Remote electronic monitoring and the landing obligation - some insights into fishers' and fishery inspectors' opinions

Type Article
Date 2017-02
Language English
Author(s) Plet-Hansen Kristian S.1, Eliasen Soren Q.2, Mortensen Lars O.1, Bergsson Heiorikur3, Olesen Hans J.1, Ulrich ClaraORCID1
Affiliation(s) 1 : Tech Univ Denmark, Natl Inst Aquat Resources DTU Aqua, DK-2920 Charlottenlund, Denmark.
2 : Aalborg Univ, Dept Dev & Planning, AC Meyers Vaenge 15, DK-2450 Copenhagen SW, Denmark.
3 : Danish AgriFish Agcy, Minist Environm & Food Denmark, Nyropsgade 30, DK-1780 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Source Marine Policy (0308-597X) (Elsevier Sci Ltd), 2017-02 , Vol. 76 , P. 98-106
DOI 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11.028
WOS© Times Cited 17
Keyword(s) Fisheries management, Discard ban, Compliance, Fully Documented Fisheries, Fishery inspectors, Interviews
Abstract

The European fisheries management is currently undergoing a fundamental change in the handling of catches of commercial fisheries with the implementation of the 2013 Common Fisheries Policy. One of the main objectives of the policy is to end the practice of discarding in the EU by 2019. However, for such changes to be successful, it is vital to ensure stakeholders acceptance, and it is prudent to consider possible means to verify compliance with the new regulation. Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) with Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) has been tested in a variety of fisheries worldwide for different purposes and is currently considered as one possible tool to ensure compliance with a European ban on discards. This study focuses on Danish fishery inspectors and on fishers with REM experience, whose opinions are less well known. Their views on the landing obligation and on the use of REM were investigated using interviews and questionnaires, and contrasted to some fishers without REM experience. 80% of fishery inspectors and 58% of REM-experienced fishers expressed positive views on REM. 9 out of 10 interviewed fishers without REM experience were against REM. Participation in a REM trial has not led to antipathy towards REM. Fishery inspectors saw on-board observers, at-sea control and REM as the three best solutions to control the landing obligation but shared the general belief that the landing obligation cannot be enforced properly and will be difficult for fishers to comply with. The strengths and weaknesses of REM in this context are discussed.

Full Text
File Pages Size Access
Publisher's official version 9 268 KB Open access
Top of the page