Impact case study database

Impact 1: Informing EU Policy makers on implementation of fisheries legislation

The reformed CFP allows Member States to elaborate joint recommendations for regional management measures that are specific to their fisheries (Article 18). Joint recommendations can be submitted to the European Commission for policy adoption via delegated acts. Marine Scotland used our report ( R3) as the evidence base to demonstrate to the European Commission that the current discard ban negatively affected the Nephrops fishery. The report contains all the survival trials performed in both West Scotland and North Sea and showed that more than 50% of the discarded animals survive according to current practices in these fleets. As quoted by Paul McCarthy, Policy officer, Discard Team at Marine Scotland:

‘*we are going to use your report as [the] evidence base to argue for a high survival exemption for Nephrops caught in trawls in both the North Sea and North Western waters.*’ ( S1)

Therefore, data presented in R3 was directly used by the North Sea ( S2) and North Western Waters ( S3) Regional Groups, from which the UK take most of the quota, to argue for an exemption in their Joint Recommendations that were sent to the EU Commission.

Before Joint Recommendations from all regional groups are assessed by the EU Commission, reports and associated evidence, including R3, were evaluated by the Scientific and Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) ( S4), which highlighted:

‘the supporting scientific information [ R3] *is of good scientific quality and is based on state of the art methods (as recommended by ICES WKMEDS). Furthermore, the approach chosen to try to validate how representative the captive survival estimates were of the wider fleets is commendable.*’ ( S4)

Following the independent assessment by STECF, the European Commission approved and published in October 2018 delegated regulations specifying details of the implementation of the landing obligation in the North Sea ( S5) and in North-Western waters ( S6) for the period 2019-2020, which included **a discards exemption based on high-survival for Nephrops underpinned by R3. The link to our research ( R3) informing the European Commission decision is here acknowledged by Marine Scotland:

‘*without this data Marine Scotland would have been unable to demonstrate to the Regional Groups, EU Commission and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) that returning the smaller Nephrops as per the derogation did not affect the mortality and the ‘de minimis’ exemptions that were in place at the time were no longer needed to enable fishers to continue activity and remain viable.*’ Policy officer, Marine Scotland ( S7)

The impacts of research projects R1 and R3 were independently evaluated by researchers from Anderson Solutions Consulting and O’Herlihy & Co, who were commissioned by the projects’ funding body Fisheries Innovation Scotland (FIS). Results from this evaluation ( S8) concluded that:

‘this research had moved out of the research phase and had been followed by action by government.’ (FIS07, R1 and FIS015, R3) ( S8)

Marine Scotland provided feedback to FIS regarding the impact that the FIS-commissioned research had:

‘The research from FIS was a key component of the case that Marine Scotland put forward to argue for a High Survival exemption for Nephrops caught in trawls with a mesh size greater than 80mm in both the North Sea and North Western Waters. The FIS research formed the evidence base on which we were able to show than more that 50% of discarded Nephrops did survive and were capable of contributing to the overall biomass. The complete report from FIS was sent to STECF where it was reviewed. STECF assessed it as methodologically sound and its conclusions were considered convincing. Without the FIS research we would not have been able to secure the Nephrops high survival exemptions.’ ( S9. Quote given in writing by Paul McCarthy, Policy officer, Marine Scotland to the Executive Director of Fisheries Innovation Scotland, Feb-19)

Impact 2: Ensuring prawn fishing viability and reduction of costs

As acknowledged by Marine Scotland in S7, the change in policy ‘ enable fishers to continue activity and remain viable’. The landing of small unmarketable animals had been identified by the industry as an economic burden. According to a study by the Centre of Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) from the UK government it was estimated that the average costs across the industry for disposing discards would be GBP9,900 per fishing vessel per year (Mangi and Catchpole, 2014: doi.org/10.1017/S0376892913000532). Costs could be higher for geographically remote landing ports such as the ones in the west of Scotland. Given that there are 164 Nephrops trawlers in the waters where this exemption applies, an estimated saving of GBP1,600,000 across the fleet was achieved in 2019. While it is impossible to accurately estimate savings made in 2020 because of disruption to the activities of the Nephrops fleet due to Covid-19, this may have amounted to a further GBP1,600,000. This cost was highlighted as a key concern to the economic viability of the sector. For this reason, initially as the reformed CFP was being implemented, Marine Scotland applied for a ‘ de minimis’ exemption to the landing of discarded Nephrops. That allowed fishers to discard up to a maximum of 6% in 2018. This ‘ de minimis’ exemption was approved by the European Commission who agreed that increases in catch selectivity were very difficult to achieve in a short-time frame and that there was supporting information on the disproportionate costs of handing the discarded catch (Commission delegated regulation EU 2015/2438).

Impact 3: Law enforcement and security practices do not need to be changed

Prior to the Nephrops discard exemption that relied on our evidence, the enforcement of the discard ban would have represented a challenge to both governments and industry. If discarded Nephrops were to be landed new enforcement strategies would have had to have been implemented. Evidence of this research leading to avoidance of negative outcomes is here acknowledged by a fisherman:

‘The derogation has been a keystone in maintaining our ability to continue fishing unhindered. (…)

The project has stopped the realistic possibility of a large financial burden for cameras and disposal of any catch. The mental burden of having to comply with unworkable burdens should not be underestimated.’ ( S10. Quote from Mr Ian Wightman, Fisherman from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association)

And, also by Marine Scotland:

‘The granting of this derogation was particularly useful for all those involved. By combining the derogations into one it made things simpler for stakeholders to follow and comply with, reducing the possibility of enforcement action and any confusion as to which derogation was being utilised at the time of inspection. The simplification also benefitted policy colleagues as it made negotiations simpler by referring to one exemption.’ ( S7. Policy officer, Marine Scotland)

Impact 4: Natural resource-use efficiency

Although the main objective of the 2014 reformed EU CFP is the exploitation of living marine biological resources at levels that contribute to long-term sustainable environmental conditions, landing organisms that show high survivability makes no conservation sense because landing those individuals would increase overall mortality rates. The approved discard ban exemption based on high survival means that >50% of Nephrops now being returned at sea are contributing to current stocks improving their sustainability. According to our research ( R3), on average around 800 Nephrops are discarded per trawl. On average, each vessel conducts 4 trawls per day and given the fact that there are around 164 Nephrops vessels in the area this exemption applies operating 200 days/year, this translates into around 105,000,000 Nephrops being returned at sea every year due to this change in policy. Animals that otherwise would have been landed and killed due the landing obligation policy.