This deliverable presents the results of the bio-economic modelling assessments carried out under tasks 2.3 and 2.4.

Task 2.3 covered the choice and initial parametrisation of relevant bio-economic models for the included case studies, and formulation of scenarios to be analysed. Models were chosen on the basis that they were already operational (i.e. had been used in other applications previously to Discardless) and as such thoroughly tested and documented in peer-reviewed journals, to secure a high scientific standard of the  m (...)

This deliverable presents the results of the bio-economic modelling assessments carried out under tasks 2.3 and 2.4.

Task 2.3 covered the choice and initial parametrisation of relevant bio-economic models for the included case studies, and formulation of scenarios to be analysed. Models were chosen on the basis that they were already operational (i.e. had been used in other applications previously to Discardless) and as such thoroughly tested and documented in peer-reviewed journals, to secure a high scientific standard of the  models and the expected assessment results. The selected scenarios firstly included, for all considered case studies, two benchmark scenarios; (i) ‘Business as usual‘, i.e. how the economic outcome of the fishery would evolve if the Landing Obligation (LO) was not implemented, and (ii) ‘Full implementation‘, i.e. what the predicted economic consequences for the fishery will be given a full implementation of the LO with no exemptions or mitigation measures implemented. Secondly a number of relevant scenarios were defined for each case study based on either expectations on or direct knowledge about how the LO, and possible exemptions and mitigation strategies will be implemented in the specific case study. And finally, each case study has assessed and applied outputs from Work Packages (WPs) 3-7, to the extend possible given the bio-economic model in use. 

Task 2.4 has firstly throughout the project updated the parametrisation of the chosen bio-economic models given the newest knowledge about the fisheries in question. Secondly task 2.4 has covered the running of the models, given the scenarios identified in task 2.3, and documentation of the resulting outputs.

The following case studies have been analysed (parenthesis displaying the bio-economic model used):

• The Danish North Sea Demersal fishery (Fishrent)
• The UK mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea, West of Scotland and Area 7 (SEAFISH model)
• The French mixed demersal fishery in the Eastern English Channel (ISIS-Fish)
• The Spanish mixed demersal fishery in the Bay of Biscay (FLBeia)
• The Icelandic mixed demersal fishery (Model for various use of unwanted catches)
• The Spanish demersal fishery in the Western Mediterranean (MEFISTO)
• The Greek demersal and small-scale fishery in the Thermaikos gulf (MEFISTO)

The outcomes of the simulations are  mixed and indicate that the economic effects of the LO for affected fishing fleets depends on both the fishery in question, on the management system on which the LO is superimposed, and on applied exemptions and mitigation strategies. A full implementation of the LO with no quota-uplifts and no exemptions or mitigation strategies applied will in the long run lead to on the average (average over all fleet segments considered in a given case study) reduced or at best similar economic outcomes, compared to the situation with no LO, for the considered fisheries. Application of mitigation strategies and exemptions improves this result for most considered cases, but has in few cases been predicted to make the economic situation worse given redistributional effects, i.e. that the applied mitigation strategy or exemption will have further consequences for the stocks and other fleets, and thus indirectly make the economic situation worse for the considered fleet. When individual fleet segments are considered the picture becomes even more complex as it is in most case studies predicted that some fleet segments will profit while others will loose out given the LO, both without and with added exemptions and/or mitigation strategies.

Thus, in all it is concluded that the economic effects of the LO for affected fisheries are, according to model predictions, very varied, going from losses to actual gains. And that the effects to a high degree depends on (i) the management system on which the LO is superimposed, and (ii) on which and how exemptions and mitigation strategies are implemented.

Finally, it must be emphasized that the work performed in tasks 2.3 and 2.4 has built up a valuable model library that can be used for ongoing assessments of the economic outcomes of introducing exemptions and mitigation strategies in relation to the LO in the case studies covered. Understanding the consequences of various approaches to the implementation of the LO, and possible mitigation strategies, on economic performance of affected fishing fleets (using these models) is of broad interest for fishers, policy makers and stakeholders, as well as for anybody interested in sustainable fisheries and life in the oceans.

The Deliverable report consists of two sections. Section 1 presents a synthesis of the work performed in the seven case studies, and as such gives a short introduction to each case study, to the applied models, to the scenarios analysed and a final synthesis and discussion of the results. Section 2 includes individual case study chapters, that present in-depth information about the case study, the applied model, the reasoning behind the chosen scenarios, discussion on interaction with WP3-7, and detailed outline and discussion of the assessment results.

Box 1: Highlights from the bio-economic model assessments

The in-depth analysis of the effects of the landing obligation on the economy of the case study fishing fleets has been conducted in the project using complex bio-economic models. The results of these simulations indicate:

• In Denmark, the ITQ management system applied is predicted to mitigate the economic effects of the LO in the long run and use of exemptions and improved selectivity may reduce possible economic losses further.
• In UK, the LO will mean losses in revenue due to choke in the medium long run after full implementation of the policy in 2019. However, application of various mitigation strategies, including quota adjustments, catch allowances for zero TAC stocks, TAC deletions, vessel movements between metiers, quota swaps (both nationally and internationally) and selectivity measures, all to some degree mitigate these negative economic consequences.
• In West Mediterranean, a full implementation of the LO will lead to reduced profitability, but other measures such as reduced fishing mortality and improved selectivity, may lead to increased profitability in the long term due to increased SSB and Yield.
• In E. Mediterranean, a full implementation of the LO and partial implementations with reduced fishing mortality will lead to slightly reduced profitability, but improved selectivity may lead to increased SSB that will in turn increase catches and profitability in the long term.
• In Bay of Biscay, the Basque trawler fleet is better off with a fully implemented LO than without in terms of Gross value added (remuneration of labour and capital), as long-term gains outweigh short term losses. Inter-species year-to year flexibility and de minimis reduces this result and makes the fishery worse off than without the LO. On the other hand, application of improved selectivity makes the fishery significantly better off than without the LO.
• In the Eastern English Channel ISIS-Fish runs suggest that full implementation of the LO induces a slight increase in long-run gross revenues at about 2.5% relative to the no-LO case. Introducing de minimis increases this to about 12.5% relative to the no-LO case. However, fleet opportunism, i.e. how flexible the fishers are in their choice of metiers, may affect these results both negatively (low flexibility) and positively (high flexibility). Closures of fishing grounds to protect whiting and sole has a negative effect for the economic outcome but allows delaying TAC exhaustion.
• For Iceland the model works opposite to the other models in the WP2 modelling, as the baseline is a fishery under LO. This case is used to contrast the results of the other case studies and reflect the possible value of landing UUC. It is found that the combined yearly value of products produced from these UUC is around 12.5 M Euros.

Box 2: The Methods/Approaches followed 

• Existing numerical bio-economic models have been applied with focus on assessment of the effects of the LO on the economic performance of European fishing fleets affected by the LO, and to test the economic effects of possible discard mitigation strategies.
• Analysed scenarios have been designed based on the problems faced, given the LO, by the specific case study and the management system on which the LO is superimposed. These problems may differ depending on whether the case study fishery is managed primarily through quotas or through Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) regulation.
• Analysed scenarios have been designed based on current knowledge on how the LO will be implemented and on mitigation strategies expected to be introduced in the given case study.
• Interaction with Discardless Work Packages 3-7 and implementation of results from these have been performed where possible in the different case study models.

Box 3: How these results can be used and by whom

Understanding the consequences of various approaches to the implementation of the LO, and possible mitigation strategies, on economic performance of affected fishing fleets (using bio-economic models) is of very broad interest for fishermen, policy makers and stakeholders, as well as for anybody interested in sustainable fisheries and life in the oceans.