To land or not to land – that is the “discard ban” question

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document discusses the implementation of the landing obligation under the new Common Fisheries Policy, emphasizing that it is not a blanket ban but a partial obligation with specific exemptions and flexibilities. It argues that these mechanisms must be managed lawfully to avoid undermining the goal of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The primary goal of the landing obligation is to lower fishing mortality to allow fish stocks to reach Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), which increases long-term productivity and profitability.
  • The landing obligation is not a universal ban; it applies to fisheries with catch limits (quotas or effort controls) and, in the Mediterranean, to species with size-based restrictions. Certain exemptions exist for species with 'high survivability' or through 'de minimis' derogations when selectivity is difficult to achieve or costs are disproportionate.
  • Two types of quota flexibility are provided to ease the transition: 'inter-species' flexibility (allowing 9% of target species quota for non-quota species within safe biological limits) and 'inter-annual' flexibility (allowing 10% to be borrowed from the following year). The document warns these could jeopardize sustainability and lead to legal challenges if mismanaged.
  • To address 'choke species' in mixed fisheries, the document suggests utilizing quota uplifts (incorporating previously discarded amounts into total allowable catch limits), adjusting quota allocations to reflect actual catch composition, and employing innovative fishing gear supported by public funding.

Cite the original document

APA
ClientEarth (2014). To land or not to land – that is the “discard ban” question. https://www.clientearth.org/media/om2lkxoz/2014-06-01-considerations-regarding-the-landing-obligation-in-the-new-cfp-ce-en.pdf
Chicago
ClientEarth. To land or not to land – that is the “discard ban” question. 2014. https://www.clientearth.org/media/om2lkxoz/2014-06-01-considerations-regarding-the-landing-obligation-in-the-new-cfp-ce-en.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=To land or not to land – that is the “discard ban” question |date=June 2014 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/om2lkxoz/2014-06-01-considerations-regarding-the-landing-obligation-in-the-new-cfp-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{clientearth2014land, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{To land or not to land – that is the “discard ban” question}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2014}, month = jun, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/om2lkxoz/2014-06-01-considerations-regarding-the-landing-obligation-in-the-new-cfp-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated