Use of avoidance behaviours to reduce the economic impacts of the EU Landing Obligation: the case study of a mixed trawl fishery

Type Article
Date 2019-11
Language English
Author(s) Pointin Fabien1, 2, Daurès Fabienne3, Rochet Marie-Joelle1
Affiliation(s) 1 : Ifremer, EMH, Rue de l’Ile d’Yeu, B.P. 21105, Nantes Cedex 03, France
2 : SINAY Company, Consulting Office, 117 Cours Caffarelli, Caen, France
3 : Ifremer, Univ Brest, CNRS, UMR 6308, AMURE, Unité d'Economie Maritime, IUEM, Plouzané, France
Source Ices Journal Of Marine Science (1054-3139) (Oxford University Press (OUP)), 2019-11 , Vol. 76 , N. 6 , P. 1554-1566
DOI 10.1093/icesjms/fsz032
Keyword(s) avoidance behaviours, choke species, economic incentives, Landing Obligation, nested grid, otter trawl fishery
Abstract

The EU Landing Obligation (LO) is designed to reduce bycatch (i.e. unwanted catch) through more selective fishing practices, such as avoidance behaviours which consist in allocating fishing effort to other species, fishing grounds or seasons. Incentives for fishers to change their behaviours depend on their economic performances as well as their ability to avoid bycatch. Changes in economic performances under the LO are evaluated based on cost and revenue equations. The nested grid method is then used to explore the spatial and temporal distribution of landings and discards, and to suggest alternative effort allocation to avoid bycatch. This article is focussed specifically on the French otter trawl fishery in the eastern English Channel and southern North Sea. Results suggest that under the LO the choke species problem will curtail fishing activities earlier in the year, leading to significant economic losses. In the absence of significant quota top-ups (at least 75%), a change in fishing practices consisting in reducing overall bycatch by 30% is insufficient to reduce losses. With a particular attention to choke species, more economically efficient avoidance strategies can be found thanks to the nested grid method.

Full Text
File Pages Size Access
13 1 MB Access on demand
7 173 KB Access on demand
Author's final draft 37 656 KB Open access
Top of the page