A report on iUU fishing of Baltic Sea cod - Fisheries Secretariat

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Part IDescribing and quantifying IUUfishing for cod in the Baltic SeaIntroductionScientific advice from the International Councilof the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has indicatedthat the two cod stocks in the Baltic Seaare suffering from unsustainable exploitationlevels. The Eastern stock has declined in size to apoint where it may not be able to replenish itselfand is considered to be threatened with collapse.The Western stock is in a better state but is alsosubject to high levels of fishing that mean thatthe yields from the fishery are lower than theirpotential level.Combined with less favourable environmentalconditions the ability of the two Baltic Sea codstocks to increase or, minimally, sustain themselvesis further compromised.The cod fisheries in the Baltic Sea have gainednotoriety for non-compliance with fisheriesregulations. This is commonly referred to as illegal,un<strong>report</strong>ed and unregulated fishing, or IUUfishing. IUU fishing, particularly in the EasternBaltic, is seen as the major contributor to theunsustainable exploitation of the cod stocks.In order to better understand IUU fishing in theBaltic and the measures that are in place to counterthe problem the study:• Undertook a review of the available literatureon IUU fishing within the Baltic region;• Conducted informal meetings/interviews withindividuals with an active interest in the BalticSea cod fisheries; and,• Reviewed and analysed European fisheriespolicy and regulatory frameworks for controland enforcement that apply within the BalticSea.The <strong>report</strong> is divided into two parts. The firstdescribes the results of the literature search andpresents the views expressed by participants ofthe informal meetings/interviews. The secondpart provides a summary of the policy and regulatoryframeworks that are in place and providethe basis for Member States to implement Europeanfisheries policy.Published informationAn Internet search revealed quite an extensiveand relatively recent source of literature on IUUfishing, the majority of which focuses on the highseas. In contrast, very limited peer reviewed and/or “grey” literature has been published that attemptsto describe and/or quantify IUU fishing inthe Baltic Sea. The following section summarisesthe most recent and readily available informationon IUU fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea, as wellas provides comment and analysis.The International Council for the Exploration ofthe Sea (ICES)The International Council for the Explorationof the Sea (ICES) officially recognises the seriouslevel of IUU fishing in the Baltic Sea cod fishery,particularly within the eastern Baltic. ICESdescribes the main IUU problem as, “...mis<strong>report</strong>edlandings, mostly in the form of un<strong>report</strong>edlandings”. It suggests that restrictive quotas, theabsence of fishing opportunities and inadequateinspection are the main causes, with the circumstancesbeing different in different Member States.Because the problem is considered to be sosignificant, the ICES Baltic Fisheries AssessmentWorking Group has included its own estimatesof un<strong>report</strong>ed landings in its annual <strong>report</strong>s since1993, referring to them as “unallocated quota”,and has highlighted that the scale of un<strong>report</strong>edlandings has severely compromised its assessments.– 10 –
The Working Group uses information fromfishermen, at-sea-sampling and fisheries inspectors,as well as comparisons between import andexport data to estimate the “unallocated quota”.In 2005 1 , the Working Group chose to presenttwo stock assessments to the ICES AdvisoryCommittee on Fishery Management (ACFM)based on the official <strong>report</strong>ed landing figures aswell as their own estimated landing figures, andleft it to the ACFM to decide on which to use (ifat all) in their advice to the European Commission.ACFM chose to provide both 2 .In the preamble to its 2005 assessment, theWorking Group emphasised that it would notdisclose the estimates or the sources of the problemthat particular Member States may provide.The reasons for its decision included not wantingto compromise the trust that has been establishedbetween fishermen and scientists or cause politicalproblems if estimates are seen to be differentfrom the official figures, as well as the possibilitythat Working Group members may lose theirjobs (presumably as a consequence of the formerreason).However, in order to provide some transparencyand repeatability in the assessments, the WorkingGroup has chosen to use, what it terms, a“raising factor” (RF) which provides an estimateof the un<strong>report</strong>ed landings year on year, withouthighlighting a particular Member State. Forexample, an RF of 1.40 implies that the WorkingGroup estimates that landings are 40% higherthan the official figures. Groupings of one ormore countries are given an RF value based onthe information they bring to the table, as follows:Group A, based on informal contacts with theindustry, is provided with a RF of 1.2.Group B, based on information from informalcontacts with industry and enforcement sourcesis given a RF = 1.5Group C is based on information available fromat sea-sampling, formal and informal contactswith the fishing industry, and inspection of import/exportrecords. Taken together these sourcesof information indicate total catches about100% greater than the <strong>report</strong>ed figures, resultingin a RF of 2.0.Group D, for which either no information isavailable, or information indicates no or negligiblemis<strong>report</strong>ing, is provided with a RF of 1.0.Table 1. The Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group overall RFfor cod landings from the eastern Baltic between 2000 and 2005Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005RF 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.45 1.41 1.38Source: The <strong>report</strong> of the ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Group(WGBFAS), 18-27 April 2006, RostockUsing these RF figures against the <strong>report</strong>ed landings,the estimated quantities of un<strong>report</strong>ed codlandings have remained relatively stable for thelast 6 years, averaging just over 20,000 tonnes.However, the 2005 Working Group <strong>report</strong>stresses that the estimates are “considered to besubstantial underestimates of the true catches(recent mis<strong>report</strong>ing estimates imply that truecatches have been at least 40% greater than<strong>report</strong>ed catches)”.For comparison, in Table 2 below, <strong>report</strong>ed landingsof cod from the Baltic Sea between 2000and 2005 3 are set out, along with ICES estimatesof total landings and unallocated quota.Table 2. A comparison of Member State <strong>report</strong>ed landings and ICESestimates of total landings and unallocated quota for the EasternBaltic.Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Reportedlandings 66,171 67,651, 49,456 49,239 49,015 40,041ICESestimateof totallandings 89,289 91,328 67,018 71,386 68,578 55,032ICESestimate ofun allocatedquota 23,118 23,677 17,562 22,147 19,563 14,991Source: Adapted from the <strong>report</strong> of the Baltic Fisheries AssessmentGroup (WGBFAS), 18-27 April 2006, RostockComment and analysisOwing to its clandestine nature, estimating thelevel of IUU is extremely difficult. For a pre-eminentadvisory body like ICES, which bases itsadvice on best available science, the willingnessto use empirical and anecdotal information onIUU fishing to inform its advice makes a pointedstatement about the scale and seriousness of theproblem and emphasises the significance with– 11 –
Page 1 and 2: A report on IUUfis
Page 3 and 4: A report on IUUfis
Page 5 and 6: Part II 21Policy and regulatory fra
Page 7: Executive summaryThe cod fisheries
Page 12 and 13: which it has undermined their abili
Page 14 and 15: the Association of Fish Processors
Page 16 and 17: or close to fishing communities was
Page 18 and 19: Fishing in closed areasEU fisheries
Page 20 and 21: the fishing industry and, therefore
Page 22 and 23: very active on the issue and, at th
Page 24 and 25: that were adopted within the IBSFC
Page 26 and 27: Table 5. An analysis of the 11 Poin
Page 28 and 29: Action Point and its Aim6. Working
Page 30 and 31: failings in the process (see page 3
Page 32 and 33: of cod and hake. The Commission wil
Page 34 and 35: adopted in the North Sea, the Balti
Page 36 and 37: Table 6 Showing the indicators used
Page 38 and 39: Policy areas Policy theme Indicator
Page 40 and 41: Table 7. The list of types of behav
Page 42 and 43: of this Regulation is to streamline
Page 44 and 45: appeared to bear out that significa
Page 46 and 47: General headings/Sub-headingsDetail
Page 48 and 49: Notes1ICES. 2005. Report of the Bal
Page 50 and 51: ReferencesAnderson, J.L., 2002. Rea
Page 52 and 53: DENMARKThe Baltic is the third most
Page 54 and 55: highest allowable level of dioxin i
Page 56 and 57: duction are Iceland, Norway, Japan
Page 58 and 59: The processing sectorAt the beginni
Page 60 and 61:
Annex IIMembers of the Administrati
Page 62 and 63:
Annex IVSummary of the European Com
Page 64 and 65:
Department of Fisheries and Game (k
Page 66 and 67:
InspectionsThe Fisheries Control De
Page 68 and 69:
this was to exceed the maximum, the
Page 70 and 71:
Theme/ PolicyareaInspection andcont
show all

A report on iUU fishing of Baltic Sea cod - Fisheries Secretariat

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?