Strategies Used Throughout the World to Manage Fisheries Discards – Lessons for Implementation of the EU Landing Obligation

In many countries, policies regarding reduction of unwanted catch and discards are crafted in response to concerns regarding accountability, conservation, and waste as well as scientific needs to fully account for all sources of fishing mortality. It is important to note, however, that unwanted catch is minimal and most, or all, of the catch has value in some fisheries. Utilisation rates are very high, and discarding is generally not of concern in such fisheries which occur primarily, but not entirely, in developing countries. Where unwanted catch and discards are a concern, legislation may be prescriptive, as can be seen in the EU Landing Obligation (LO), and programmes established in e.g. Norway, Iceland, Argentina, Chile and New Zealand. Elsewhere, legislative language is intended to minimize unwanted catch but allows for some flexibility in developing strategies and solutions, as in the USA. The effectiveness of these approaches depends on many factors and all require effective cross-sectoral collaboration. Also essential is a comprehensive monitoring and control system which insures regulatory compliance and collection of adequate data to address scientific and management information needs. In this chapter, we evaluate the effectiveness of discard and unwanted catch reduction approaches under diverse legislative systems in different parts of the world, with reference to emerging practices under the LO. We consider the importance of finding the balance between top-down and bottom-up processes and look carefully at different governance/regulatory frameworks (e.g. input controls, output controls, quota management and transferability, cooperative/collaborative management), factors which encourage or discourage innovation and collaborative problem solving, monitoring and accountability. This is accomplished through case studies from selected fisheries around the world.

[1]  The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 , 2018, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture.

[2]  J. Kolding,et al.  The Tragedy of Our Legacy: How do Global Management Discourses Affect Small Scale Fisheries in the South? , 2011 .

[3]  Y. Kura,et al.  Under-reported and undervalued: small-scale fisheries in the developing world. , 2011 .

[4]  Martin A. Pastoors,et al.  Delineating catch quotas for Dutch demersal fisheries: a theoretical pilot study , 2014 .

[5]  Matt K. Broadhurst,et al.  By‐catch begone: changes in the philosophy of fishing technology , 2002 .

[6]  G. Pramod Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Marine Fish Catches in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone , 2010 .

[7]  M. Schrope Fisheries: What's the catch? , 2010, Nature.

[8]  C. Ulrich,et al.  The European Landing Obligation: Reducing Discards in Complex, Multi-Species and Multi-Jurisdictional Fisheries , 2018, Springer International Publishing.

[9]  E. Gilman Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries , 2011 .

[10]  Kelly Lock,et al.  New Zealand's Quota Management System: A History of the First 20 Years , 2007 .

[11]  Bjørnar Isaksen,et al.  Reduction of fish by-catch in shrimp trawl using a rigid separator grid in the aft belly , 1992 .

[12]  R. Willmann,et al.  Hidden harvest: The global contribution of capture fisheries , 2012 .

[13]  Dimitrios Damalas,et al.  Mission impossible: Discard management plans for the EU Mediterranean fisheries under the reformed Common Fisheries Policy , 2015 .

[14]  J. Allard,et al.  Can the data from at-sea observer surveys be used to make general inferences about catch composition and discards? , 2009 .

[15]  Jahn Petter Johnsen,et al.  Solving complex fisheries management problems: What the EU can learn from the Nordic experiences of reduction of discards , 2011 .

[16]  O.M.C. van der Valk,et al.  New modes of fisheries governance: Implementation of the landing obligation in four European countries , 2016 .

[17]  Pollock Fishery ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW/ INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS , 2008 .

[18]  Lars O. Mortensen,et al.  The Best Way to Reduce Discards Is by Not Catching Them! , 2018, The European Landing Obligation.

[19]  R. D. Stanley,et al.  The advantages of an audit over a census approach to the review of video imagery in fishery monitoring , 2011 .

[20]  S. Gezelius Monitoring fishing mortality: Compliance in Norwegian offshore fisheries , 2006 .

[21]  B. Bogstad,et al.  The “Discard Ban Package”: Experiences in efforts to improve the exploitation patterns in Norwegian fisheries , 2015 .

[22]  J. Rice,et al.  Governance of marine fisheries and biodiversity conservation: interaction and coevolution , 2014 .

[23]  S. Kennelly Solving by-catch problems: Successes in developed countries and challenges for protein-poor countries , 2014 .

[24]  James N. Sanchirico,et al.  Catch-quota balancing in multispecies individual fishing quotas , 2006 .

[25]  A. Grant,et al.  Incentivising selective fishing under a policy to ban discards; lessons from European and global fisheries , 2014 .

[26]  C. Ulrich,et al.  Reducing discards without reducing profit: free gear choice in a Danish result-based management trial , 2017 .

[27]  Jostein,et al.  A review of possible mitigation measures for reducing mortality caused by slipping from purse-seine fisheries , 2012 .

[28]  R. Larsen,et al.  Development of catch control devices in the Barents Sea cod fishery , 2014 .

[29]  C. Béné,et al.  The potential role of small fish species in improving micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries: building evidence , 2011, Public Health Nutrition.

[30]  N. Roos,et al.  Small indigenous fish species in bangladesh: contribution to vitamin A, calcium and iron intakes. , 2003, The Journal of nutrition.

[31]  Where's the catch? , 1988, Journal of Muscle Research & Cell Motility.

[32]  J. Ianelli,et al.  Estimating impacts of the pollock fishery bycatch on western Alaska Chinook salmon , 2015 .

[33]  Clarence F. Pautzke,et al.  An ecosystem-based approach for Alaska groundfish fisheries , 2000 .

[34]  Å. Bjordal,et al.  Changing attitudes 1970–2012: evolution of the Norwegian management framework to prevent overfishing and to secure long-term sustainability , 2014 .

[35]  Pedro Afonso,et al.  Discard Avoidance by Improving Fishing Gear Selectivity: Helping the Fishing Industry Help Itself , 2018, The European Landing Obligation.

[36]  O. Pálsson A length-based analysis of haddock discards in Icelandic fisheries , 2003 .

[37]  Jan Jaap Poos Update of "Delineating catch quotas for Dutch demersal fisheries: a theoretical pilot study" , 2015 .

[38]  M. Kraan,et al.  The optimal process of self-sampling in fisheries: lessons learned in the Netherlands. , 2013, Journal of fish biology.

[39]  F. Simard,et al.  Reconsidering the Consequences of Selective Fisheries , 2012, Science.

[40]  J. Ianelli,et al.  Evaluating the efficacy of salmon bycatch measures using fishery-dependent data , 2015 .

[41]  C. Ulrich,et al.  Remote electronic monitoring and the landing obligation – some insights into fishers’ and fishery inspectors’ opinions , 2017 .

[42]  K. N. Nielsen,et al.  Discard ban and balanced harvest: a contradiction? , 2016 .

[43]  Maria Grazia Pennino,et al.  A Marine Spatial Planning Approach to Minimize Discards: Challenges and Opportunities of the Landing Obligation in European Waters , 2018, The European Landing Obligation.