05/03/2020

1

Monitoring the Compliance with the Landing Obligation

PELAC-EFCA-Scheveningen/NWW CEGsJoint workshop on monitoring, control and

enforcement of the Landing Obligation

05/03/2020

2

The Role of EU playersin control and enforcement of CFP

• Member States are responsible for control of:

Activities in their waters

Vessels flying their flag

Their nationals (IUU)

• European Commission: Formulates policy (CFP) and verifies its implementation by Member States

• EFCA: Coordinates and assists Member States and European Commission

EFCA’s mission

Article 1. The European Fisheries Control Agency’sobjective is to organise operational coordinationof fisheries control and inspection activities by theMember States and to assist them to cooperate soas to comply with the rules of the CommonFisheries Policy in order to ensure its effective anduniform application

Council Regulation No 768/2005Amended in 14 September 2016

(Regulation (EU) 2016/1626 of the EP and Council)

05/03/2020

3

EFCA support to the LO implementation: creating EU added Value

Common implementation of the Landing

Obligation

Regional harmonisation

Interregional coherence

Proportionality and cost

effectiveness

Transparency

Cooperation and dialogue

Level playing field

EFCA role: LO

Support the LO uniform implementation

Use JDPs to control and monitor the implementation of the LO and obtain indicators

Develop risk analysis on the LO

Cooperation with regional control bodiesEvaluate compliance with the LO

Support dialogue with stakeholders on LO

Promote standardisation of inspections, guidelines and common interpretation of the application of EU regulations

05/03/2020

4

Why Risk Analysis?

• Limited resources (human and economic)

Why Risk Analysis?

• Limited resources (human and economic)

• Tool to identify priorities:a) Position of a patrol vesselb) Number of inspectors in a teamc) More adequate control / monitoring meansd) Etc.

05/03/2020

5

Why Risk Analysis?

• Limited resources (human and economic)

• Tool to identify priorities:• Position of a patrol vessel• Number of inspectors in a team• More adequate control / monitoring means• Etc.

• The basis for the JDP!

Analysis

• Conducted at fleet segment level: gear / mesh / area

• Based on standard risk assessment methodology

• Adapted to data poor cases

05/03/2020

6

Essential

Knowledge about:• Fishery• Level of catches• Stock status• Applicable regulation• Risk characterization• Fisheries seasonality

Methodology

RISK

LikelihoodExposure

Deterrence

Impact

Stock status

Catch levels

05/03/2020

7

Results from the 2019 RRA: WHB

SEGMENT GEAR AREA IMPACT LIKELIHOODRISK

LEVEL

PEL01

Freezer Trawls - Mid

water and mid water pair

trawl

2.a, 4 LOW LOW LOW3.a LOW LOW LOW5.b LOW LOW LOW6 LOW LOW LOW

rest of 7 LOW LOW LOW8 LOW LOW LOW

PEL02

RSW tank vessel and Polyvalent -

Mid water and mid water pair

trawl

2.a, 4 LOW LOW LOW3.a LOW LOW LOW6 LOW LOW LOW

8 LOW LOW LOW

PEL03Polyvalent -Bottom trawl and pair trawl

8 LOW LOW LOW

9 LOW LOW LOW

Results from the 2019 RRA: JAX

SEGMENT GEAR AREA IMPACTLIKELIHOO

DRISK

LEVEL

PEL01Freezer Trawls - Mid

water and mid water pair trawl

2.a, 4 LOW LOW LOW6 LOW MEDIUM LOW

7.d HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUMrest of 7 LOW MEDIUM LOW

PEL02RSW tank vessel and Polyvalent - Mid water

and mid water pair trawl

6 MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM7.d LOW MEDIUM LOW

rest of 7 MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM8 LOW LOW LOW9 LOW LOW LOW

PEL03Polyvalent - Bottom trawl

and pair trawl

7.d LOW LOW LOWrest of 7 LOW LOW LOW

8 LOW LOW LOW9 LOW LOW LOW

PEL04RSW tank vessel - Purse

seinerest of 7 LOW LOW

LOW

PEL05 Polyvalent - Purse seine

8 MEDIUM LOW LOW9 LOW LOW LOW

10 MEDIUM LOW LOWCECAF VERY HIGH LOW MEDIUM

PEL06Gillnets anchored (set) ,

and Gillnets (drift)4 LOW LOW LOW9 LOW LOW LOW

PEL08 Polyvalent - Lines8 LOW LOW LOW8 LOW LOW LOW

05/03/2020

8

Results from the 2019 RRA: HERSEGMENT GEAR AREA IMPACT LIKELIHOOD

RISK LEVEL

PEL01Freezer Trawls - Mid water and

mid water pair trawl

2.a, 4 MEDIUM LOW LOW

5.b LOW LOW LOW

6VERY HIGH

LOWMEDIU

M

7.d MEDIUM LOW LOW

rest of 7

HIGH LOWMEDIU

M

PEL02RSW tank vessel and

Polyvalent - Mid water and mid water pair trawl

2.a, 4 LOW LOW LOW

3.a HIGH LOWMEDIU

M

6 HIGH LOWMEDIU

Mrest of

7HIGH MEDIUM

MEDIUM

PEL03Polyvalent - Bottom trawl and

pair trawl3.a LOW LOW LOW

7.d LOW LOW LOW

PEL04 RSW tank vessel - Purse seine2.a, 4 LOW LOW LOW

3.a LOW LOW LOW

PEL06Gillnets anchored (set) , and

Gillnets (drift)

3.a LOW LOW LOW

4 LOW LOW LOW

7.d LOW LOW LOW

7 a, e LOW LOW LOW

Results from the 2019 RRA: ANESEGME

NTGEAR AREA IMPACT LIKELIHOOD

RISK LEVEL

PEL02RSW tank vessel and Polyvalent - Mid water and mid water pair

trawl8 LOW LOW LOW

PEL03Polyvalent - Bottom trawl and

pair trawl8 LOW LOW LOW

9 LOW LOW LOW

PEL05 Polyvalent - Purse seine

8 HIGH LOW MEDIUM

9 HIGH LOW MEDIUM

Results from the 2019 RRA: IndustrialSEGMENT GEAR AREA IMPACT LIKELIHOOD RISK LEVEL

PEL10Industrial trawl < 16mm (OTM,PTM,OTB,PTB)

3.a, 4 HIGH LOW MEDIUM

PEL11Industrial trawl 16-31 mm

(OTM,PTM,OTB,PTB)3.a, 4 VERY HIGH LOW MEDIUM

05/03/2020

9

Results from the 2019 RRA: ALB

GROUP SEGMENT GEAR AREA IMPACT LIKELIHOODRISK

LEVEL

Albacore Fisheries

PEL13Midwater trawls targeting albacore

7, 8 LOW LOW LOW

PEL14Bait boats, Pelagic Trolling and poles and lines targeting albacore

7, 8, 9,10, 34.1.1, 34.1.2,

34.2.0MEDIUM LOW LOW

PEL15Pelagic longlines targeting albacore

9, 10, 34.1.1, 34.1.2, 34.2.0

LOW LOW LOW

Results from the 2019 RRA: MACSEGMENT GEAR AREA IMPACT LIKELIHOOD

RISK LEVEL

PEL01Freezer Trawls - Mid water and mid water

pair trawl

2.a, 4 LOW VERY HIGH MEDIUM6 LOW VERY HIGH MEDIUM

7.d LOW LOW LOWrest of 7 LOW VERY HIGH MEDIUM

PEL02

RSW tank vessel and Polyvalent - Mid water

and mid water pair trawl

2.a, 4 LOW VERY HIGH MEDIUM3.a LOW LOW LOW6 MEDIUM VERY HIGH HIGH

7.d LOW LOW LOWrest of 7 LOW VERY HIGH MEDIUM

8 LOW LOW LOW

PEL03Polyvalent - Bottom trawl and pair trawl

3.a LOW LOW LOW7.d LOW VERY HIGH MEDIUM

rest of 7 LOW VERY HIGH MEDIUM8 LOW LOW LOW9 LOW LOW LOW

PEL04RSW tank vessel -

Purse seine2.a, 4 LOW MEDIUM LOW

rest of 7 LOW LOW LOW

PEL05Polyvalent - Purse

seine

rest of 7 LOW LOW LOW8 LOW LOW LOW9 LOW LOW LOW

CECAF MEDIUM LOW LOW

PEL06Gillnets anchored (set) , and Gillnets

(drift)

3.a LOW LOW LOW7.d LOW LOW LOW

7 a, e LOW LOW LOW9 LOW LOW LOW

PEL08 Polyvalent - Lines8 LOW LOW LOW9 LOW LOW LOW

05/03/2020

10

Planning control activities

• Identify feet segments of higher risk

Ma

cke

rel f

ish

ery

Planning control activities

• Identify feet segments of higher risk

• Identify areas of action

Ma

cke

rel f

ish

ery

05/03/2020

11

Planning control activities

• Identify feet segments of higher risk

• Identify areas of action

• Identify adequate seasonMa

cke

rel f

ish

ery

What about compliance?

Depending on may factors:

Control strategy and effort

Management measures in place

Sanction policy

Legitimacy

Others

05/03/2020

12

EFCA role: evaluation of compliance with LO

Set of agreed methodologiesQuantitative, discard rates derived from:

Inspection reference data

Scientific data collection

Qualitative, based on:Infringements trends

Polling of control experts and industry

Market analysis on utilization of unwanted catches

Compliance Evaluation Methods

Evaluation Method Applied to the Landing Obligation

1Reference data compared with official reported catches

Specifically deriving discard rates usingappropriate reference data (LH)

2Considering the evaluation of scientific bodies (STECF and ICES)

Estimates of discards provided by scientificbodies, often from data collected under theEU Data Collection Framework

3 Trends of infringements.Infringements issued for non-compliancewith LO related rules

4a Polling of control expertsViews on LO compliance(anonymity a strength)

4b Polling of industry stakeholdersViews on LO compliance(focus on compliance constraints)

5 Market analysesDesk study on utilisation of unwantedcatches / those below MCRS. Otherappropriate market related studies.

05/03/2020

13

Main outcome

Few last haul inspections in MAC fisheries in NS and NWW turned the estimates of discards using Method 1 not very significant

Significant discard estimates (Method 2, STECF) suggest low compliance with the LO for some fleet segments

Most MS control experts assisting EFCA in this evaluation have emphasised that compliance with the LO in the MAC fishery is lower than the scientific discard estimates indicate

Final considerations

• Reliable reference data is essential for a valuable compliance evaluation

• Low compliance levels for pelagic trawling segments (Freezers, RSW, Polyvalent) in some areas

• Traditional control tools have proven inefficient in monitoring and enforcing the LO

• Considering the characteristics of this fishery the introduction of REM systems is considered the most efficient tool for both objectives:

– Improving the reference data available

– Monitoring and enforcing the LO

05/03/2020

14

REM Technical Working Group

Created on request of the MS CEGs and reinforced by the

support of the JDP SG and the European Commission Coordinated by EFCA

Strictly of technical natureDefinition of REM/CCTV

systems technical specifications and implementing guidelines

Trying to ensure standardisation and a level playing field are

maintained

Consider technical requirements and associated

procedures on how REM/CCTV could be best deployed on

fishing vessels to provide means to effectively control and

enforce the landing obligation at sea

Not discussing where REM should be implemented or legal framework

Justification Background Scope

Technical guidelines and specifications for the implementation of Remote Electronic

Monitoring (REM) in EU fisheries

05/03/2020

15

THANK YOU!efca@efca.europa.eu

http://www.efca.europa.eu