Onshore management of unwanted catch Update and discussion Discard Action Group, 25 October 2016
Work to date Defra hosted a cross- industry taskforce in 2014 & 2015 looking at challenges and potential solutions in the handling of unwanted catch This work informed guidance published in October 2015 General MMO landing obligation guidance on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/landing-obligation-discard- ban-2017-guidance/landing-obligation-general-requirements-guidance- 2017 How food hygiene and Animal By-Products (ABP) rules apply: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-ports-marketsagents-and-other-businesses/guidance-for-ports-markets-agents-andother-businesses Good practice on handling unwanted catch on Seafish website: http://www.seafish.org/media/1477052/defra_handlingundersizefishunder thelo_201511.pdf Now we will be developing this work through DAG Marine Scotland guidance at: http://www.gov.scot/topics/marine/sea- Fisheries/discards/onshoreguidance 2
General guidance Government s role in to support industry to adapt to handling unwanted/undersized catch e.g. through encouraging access to EMFF Industry itself is best placed to decide what measures may be needed in individual localities, according to Nature of fisheries Location Existing infrastructure Encourage a cross-industry approach e.g. fishermen, ports, markets working together The value of all catch should be maximised There are markets undersized fish can go to Undersized fish should not be seen as waste 3
In 2016 we expected Quantity of undersized fish landed to be small Only one or two species of undersized fish to be landed in individual areas Selective fishing practices and exemptions reducing the quantities coming ashore The phased introduction of the discard ban up to 2019 allowing time for areas to develop practical processes to handle this fish From MMO data/experience and industry feedback received so far this all seems to be the case 4
Animal By-Product (ABP) rules The application of ABP rules to the handling of undersized catch onshore was a new area for the industry to understand If practice there is some flexibility: If in doubt handle according to food hygiene rules Non-direct human consumption - handle according to food hygiene rules Non-human consumption - handle according to ABP rules Worked with Defra ABP colleagues and Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) to ensure guidance was clear Some ports/markets/other fish industry businesses have applied for ABP approval this year 5
Challenges Who takes responsibility and when in practice? Owner (fisherman) is responsible until catch sold or given to another owner Ports (or markets/agents) do not have a legal obligation to provide facilities but it may be a service they choose to set up Exact volumes are and will be uncertain Inconsistency of supply Handling low value fish Storage space Availability of markets especially for smaller/remote locations Reluctance to invest in infrastructure that might be unnecessary 6
Potential solutions Storage facility where fishermen can place fish until collected by buyers e.g. communal bin Micro-digestion unit that produces energy Hub collection networks one port collects fish from smaller ports in the area Expanding existing collection networks e.g. processor Using existing chains for the processing of food fish Pot bait schemes All these involve different parts of the industry working together to find what works in practice for a particular area 7
2016 landings of undersized fish (all into Scottish ports) Official figures based on correct reporting code only may be an underestimate of quantities landed. 120 tonnes landed in total as of 23/11/16 8
FDF vs. non-fdf Comparison of undersized fish landings between Fully Documented Fisheries (FDF) fleet and non-fdf fleet in the North Sea (UK vessels) 9
2017 Estimated landings into English ports Text in footer 10
North Sea 2017 projected undersized landings (English ports) Species Gear type % under MLS (Cefas observer data) % Discard rate De minimis discard allowance Total catch 2015 into English ports Theoretical landings of undersized (tonnes) Main ports (England) Cod TR1 (all trawls over 3% 4.6% 240.2 7.55 North Shields, Scarborough, Grimsby, Blyth 100mm) Plaice TR1 (all trawls over 6% 8.9% 554.6 36.53 Grimsby 100mm) Whiting TR1 (all trawls over 7.6% 44.2% 320.4 43.64 Blyth, North Shields, Scarborough, Amble 100mm) Haddock TR1 (all trawls over 6.7% 10.2% 295.5 21.22 North Shields, Blyth, Amble, Scarborough, 100mm) Sole Beam trawls 80-8.3% 11% 7% 8.4 0.12 Hartlepool, Lowestoft, Shoreham 99mm Whiting Beam trawls 80-9.6% 27.6% 3.8 Blyth 99mm Sole Trawls 80-99mm 2.9% 4% 154.5 4.67 West Mersea, Rye, Lowestoft, Hartlepool, Felixstowe, Ipswich, Whitstable, Harwich, Ramsgate, Leigh-On- Sea, North Shields, Folkestone Nephrops Trawls 80-99mm 2.3% 2.3% 6% 1580.7 0 North Shields, Scarborough, Blyth, Amble, Hartlepool, Whitby Haddock Trawls 80-99mm 52.4% 64.3% 57.5 84.4 North Shields Hartlepool Blyth Sole Cod Whiting Total All gill/trammel nets All gill/trammel nets All gill/trammel nets 8.1% 8.7% 3% 95.6 5.34 Ramsgate, Harwich, Rye, Dungeness, Lowestoft, Aldeburgh and Orford, Hythe Whitstable 1.3% 6.1% 168.0 2.33 Ramsgate, Dungeness, Folkestone, Rye, Hythe, Whitstable, West Mersea, Aldeburgh, and Orford, Harwich, Margate 38.3% 84.6 6.3 15.56 Hartlepool 221 tonnes 11
North Western Waters 2017 projected undersized landings (English ports) Whiting VII b-k Sole Sole Sole All trawls 5.0% 27.4% 7% 508.4 0 Brixham, Mevagissey, Plymouth, Teignmouth, Looe, Newlyn, Lyme Regis Newhaven VIId Trawls less than 100mm VII b-k VIId -g All gill/trammel nets 0 0 3% 196.7 0 Shoreham, Newhaven, Hastings, Rye Newlyn 0.7% 1.9% 3% 355.3 0 Hastings, Eastbourne, Newhaven, Shoreham, Brighton, Rye, Dungeness, Poole, Littlehampton, Portsmouth Beam trawls 0.1% 0.8% 3% when using selecti ve gear 652.0 0.65 Brixham, Newlyn, Plymouth, Shoreham Torquay, Newhaven, Padstow, Rye, Liverpool, Padstow 12
Your views Have you had any experience of handling unwanted catch onshore this year? What have the challenges been? Have you found any solutions that have worked well for you? What are you concerned about for 2017 and in the longer term? Given the additional fisheries affected by the landing obligation in 2017 what problems do you anticipate? 13
Future discussions in DAG How can this work be best developed? Are you content for onshore catch management issues to be discussed at each DAG meeting? Do you think other discussion is needed beyond these meetings? What would be helpful? What existing networks might be used to encourage discussion and development of solutions? 14
Contact: Arvind Thandi, Defra arvind.thandi@defra.gsi.gov.uk 15