that would survive if thrown back into the sea) to be landed. It argued, too, that innovation had to be encouraged and relative stability maintained.
Ireland said that measures were needed to bring an end to the practice of discarding fish. However, banning discards, in the way the Commission was proposing, was not a realistic proposition, however, given the diversity of fisheries. Ireland also took the opportunity to criticise the proposal on individual transferable concessions (or quotas). With regard to discards, Ireland backed a fishery by fishery approach, as part of long-term management plans and with a three- to four-year transitional period. (LC/transl.rt)