REPORT OF THE 2008 ICCAT WORKING GROUP ON STOCK ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

WG Stock Assessment Methods – Madrid 20082.3.4 Other informationOne indicator of overcapacity is a stock for which fishing mortality is estimated to be greater than F MSY . Table11 lists the stocks that would be classified has having overcapacity according to this indicator.One way in which a minimum estimate of overcapacity could be obtained is by computing:Overcapacity = (Harvest Capacity) - (Quota) ≈ (Catch) - (Quota)With the exception of SWO-M and YFT, the stocks in Table 11 have country-specific quotas or catch limits, sothat overcapacity can be computed (see Table 12). It should be noted, however, that in cases where quotas areinconsistent with achieving the Commission’s objective of rebuilding to B MSY , these estimates of overcapacityare even more strongly negatively biased. Such is likely in the case for bluefin tuna.3. Review of implementation of quality control procedures3.1 Assessment software catalogueOne of the tasks that the ICCAT Secretariat has to accomplish is the revision of the software used in theassessment of stocks to be included in the ICCAT catalogue. As inheritance of his previous position in theSecretariat, at present, Dr. Restrepo chairs the reviewing Committee. The Group requested him to continue atleast one more year until the new expert is contracted by the Secretariat and the new person in charge will takeover this task.It was noted that the procedure for cataloguing and reviewing new software is not well known by the ICCATscientists. In order to widespread the knowledge on the cataloguing procedure, the Group agreed that theSecretariat will send the requirements of the documentation for the new software and the procedure followed bythe reviewing Committee to the ICCAT head scientists. This was accomplished during the meeting.A request for the FLR (Fisheries Library in R) software to enter the ICCAT catalogue was considered. TheGroup recognized that the software is still under development but some of the routines are fully operational andhave been used to assess other stocks. Furthermore, it is very flexible and a valuable tool to explore forassessment and simulation of management strategies. In addition, there exists a lot of documentation illustratingits possibilities. It was decided to include the reference of the FLR web page in order ICCAT scientists canfurther explore it (http://flr-project.org).3.2 Manual for CPUE standardizationOne of the immediate plans of the past Assessment Methods meeting (2007) was to develop a CPUEstandardization manual which could be used as a guideline for scientists attending the working groups. Due totime constraints as well as lack of human resources, the aforementioned manual task could not be accomplished.The Working Group agreed that if funds are available, the Secretariat should contract an external consultant toperform the task. Alternatively, a Contracting Party could engage a national scientist for developing the CPUEstandardization manualFurthermore, the Group recommended to the SCRS to hold a meeting of the Assessment Methods WorkingGroup exclusively focused on CPUE standardization which is a problematic issue from the point of view of thediversity of the models applied.3.3 Technical glossaryThe Working Group noted that the technical glossary of assessment terms has not been updated since 1999. Itwas decided to work out a preliminary draft list of technical terms appearing in the ICCAT working groupreports with their corresponding definitions, which would be distributed to all the scientists between now and theSCRS meeting for improvement and adoption. The draft list is included as Appendix 4.10
WG Stock Assessment Methods – Madrid 20083.4 OthersThe Working Group noted that peer review is a standard quality assurance practice in science to provide reliableand credible research. Although ICCAT implemented this practice in the past by means of external expertsattending the assessment working groups meetings, it is not implemented at present. The Group stressed the needto return to the aforementioned peer review process to meet the standards of the scientific work developed by theassessment Working Groups.4. Other mattersNo other matters were discussed.5. Recommendations5.1 Capacity estimation issuesCapacity measures and annual production statistics tend not to remain stable over time and can vary over a widescale between and within oceans for the same vessel. There is a general tendency for nominal CPUE to increasedue to technology creep from multiple improvements in fishing practices, gear and instrumentation, even whenthe fleets are aging ones.These features are not generally captured in capacity metrics and for that reason, capacity-based managementprocedures may, by themselves, be insufficient to provide adequate safeguard against the risk of overexploitationof tuna resources. Detailed information is needed to provide an informed basis for capacity managementdecisions and that level of detail is generally lacking for the Atlantic tuna fleets, with the exception of some forwhich National Scientists retain very detailed information useful for this purpose. In order to address theseconcerns, and to provide a basis for improving the advice SCRS can offer the Commission on the issue ofcapacity measurement, the Group recommended several actions.The Group concluded that information on fleets among the various lists and data sets held by the Secretariat isvery incomplete. The Group reemphasized the need for CPCs to fulfill their data-reporting obligations asitemized most recently in the Manual of Procedures for the Submission of Information Required by ICCAT,including, but not limited to, the information required in the Form-1 (Task I, fleet characteristics) in order toproduce answers to the questions formulated by the Commission to the SCRS.The Group noted that the Commission's Working Group and many other fora continue to use the term "capacity"generically, to mean different things. The Group recommended that the Commission consider adopting theterminology offered in Section 2 of this report.The Group noted that expansion of fishing capacity is the result of the economic incentives to fishermen and thefishery is an economic activity for fishermen. By using production capital (e.g., fishing vessels, gears) and labor,fishermen harvest fisheries resources and sell at markets for their livings. The aim of fishermen in fishingactivities is to maximize their return on their capital, labor and other investments. This implies that possibleeconomic return is an incentive motivating fishermen to expand their fishing capacity. Without economicanalyses, fisheries management is not able to dampen such economic incentives and regulate excess fishingcapacity in an informed way. The Group recognized that economic data collection and analysis on tuna and tunalike-species are indispensable parts of future research and policy developments regarding this issue andrecommends that CPCs engage in this research and provide input to guide the Commission's policy debatesregarding fishing capacity management.While there is continued room for methodological development for capacity measurement and estimation, it isevident to the Group that continued advancement on the issue of methodological approaches is unlikely to berealized without additional, detailed data. The Group recommends that Species Groups address, to the degreepossible, issues related to overcapacity in the fleets harvesting species under their purview and that the SpeciesGroup specifically address these issues in the Executive Summaries.5.2 Other Recommendations regarding future work of the GroupIn order to better assure transparency and improve quality assurance of our scientific work, Species Groupsshould work toward making sure that software used for assessing stock status and providing advice to theCommission is included in the ICCAT Assessment Software Catalogue.11
Page 1: WG Stock Assessment Methods - Madri
Page 4 and 5: WG Stock Assessment Methods - Madri
Page 14 and 15: Table 2. Number and estimated selec
Page 16 and 17: Table 4. Fleet sizes obtained throu
Page 18 and 19: EC.Ireland Task I grt 4 9 13loa 4 9
Page 20 and 21: Senegal Task I grtloaannualreports
Page 22 and 23: DominicanRepublic landings 226 226E
Page 24 and 25: EC.España Task I grt 192 192loasur
Page 26 and 27: Philippines Task I grt 10 10loa 10
Page 28 and 29: S. Tomé e Príncipe Task I loa 50
Page 30 and 31: Table 6. Number of bluefin farming
Page 32 and 33: Table 8. Hold capacity (t) of bluef
Page 34 and 35: Table 11. Patterns of relative effo
Page 36 and 37: Catch 453.0 458.0 558.0 539.0KOREA
Page 38 and 39: Figure 3. Estimated number of hooks
Page 40 and 41: CatchNominal catch (t)3500030000250
Page 42 and 43: Figure 13. Total catch of tropical
Page 44 and 45: 3530CPUE (t./day)252015WPOEPOAtlant
Page 46 and 47: ALB USA VESSELS LIST 2006ALB FRACE
Page 48 and 49: Ortiz de Zárate Vidal, VictoriaMin
Page 50 and 51: NO.POLES -2.96957 1.477219 -2.01 0.
Page 52 and 53: 1977 -0.2374 0.96314 -0.246 0.80542
Page 54: GLOSSHabitat-based ModelsHomingInte

REPORT OF THE 2008 ICCAT WORKING GROUP ON STOCK ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?