8.3 Recommendations
8.3.2 Policy implications
As this research has shown, the LO is a difficult policy to execute in practice and faces heavy opposition from the fisheries sector due to several reasons. A solution to overcome the difficulties in current policy, according to fishermen, would be the implementation of an FDF or registration system which measures the quantity of discards by the means of automatic recognition which then automatically deducts the quantity of discards from the quota. The EU, on the other hand, wants to implement these cameras as a means of controlling the LO rather than a registration obligation. Another solution would be a per-fisheries solution, as the quantity of discards is not equal in all fisheries sectors. This policy would in this case be more carefully constructed according to regional differences rather than an overlapping European policy approach. A third solution to the infeasibility of the LO in practice would be the use of a “carrot-approach” to let fishers comply with discard solutions. Fishers would then for example be rewarded when reducing their discards, or be allowed to discard as long as they cooperate in research projects for development of more selective fishing gear or other research purposes.
The afore-described solutions, however, take a hierarchical governance approach and will thereby not change the social practice of discarding but will make compliance with the LO more feasible, taking the current demersal fishing practices in account.
Taking a practice theory approach to policy recommendations would for example imply that on-shore technical regulations regarding the use and innovations of fishing gears should be loosened to improve innovation from the sector within (as a means of self-governance or co-governance), as current innovations are often perceived to backfire by the sector due to a lack of predictability of future policies (like the water jet, see section 6.4.1). When the practice of innovation on shore is stimulated and combined with the competence of fishermen to innovate, this could also imply a change in the practice of discarding on board as less discards are caught.
Furthermore, additional research and policy might be implemented on how to implement fixed on-shore prices of fish and fixed incomes for fishermen. This would imply that the economic meaning of discards could change, and thus the practice of discarding might change accordingly. This, however, goes against the historical system of remuneration in fisheries and might be difficult to overcome.
As these are very specific solutions to the practice of discarding, this research has shown that applying a practice theory to solve societal problems consists of taking a broader scope of
This calls for holistic programmatic policy responses which focus on sets of interconnected practices rather than trying to solve a problem instantly. To achieve a change in the practice of discarding it is therefore of importance to involve all related stakeholders to share competences, meanings and values to align the basic principles of the meta order of governance to let first and second-order governance solve the societal problem of discarding. I therefore argue that possible revision of the CFP in 2023 takes a step-wise approach in changing the discard practice as this research has shown that a radical paradigm shift has not worked.
References
Agrimatie (2020a). Totale omvang van de visserijvloot stabiel; daling van de aanvoer van vis.
Retrieved on 16-3-21, from:
https://www.agrimatie.nl/PublicatiePage.aspx?subpubID=2526&themaID=2286&indi catorID=2880§orID=2860#:~:text=Van%20de%20totale%20aanvoer%20door,op
%20316.396%20ton%20(316%20mln.
Agrimatie, (2020b). Hoger totaal motorvermogen door meer grote kotters. Retrieved on 17-3-21, from:
https://www.agrimatie.nl/PublicatiePage.aspx?subpubID=2526§orID=2862&them aID=2286&indicatorID=2879
Agrimatie, (2020c). De grote meerderheid bestaat uit visserijbedrijven met meer dan een kotter. Retrieved on 16-3-21, from:
https://www.agrimatie.nl/SectorResultaat.aspx?subpubID=2526§orID=2862&the maID=2286
Agrimatie, (2020d). Vlootinzet in 2019 gedaald. Retrieved on 17-3-21, from:
https://www.agrimatie.nl/PublicatiePage.aspx?subpubID=2526§orID=2862&them aID=2858&indicatorID%20=%202875
Agrimatie, (2020e). Urk kent de grootste kottervloot van Nederland. Retrieved on 16-3-21 from:
https://www.agrimatie.nl/PublicatiePage.aspx?subpubID=2526§orID=2862&them aID=2285&indicatorID%20=%202880
Agrimatie, (2020f). Bemanningskosten kottervisserij in 2019 met bijna een derde gedaald.
Retrieved on 17-3-21, from:
https://www.agrimatie.nl/PublicatiePage.aspx?subpubID=2526§orID=2862&themaI D=2264&indicatorID%20=%202050
Agrimatie, (2020g). Price plaice still above 2 euro per kg, shrimp prices decreased strongly.
Retrieved on 17-3-21 from:
https://www.agrofoodportal.com/ThemaResultaat.aspx?subpubID=2232&themaID=22 63&indicatorID=2874§orID=2862
Baarssen, J., J. Luchies, M.N.J. Turenhout & F.C. Buisman (2015). Verkenning economische impact aanlandplicht op de Nederlandse kottervloot. Urk: Flynth Accountants en Adviseurs & Landbouw Economisch Instituut.
Bavinck, J. M., Chuenpagdee, R., Diallo, M., Van der Heijden, P., Kooiman, J., Mahon, R., &
Williams, S. (2005). Interactive governance for fisheries: A guide to better practice. In Governance An International Journal Of Policy And Administration. Delft: Eburon Academic publishers.
Bavinck, M., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2005). Current Principles. In Bavinck M., Kooiman J., Jentoft S.,
& Pullin R. (Eds.), Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries (pp. 245-264).
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt46mzgb.18
Berkes, F. (1985). Fishermen and "The Tragedy of the Commons ". Environmental Conservation, 12(3), 199–206.
van Berkum, S., Dengerink, J., & Ruben, R. (2018). The food systems approach: sustainable solutions for a sufficient supply of healthy food. Menorandum, 064, 32.
http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/538076
Borges, L. (2020). The unintended impact of the European discard ban. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 1380. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa200
Borges, L., & Lado, E. P. (2019). Discards in the common fisheries policy: The evolution of the policy. In The European Landing Obligation (pp. 27-47). Springer, Cham.
Borges, L. (2018). Setting of total allowable catches in the 2013 EU common fisheries policy reform: possible impacts. Marine Policy, 91(January), 97–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.026
Borges L., Cocas, L., Nolde Nielsen, K. (2016). Discard ban and balanced harvest: a contradiction. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(6), 1632–1639.
https://doi.org/10.1038/278097a0
Brochier, T., Auger, P. A., Pecquerie, L., Machu, E., Capet, X., Thiaw, M., Mbaye, B. C., Braham, C. B., Ettahiri, O., Charouki, N., Sène, O. N., Werner, F., & Brehmer, P. (2018).
Complex small pelagic fish population patterns arising from individual behavioral responses to their environment. Progress in Oceanography, 164 (December 2017), 12–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2018.03.011
Buisman, E., Oostenbrugge, H. Van, & Beukers, R. (2013). Economische effecten van een aanlandplicht voor de Nederlandse visserij.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods, 4th edition. Oxford university press.
Chhotray, V., Stoker, G. (2013). Governance theory and practice: The case of Europe. In Ethical Governance of Emerging Technologies Development. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-3670-5.ch012
Coers, A., Raakjær, J., & Olesen, C. (2012). Stakeholder participation in the management of north east atlantic pelagic fish stocks: The future role of the pelagic regional advisory council in a reformed CFP. Marine Policy, 36(3), 689–695.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.017
Draucker, C. B., Martsolf, D. S., Ross, R., & Rusk, T. B. (2007). Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qualitative health research, 17(8), 1137-1148
Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research.
Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 234–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002
European Commission. (2013). The Common Fisheries Policy.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.1998.5403491.x
European Commission. (2009). Catalogue of Rights-Based Management Instruments in coastal EU Member States. February.
European Commission. (2007). An analysis of existing Rights Based Management (RBM) instruments in Member States and on setting up best practices in the EU (Issue February).
European Commission. (n.d.1.0). Retrieved from:
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/discards_en#:~:text=Discarding%20is
%20the%20practice%20of,catch%20composition%20rules%20impose%20this.
Evans, D., McMeekin, A., & Southerton, D. (2012). Sustainable Consumption, Behaviour Change Policies and Theories of Practice. Collegium, 12(Jackson 2005), 113–129.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory.
Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0612
Fitzpatrick, M., Frangoudes, K., Fauconnet, L., & Quetglas, A. (2019). Fishing industry perspectives on the EU Landing Obligation. The European Landing Obligation, 71.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2018). Sustainable food systems. Concept and framework. 1–8. http://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf
Frost, H., & Andersen, P. (2006). The Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union and fisheries economics. Marine Policy, 30(6), 737–746.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.01.001
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief, 3, 143-168.
Ginkel, van, R. (2009). Braving Troubled Waters : Sea Change in a Dutch Fishing Community.
In Braving Troubled Waters : Sea Change in a Dutch Fishing Community.
https://doi.org/10.5117/9789089640871
Global Nutrition Report. (2020). Food systems and nutrition equity. Global Nutrition Report, 78–100. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives.
Grimm, P. (2010). Demand Effects . 1999, 2010.
Guillen, J., Holmes, S. J., Carvalho, N., Casey, J., Dörner, H., Gibin, M., Mannini, A., Vasilakopoulos, P., & Zanzi, A. (2018). A review of the European union landing obligation focusing on its implications for fisheries and the environment. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040900
Haasnoot, T., Kraan, M., & Bush, S. R. (2016). Fishing gear transitions: Lessons from the Dutch flatfish pulse trawl. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(4), 1235–1243.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw002
Hannesson, R. (2015). World Fisheries in Crisis? Marine Resource Economics, 30(3), 251-260.
doi:10.1086/680443
Hardin, G. (1968). Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162 (December), 1243–1249.
Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540510390500
HLPE. (2017). High Level Panel of Experts. 2017. Nutrition and food systems. Committee o World Food Security (CFS), 44 (September), 150. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7846e.pdf Holm, P., Dubois, M., Tveiterås, K., Bjørkan, M., Wilson, D. C., & Kraan, M. (2013).
Deliverable D4.2.1: Report of the first (before) consensus analysis and Q sort survey of
fishers and scientists attitudes (Month 30). Bridging the gap between science, stakeholders, and policy makers. 3.
Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions?. Journal of economic issues, 40(1), 1-25.
Hoefnagel, E., de Vos, B., & Buisman, E. (2015). Quota swapping, relative stability, and
transparency. Marine Policy, 57(July), 111–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.012
Hoefnagel, E.W.J. & F.C. Buisman (2013). Evaluatie Nederlands ITQ-systeem naar aanleiding van de herziening van het Gemeenschappelijk Visserijbeleid. Wageningen, Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu, WOt-werkdocument 357. 69 blz. .17 fig.; 16 tab.;
38 ref.; 3 bijl.
Holtz, G. (2014). Generating Social Practices. Journal of Artificial Societies & Social Simulation, 17(1), 1–11.
Hoof, L. Van, Steins, N. A., Smith, S., & Kraan, M. (2020). Change as a permanent
condition : A history of transition processes in Dutch North Sea fisheries. Marine Policy, 122(May), 104245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104245
van Hoof, L., Kraan, M., Visser, N. M., Avoyan, E., Batsleer, J., & Trapman, B. (2019).
Muddying the Waters of the Landing Obligation: How Multi-level Governance Structures Can Obscure Policy Implementation. In S. S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, & S. J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation: Reducing Discards in Complex, Multi-Species and Multi-Jurisdictional Fisheries (pp. 179–196). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03308-8_9
van Hoof, L. (2013). Design or pragmatic evolution: applying ITQs in EU fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(2), 462–470.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fss189
Ingram, J. (2011). A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change. Food Security, 3(4), 417–431.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-011-0149-9
Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.466
Kooiman, J. (2005). Introduction. In Kooiman J., Bavinck M., Jentoft S., & Pullin R. (Eds.), Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries (pp. 241-244). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt46mzgb.17
Kooiman, J., & Bavinck, M. (2005). The Governance Perspective. In Kooiman J., Bavinck M., Jentoft S., & Pullin R. (Eds.), Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries (pp. 11-24). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt46mzgb.4
Kooiman, J., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2005). Governance and Governability. In Kooiman J., Bavinck M., Jentoft S., & Pullin R. (Eds.), Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries (pp. 325-350). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
doi:10.2307/j.ctt46mzgb.22
Kuhlman, J. W., & van Oostenbrugge, J. A. E. (2014). Bodemberoerende visserij op de Noordzee.
Lado, E. P. (2016). The common fisheries policy: the quest for sustainability. John Wiley &
Sons.
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research (Vol. 1). Rowman Altamira.
Maynou, F., Gil, M. del M., Vitale, S., Giusto, G. B., Foutsi, A., Rangel, M., Rainha, R., Erzini, K., Gonçalves, J. M. S., Bentes, L., Viva, C., Sartor, P., De Carlo, F., Rossetti, I., Christou, M., Stergiou, K., Maravelias, C. D., & Damalas, D. (2018). Fishers’
perceptions of the European Union discards ban: perspective from south European fisheries. Marine Policy, 89, 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.12.019
Mcclanahan, T., Allison, E. H., & Cinner, J. E. (2015). Managing fisheries for human and food security. 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12045
National Research Council & Committee on Population (NRC&CP). (2000). Beyond six billion: Forecasting the world's population. National Academies Press.
Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262037860.003.0011
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. Practicing History: New Directions in Historical Writing after the Linguistic Turn, 5(2), 245–263.
Rijnsdorp, A. D., Poos, J. J., Quirijns, F. J., HilleRisLambers, R., De Wilde, J. W., & Den Heijer, W. M. (2008). The arms race between fishers. Journal of Sea Research, 60(1–2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2008.03.003
Roos, P. & van Koningsveld, W. (2020). Handboek Regelgeving Pelagische Zeevisserij.
Rouse, J. (2007). Practice theory. Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology, 639–681.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451542-1/50020-9
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Saputra, M. A. (2020). Moving within and beyond illegal crustacean fishery: why do Indonesian fishermen not comply with the crustacean catch ban rule? Maritime Studies, 19(4), 457–
473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00194-y
Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. Penn State Press.
Shove, E., & Pantzar, M. (2005). Consumers, producers and practices: Understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1), 43–64.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505049846
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Sage.
Smit, W. (1995). Dutch Demersal North Sea Fisheries: Initial Allocation of Flatfish ITQs.
15–23.
Spaargaren, G., Weenink, D., & Lamers, M. (2016). Practice theory and research: exploring the dynamics of social life. In Practice Theory and Research Exploring the dynamics of social life. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Spotswood, F., Chatterton, T., Tapp, A., & Williams, D. (2015). Analysing cycling as a social practice: An empirical grounding for behaviour change. Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 29, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.12.001
Symes, D. (1997). The European Community’s Common Fisheries Policy. Ocean and Coastal Management, 35(2–3), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(97)00030-6
Tacon, A. G., & Metian, M. (2009). Fishing for feed or fishing for food: increasing global competition for small pelagic forage fish. Ambio, 294-302
Taylor, C. (1971). Interpretation and the study of man. Review of Metaphysics, 25(1), 3-51.
Thorpe, A., & Bennett, E. (2001). Globalisation and the sustainability of world fisheries: a view from Latin America. Marine Resource Economics, 16(2), 143-164.
Thorpe, A., Johnson, D., & Bavinck, M. (2005). Introduction. In Bavinck M., Kooiman J., Jentoft S., & Pullin R. (Eds.), Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries (pp.
41-44). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt46mzgb.6
UvA/GSSS. (2019). Ethical Guidelines for Student Research.
de Vos, B. I., Döring, R., Aranda, M., Buisman, F. C., Frangoudes, K., Goti, L., Macher, C., Maravelias, C. D., Murillas-Maza, A., van der Valk, O., & Vasilakopoulos, P. (2016). New modes of fisheries governance: Implementation of the landing obligation in four European countries. Marine Policy, 64, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.005
Appendices
Appendix 1: Operationalization table
Concept Element Data Questions
Practices on board (What does the practice of discarding entail?)
Material Which materials play a role in discarding?
Which materials changed due to the LO?
- Which materials play a role in discarding (nets, mesh sizes, storage room, time available or other material artefacts)?
- Has a change in these materials taken place due to LO?
Meaning Which meaning (value) does discarding have for a fishermen?
Has this meaning changed since the LO?
- Does discarding occur due to
economic, ecologic, social, practical or (non)-compliance (exemptions) reasons?
- For which reasons did discarding previously occur?
Competences Which
knowledge/competence is needed to discard?
- What is basic knowledge on discards? When to discard or not?
How is knowledge socially shared?
- Are fishermen fast enough in sorting process?
- How is this knowledge shared among the
crewmembers/skipper and other
skippers/vessels?
Practices on shore (What are the most important discard-related practices on land?)
Materials,
competences and meanings
What are most
important practices on shore?
- Investment in quota, development of selective fishing gear, more crewmembers needed or other material artefacts on shore?
- How are crew-members hired?
- Other relevant practices on shore?
Meanings What is perception of discards and what are the values attributed to discards?
Are these perceptions on discards socially shared or different?
- Do fishermen and stakeholders talk about the LO?
- What does discarding mean?
- How do these perceptions differ?
And why?
Governance Self-governance How is dealt with second order of
governance framework (LO) in the first order of governance (the vessel)?
- Do skipper and crew comply with rules and regulations?
- Why do they chose to do so (or not)?
- Which rules and regulations play a role in practice of discarding?
-Which exemptions count for this vessel?
Hierarchical governance
- What is the CFP and LO and how does it work?
- How does the CFP and its LO policy work and why was it introduced?
- What are the main objectives of the CFP?
- How do exemptions and derogations work in this policy
framework?
- How does control of this policy framework work?
- How is the Dutch government involved in this?
Perceptions Multi-level
governance actors
- What are perceptions of multi-level
governance actors
- Do the different stakeholders think that objectives of LO
regarding the LO and its implementation?
have been achieved?
Why (not)?
- Is the LO perceived as a feasible policy?
- Has the LO changed anything in the practice of discarding according to
stakeholders?
- What are the stakeholder perceptions on discards?
- Has the LO led to more sustainable fisheries according to stakeholders?
- Is the LO properly enforced?
- Are there any improvements due to the LO?
Appendix 2: Interview questions for stakeholders regarding perceptions of LO
Questions for stakeholders regarding perceptions of the LO.
Name:
Age:
Function:
General questions:
- (Consent regarding recording and usage of data) - What is your function at ….?
- How did you get involved in fishing and when?
- How did you get involved with the LO and why?
- What does the LO mean for you and (organization) ? - What is your attitude towards the LO?
1.0 Materials
- Has the LO led to a change in materials? Have fishermen become more selective in their fishing activities? Do you think fishermen changed their behavior due to the LO?
2.0 Meanings
- What do landings and discards mean to you?
- What did discards mean before the LO? Why were fish discarded then?
- Why do you think fishermen throw fish away now?
- Did the LO change anything in your perception of discards? Did it change anything in the practice of discarding?
- Does the LO work like it should? Taking all the exemptions in account.
3.0 Competences
- How did you first hear about the LO and the additional laws and regulations? Were there discussion groups between different stakeholder groups? For example, between ministries, fishermen and NGOs? How were you involved in this with (organization)?
- How was knowledge of discards shared and did this happen before the LO? Between whom was knowledge shared? How were you/ involved in this? What was stakeholder consultation before the LO? Was there enough stakeholder consultation according to you?
- How did this work before the LO, were there groups etc. to share knowledge about discards and the possible problems? How were you involved in stakeholder groups etc?
- How does this happen now? Is there some kind of discussion/project group to share knowledge between fishermen and stakeholders? How are you involved in this?
- Is there enough stakeholder consultation at the moment between fishermen, policymakers, NGOs etc to overcome problems with the LO?
Questions about the perceptions of the LO:
- Are fishermen interested in reducing discards? Why?
- Is discarding still a problem since the introduction of LO?
- Is it better to discard fish than to land them?
- Young fish belong in the sea to reproduce and should not be landed?
- Is discarding inevitable in mixed fisheries?
- Is discarding not a real problem with healthy fish stocks?
- The discard problem is made up and discarding fish is not a real problem with healthy fish stocks?
- Is the LO too complicated to implement in practice? Taking practical considerations like storage, prohibited species lists and exemptions into account.
- Is there a gap between policy makers and the fishing industry? If so, why?
- Have fishermen been involved to any real extent in the introduction of LO?
- Is the LO an essential tool to prevent discards?
- Is the discard ban well respected and enforced by the state?
- Has the LO turned fishermen into criminals?
- Has the reputation of (demersal) fisheries improved due to the LO?
- Has the LO led to more sustainable fisheries?
- Is the LO still needed?
- Are fishermen reliable when it comes to the LO and logbooks?
- Has the LO led to a change in the relationship between fishermen and science?
- Does the LO tackle discards at the root of the problem? What should be improved?
(- Are the LO and the ban on pulse fishing contradictory?) - Are fishermen sufficiently involved in policy-making?
- How will camera surveillance support the LO?
- Are NGOs and science (concerned with the LO) and fishermen on good terms?
- Are there other ways to reduce discards?
- Is the LO more symbol politics than that the LO actually works?
- What do you think of the LO in general? Do you have any suggestions or comments?
- What do you think about the future of fishing in the EU?
- Do you have any other remarks about this interview that you would like to share?
Appendix 3: Interview questions for fishermen and skippers regarding perceptions of LO and practices of discarding
Questions for fishermen and skippers regarding the perception of the LO and the practice of discarding.
Name:
Age:
Profession:
Questions on board:
General:
- (Consent regarding recording and data usage) - When was the LO introduced to you?
- How did you get involved in fishing and when?
- What do you think about the future of fishing in NL/EU?
- Are you part of a partnership?
- What does this company look like? How long does it exist? How many staff etc?
- What is the target species (fish) of this fishing trip?
1.0 Materials
- What kind of fishing gear did you use at the time before the LO was introduced?
- What kind of fishing gear are you using at the moment? What is the mesh size?
- Have you changed your fishing gear in recent years (since the LO)? If so, why? Due to landing obligation or other reasons?
- Has this change led to more or less discards?
- Has the landing obligation led to higher costs? If so, why?
- What happens to the landed fish that cannot be used for human consumption? And what do you think of this?
- Are there other material artefacts important for discarding?
- What do landings and discards mean to you?
- What did discards mean to you before the LO? Why were fish thrown overboard then?
- Why do you discard fish now? Because of low economic value, compliance to the rules, unquoted species, exceptions to LO?
- Has the LO changed anything in your perception of discards?
3.0 Competences
- What did you know about discards before the LO? Why did this happen and were there rules about discarding fish? Or how was this done?
- How did you first hear about LO and the rules around LO? How does the crew share information about LO? Is there a particular book that tells you everything?
- How does the crew know when to discard or not?
- Do you talk to each other about what needs to be discarded?
- How is knowledge and information shared among crewmembers and among other skippers?
- Is there some kind of social media channel which is used to share knowledge on discards or other relevant information?
Questions related to practices on shore
- Do quota play a role in discarding fish?
- Have you invested in extra quota due to the LO?
- Has there been investment in more selective fishing due to LO?
- Has there been investment in other things? Extra crew due to more sorting work?
- What other practices are of importance and interconnected with the practice of discarding?
- Do you talk to other people about what the LO means to you? Do you talk to policy makers, NGOs, etc. about what you think?
- How did you first hear about the LO and the additional laws and regulations? Were there discussion groups between different stakeholder groups? E.g. between ministries, fishermen and NGOs?