8th Meeting of the Parties to ASCOBANS MOP8/Inf.6.2.1.a

Helsinki, Finland, 30 August - 1 September 2016 Dist. 24 August 2016

NOTE: DELEGATES ARE KINDLY REMINDED

TO BRING THEIR OWN COPIES OF DOCUMENTS TO THE MEETING

Agenda Item 6.2.1 Further Implementation of the Agreement

Conservation Issues

Monitoring and Mitigation of Small Cetacean Bycatch

Information Document 6.2.1.a Bycatch-related Fisheries Legislation in the ASCOBANS Area

Action Requested Take note

Submitted by Secretariat

Secretariat’s Note

One obstacle to assessing the situation and gleaning important information on the causes of mortality and health status of porpoises in the Baltic Sea are the low levels of reporting of bycatch and recovery of fresh carcasses. In order to gain an overview of the relevant practices and regulations in the Baltic Sea region, the Jastarnia Group requested the Secretariat, with the assistance of a consultant, “to produce a synopsis of bycatch-related regulations of relevance to individual fishermen, especially with regard to legal sanctions for bycatch and incentives for those delivering carcasses with a view to using the carcasses obtained for porpoise conservation research, irrespective of whether such incentives are laid down in national legislation” (Action Point 6 of the 10th Meeting of the Jastarnia Group).

Thanks to a voluntary contribution from Germany, supplemented by funds from the regular budget, ASCOBANS was able to commission a review covering not only the Baltic Sea region, but the entire ASCOBANS Area, and drawing also from examples in other regions.

STUDY

22 AUG 2016

Synopsis of Bycatch-related Fisheries Legislation in the ASCOBANS Area

STUDY PREPARED FOR THE ASCOBANS SECRETARIAT Author | Chris Hedley 22 August 2016

Contents

Introduction.............................................................................................................................2

PartA|EULegislation..............................................................................................................3

ContextandLegalEffectofEULegislation...........................................................................3FrameworkofEUlegislation................................................................................................3LegalSanctionsforInfringementsofBycatchRules.............................................................4ReportingObligations..........................................................................................................6Deliveryofcarcasses............................................................................................................7

PartB|ASCOBANSParties.......................................................................................................9

Belgium................................................................................................................................9Denmark.............................................................................................................................10Finland................................................................................................................................11Germany.............................................................................................................................12Lithuania.............................................................................................................................13Netherlands........................................................................................................................13Poland................................................................................................................................14Sweden...............................................................................................................................15UnitedKingdom.................................................................................................................15

PartC|ASCOBANSNon-PartyRangeStates..........................................................................18

Estonia................................................................................................................................18Ireland................................................................................................................................18Latvia..................................................................................................................................19Norway...............................................................................................................................20Portugal..............................................................................................................................20Russia.................................................................................................................................21Spain...................................................................................................................................21

PartD|InternationalPractice...............................................................................................23

Australia.............................................................................................................................23Canada...............................................................................................................................23NewZealand.......................................................................................................................23

PartE|Comments.................................................................................................................25

ReferencesandSelectedReading......................................................................................28

IntroductionThisStudyaimstoprovideanoverviewofthesituationintheASCOBANSAreaofbycatch-relatedlawsandregulations,focusingparticularlyon:

a)Legalsanctionsforbycatch�

b)Bycatch-relatedreportingobligations�

c)Incentivesforthosedeliveringcarcasses,irrespectiveofwhethersuchincentivesarelaiddowninnationallegislation�

ThegeographicalscopeofthisreportwillincludeallASCOBANSParties(Belgium,Denmark,Finland,France,Germany,Lithuania,Netherlands,Poland,Sweden,UnitedKingdom),andasfaraspossiblealsonon-PartyRangeStates(Estonia,Ireland,Latvia,Norway,Portugal,Russia,Spain).Relevantexamplesfromotherregionsarealsousedforcomparisonandinordertoshapetherecommendations,asfarasfeasibleandapplicable.

It shouldbenotedthatwhile lawsandregulationsrelatedto fisheries (includingcetaceanbycatchinfisheries)aredominatedbyEuropeanUnionlaw(whichhasexclusivecompetenceinmostoftheapplicableareas)thisstudyfocussesonlawsatthenationallevel.Inevitablyfor EUMember States this results in analyzing the national interplaywith EU law,whichprimarilyconcernstheenforcementaspects(includingsanctionsforbreachesofEUCommonFisheriesPolicyrules).

PartA|EULegislationContextandLegalEffectofEULegislation

At the outset, the context of EU lawmust be emphasised. All ASCOBANS Parties are EUMember States, as are all non-member Range States with the exception of Norway andRussia. However, under legal arrangements Norway also undertakes to apply much EUlegislation includingenvironmental legislation (butexcluding fisheries legislation,althoughtherearesomeagreedjointrulesforsharedstocksandmanyrulesareinanycasesimilar).ForEUMemberStates,thereareanumberoflegalandpolicyimplications:

§ EU law is binding onMember States.Moreover,where the legislation is contained inRegulationstherulesaredirectlyapplicable.ThismeansnotonlythattheEURegulationsautomaticallyapplyinMemberStatesbutalsothatMemberStatesareprecludedfromadoptingnationalimplementinglegislationexcept:(1)inordertoenforcetheRegulations;or(2)wheretheRegulationsprovidesforthepossibilityforMemberStatestotakestricternationalmeasures(subjecttocertainlimits).

§ EUDirectivesontheotherhand,requirenationalimplementinglegislation.TherulesintheDirectivesmust be closely adhered to, however,meaning that (depending on thenatureoftheDirective)rulesarecloselyharmonizedacrossMemberStates.

§ WhileenvironmentalandfisheriesrulesaredevelopedattheEUlevel,enforcementandcriminal procedurematters arewithin the competenceofMember States – thereforeMemberStates(subjecttosomedirectionsattheEUlevel)determinematterssuchasthetypeofenforcementprocedure,levelsandtypesofpenalties,etc.

§ In policy terms, the scope for legislative reform is limited by the EU policy agenda.Therefore, reforms to some key frameworks (e.g. the Habitats or Marine StrategyFramework Directives) are subject to limited potential, except to the extent ofimplementingrulesandmodalities.Ontheotherhand,technicalregulations–suchastheEUfisheriestechnicalrules–aremoreeasilyadaptable.

FrameworkofEUlegislation

EUrulesconcerningcetaceanbycatcharefoundprimarilyofthreesetsoflegislation:(1)theHabitatsDirective;(2)theMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective;and(3)CommonFisheriesPolicyRegulations.

Under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Member States are obliged to take measuresnecessary to establish a system of strict protection for cetaceans in their natural range,prohibiting“allformsofdeliberatecaptureorkillingofspecimensofthesespeciesinthewild”(Art. 12; Annex IV lists the animals, including all small cetaceans, that are afforded thisprotection).Additionally,MemberStatesarerequiredtoestablishasystemtomonitorthe

incidentalcaptureandkillingofthesespecies,andinthelightoftheinformationgathered,totakefurtherresearchorconservationmeasuresasrequiredtoensurethatincidentalcaptureandkillingdoesnothaveasignificantnegativeimpactonthespeciesconcerned(Art.12(4)).TherearenospecificrequirementsonreportingunderArticle12,however,andinpracticeregular,detailedreportingformatshavenotbeendevelopedundertheHabitatsDirective.1

UndertheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(2008/56/EC;MSFD),MemberStatesarerequired to establish a series of environmental targets and associated indicators and todevelopand implementaprogrammeofmeasuresdesigned toachieveormaintain goodenvironmental status.Additionally,Member States are required toestablish amonitoringprogrammeforcontinuousassessmentandregularupdatingoftargets.“Goodenvironmentalstatus”includesabiologicalelement,whichinturnmeansthatbiodiversityindicatorsneedto be developed for marine mammals, including a bycatch mortality indicator (which ifexceededwouldimplytheneedforstrongerbycatchmitigationmeasures).However,thereis currentlynooverall consensusamongstMemberStates, theEuropeanCommissionandinternationalorganizations(includingICESandASCOBANS)onhowtheseindicatorsshouldbedefined.

Regulation 812/2004 is currently the main laying down measures concerning incidentalcatchesofcetaceansinfisherieshasfourcomponents:mitigation,monitoring,reportingandphasingoutofdriftnetsintheBalticSea.Themitigationmeasuresincludearequirementofusingpingerswithdefinedtechnicalspecificationsforvesselswithanoveralllengthof12mormore in specific fisheries,geographicareasandperiodof theyear,andensuring thesedevices are fully operationalwhen setting the gear. For these fisheries, there are variousmonitoringandreportingrequirements(seebelow).

LegalSanctionsforInfringementsofBycatchRules

WhilethesubstantiverulesforfishingforEUMemberStatesaresetattheEUlevel,mattersofcriminalprocedureandlawaremostlywithintheexclusivecompetenceofMemberStates.Therearesomequalificationstothis,however,sinceEUcontrolrules(primarilytheso-called“ControlRegulation”2)undertheCFPsetoutsomeparameters–inparticularbyclassifyingcertainoffencesas“seriousinfringements”oftheCFP,andestablishingaUnion-wide‘penaltypoints”systemforfishers.

1RelevantinformationformspartofthereportingrequirementsunderArticle17oftheHabitatsDirectiveandiscurrentlycontainedinanEUdatabase3.UnderArticle17,everysixyearsMemberStatesarerequiredtoreportontheimplementationofmeasurestakenundertheDirectiveandinparticularshouldreportontheconservationmeasuresreferredtoinArticle6andthemainresultsofthesurveillancereferredtoinArticle11.ButthereisnoexplicitrequirementtoreportonArticle12,whichrequiresmemberstatestomonitorincidentalcatches.2Reg.(EU)1224/2009establishingaCommunitycontrolsystemforensuringcompliancewiththerulesofthecommonfisheriespolicy.

Asregardsseriousinfringements,theControlRegulationestablishesanumberofoffencesas“serious”meaning that they are eligible for higher penalties, and also for penalty points.Theseoffencesincludemanythatwouldberelevanttocetaceanbycatch,includingfailingtofulfilobligationstorecordandreportcatchorcatchrelateddata;useofprohibitedornon-compliantgear;carryingoutoffishingactivitiesinaprotectedarea;amongothers

AsfromJanuary2012,eachMemberStateshouldhavesetupapointsystemwhichallowsfor penalty points tobe assigned toholders of fishing licences (companiesor individuals)and/ormastersofvesselsincaseofseriousinfringements.Thenumberofpointsthataretobe assigned in case of infringements depend on the nature of the infringement and arespecifiedinanimplementingRegulation.3Incasetwoormoreinfringementsbythelicenceholderaredetectedduringoneinspection,thepointscanbesummedup.Thesumcannotexceed12points (Article162ofthe implementingRegulation).Whenthetotalnumberofpoints assigned equals or exceeds a determined threshold, the fishing licence will beautomaticallysuspended.Thesethresholdsrangefromtwo-monthssuspensionat18points,topermanentsuspensionat90points.

Ingeneral,directlegalsanctionsfortheactofincidentallycapturingcetaceansdonotexistinEUornationallegislation.UnderEUlaw(HabitatsDirective)thedeliberatecaptureorkillingofcetaceansisprohibited,butincidentalcaptureisnotprohibited–rathertherearegeneralobligations (onMemberStates,butnotunderEU lawon individuals) to takemeasures toreducemortality and harm from incidental capture (Habitats Directive,MSFD, CFP). Thisapproachisreplicatedatthenationallevel(andalsoinNorwayandRussia).

Legalsanctionsforbycatchariseprimarily(potentially)intwoways.

1) First,iftheactionsofthefisherareinsomeway“deliberate”.InEUlawandmostnationallegislation,thisisgivenarelativelybroaddefinitionandcoversactswherecetaceansarewilfully or recklessly harmed. For example, in the UK a person who kills or injures acetacean“intentionally”(therequirementinlaw)includesapersonwhoactedrecklesslyorwilfully.Moreover,thelegislationexpresslycoversapersonwho“recklesslydisturbs”acetacean-forexampletocauseitdistressbychasingitinaboat.However,thethresholdforsuchanoffenceisrelativelyhigh(itwouldunlikelybesufficient,forexample,simplytoshowthattherehadbeenexcessivebycatch).Moreover,inpracticethereappearstobenoexampleinRangeStates(orelsewhere)oflegalproceedingsinrelationtotechnicalbycatchonly.

2) Second,ifthereisabreachoftechnicalregulationsdesignedtoreducecetaceanbycatch.Thesemightinclude,forexample,fishingusingprohibitedmethodsorgear,orfailuretomeetmonitoringandcontrolrequirements.Theefficacyofsuchsanctionsrelies inthe

3CommissionImplementingRegulation(EU)No404/2011.

firstplaceontheexistenceofappropriatetechnicalrulesand,second,onthewillingnessandcapacityofnationalauthoritiestoenforcethem.

Basedonanassessmentofthesanctionsforfisheriestechnicaloffencesgenerally,itcanbeseenthatthereisverysubstantialvarianceinthesanctionsapplicabletobycatchoffencesacrosstheASCOBANSRangeStates(andbeyond).Somecountriesrelyonadministrativefines(appliedwithout theneed togo to court),whileothers canonly impose fines followingaconvictionobtainedinacourt.Therange(inlegislationandinpractice)offinesalsovariesconsiderably.AttheEUlevel,theCFPprovidesabasicrequirementonsanctioning–thattheoveralllevelofsanctionsshallbecalculatedinsuchwayastomakesurethattheyeffectivelydeprivethoseresponsibleoftheeconomicbenefitderivedfromtheirinfringement–butthishasnotresultedinastandardizedapproach,andalsodoesnotexpresslytakeaccountofnon-economicmatters(suchastheimpactoncetaceanconservation),althoughthisisimpliedinthesanctioningsystem.

ReportingObligations

AttheEUlevel,reportingobligationsarenotwellcoordinatedandaregenerallyinsufficientforcetaceanbycatch.Themainreportingobligationscomeunder4Directives/Regulations:

§ Under the Habitats Directive, Member States are required to establish a system tomonitor the incidental capture and killing of cetaceans,4 but there are no specificrequirementsonreportingattachedtothisrequirementandinpracticeregular,detailedreportingformatshavenotbeendevelopedundertheHabitatsDirective(otherthanthegeneralsix-yearlyimplementationreports,providedunderArticle17).

§ UndertheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective (2008/56/EC;MSFD),MemberStatesarerequiredtoestablishaseriesofenvironmentaltargetsandassociatedindicatorsforassessing the environmental status of marine waters and to establish a monitoringprogrammeforcontinuousassessmentandregularupdatingoftargets.Withintheworkon implementing theMSFD (which is on-going), has been development of a commonbycatchmortality indicatorbut thisworkhasnotyetbeenconcludeddue toa lackofagreed conservation objectives for cetaceans in European waters, complicated bypossible overlapwith initiatives taken in thedevelopment of thenewDataCollectionRegulation and the reviewofReg. 812/2004. SeveralASCOBANS/Member Stateshaveproposedabycatchmortalityindicatorfortheirownwaters.

§ UndertheCetaceanBycatchRegulation(812/2004)MemberStatesareto:(a)monitorandassesstheeffectsofpingeruse(inthefisheriesconcerned);(b)designandimplementobservermonitoringschemesforincidentalcatchesofcetaceansincertainfisheriesand

4 And in the light of the information gathered, to take further research or conservationmeasures asrequiredtoensurethatincidentalcaptureandkillingdoesnothaveasignificantnegativeimpactonthespeciesconcerned(Art.12(4)).

tocollectscientificdataonincidentalcatchesofcetaceans;and(c)reportannuallyontheimplementationoftheRegulation,including(amongotherthings)estimatesoftheoverallincidentalcatchesofcetaceansineachofthefisheriesconcerned.ReportingunderthisRegulationisinconsistentandnotfullycarriedoutbyeveryaffectedMemberState.

§ CloselylinkedtosomeoftheprovisionsinRegulation812/2004arethedatacollectionrequirementsunderCouncilRegulation(EC)199/2008(theDataCollectionFramework,orDCF).ThisRegulationrequiresMemberStatestosetupcoordinatedprogrammesforcollection, management and use of biological, technical, environmental and socio-economicdata,onprofessionaland-whereappropriate–alsoonrecreationalfisheries.Ecosystemdatashouldbeincludedtoallowforanestimationoftheimpactoffisheriesonthemarineecosystem.ThereiscurrentlynoobligationonMemberStatesundertheDCF to collect information on the bycatch of protected species; nevertheless somemember statesdo so. Itwould seemsensible that if anecosystembasedapproach tofisheries management were to be implemented under DCF, then information on thebycatchofprotectedspeciesshouldalsobecollected.

§ Itshouldbenotedthat–first–theDCFiscurrentlybeingreformedand–second–itiswidely considered to be an ineffective tool for monitoring cetacean bycatch. ICESreportedin2015thatobservationsincertainfisheriesduring2011-2013resultedinnorecordsofmarinemammalbycatchundertheDCF,butwhendedicatedmonitoringofthese fisheries was applied bycatch of marine mammals was recorded. While ICESconsideredthatthereasonsforthedifferenceswasnotentirelyclear,andlikelytobetheresultofacombinationoffactors,itconcludedthatthedifferencesinreportedbycatchevents demonstrated that the DCF is not adequate for monitoring the bycatch ofcetaceans(ICES2015).

Deliveryofcarcasses

Thedeliveryofcarcassesofincidentally-caughtcetaceansforthepurposesofassessingthecausesofmortalityandhealthstatusofcetaceansisproblematicfromthelegalperspective.First, under theHabitatsDirective the keeping, transporting and exchanging of cetaceanstakenfromthewildisprohibited(Art.12(2)).MostMemberStateshaveinterpretedthisasarequirementtodiscardcetaceanskilledinincidentalcapture.Exemptionfromthisrulecaningeneralonlybeobtainedonacase-by-casebasisandinadvancebymeansofalicenceforspecific purposes (including scientific research). These rules are replicated at thenationallevel,andunlicensedpossessionofcetaceansisillegalinmostEUMemberStates.

TheCommission’sproposalontechnicalmeasures(COM(2016)134) isconsistentwiththisapproach. Proposed Art. 12(1) prohibits the deliberate catching, retention on board,transhipmentor landingofmarinemammals (protectedundertheHabitatsDirective)andonly permits retention, transhipment or landing of species caught as bycatchwhere it isnecessarytosecureassistancefortherecoveryoftheindividualanimalsandprovidedthat

thecompetentnationalauthoritiesconcernedhavebeenfullyinformedinadvance(proposedArt.12(3)).

Moreover, derogating from this approach is difficult because these rules have a basis ininternational agreements (e.g. Convention on the Conservation of EuropeanWildlife andNaturalHabitats,Art.6;specificissuesmayalsoariseundertheConventiononInternationalTradeinEndangeredSpecies).Inaddition,fromapolicyperspectiveitislikelytobedifficulttointroduceaderogationforonegroupofprotectedspecies,theimplicationofwhichistoremovesomeofthesafeguardsbuilt-intothelicensingsystem.

Asaresultoftheserules,thereisingeneralnopracticeofofferingincentivestothefishingindustrytolandbycaughtcetaceans.Theonlypossibilityhasbeentoapplyresearchfundingtospecificprojects.

PartB|ASCOBANSPartiesThefollowingsectionprovidesasynopsisofthemainrulesconcerningsanctionsforbreachingfisheriesregulationsrelatingtobycatch,requirementsonmonitoringofbycatchandrulesorschemes providing incentives to deliver carcasses. It should be recalled that, at least forcountries which are EUMember States, the technical regulations are determined at theEuropean level and are directly applicable. Therefore, Member States have sanctioningsystems which are directed towards enforcing CFP rules, but do not include substantivefisheriesrulesatthenationallevel.

Belgium

InBelgium,seafishingfallswithintheexclusivecompetenceoftheFlemishRegion,underthe1994 cooperation agreement between the Federal authorities, the Communities and theRegions,whileenvironmental/conservationmattersaredealtwithattheFederallevel.

Belgiumhasadoptedseverallaws,decreesandministerialdecisionsonthemanagementoffisheries,themainonesbeingtheLawonSeaFisheriesinTerritorialWaters(Wetbetreffende

dezeevisserijindeterritorialezee),theDecreeonAgricultureandFisheriesPolicy(Decreetbetreffendehetlandbouw-envisserijbeleid),whichimplementstheCommonFisheriesPolicy,andDecisionoftheFlemishGovernmentontheImplementationofaPointSystemforSeriousInfringementsinSeaFisheries(BesluitvandeVlaamseRegering).

FisheriesinfringementsinBelgiumarepredominantlygovernedbycriminallaw.Section2(1)oftheDecreeonAgricultureandFisheriesPolicyspecificallydealswithbreachesoffisheries(CFP)regulations,whichare liabletoprosecutionandmaybesanctionedwithaminimumimprisonmentoffifteendaysuptoamaximumoffiveyearsand/ortoafinerangingfrom100EURto50,000EUR.Inthecaseofarepeatinfringementwithinthreeyearsthemaximumpenaltiesmaybedoubled.

Ingeneral,subsidiarylegislationdoesnotcreateanytechnicalregulationsrelatedtocetaceanbycatch beyond those in the CFP, although the FlemishGovernment implemented a newdecisionin2015toprohibittherecreationaluseofdifferenttypesofgillandtrammelnetsonthebeachasaprotectivemeasureformarinemammalsintheintertidalzone.(Therulesarein part an answer to a European Commission infringement procedure concerning theadequateprotectionofharbourporpoisesundertheHabitatsDirective).

Belgiumdoesnothaveanydedicatedobserverprogramme formonitoring thebycatchofmarine mammals5, and relies on DCF monitoring, which has not provided any data oncetaceanbycatch.AllincidentalcaptureorkillingofHabitatsDirectiveAnnexIVspecieshastobenotified,however.

Aninformalschemerequestingthatfishermenlandanymarinemammalbycatchtofacilitatescientificstudyhasbeeninoperationforsomeyears(EuropeanCommission2003).

Denmark

InDenmark,fisherieslegislationislimitedtotheFisheriesAct(Fiskeriloven)andtheOrderontheRegulationofFisheries2014–2020 (Bekendtgørelseomreguleringaf fiskeriet i2014-

2020),thelattercomprisingthemainEUtechnicalregulationsandothertechnicalitiessuchas tracking, vessel categoriesor fishingareas.Nospecificobligationsconcerningcetaceanbycatch,beyondEUregulations,areincludedwithinDanishlaw.

Theoffenceslistedin§130oftheFisheriesActarepunishablebyafine.Thelawdoesnotspecifyminimumormaximumfines,instead,theyarecalculatedaccordingtothevalueofthefish caught aswell as the value of the fishing gear used. The local police authorities areresponsibleforissuingfines.Imprisonmentuptooneyearandsixmonthsispossiblewheretheoffencewascommittedwiththeintentofunjustenrichment(§130(7)para.3).Insomecases,thepossibilityofanout-of-courtsettlementexists(§133(1)).Thisoptionissubjecttothefollowingconditions:i)theviolationmaynotleadtoamoreseverepenaltythanafine,ii)theoffenderpleadsguiltytotheoffenceandiii)thefinemustbepaidontime.Apointsystemhasbeenimplementedforboththemasterofthefishingvesselandthelicenseholderunder§§39aand39boftheFisheriesAct.Inpracticetheillegallyusedgearorillegallytakencatchesorthevaluethereofareseized.

TherearenosystematiccontrolsystemsinplacethatwouldmonitorthenumberofAnnexIVspecieskilledaccidentally.However,theDanishauthoritieshavedrawnupanactionplantoreducetheincidentalcaptureofharbourporpoises.

In thecontextofpilotprojectsdesignedtomeet theso-calledEU landingobligation (newbycatchrulesbeingintroducedinEuropeanfisheriesbetween2015-2019,whichprohibitthediscarding of controlled fish stocks) Denmark has been actively involved in developingelectronicmonitoringprogrammes,someofwhichincludingmonitoringofmarinemammalbycatch.Theseprojectsusedclosed-circuit television (CCTV)onboardcameras indifferentpartsoftheBalticandwerereportedtogivemorereliablemarinemammalbycatchresultsthanlogbookdatasinceby-catchwhichhasalreadydroppedoutofthenetbeforethenetcomingonboardwerealsoregistered(Kindt-Larsenetal.2012;HELCOM2015)

5BelgiumhasnomonitoringobligationunderReg.812/2004,sinceitdoesnothavefishingvesselswhicharesubjecttotherequirements.

Finland

Finland has recently undergone amendments to its fisheries laws, including amendmentsaffectingtheclassificationofthesanctioningsystem.Themainfisheries lawsarecurrentlytheFishingAct1982/286(Kalastuslaki),theFishingDecree1982/1116(Kalastusasetus)andtherecentlyrevisedLawontheCommonFisheriesPolicy,SystemofSanctionsandMonitoring1188/2014 (Laki yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan seuraamusjärjestelmästä ja valvonnasta)(hereafter,2014CFPandSanctionsLaw).

Priortotheadoptionofthe2014CFPandSanctionsLaw,fisheriesinfringementscouldonlybesanctionedcriminally.Asaconsequence,evenminoroffenceshadtobetransferredtothecourtforprosecutionwiththeconsequencethatinthemajorityofthesecases,thechargeswerewaived(Vilhunen,NationalControlStrategyforFisheriesinFinland,2006).Asaresultof the recent amendments, the Agency for Rural Affairs may now issue administrativesanctions for offences in breach of the Act pursuant to §49 and §51 of the FinnishImplementing Act. The fine for a violation of the former may, depending on the actcommitted,rangefrom100EURto5,000EURforanaturalperson,respectively10,000EURforalegalpersonorfrom300EURto25,000EURforanaturalperson,respectively50,000EURforalegalperson(§50,2014CFPandSanctionsLaw).Seriousviolationsaresubjecttoafineofatleast2,000EURwithamaximumof5,000EURfornaturalpersonsand10,000EURforlegalpersons(ibid.,§52).Inadditiontothat,theAgencywillallocatetherespectivepointsunder the penalty system to either the vessel master or license holder for the seriousinfringement(ibid.,§§60-62).

Thepossibilityofcriminalprosecutioninsteadoftheapplicationofanadministrativefeealsoexists.Afteraninfringementhasbeendetected,theAgencyofRuralAffairswillexaminetheadequacy of an administrative fine or whether a transfer to the prosecution is moreappropriate,takingintoaccountfactorssuchastheseverityandharmofthebreachaswellas thepossible finewhich couldbe issued (ibid., §57). In certain cases, an administrativepenalty is excluded, for example,where the offender has committed an infringement forwhichhehasbeenpreviouslysanctioned(ibid.).Ifaninfringementisprosecutedbythecourt,Chapter14oftheFishingActinconjunctionwithChapter48§2oftheFinnishCriminalCode(Rikoslaki)6isapplicable.Acriminalconviction,however,maysolelyresultintheimpositionofafine(seeChapter14oftheFishingAct).

For vessels, gear and catch related to the commissionof anoffence, theCourt canorderconfiscation.Alsorevocationofthefishinglicenceispossible,aswellasrecoveryoffinancialbenefitsreceivedbytheoffenderbutthesearerarelyused.

MonitoringonlytakesplacebothwithintheEUDCFandunderReg.812/2004.Inaddition,aharbourporpoisesightingcampaign(startedin2001)providesinformationonsightingsby

639/1889,19.12.1889.

private citizens. It is aimed at sightings and provided so far no information on harbourporpoiseby-catch.

Therearenolegalorpolicyprovisionsconcerningincentivestodelivercetaceancarcassesforresearchpurposes.

Germany

Germanyappliespredominantlyadministrativesanctionstoviolationsof its fisheries laws.TheSeaFishingAct(Seefischereigesetz),theSeaFishingRegulation(Seefischereiverordnung)andtheSeaFishingFinesRegulation(Seefischerei-Bußgeldverordnung)areimportantforthepurposeofthisdiscussion.7

Under§25of theSeaFishingFinesRegulation, theFederalOfficeofAgricultureandFood(BundesanstaltfuerLandwirtschaftundErnaehrung)is,pursuantto§9oftheFishingActoftheSeaFishingFinesRegulation,authorizedtoimposemonetaryfinesonoffendersofthefisheries laws.The fisheries lawsall containprovisionswhich, if violated,will result in theimpositionofanadministrativesanction.Themaximumfineforaninfringementis100,000EUR or 50,000 EUR respectively, depending on the provision breached (Sea Fishing Act,§18(4)).Acriminalconvictionwhichmay leadto imprisonmentofuptooneyear issolelypossible where a fishing ban was purposely ignored or where the offender purposelybreaches§18(2)(1.),§18(2)(3.),§18(3)(1.)-(3.)or§18(3)(6.)-(7.)providedthatthattheoffencewasmotivatedby acquisitiveness (ibid. §19(1)).Where theoffender repetitivelybreaches§18(1), §18(2)(1.), §18(2)(3.)-(3.), §18(3)(1.)-(3.) or §18(3)(6.)-(7.) or §18(3)(6.)-(7.), hewillalsobesubjecttocriminalprosecution(ibid.§19(2)).Apointsystemforseriousinfringementshasbeenimplementedforvesselmastersandlicenseholderspursuantto§13SeaFishingActinconjunctionwith§16SeaFishingRegulation.

MonitoringiscarriedoutbothwithinEUdatacollectionframework(DCF)andwithrespecttoEUregulation812/2004(inbothcases,undertheauspicesoftheJohannHeinrichvonThünenInstituteinHamburg).DuetoaverylowcoverageinthefisherymetiersmainlyresponsibleforharbourporpoiseunderReg.812/2004monitoringrequirements,andtheopportunisticnatureofDCFmonitoringofby-catch,theresultsofthesemonitoringprogrammesarenotconsideredmeaningfulwithrespecttomarinemammalby-catch(HELCOM2015).

Therearenolegalorpolicyprovisionsconcerningincentivestodelivercetaceancarcassesforresearchpurposes.

7 Sea Fishing Act (Seefischereigesetz), BGBl. I S. 3118, 3121, 29.08.1971; Sea Fishing Regulation(Seefischereiverordnung), BGBl. I S. 2546, 18.07.1989;�Sea Fishing Fines Regulation (Verordnung zurDurchsetzung des Fischereirechts der Europäischen Union (Seefischerei-Bußgeldverordnung), BGBl. I S.1703,16.06.1998.

Lithuania

Lithuaniaemploysastrictlyadministrativesanctionsystem, i.e.fisheries infringementsarenot subject to criminal law. The sanctions themselves are not laid down in the Law onFisheries (Žuvininkystės įstatymas) but rather in articles 872 – 877 of the Code ofAdministrative Offences (Administracinių teisės pažeidimų kodeksas). Pursuant to theseprovisions, the Fisheries Service under theMinistry of Agriculture is empowered to issuemonetaryfines,wherebytheseveritydependsonthebreachcommitted.Forthemajorityofthesearticles,thepossibilitytorevoketheoffender’sfishinglicenseforaperiodoftimeislinkedtothefine(Seeart.87(3)–(7)LithuanianCodeofAdministrativeOffences).Inthecaseofaninfringementonthetransport,storage,processing,selling,buyingandmarketingoffish(products)therightsareextendedtotheconfiscationoftheseproducts.

Lithuaniahasintroducedthepointsystemforseriousinfringementsforvesselmastersaswellas license holders which are allocated by the Minister of Agriculture or an institutionauthorizedbyit.8

Gearandcatchcanbealsoconfiscatedthroughanadministrativeprocedure.

Netherlands

UndertheDutchsystem,fisherieslawsviolationsaretreatedascriminaloffences.Asopposedto other systems applying criminal law, the Netherlands subdivide certain crimes intoeconomic crimes, including fisheries infringements.9 The elements of an economic crime,however, are not laid down in theprovisions of theAct on Economic Crimes (Wetop de

economischedelicten).Often,theformal(environmental)lawdoesnotcontainadescriptionofthecriminalbehavioureitherbutistobefoundinministerialregulations.Theapplicablesanctions,ontheotherhand,arewithintheprovisionsoftheActonEconomicCrimes.

TheActmakesadistinctionbetweenseriousandnon-seriousinfringementsofEUregulationswhichconsequentlyhaseffectontheclassificationoftheviolationandtherelevantsanction.Serious infringements, inaddition toother infringementsof theFisheriesAct (Visserijwet)listed under art. 1a (1°) of the Act on Economic Crimes, are generally classifiedmisdemeanourspunishablebydetentionuptooneyear,communityserviceorafineof4thcategorywhichisequivalentto16,750EUR.10

8SeeArt.57(11)(8)inconjunctionwithArt.59(1)LithuanianLawonFisheries(licenseholder),Art.61inconjunctionwithArt.87(10),LithuanianCodeofAdministrativeOffences(vesselmasters).9SeeArt.1a(1°)andArt.1a(3°),DutchActonEconomicCrimes(Wetopdeeconomischedelicten),WED,22.06.1950.10SeeArt.23 (4)DutchPenalCode(WetboekvanStrafrecht),03.03.1881(maximumfinesareupdatedeverytwoyears)andArt.2(1)ActonEconomicCrime.

If,however,theactwascommittedintentionally,itisclassifiedafelonyunderArt.2(1)oftheActonEconomicCrimes;forwhichimprisonmentuptosixyears,communityserviceorafineofthe5thcategory,equivalentto67,000EUR,ispossible.

Inaddition,theNetherlandshasintroducedthepenaltypointsystemforvesselmastersandlicense holders; the department Uitvoering Visserijregelingen (VIR) allocates points forseriousinfringements.11

Poland

PolandhasrecentlyamendeditsMarineFisheriesAct(Ustawaorybołówstwiemorskim).ThenewActintroducesapointsystemforvesselmastersandlicenseholdersguiltyofinfringingthefisherieslaws(Article79)andprovidesforfinestobeadministrativelyapplied.Article125specificallydealswithinfringementsoftheCFP.Pursuanttothisarticle,theownerofafishingvesselwithanoveralllengthequaltoorgreaterthantenmetersmaybesubjecttoaminimumfineof500PLN(approx.120EUR)andamaximumnotexceedingfiftytimesthesalary.Inthecase of a vessel with an overall length less than tenmeters, the owner may be fined aminimumof100PLN(approx.24EUR)andamaximumnotexceedingtentimesthesalary.Whereanoffenderhasbreachedthelandingobligationunderarticle15oftheCFP,heshallbe held liable to a minimum fine of 2,000 PLN (approx. 480 EUR) and a maximum notexceedingtentimesthesalary(Art.124(3)(a)).

Bycatchmonitoringhasbeenproblematic inPolandforanumberofyears.12TheNationalMarineFisheriesResearchInstitute(MIR)inGdynia(undertheauspicesoftheMinistryoftheAgricultureandRuralDevelopment)isresponsibleforMonitoringwithinEUdatacollectionframework (DCF) and with respect to Reg. 812/2004. So far, neither programme hascontributedtoknowledgeaboutmarinemammalby-catch.IthasbeensuggestedthatReg.812/2004focusesonthewrongfleetsegmentandneedstoberevisedandtaketheregionalsituationoffisheriesintoaccount.

Therearenospecificregulationsonlandingcarcasses,andnoformalschemeforprovidingincentives to deliver carcasses. However, the possibility has received some attention inPoland.IntheviewofsomePolishmarineresearchcentres,monitoringcausesofdeathcouldbe improvedby including further carcass delivery by fishermenbut cooperationbetweenfishermenandcertainscientific institutionsseemstobeverydifficultor impossibleduetoprevailingdoubtsandreservationsregardingthewayscientistsmayusethedataoragainstthe fishermen (ASCOBANS 2015). It has also been suggested that fishermen can (as an

11 Art. 130 Regulation Implementing Sea Fisheries (Uitvoeringsregeling zeevisserij), TRCJZ/2007/3190,19.12.2008.12Itisunderstoodthatanewfisherylawwasplannedin2015,requiringthereportingofby-catchbylawbutinformationcouldnotbeobtainedonthislaw.

incentive)receivecompensationof1,000Zloty(about250Euros)infutureforgeardamageandhandlingwhendeliveringacarcass(ibid.).

Sweden

Swedenappliesapredominantlycriminalsystemtotheviolationofitsfisherieslaws(§§37–50FisheriesAct (Fiskelag),1993:787,10.06.1993.)Thedistrictcourthas thediscretiontoeitherimposeamonetaryfineorimprisonmentontheoffender.13Itisworthnotingthattheprovisionsonthecriminalsanctionsspecificallystateaminoroffenceshallnotbepunishable.The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (Havsoch vattenmyndigheten),however,isinadditiontothatauthorizedtoimposeadministrativemonetaryfinesrangingbetween1,000SEK(approx.100EUR)and500,000SEK(approx.52,000EUR)(see§50(a)inconjunctionwith§40FisheriesAct).

The point system for serious infringements has been introduced for vessel masters andlicenseholdersunder§§51ff.oftheFisheriesAct(Fiskelag).

ACourtcandecideonforfeitureofcatchandgear,followingthecommissionofanoffence.Vesselscanalsobeconfiscatedinordertopreventfurtherviolations,althoughthis isveryrarelyexercised.

Regulation 812/2004 is implemented, but there is formally no additional monitoringprocedure,and–aswithotherMemberStates–SwedenconsiderstheDCFprogrammedoesnot produce meaningful estimates with regards to bycatch because bycatch of marinemammalsisnotincluded(HELCOM2015).

Nootherformalmonitoringmechanismexists.TheSwedishMuseumofNaturalHistory(agovernmentagency)collectsstrandedporpoisesthataresentintothemuseum,althoughhowuseful itsprogramme is indeterminingby-catchestimates issubject toconjecture.Aresearchprojectonmonitoringusingonboardcameraswasnotsuccessfulduetoacceptanceproblems (ibid.). Electronicmonitoring in DCMAP is considered in Sweden to havemorepotential formonitoringmarinemammalbycatch, andelectronicmonitoring seems tobefeasiblewithregardstosizeofthevesselsandfinancialfeasibility,atleastonthewestcoastwherevesselsarelarger(ibid).

UnitedKingdom

The legal framework in the UK is somewhat complicated, due to the fact that underdevolutionagreements fisheries isadevolvedarea,meaning thatseparate rulesapply for

13IfoffencewascommittedintheEEZ,thedistrictcourtwhosejurisdictionisnearesttotheplacewherethecrimewascommittedorthedistrictcourtinwhosejurisdictiontheportislocatedwherethesuspectarriveswithhisshipiscompetent.

EnglandandWales;Scotland;andNorthernIreland,althoughinpracticetherulesarebroadlyconsistentineachjurisdiction.

FisheriesinfringementsintheUKareclassifiedascriminaloffences.Pursuanttosection4oftheFisheriesAct1981,themonetarypenaltiesrangefrom1,000GBP(approx.1,150EUR)toamaximumof 50,000GBP (approx. 57,500EUR), dependingon the violation.14However,regulations adopted under each devolved jurisdiction also provide for the possibility offinancialadministrativepenalties(FAPs)asanalternativetocriminalprosecution.15UK-wideguidanceisfollowedontheapplicationofFAPs;inmakingthedecisiontoimposeaFAP,theauthorised officer will take the following factors into consideration: the severity of theinfringement;thepreviousinfringementhistory;otheroffencesdetectedatthesametimeastheoffence;thevalueandvolumeofthecatch,andwhetherthefisheriesspeciesissubjecttoastockrecoverymeasure.16�

Dependingonthesefactors,apenaltycanrangefrom250GBP(approx.280EUR)to10,000GBPinEnglandandWales17;2,000GBP(2,300EUR)inScotland18;and4,000GBP(4,600EUR)inNorthernIreland.Theoffenceshavebeendividedintodifferentcategoriesbasedontheseverityoftheinfringement.

ThepointsystemforseriousinfringementsforlicenseholdershasbeenintroducedtomostpartsoftheUK,althoughconsultationsareon-goingonestablishingapointsystemforvesselmasters.

Adedicatedcetaceanbycatchmonitoringprogramme is inplaceandoperatedby theSeaMammalResearchUnit(SMRU).FisheriesresearchlaboratoriesoperatingfisheriesobserverprogrammesintheUKalsoprovidedatawhichareincludedinourassessmentofcetacean

14 InEngland,theMarineManagementOrganisation(MMO)functionsasapublicprosecutorunderthesupervisionoftheAttorneyGeneral.TheWelshGovernmentMarineEnforcementOfficersareempoweredtoinvestigateandtakeappropriateenforcementaction,includingprosecution,forfisheriesinfringementthataresubjecttotheWelsh jurisdiction. InNorthern Ireland, fisheriesoffencesareprosecutedbythePublicService,whereasinScotlandMarineScotlandrefersdetectedinfringementstotheCrownOfficeandProcuratorFiscalServiceforcriminalprosecution.15This isachievedinEnglandandWalesunderTheSeaFishing(PenaltyNotices)(England)Order2011,2011 No. 758, 06.04.2011; in Northern Ireland under The Sea Fishing (Enforcement of CommunityMeasures)(PenaltyNotices)Order,2008No.984,28.04.2008;andin�ScotlandunderTheAquacultureandFisheries(Scotland)Act2007(FixedPenaltyNotices)Order2008,2008No.101,01.04.2008,amendedbyTheAquacultureandFisheries(Scotland)Act2007(FixedPenaltyNotices)AmendmentOrder2011,2011No.60,07.03.2011.16 UK Government, Financial administrative penalties for fisheries, retrieved from:www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314541/fap_guidance.pdf.17Section3(1)TheSeaFishing(PenaltyNotices)(England)Order2011and�Section4(1)TheSeaFishing(EnforcementofCommunityMeasures)(PenaltyNotices)Order,2008No.984,28.04.2008.18Article4,TheAquacultureandFisheries(Scotland)Act2007(FixedPenaltyNotices)Order2008.

bycatch.WhilsttheUKobserverschemereliesupongoodcollaborativelinkswithindustry,fisheriesregulationshavebeenenactedinEnglandandScotlandtoensurethatthereisalsoalegalobligationforskippersandownerstoallowobserversonboardwhenaskedtodoso.There is also an obligation under the DCF (in Northern Ireland) for offshore vessels toaccommodate scientific observers when requested to do so and an active observerprogrammeisrunbyAFBI.

PartC|ASCOBANSNon-PartyRangeStatesIngeneral,thepositionintheotherRangeStatesfollowsasimilarapproachtothatintheASCOBANSmembercountries,at least for thoseRangeStateswhicharealsoEUMemberStates.Thefollowingisabriefreview.

Estonia

UndertheEstonianFisheriesAct(Kalapüügiseadus),offenceslistedunderArts.231–235andArt.237areprosecutedasmisdemeanourstowhichtheCriminalCode(Väärteomenetluse

seadustik)isapplicable.19Thecourts,however,areabletodelegatetheirrighttoinvestigateandsanctionmisdemeanourstoadministrativeauthorities(inpractice,policeauthoritiesandthe Environmental Inspectorate), with these sanctioning powers are limited to issuingwarningsandfinesofupto300units(approx.1,200EUR)fornaturalpersonsrespectivelyupto 3,200 EUR if the violationwas committed by a legal person.20 Estonia also applies anadministrativepointssystemforfisherieslicenceholders(Art.136(4)11)inconjunctionwithArts.202and244oftheFisheriesAct).

ConfiscationcanbeorderedbyaCourtoranextra-judicialbodyundertheprovisionoftheCriminalCode(Art.83).

Estonia (MinistryofAgriculture) implements amonitoringprogramme inaccordancewithRegulation812/2004;noadditional legislation is inplace.Othermarinemammalby-catchmonitoringprogrammessuchasstrandingnetworksdonotexist.Themonitoringprogrammeisnotconsideredtoproduceusefulresults(HELCOM2015)anditisconsideredtheycouldbeimprovedthroughaplatformprovidingexchangeorco-operationbetweenthefisherysectorand nature conservation. There appears to be no formal or informal system providingincentivesfordeliveringcarcasses.

Ireland

Under the Irish system, criminal law is exclusively applicable to fisheries infringements(section28,Sea-FisheriesandMaritimeJurisdictionAct2006)althoughsanctionsarelimitedtomonetaryfines(imprisonmentisnotanoption).Thefinesvarydependingontheviolationaswellasthesizeofthevessel.Fortechnicalgearoffences,themaximumfinesrangefrom

19 Estonian Fisheries Act (Kalapüügiseadus), RT I 1995, 80, 1384; 27.1995 and Criminal Code(Väärteomenetluseseadustik),RTI2002,50,313,01.09.2002.20 Art. 23(8)(2)(1) and Art. 23(8)(2)(2) in conjunction with Arts. 23(1) – 23(5) and Art. 23(7) EstonianFisheriesAct.Afineunitisthebaseamountofafineandisequaltofoureuros:Art.47(1)EstonianPenalCode.

20,000EUR(forsea-fishingboatsoflessthan12metresinlength)to80,000EUR(forsea-fishingboatsofmorethan18metresinlength)(seeTables1and2unders.28).�

Whereasadministrativesanctionsdonotcurrentlyexist,aproposalforabilltoamendtheSea-FisheriesandMaritimeJurisdictionAct2006tointroducefixedpenaltynoticesforminoroffences has been introduced. If adopted, these notices would however continue to begovernedbycriminalproceedings,ratherthantoconstituteadministrativepenalties.

SeveralregulationshavebeenadoptedtoimplementEUframeworklaws,includingTheSea-Fisheries(CommunityControlSystem)Regulations2012andTheEuropeanUnion(CommonFisheriesPolicy)(PointSystem)Regulations2014.

Thesystemfortheallocationofpointsisalsonoteworthysinceaccordingtosection5(1)ofthe Point System Regulation, the administrative authority concerned (the Sea FisheriesProtectionAuthority)isresponsiblefortheallocationofthepointsafterithasdecidedontheseriousnessoftheinfringement.However,asbreachesoffisherieslawsaretriedincourt,theAuthorityisempoweredtotakeadecisionontheclassificationoftheoffencebeforethecasehasbeentransferredtothecourt.

Latvia

TheNatureConservationAgency(Dabasaizsardzībaspārvalde)istheresponsibleauthorityforimposingsanctionsonfisheriesmatters,whichareadministrativeundertheLatvianlegalsystem (section 19(21) Fishery Law (Zvejniecības likums), 12.04.1995). A violation of anyfishingregulationmayleadtotheimpositionofamonetaryfinepursuanttoSection80oftheAdministrativeViolationsCode(Administratīvopārkāpumukodekss,No.51,20.12.1984).

ImplementingtheFisheryLaw,therearethreefishingregulations21,whichimposefinesforbreachesofEUtechnicalregulations.Theleveloffinesragefrom200LVL(approx.280EUR)to500LVL(approx.700EUR)fornaturalpersonsand200LVLto3,000LVL(approx.4,200EUR)forlegalpersons,respectively(s.80LatvianAdministrativeViolationsCode).

Thereisnocategorizationoffisheriesoffences(astoseriousness)indicatingthelevelsoffinestobeapplied–anyunlawfulaction is subject to thepreviouslymentioned fines. In2014,

21RegulationNo.675ontheuseofillegalfishinggearandmoneyandunlawfullyusedunmarkedfishingnetorderofdestruction (Nelikumīgi izmantotoaizliegtozvejas rīkuun līdzekļuunnelikumīgi izmantoto

nemarķēto zvejas tīklu iznīcināšanas kārtība), 144 (3302), 06.09.2005;�Regulation No. 296 regardingCommercial Fishing in Territorial Waters and the Economic Zone (Noteikumi par rūpniecisko zveju

teritoriālajosūdeņosunekonomiskāszonasūdeņos),72 (3648),02.05.2007;�RegulationNo.503onthelandingandcontroloffishtradeandtransportfacilities,warehousesandindustrialpremises(Noteikumi

par zivju izkraušanaskontroliun zivju tirdzniecībasun transportaobjektu,noliktavuun ražošanas telpu

pārbaudi),90(4076),02.06.2009.�

Latviaintroducedthepointsystemforvesselmastersandlicenseholders.22TheresponsibleauthorityfortheallocationanddeletionofpointsistheStateEnvironmentalService.

Norway

Undersection60oftheNorwegianMarineResourcesAct,anypersonthatwilfullyorthroughnegligencecontravenesfisheriesrules(“seriousinfringements”)isliabletofinesortoatermofimprisonmentnotexceedingoneyear.

TheFisheriesMinistrymayimposecoerciveorinfringementfines(respectively,sections58and59).CoercivefinesaredseignedtoensurecompliancewithprovisionsmadeinorundertheActandisacontinuousfinethatbecomeseffectivefromaspecifieddeadline.Acoercivefinemaybecollectedthroughasalesorganisationbydeductingtheamountfrompaymentsforcatches.Section59infringementfinesmaybeimposedbytheMinistryonanypersonthatwilfully or through negligence contravenes fisheries rules. An infringement fine may beimposedasafixedpenaltyortheamountmaybefixedineachcase.Suchfactorsastheprofitorpotentialprofitthepersonresponsiblehasmadethroughthecontravention,howseriousthecontraventionwas,andtheextracostsofcontrolmeasuresandprocessingthecasemaybetakenintoaccountindeterminingtheamountofthefine.Aninfringementfinemayalsobecollectedthroughasalesorganisationbydeductingtheamountfrompaymentforcatches.

Inadditiontofines,catch,gear,objects,property,facilitiesorvesselsthatwereusedinthecontraventionmaybeconfiscated(section65).

Thereappear tobenospecificprovisionsoncetaceanbycatchmonitoring inNorway,norformalschemesfordeliveryofcarcasses.

Portugal

ThePortuguesefisherieslegalsystemiscurrentlyundergoingadetailedreviewandupdate,and at present their appears to be a discrepancy between legal practice and the specificwordingof (somewhatoutdated) legislation,whichmakesanalysisdifficult.ThusthemainAct is the Portuguese Fisheries Act (Decreto-Lei No. 278/87), which established the legalframeworkgoverningfishingandmarinecultureactivitiesinPortugueseterritorialwatersandhas been amended by Decree-Law No. 383/98 amending Decree-Law No. 278/87 of 27November 1998. Themost important secondary legislation based on the Fisheries Act isDecreto Regulamentar No. 43/87. Pursuant to article 23 of Decree 383, the GeneralInspectorate for Fisheries (Inspecção-Geral das Pescas) is responsible for issuingadministrative fines. However, this authority does not exist any longer. In practice, the

22RegulationNo.808onthepenaltypointsystemforfishinglicenseholdersandfishingcaptainspursuanttotheCommonFisheriesPolicy(Kārtība,kādāzvejaslicencesturētājiemunzvejaskuģukapteiņiemtiek

piemērota Eiropas Savienības tiesību aktos par kopējās zivsaimniecības politiku noteiktā soda punktu

sistēma),257(5317),23.12.2014.

GeneralDirectorateofNaturalResources,SafetyandMaritimeServices(DirecçãoGeraldeRecursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos) (DGRM) has taken over that task Inadditiontothat,themonetaryfinesapplicabletoanoffencearestillcalculatedunderthelegislationinPortugueseescudosinsteadofEuros.

Russia

ThemainrulesonfisheriesaresetoutintheFederalLawonFisheriesandConservationofAquaticBiologicalResources(No.166-FZof2004)(Орыболовствеисохраненииводных

биологических ресурсов Федеральный закон Российской Федерации), while natureconservationrulesaresetoutinFederalLawoftheRussianFederationonWildlife(No.52-FZof1995).Finesforfisheriesoffencesareincluded,however,withintheCriminalCodeoftheRussianFederation;thesefineswererecentlyincreasedinJuly2016(FederalLawofJuly3,2016 N 330-FZ "On Amendments to Article 256 of the Criminal Code of the RussianFederation"). Under the Code, as amended, (Art. 256) the illegal extraction of marinemammalsispunishablewithafinefrom300-500,000rublesorthesalaryorotherincomefortheperiodfromtwotothreeyears,orcorrectionallaborforuptotwoyears,orimprisonmentforthesameterm.It isnotclearfromthevariouslegislation,whetherthiswouldapplytoincidental(orjustdeliberate)capture.

Inthecaseofaninfringement,thegearusedisalsosubjecttoconfiscationunderboththeFisheries(Article54)andWildlife(Article59)Laws23andundertheFisheriesLaw(Article37)afishinglicencemaybesuspendedorwithdrawn.

Therearenospecific legalrequirementsforrecordingbycatchofcetaceans;similartotheDCF monitoring in EU countries, the main interest of the Federal fisheries monitoringprogrammeisinnon-targetfishspeciesorundersizedfish.

Thereisnosystem,formalorinformal,providingincentivesforthedeliveryofcarcasses.

Spain

TheMarineFisheriesAct(LeydePescaMarítimadelEstado)andtheRoyalDecrees747/2008and114/2013applyforthepurposeofdeterminingsanctionsforfisheriesinfringementsinSpain.24ThefirstDecreeisprimarilyconcernedwithadministrativesanctions,whilethelatter

23AsamendedinbothcasesbyFederalLawNo.57-FZamendingFederalLawoftheRussianFederationonWildlife(No.52-FZof1995)andFederalLawNo.166-FZonfisheriesandconservationofaquaticbiologicalresources.24 Spanish Marine Fisheries Act (Ley 3/2001, de 26 de marzo, de Pesca Marítima del Estado),26.03.2001�RoyalDecree747/2008,ofMay9,amendingtheRegulationonthedisciplinarysysteminthefieldofmaritimefishinginoffshorewaters(RealDecreto747/2008de9demayo,porelqueseestablece

el Reglamento del regimen sancionador en materia de pesca marítima en aguas exteriores),

09.05.2008�RoyalDecree114/2013,of15February,whichcreatesandregulatestheNationalRegisterofgrave breaches under the Common Fisheries Policy, the rules for applying the points system and the

providesforthepenaltypointssystemforvesselmastersandlicenseholders.UnderArticle107oftheMarineFisheriesAct,however,differentbranchesofgovernmenthavejurisdictiondependingontheseriousnessoftheoffence–localgovernmentbodiesinthecaseofminoroffences, theDirector General of Fisheries, in the case of serious offenses, the SecretaryGeneralofMarineFisheries,inthecaseofveryseriousoffensesiftheamountofthefinedoesnotexceed150,000EURandtheMinisterofAgriculture,FisheriesandFood,whereanoffenseisclassifiedasveryseriousiftheamountofthefineexceeds150,000EUR.Thismeansthatenforcementpoliciesandadministrativesanctioningdecisionscanvaryfromjurisdictiontojurisdictionandacrossbranchesofgovernment.

amountsofthepenalties,updatingLaw3/2001of26March,theStateMaritimeFisheries(RealDecreto114/2013,de15de febrero,porelquesecreay regulael registronacionalde infraccionesgravesa la

políticapesqueracomún,seestablecenlasnormasdeaplicacióndelsistemadepuntosyseactualizanlos

importes de las sanciones previstas en la Ley 3/2001, de 26 demarzo, de PescaMarítimadel Estado),15.02.2013.

PartD|InternationalPracticeThissectiondoesnotprovideageneralreviewoflegislativepracticeinothercountriesonthegeneralprocessforsanctioningbycatchoffences(sincesuchananalysisdoesnotrevealanyinnovativepractice),buthighlightssomekeydevelopmentsinselectedcountries,particularlywithregardtoelectronicmonitoring(EM)ofprotectedspeciesbycatch.

Australia

InAustralia,electronicmonitoringhasbeenappliedonatrialbasistosupportanumberofother MCS tools in various fisheries for a number of years. The Australian FisheriesManagementAuthority (AFMA) considers that EM shows great potential in being able toprovefishinginclosedareasfromanevidentiaryperspective(AFMA2015).Whenboatsaredetectedinsidesuchareas,forexample,VMSandtheGPSloggerwithintheEMunitcanbecorroboratedtodemonstratethattheboatwasinsidetheclosure.SensorsontheEMsystemwhichdetectfishingactivity(usuallyhydraulicpressureandrotationsensors) indicatethatthe fishing gear is beingused, and theCCTV footage shows the fishing activity occurring.CompliancewithreportingrequirementscanbecheckedbycomparingEMandlogbookdata,andadherencetobycatchmitigationarrangementscanalsobeverifiedusingEMfootage.AFMAhasalsoobservedthathavingEMon-boardencouragesfishermentobecomemoreaccurateinfillingouttheirlogbooks.

Canada

Electronic monitoring systems are already more than a decade in use in Canadacomplementingobserverschemesandenforcementactivities.Thetechnologyiswelltestedinpracticeandthetechnicalreliabilityhasbeenproven(IMCSN2013).EMprogramshavesuccessfullymonitoredfishinglocation,catchhandling,bycatch,discards,enumeration,andprotected–species interactions among other criteria. Recorded video and sensor data arestoredonaremovableharddrivethatcanbeswappedoutwhenthevesselisservicedsothefishing-activitydatacanbereviewedonshore.Traditionally,analogcameraswerestandard,but these did always record in a quality sufficient for evidentiary purposes in legalproceedings.Digitalcamerasarenowincreasinglyusedfortheirflexibilityandhigh-definitionoutputandareconsideredtobemorereliable.

NewZealand

The Department of Conservation administers theMarineMammals Protection Act 1978,whichprovides for the conservation, protection andmanagementofmarinemammals.Apermit is requiredunder theAct foranyoneto 'take'amarinemammal.Thedefinitionof

'take' includesactions thatharm,harass, injureandattract. TheActalsoprovides for theestablishment of marine mammal sanctuaries, within which activities known to harmparticularmarinemammalspeciescanberestrictedandstrictlycontrolledbytheMinisterofConservation. Additionally, with respect to fisheries interaction the Act establishes arequirementtoreportalleventswherebyamarinemammalisincidentallycaughtintheactoffishing.

Remoteelectronicmonitoringhasbeenutilised inpilotprogrammestomonitorprotectedspeciesinteractions.Thepilotindicatedthe"tremendouspotential"ofREMformonitoringprotectedspeciescatchoccurrences,providingroutinemonitoring formitigationpractices(McElderry2011)butalsoexposedsomelimitations.Forexample,notallfishingeventscouldberecorded(overall imagerecordingwascompletefor83%offishingevents;usabilityforspecificmonitoringobjectivesvariedfrom0%foroneobjectiveto73–97%fortheremainingobjectives).Theprojectdemonstratedtheneedtoprioritisemonitoringobjectivestoenablebetter configuration of themonitoring system, and also highlighted the value of industryinvolvementinprojectdesignandpotentiallysignificantcostsavingsofelectronicmonitoringoverhumanobserverprogrammes(McElderry2011).

PartE|CommentsLegalSanctionsforBycatchThe analysis of national sanctions for bycatch presents twomajor issues: first, the rulesgoverningcetaceanbycatcharelimited,andappearinsufficient;second(andrelatedtothefirst), sanctions are variable across Range States, and their application may also beinsufficient.

Thisstudyhasbeenconcernedprimarilywiththesecondissue(whatarethesanctions)butitmaybeusefultomakesomecommentsonthefirstobservation.Thus,asregardsthefirstissue, in termsof the legal controls themselves, itmaybenoted that since the incidentaltakingofcetaceansisnotitselfunlawful,thelegalcontrolsrelyontechnicalmeasuresaimedatselectivefishingpractices.Mostofthesearenotspecifictocetaceans(e.g.gearregulations,closed seasons, closed areas), and the only technical regulations focused specifically oncetaceans are those in Regulation 812/2004. The frameworks provided by the HabitatsDirective and theMSFD – while a useful approach – need to be translated into specifictechnicalcontrolsinthefisheriesregulations.

Thiscreatesasituationwherelegalproceedingsinrelationtocetaceanbycatchdonotreallyoccur–therearecaseswhereproceedingshavebeenbroughtunderthehabitatsorfisherieslegislationwhichisrelevanttocetaceanconservation,butnonefocusedoncetaceanbycatch.AndRegulation812/2004doesnotappeartobeextensivelyenforced,perhapsbecauseofdifficultieswith the Regulation itself. Rules in Regulation 812/2004 on acoustic deterrentdevices(ADD)aimedatavoidingcetaceanbycatchhavebeenconsideredtobeformulatedinsomeaspectstoostrictly(e.g.therequiredlevelofmonitoringcouldnotbeachievedatall),andinotheraspectstoolooselytobefullyeffective(e.g.alargeproportionoffleetsdoesnotneedtodeployADDsasmitigationmeasures).

Asregardsthesecondissue,ithasbeennotedthatlegalproceedingsarerarelyifeverbroughtinrelationspecificallytocetaceanbycatch.25Theremaybevariousreasonsforthis,includingdifficulty inmonitoring/detectingbreachesof technical regulationsthat leadtocetaceanbycatch, inadequate regulations, lack of priority and resources given to cetacean bycatchissues, amongothers. There is also considerable variance, however, in the sanctions thatmightbeappliedfromcountrytocountry.Maximumfinesforbreachesoftechnicalfisheriesrulesrangefromlessthan5,000EURtoover100,000EUR.26Moreover,whilemostcountries

25Itisnotpossibletobedefinitiveaboutthis,asnotalllegalproceedings(particularlyintheinitialstages)arerecordedandcompletedataisnotavailable.26Inpractice,thepictureisthesame.InarecentEuropeanCommissionconsultationonfisheriescontrol,itwasobservedthatfinesvariedsignificantlyacrossMemberStates.Forexample,inSwedentheaveragefineforfishingwithoutalicenceorotherauthorisationwasEUR367while,inFrance,intheonlyreported

alsoprovidefortheconfiscationofgearusedinthecommissionofanoffence,theextenttowhichtheseprovisionsareappliedappearsvariable.Finally,whileallcountrieshavesomeadministrative sanctions (e.g. licence suspension or withdrawal) only some have thepossibility toapplyadministrativepenalties,whichcanbemoreconvenient in thecaseoftechnicalinfractionssuchasthoseinfishingoperations.

ReportingObligationsItappearstobealmostuniversallyacceptedthatthecurrentEUmonitoringframework(DCF),evenwhen combinedwith themonitoring requirements under Regulation 812/2004, areinadequateinrelationtocetaceanbycatch.Notallfisheriesareadequatelycoveredandmanyissues,includingdesignandsamplingprotocols,needtobemodifiedorextended.Inaddition,severalMemberStatesdonotfulfilltheirmonitoringobligationsunderRegulation812/2004and reporting under that Regulation is also patchy. Improving the scope, content andreliability of bycatch reporting should thereforebe considered a highpriority. Thiswouldneed to be taken up in the reform of the DCF, currently under consideration, through aspecific regulation for monitoring and mitigating cetacean bycatches or through specificmechanisms within regional management plans for monitoring and mitigating cetaceanbycatches.

There is considerable interest in using electronic monitoring (including CCTV) to supportbycatchreporting.Inthiscontext,itshouldbenotedthatonlyacertainproportion(numberofvessels)ofthemetierswouldneedtobecoveredbyCCTV,as longasdataonthetotalfishingeffortandthespatio-temporaldistributionofthesemetiersisknownsufficiently(e.g.through electronic monitoring without CCTV) to raise the collected data. In this respect,harmonizationofthefleetsegmentsandeffortmeasurementsusedforcetaceanbycatchandfishingeffortmonitoringwouldgreatlyincreasetheprobabilitythatsampledbycatchratesreportedbyMemberStatescouldberaisedtoderivetotalbycatchestimatesforthefleetsegments.

DeliveryofcaracassesTherearenoformal(legal)requirementsinplaceconcerningdeliveryofcarcassesforscientificresearchpurposes.Moreover,therearesomedifficultiesinsuchschemes.Theremaybeinconsistencieswithrulesconcerningprotectedspecies,bothattheEU/nationallevelandattheinternationallevel(forexample,theConventiononInternationalTradeinEndangeredSpecies,whichwouldrequiretheprovisionofascientificresearchpermit).Additionally,therearerisksthatofferingincentiveswouldriskunderminingconservationcontrols,whichprohibitthedeliberatecapture.Sufficientcontrolswouldthereforeneedtobeinplacetoensurethatcapturewasnotdeliberate,andthatincidentallycaughtanimalscapableofsurvivalwerestillreleasedintothesea.

case,thefinewasEUR30,000.InFinland,theaveragefineforunauthorisedfishingamountedtoEUR84whereasthesamebreachattractedafineofEUR12,700inIreland.

Anyapproachtoencouragingthedeliveryofcarcassesforscientificresearchpurposesshouldbedesignedwithintheexistingframework,ratherthantrytoderogatefromit.Anexampleofthisapproachwouldbetoestablishjointresearchinstitution-industryprogrammes–forexample,aspartofaregionalconservation/managementplan–underwhichvesselscouldbelicensed(andcompensated)fordeliveringcarcasses.

PossibleDevelopmentsTheoverall conclusion fromtheseassessmentsmightbe that the technical regulationsonbycatchthemselves,thecapacitytoenforcebycatchrulesandtheabilitytomonitorbycatchevents (both for scientific and enforcement purposes) are all inadequate to the task ofregulatingbycatch.Rather,bycatchregulation“slipsthroughthenet”.

SomepotentialexistsincurrentdevelopmentsundertheCFPtowardsregionalizationandtheprohibitionofdiscards.Someenvironmentalgroupshavearguedthatthediscardprohibitionshouldbewidenedtoapplytoallspeciesthatarecaughtunintentionally–commercialandnon-commercial,includingnon-fishspecies,suchascetaceanby-catch.Allunwantedcatchesshouldberetainedonboardandlanded,exceptforspecimensofvulnerablespecieswithahighchanceofsurvival.

While an overall prohibition of this nature may be unnecessary, and disproportionatelyburdensomeinmanyfisheries,thereisastrongargumentforreplacingRegulation812/2004by regional technical measures tailored to particular fisheries. Thus, bycatch mitigationmeasures(andincentivesforthem)wouldbedeterminedattheregionallevel,inconsultationwiththefishingindustry.Thismightincludeadiscardprohibition,butmightalternativelyoradditionallyincludeothertechnicalmeasures.Monitoringandenforcementmeasureswouldalsoneedtobeagreedattheregionallevel.

ThisapproachhasbeenadvocatedinthecontextoftheCFPlandingobligation(CatchpoleandHedley,2015)andcouldalsobeappliedtocetaceanbycatch.Moreover,itisconsistentwiththeregionalapproachbeingadvocatedbytheEuropeanCommissioninitscurrentproposalsforreformofCFPtechnicalregulations(EuropeanCommission2016).Thus,theproposednewRegulation contains baseline standards on technical regulations but the Regulationanticipates that specific measures can be applied at the regional level. These baselineregulationsapplyuntilsuchtimesmeasuresareputinplaceunderregionalisation.

Withinsuchregionalplans,considerationshouldalsobegiventouseofelectronicmonitoring,atleastoncertainvessels.ExperiencefrompilotprojectsinMemberStates(relatedtothelandingobligation)andfromlonger-termprogrammesincountriessuchasCanada,AustraliaandNewZealandsuggestthatelectronicmonitoringhasvariousadvantages–bothasregardsenforcement and monitoring. From a scientific perspective, selective use of electronicmonitoring could significantly enhance the availability and reliability of bycatch data andestimations. At the same time, schemes allowing for the delivery of carcasses could becarefullymonitored through electronicmonitoring, to provide guarantees againstmisuse.Incentivescouldbeofferedtovesselsparticipatinginsuchschemes.FundsfromtheEMFFmaybeavailableasafundingsourceforsuchprogrammes.

ReferencesandSelectedReading

ASCOBANS 2015. ASCOBANS Expert Workshop on the�Requirements of Legislation toAddressMonitoringandMitigationofSmallCetaceanBycatch

ASCOBANS.2015b.CompilationofRecommendationsRelevanttoBycatchLegislationoftheASCOBANSAdvisoryCommitteeandtheASCOBANSJastarniaGroupsince2008.

AustralianFisheriesManagementAuthority(AFMA)(2015).E-monitoring.AustralianFisheries

Management Authority, last updated March 2015. http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries-services/e-monitoring-requirements/

Catchpole,T.,C.Hedley2015.TheLandingObligationanditsImplicationsontheControlof

Fisheries.EuropeanParliament,2015.

EuropeanCommission,2016.ProposalforaREGULATIONOFTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDOFTHECOUNCILontheconservationoffisheryresourcesandtheprotectionofmarineecosystemsthroughtechnicalmeasures,COM(2016)134.

European Commission, 2013. Report from the Commission on the implementation of theDirective 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and floraCOM(2003)845FINAL

HELCOM, 2012. Development of a set of core indicators: Interim report of the HELCOMCORESETproject.PARTA.Descriptionoftheselectionprocess.Balt.SeaEnviron.Proc.No.XXXA

ICES2015.ICESAdviceNortheastAtlanticandadjacentseasPublished15April20151.6.1.1Bycatchof small cetaceans andothermarine animals – Reviewof national reports underCouncilRegulation(EC)No.812/2004andotherpublisheddocuments

ICES,2011.ReportoftheWorkingGrouponBycatchofProtectedSpecies(WGBYC2011),1–4February2011,Copenhagen,Denmark.ICESCM2011/ACOM:26.75pp.

ICES, 2011. Report of the Workshop to Evaluate Aspects of EC Regulation 812/2004(WKREV812).ICESAdvisoryCommittee.

ICES,2011.Newinformationregardingtheimpactoffisheriesonothercomponentsoftheecosystem, including small cetaceans andothermarinemammals, seabirds, andhabitats.AdviceMay2011.

Kindt-Larsen, L., Dalskov, J., Stage, B., and Larsen, F. (2012).Observing incidental harborporpoise Phocoena phocoena bycatch by remote electronic sensing. Endangered SpeciesResearch,19:75–83

Kindt-Larsen, L.andDalskov, J.2010.Pilot studyofmarinemammalbycatchbyuseofanElectronicMonitoringSystem.DTUAqua6pp.

McElderry,H.,Beck,M.,Pria,M.J.,Anderson,S.A.(2011).ElectronicmonitoringintheNew

Zealand inshore trawl fishery: a pilot study. DOCMarine Conservation Services Series 9.DepartmentofConservation,Wellington

MMO.(2012,August30).Financialadministrativepenaltiesforfisheries.(M.M.Organisation,Ed.) Retrieved from Government of the United Kingdom:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314541/fap_guidance.pdf

MMO.(2013,May).Guidancefortheapplicationofapointssystemforseriousinfringements.(M. M. Organisation, Editor) Retrieved from Government of the United Kingsom:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314545/points.pdf

Northridge,S.2011.Anoverviewofthestateofbycatchmonitoringandmitigationmeasuresbeing implemented in European fisheries. Paper SC/63/SM21 presented to IWC ScientificCommittee,Tromso,Norway,May2011.

OSPAR,2011.ReportoftheOSPAR/MSFDworkshoponapproachestodeterminingGESforbiodiversity.AppendixB.MarineMammalsandReptiles.

Tilander,D.andLunneryd,S.G.2010.PilotStudiesofElectronicMonitoring(EM)systemforfisheriescontrolofsmallervessels.PaperpresentedtotheThirdmeetingofICESStudyGroupforBycatchofProtectedSpecies,Copenhagen,February1–4,2010.

Various. Annual reports on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004(variousyears).