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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of this Regulation is to streamline and simplifysome of the regulations that resulted from theEUs participation in the IBSFC. Within the Regulation,specifications for fishing gears targetingcod are laid down and conditions for bycatch ofcod in other fisheries is also specified.Annex III, to Regulation 52/2006 provides “transitionaltechnical and control measures” whichare specifically designed for the cod fishery andare intended to enhance measures that were inplace within the IBSFCs cod recovery plan andalso act as interim measures during the periodprior to the implementation of the EU’s own codrecovery plan. As the name suggests technicalmeasures with respect to area closures are dealtwith as well as control measures setting out howor what Member States are required to have inplace to effectively manage the cod fishery.With the accession of the new Member Statesand, in anticipation of a future recovery plan, theCommission undertook an evaluation in 2005of how all the EU Baltic Member States wereimplementing Annex III. Having completed halfof its visits to Member States the Commissionpresented the interim results of its assessment atthe final IBSFC meeting, in September 2005. TheCommission chose not to name the four MemberStates, preferring to wait until it had completedits fieldwork and shared the findings with all theMember States before publishing a <strong>report</strong> in June2006. However, through the course of this study,it was clear that the four Member States werePoland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.In the presentation “key indicators” were usedto assess the level of compliance by the MemberStates for the implementation of the technicaland control measures as well as the registrationand accuracy of catches and catch information.Implementation of the technical and controlmeasuresIn its limited summary of findings, the Commissionconsidered there had been successful administrativeimplementation of the technical andcontrol measures and unspecified measures hadresulted in improved control and enforcement.On the less positive side, not all measures wereeffective or properly implemented and some ofthe Member State Inspectorates had expressedconcern over the complexity of the regulations.From an observers point of view the assessmentdoes not look particularly promising. The twoareas where the four Member States receiveda particularly poor assessment, i.e., inspectionbenchmarks and exchange of informationbetween Member States, likely mean that at thetime, little or no progress had been made onthese aspects. Without further details it is difficultto draw any strong conclusions other thanto say that, apart from the ability to issue specialfishing permits and logbooks to vessels over 8 m,the system appears to be far from satisfactory.Table 9. Shows the key indicators and the level of compliance forthe implementation of technical and control measures for fourBaltic Sea Member States in 2005.Key IndicatorSpecial fishing permitDesignated portsLogbooks for vessels > 8mNational control action programmePrior notificationInspection benchmarksClosed areas and summer banExchange of inspectors and joint surveillanceExchange of information between Member StatesInspections and follow-up action in case of non-complianceFull complianceProgress being madeLittle or no progressComplianceThe registration and accuracy of catches andcatch informationThe second part of the Commission’s assessmentfocused on the ability of Member States to effectivelymonitor landings.Logsheets, landing declarations and sales notesprovide the landing data from which the uptakeof quota is measured against the vessel and theMember State. Discrepancies in these sourcesdirectly translate into discrepancies in quotamanagement; therefore, the accuracy of thisinformation is very important.In its presentation, the Commission confirmedthat the use of logsheets, landing declarationsand sales notes was in place. However, there– 42 –
were some serious failings in the accuracy andsubmission of the data:• 35% of the logsheets they examined were outsidethe permitted level of tolerance. Similarly,comparisons between landing declarationsand sales notes resulted in 19% of the landingdeclarations being outside of the allowedtolerance.• For an undisclosed number of landings observedby the Commission Inspectors, approximately21% failed to submit a sales note,23% failed to submit landing declarationsand 5% failed to submit a logsheet within therequired timescales.It is the role of Member State Fisheries Inspectoratesto reduce these discrepancies by educatingfishermen and fishermen’s representatives and,where appropriate, take action to penalise thosewho do not comply.Table 10. Shows the indicators used to assess the four MemberStates ability to apply important requirements with respect to registeringlanding information and their ability or willingness to followup on administrative inaccuracies.Key IndicatorImplementation of logbooks, landing declaration, etc.Computerised catch registration systems in placeSystem to record catches by < 8m vesselsQuality and return of statutory documentsPrior submission of logsheetsLogbook tolerance of 8%Delay in getting catch data onto the systemCross-checking of logbooks with statutory returnsCross-checking of logbooks with VMSLogbook registration system in placeComplianceInspections and follow-up action in case of non-complianceFull complianceProgress being madeLittle or no progressAgain, without the full details of the <strong>report</strong> itis difficult to draw any strong conclusions. Itappears that the ability to register catch dataonto a national data system has been achieved.However, the practical aspects associated withthe, all important, inspection of logsheets, theircross-referencing with VMS data and the followupof any apparent inaccuracies seem to havesignificant shortfalls.Mis<strong>report</strong>ing landingsThe level of mis<strong>report</strong>ing of cod catches and theapparent effect landing inspections had on subsequentcatch and landing information formed thefinal part of the Commission’s presentation. Themethodology was described:• Landings for a number of vessels were observed.• Comparisons were made between actual andestimated landings submitted by fishermen ontheir statutory returns.• Landing Per Unit Effort (LPUE) was calculatedfor the sampled landing, i.e. the weightof landed cod divided by the <strong>report</strong>ed fishingeffort.• The LPUE from inspected landings were comparedwith the LPUE from <strong>report</strong>ed landingsbefore and after the inspection. 27 landingsby < 10m vessels and 94 landings by > 10mvessels were observed and a total of 607 landingrecords were analysed.Without exception, in all the Member States thatwere assessed the average LPUE of the inspectedlanding was higher than the average LPUE forlandings before and after the inspected landings.Also of note, the LPUE for the landings that followedthe inspected landings were all higher thanthose prior to the inspection. A possible explanationor inference is that, as a result of the inspection,the behaviour of the skipper may have beeninfluenced such that a more accurate return wasmade.The average difference between LPUE of inspectedand non-inspected landings for each of theMember States was calculated at 21.6%, withdifferences ranging from 3.0% to 54.1%.In its summary and presentation of key findings,the Commission confirmed that it would continueto conduct further analysis of the informationgathered on its mission and would also applysimilar methods when visiting the remaining 4Baltic Sea Member States.It concluded that:• The Commission’s sampling programme– 43 –
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 10 and 11: Part IDescribing and quantifying IU
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 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

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?