E - Iccat

ICCAT REPORT 2002-2003 (II)
several problems that are a direct consequence of poor data coverage. For example, for some species, a
significant part of the size data (Task II) needs to be constructed (“substituted”) based on assumptions; if the
coverage of observations was improved, there would not be a need to make so many substitutions.
Finally, the Secretariat’s paper showed that many countries submit their data after the deadlines. Also it often
happens that major historical data revisions are submitted during the stock assessment sessions, long after the
deadlines. This practice is disruptive to the conduct of the meetings where many analyses are conducted
sequentially; a late data revision can be a cause for mistakes that propagate through the analyses in the meeting.
The Chairman noted that, as mentioned in the Secretariat’s paper, many countries appear not to have the data
collection programs that are necessary for providing detailed statistics to ICCAT. Lack of capacity could range
from lack of data collection infrastructure to lack of resources for sending scientists to meetings. Dr. Pereira
recommended that ICCAT should investigate ways of finding resources for capacity-building.
5.2 Review of responsibilities for providing data
The Secretariat informed the Workshop that there are a number of ICCAT instruments that call on Contracting
Parties, and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities to submit fisheries data. These
obligations are clearly stated in Article IX (paragraph 2) of the ICCAT Convention, Rule 13 (paragraph 2) of the
Rules of Procedure, the Resolution on the Collection of Statistics on the Atlantic Tuna Fisheries [Ref. 66-01],
and the Resolution by ICCAT on the Deadlines and Procedures for Data Submission [Ref. 01-16], as well as
under the United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and the FAO
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, as detailed in the Secretariat’s annual “Request for Atlantic Tuna and
Shark Statistics”.
The Secretariat noted that early in each calendar year, the Executive Secretary sends out a “Request for Atlantic
Tuna and Shark Statistics” to all Contracting Parties, and non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities
operating tuna and/or shark fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean and Adjacent Seas. This includes a request for Task I
(catch and fishing power (fleet) statistics), Task II (catch and effort statistics and size data), and catch-at-size
data. These requirements are readily available on the ICCAT web site (www.iccat.es).
5.3 Species-by-species considerations relating to the credibility/reliability of catch data
The data deficiencies were discussed species -by-species, and presented by the respective SCRS Rapporteurs. It
was noted that for every assessment, the Species Groups write a Detailed Report that explains what data and
analyses were used, provides results, and lists a series of recommendations. Rapporteurs summarized some of
these recommendations in relation to catch data (presented in SCRS/2003/021 and summarized in Appendix 4
To ANNEX 4.3). The term “fishing parties” is used to refer to Contracting Parties and non-Contracting Parties,
Entities or Fishing Entities that catch a given species.
5.3.1 Bluefin tuna
Dr. J. M. Fromentin, Rapporteur for the East Atlantic Bluefin Species Group, stated that the data problems for
this species are so serious that a reliable assessment could not be conducted in 2000 or 2002. This is due to a
deterioration of data as a result of both the deterioration of catch data leading up to (over-reporting prior to 1996
in order to have catch history), and following (under-reporting after 1997 to meet compliance targets) the
imposition of quotas, and the development of bluefin farming (especially since 2000). He noted that considerable
catches in the Mediterranean go to cages, making it essential for the SCRS to have information about the origin
of the catch, the magnitude of the catch, and the amount and the size distribution from farming. Dr. Fromentin
emphasized that there is a need for observers on-board the cages, as well as good estimates of bluefin growth
while in the cages. The fact is that the tools for stock assessment simply cannot be used, as the available data are
insufficient. Dr. Fromentin noted that some solutions to these problems could be found in the SCRS proposal for
an enhanced Bluefin Tuna Research Program being proposed to the Commission this year.
The Delegate of the EC made a general comment agreeing that the quality of the bluefin data must be improved.
He further noted that unless there is a commitment by all Contracting Parties, improvements in data quality as a
result of this meeting would be limited. All Contracting Parties need to take note of the recommendations,
including the improvement of the eastern bluefin data. The EC recognized that some fishing parties might need
the help of the Commission to make improvements.
118