One of the negative effects of RS is the discards, which are catches returned to the sea (1). The new regulation imposes a progressive ban on discards but maintains RS as the distribution key for national quotas (2). The coexistence of both RS and the discard ban is a challenge for the first, not in its formal dimension as a quota allocation but in its substantive content on the utilization of the allocated quotas (3).
4.1 Relative Stability and Discards
The impact of discarding varies by species: some have low survivability when discarded (e.g., cod) whereas others may have higher survival rates (e.g., crustaceans).
57 And discards have positive ecological effects to the extent that discarded fish is food for a range of scavenging species.
58 However, discards are generally a negative practice entailing a massive waste of resources (human and animal food, potential income). In addition, it is probably the single most important reason for the poor quality of fisheries-dependent data that could be used to improve stock assessments.
59
The nonrecording of discards makes it difficult to know the exact number of discards at a global or regional level, although we know it has reached worrying levels.
60 In the EU, it varies from area to area, but it can be very high.
61
The practice of discarding occurs for various reasons, which can be divided into two categories.
62 First, discards occur for commercial reasons: wrong sex (where gender is important from a processing and marketing point of view); damaged fish, fish incompatible with the rest of the catch (slime or abrasion could cause damage to target species); inedible fish, rapidly spoiling fish; lack of space on board and high grading (take the best and leave the rest, often related to size). Second, discards also occur due to legal prohibitions: prohibited size, prohibited season, prohibited gear (a quota may be given for the capture of a particular species by a particular type of gear), prohibited fishing ground (closed for the capture of one species but open for others), prohibited species (no quota for the particular operator), and quotas reached (often the reason for high grading). This second category of discard occurs because the capture cannot be legally brought to market.
In the EU, prior to the current Regulation 1380/2013, it was not prohibited to discard fish, and discarded fish did not count towards an operator’s quota. In this context, the national quota allocation system based on RS contributed to discarding, not because the EU’s total TAC was used up but because the share for a particular MS was. While the fleet of one MS may not have used up its quota for a species, another fleet may have done so or may have had no quota at all, in which case this latter fleet would be forced to discard catches of this species.
63 If all quota systems generate discards, the EU system multiplies discards as each national quota generates its own discarding constraints.
This situation is in the process of being eradicated as Regulation 1380/2013 imposes a progressive ban on discards. One of the main reasons for this change was the pressure of public opinion, from both inside and outside of the EU, which had been sparked by striking images in the media.
64
4.2 The Landing Obligation
In accordance with Regulation 1380/2013, the discard ban is being introduced gradually (between 2015 and 2019) and on a fishery-by-fishery basis.
65 The regulation distinguishes between four categories: small pelagic fisheries (e.g., mackerel, herring, horse mackerel, blue whiting, boarfish, anchovy, argentine, sardine, and sprat), large pelagic fisheries (e.g., bluefin tuna, swordfish, albacore tuna, bigeye tuna, blue and white marlin), fisheries for industrial purposes (e.g., capelin, sandeel, and Norwegian pout), species that define the fisheries (no examples of this category are given in the regulation). In addition to these categories, the regulation also describes certain species-area (
inter alia fisheries for salmon in the Baltic Sea, fisheries for hake in the North Sea, etc.). It establishes four time frames that include these categories and species-areas and sets four deadlines by which the landing obligation is to be effective (1 January 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019). Without going into the details of which species or species-areas are included in each of these time frames, it is important to note that the EU discards affect the demersal species more than the pelagic species,
66 which is why the implementation did not start with them.
So far, the Commission has adopted 5+3 plans. In October 2014, the Commission adopted five discard plans, applicable from 1 January 2015, for certain pelagic and industrial fisheries.
67 One year later, in October 2015, the Commission adopted three discard plans, applicable from 1 January 2016, for certain demersal fisheries.
68
The discard ban is established as a landing obligation. Catches during fishing activities in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels in international waters (waters not subject to EU or third countries’ sovereignty or jurisdiction) must be brought and retained on board the fishing vessels, recorded, landed, and counted against any applicable quotas, except when used as live bait.
There are two possible exceptions to this obligation. First, the regulation allows for fishing operators to continue to discard species that, according to the best available scientific advice, have a high survival rate when released into the sea.
69 For instance, an exemption from the landing obligation exists for Norway lobster caught in pots, traps, or creels in ICES division VIa and subarea VII.
70 Second, to cater for unwanted catches that are unavoidable even when all measures for their reduction are taken, certain
de minimis exemptions from the landing obligation may be established.
71 For example, it exists a provision that allows to discard up to a maximum of 7% in 2015 and 2016, and 6% in 2017 of albacore tuna for total annual catches in the albacore tuna directed fisheries using midwater pair trawls (PTM) in ICES sea area VII.
72
In addition to these two
possible exemptions, which are to be determined in the corresponding discard plan, fishing operators
must discard catches of prohibited species (e.g., basking shark)
73 and, since 2015, also predator-damaged fish.
74 These catches of prohibited species and predator-damaged fish cannot be retained on board and must be returned into the sea.
75
These catches that can (high survivability,
de minimis) or must (prohibited species, predator-damaged fish) be discarded are not counted against the quota, but they must be documented in the logbook.
76
4.3 Use of National Quotas
The EU carries out a stock-by-stock management based on TACs (EU) and quotas (MSs). And, as we have seen, allocation keys were basically fixed for each stock-area on an MS basis when they joined the EU. Even if those allocation keys were adequate when fixed—a matter denied by some—the fact is that, as the Commission points out, conditions have changed since then due to different factors as, not intending to be exhaustive, stock development, the evolution of fleets, new fishing strategies on different stocks, changes in demand for given species, or the evolution of imports.
77 One of the effects of this system is the so-called mini-quotas.
78
There are two ways of easing RS. MSs may exchange all or part of the fishing opportunities allocated to them,
79 or they may make use a year-to-year flexibility mechanism of up to 10% of their permitted landings.
80 Outside of these two options, overfishing is penalized. When the Commission establishes that a MS exceeded the quotas which have been allocated to it, the Commission shall operate deductions in the future quotas of that MS by applying a multiplying factor.
81 For this reason, some exchanges of quotas between MSs are actually regularizations in disguise.
82
Quota exchanges take place between MSs
83 but not in a fully satisfactory manner, so quotas sometimes have been underutilized.
84 This has been the situation so far, and in the current period it is expected to worsen as a result of the ban on discards.
At this point in time, the traditional mechanisms for providing RS flexibility are still in place and, as we have seen, the landing obligation is in force with some exemptions. In addition are two further elements: discards are taken into account when setting quotas for MSs, and a new flexibility mechanism has been introduced. Indeed, on the one hand, when the landing obligation for a fish stock is introduced, fishing opportunities will be fixed taking into account the change from fixing fishing opportunities that reflect
landings to fixing fishing opportunities that reflect
catches, given that, for the first and subsequent years, discarding of that stock will no longer be allowed.
85 In other words, in a scenario with discards, the reference is landings (catches less discards), while when discards are prohibited, the reference is the catches (discounting catches not subject to the landing obligation). On the other hand, flexibility between species is allowed. Catches of species that are subject to the landing obligation and that are caught in excess of quotas of the stocks in question, or catches of species in respect of which the MS has no quota, may be deducted from the quota of the target species provided that they do not exceed 9% of the quota of the target species.
86 This second possibility—flexibility between species—has been seen by some as a breach of RS in favor of the autonomy of MSs, as it allows applying not used-up quotas to other species for which there is no quota, or for which quotas have been exceeded.
87
In summary, RS maintains its flexibility mechanisms (quota swapping and year-to-year flexibility), the landing obligation is not absolute (with the exemptions of high survivability, de minimis, prohibited species, and predator-damaged fish), the fishing opportunities that take into account the effect of discards are expected to increase, and some flexibility between species will be admitted. Will this be enough?
The biggest concern is with the so-called choke species, which may even further reduce quota exchanges. MSs that previously got rid of certain quotas will now need them to cover the discard ban to prevent that other species strangle the catches of its target species. The real challenges lie with the demersal species. Although we will have to wait to see what happens on the fishing grounds, the experience with pelagic species has not been encouraging. In this case, the choke species have not stimulated quota exchanges but rather reduced them.
88
At this point, it should be remembered that one of the objectives of the CFP is to increase productivity in fisheries by ensuring the rational development of fisheries production and the optimum utilization of the factors of production, in particular labor.
89 A notion that must be understood in the light of other objectives, which include a fair standard of living for the fishing community and supply at reasonable prices.
This management of resources must also take into account the peculiarities resulting from structural and natural disparities between the various fishing regions, the impact of the fisheries sector on the whole economy, and the need to effect the appropriate adjustments by degrees.
90
As the fisheries sector points out, for years discards were socially and politically accepted. When this ceased to be the case, the need arose to ban them. Likewise, there may come a day when the socioeconomic effects of the inability to take advantage of fishing quotas also become socially and politically intolerable. We understand that this is especially relevant to fishing-dependent regions, understanding this category of regions not in the sense of the Hague Preferences formula, which is limited to Ireland and the UK, but in a genuine sense to include all fishing-dependent regions of the EU.
91 Good examples, although not the only ones, of regions in this category are Galicia (Spain), Highlands and Islands (UK), N-E Scotland (UK), Algarve (Portugal), and Peloponnisos (Greece).
92