Documentation of Fishing Areas and Evaluation of Management Areas; Fishing Methods and Species Taken

11. After reviewing information relating to the fishery, it was agreed that dividing the proposed convention region into three areas would be appropriate for the reporting of information describing catch and fishing effort:

i. a southwest Indian Ocean area being that area south of 20ºS and west of 80ºE

ii. a southeast Indian Ocean area being that area south of 20ºS and east of 80ºE and

iii. a northern Indian Ocean area being that region in the proposed commission area north of 20ºS.^[2]

12. It was agreed that in the near future the primary focus of investigation would be on the Southwest Indian Ocean, area (i) as that is where there is most current commercial fishing activity; then the Southeast Indian Ocean, area (ii) above. In agreeing upon these boundaries, it was noted that the meridian would bisect the waters about the Kerguelen Islands and that this would probably intersect fish stocks in that region.

13. It was agreed that it would be appropriate to treat the fisheries as comprising two principal targeted fisheries:

i. fisheries targeting orange roughy (characteristically >800m): these commonly harvest

ii. fisheries targeting alfonsino (characteristically »400m): these commonly harvest

It was noted that in the case of both the orange roughy and alfonsino fisheries, few, if any, non-retained fishes are currently caught, i.e. the fisheries could be considered "clean" in the sense that there was little if any discards or non-targeted species taken, as is found in other similar fisheries around the southern hemisphere.

14. It was noted that the important points concerning fishing methods and fishing gear were (a), whether bottom trawls or pelagic trawls had been used and (b), the nature of the fishing tactics, e.g. fishing on marks (especially in the case of orange roughy fisheries) or extended tows, e.g. as is commonly done when targeting alfonsino. It was also noted that in the case of fishing for orange roughy catch success more commonly depended on crew skills and the success of fishing tactics than dimensions of the fishing vessel. In the case of recording trawl type, the main requirement was to know if the net was a bottom or pelagic trawl, and in the latter case, if it was being fished "hard-down". Among the comments it was agreed that it is useful to know if the gear performed as intended, i.e. was the tow "successful" even if no fish were caught.

15. It was noted that in the early days of this fishery, small quantities of black coral were scooped up by the trawl but with increasing experience on the part of the skippers, this problem had been reduced. The Namibian view was that black coral was not a common problem.

16. In discussing deepwater fisheries in the eastern part of the study area it was noted that Australian vessels in this area had taken a low level of catches and that some detailed data for these operations were available. In the case of other countries it was noted that South African and French vessels had tried fishing in the area but without commercial success; Namibian vessels had not operated in the area; and New Zealand vessels had undertaken operations in this area in the past. No unequivocal statements were possible about the possibility of straddling stocks in the eastern part of the study area and the Australian EEZ. It was noted that such an issue would no doubt be of future concern for the French EEZ in the study area as well.

17. It was noted that both orange roughy and alfonsinos were taken in the South African EEZ and that straddling stock issues might arise.

18. Another potential bycatch species concern was that for sharks. In the Australian EEZ, a targeted fishery for sharks was emerging in upper-slope waters, though they had virtually disappeared in the catches. Species of concern were dogsharks and black sharks. It appeared there had been localized depletion. There is no information on the age of these fishes. The New Zealand experience was that, with short tows, there was little shark bycatch. In the Australian targeted fishery, the bycatch of sharks was essentially nil, but in mixed bags of oreos and orange roughy, 3 - 4 sharks might be taken in each tow.

19. It was noted that Patagonian toothfish are not usually taken in the study area; further CCAMLR has a mandate for management issues relating to this species even when the catches occur outside of the CCAMLR convention area.

20. The issue of what was an appropriate measure of CPUE was discussed and the various national approaches to dealing with this problem. It was apparent that there were very different approaches to dealing with this issue and it was not clear that a detailed discussion of this topic would be to any great benefit. One view was that the best measure was simply mean catch/tow (the New Zealand practice) as there could be difficulty in distinguishing whether a tow was being undertaken as a "targeted" or "random" tow. But information that what was needed was if the tow was demersal or pelagic and the length of the tow.

21. It was noted that the minimum tow-related information that should be collected should include:

i. target species (indicated before shooting the gear)
ii. date
iii. start and stop times of the tow
iv. vessel position
v. start and finish depth (of gear/bottom?)
vi. catch details (species and amounts)
vii. net opening and
viii. height above bottom.

22. It was noted that water temperature varied widely in the area and that together with the problems of calibrating trawl temperature sensors, interpretation of such data was difficult and the results unreliable and of doubtful value.

23. A further variable relating to measures of catch success was that of fishing tactics in the presence of other vessels. Vessels with crews with inferior skills often trailed better performing vessels relying on them to locate concentrations of fish. In these cases, complex gaming behaviour on the part of the skipper could result further complicating interpretation of vessel operating success. Knowing if this was happening would also be required for interpretation of logbook data.

24. One view was that logbooks should thus make provision for recording (a) if the shot was targeted, (b) non-targeted, (c) if the vessel was steaming, or (d) searching. The Australian view was that accurately interpreting such logbook data could require the presence of industry representatives knowledgeable as to what actually was happening during fishing operations. Another fishing behaviour complicating the analysis of fishing performance data occurred when vessels had to queue in order to shoot on a seamount or hill. Here congestion reduced vessel performance, and daily catch rates decline because of vessel congestion and not necessarily lack of fish abundance.

25. Participants from Japan noted that their vessels used two standard trawls, one for fishing alfonsinos, the other for fishing orange roughy and that gear trials were continuing to develop a better net design.

26. It was further noted that the bottom type in the Southwest Indian Ocean region was more difficult than that found in other "roughy" fishing areas and the current systems meant that tows on hills could miss their marks despite an unflawed setting.

27. It was noted that a standard fishing logbook would be produced for SEAFCO and at least one representative raised the issue of a standard logbook for the study area. It was agreed that any such logbooks should make provision for recording of any discards. Japan noted that they already have their national logbook system, which they would like to use. Namibia noted that their logbook design has provision for reporting much more detailed data than would probably be required.

28. It was agreed that a concise summary of the national ability to control each country's flag vessels would be of great benefit together with an account of what information vessels much provide to their flag states. For this reason, the FAO was asked to prepare a document describing national practices. In subsequent discussions, it was agreed that details of the respective national requirements in regard to reporting of data from fishing operations outside national EEZs would be made available to the FAO by the different national management authorities for appending to the main meeting report.^[3]

29. Documentation of Catch - by species, region / area / seamount / date country / gear type, etc.: Existing National Requirements. The meeting noted that many of the countries represented at the Ad Hoc meeting had legal requirements that obliged vessels sailing under their flag to provide reports on any fishing activities undertaken on high seas in accordance with national requirements. Other countries were collecting this information on an informal basis. Some national practices were as follows:

Australia: Australian vessels are not legally obliged, at present, to provide detailed information on activities on the high seas. However, logbook data are usually, but not always, voluntarily provided to the AFMA on an informal basis.

Japan: Daily operations data are provided to Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Mauritius: Operations data must be provided to Department of Fisheries.

Namibia: Data are voluntarily provided to the Directorate of Operations.^[4]

New Zealand: Since May 2001 it has been an obligatory requirement to provide such data to the Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington. Prior to May 2001 such data was provided on a voluntary basis.

South Africa: These data are provided to the Marine and Coastal Management Department on an obligatory basis.

30. Participants from the different countries were positive in their willingness to provide data under the appropriate circumstances and principles. It was noted that:

i. Japan had daily operations data for its two vessels that had been operating in the area and would provide summary data

ii. Australia had data from two fishing companies for 3 vessels including tow-by-tow data that could be provided for scientific purposes

iii. France will have access to the data for the single vessel fishing under its flag, which had been operating in that fishery

iv. Namibia had detailed operations data for its vessels

v. Mauritius has data for the two Mauritian vessels that have been operating in the fishery

vi. South Africa noted that for its vessels, high-seas permits were required to participate in the offshore fisheries and a condition of these licences was the submission of appropriate data

vii. New Zealand has data since 1999 for three major companies and has detailed data for about 80% of the past operations of New Zealand flagged vessels. However, small companies did not always keep detailed records, e.g. on a tow-by-basis.

31. In reviewing the availability of biological information it was noted that:

i. an Australian observer had participated in a trip in 1999 and collected length-weight data

ii. no detailed data was available from Japan or France

iii. size and gonad data were available from Namibia and

iv. length-weight and gonad state data were available from New Zealand.

New Zealand had also aged some otoliths and found the results to be similar to those for orange roughy from Australian and New Zealand waters.

32. Future Requirements: It was agreed that all countries should be requested to provide catch (area, species and weight) and effort (at least the number of vessels and number of tows) to the FAO who would handle the data in accordance with the agreed protocol on confidentiality.

33. Following discussions of the Meeting, a protocol for future reporting of data on a tow-by-tow basis was drafted. It was recognized that some countries collect more detailed information than that proscribed in the data collection protocol. For this reason it was agreed that (a), as long as appropriate data was being collected by national authorities, national vessels should continue to follow their statutory or regulatory requirements and (b), countries that had no formal provisions for data collection for vessels operating on the high seas should follow the data collection protocol's requirements.

34. The issue of an appropriate structure for a common database was raised. It was noted that there would be benefits if it could have a common form to increase its usefulness to the different countries. But, this would require a development protocol - and thus more organization. The view of the participants from Japan was that this was not an approach it would endorse. It was agreed that the FAO should, as a minimum proposal, draft a protocol for review by the participants and modification as necessary.

35. In relation to future work, the meeting welcomed the intention of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Namibia to establish a new position for a High Seas Fisheries biologist.^[5]

36. The issue of interpreting processed fish data was raised, in particular, what are accurate conversion factors. It was agreed that participants would bring papers documenting their national practices to a future Ad Hoc technical meeting.

37. The meeting noted with interest the material presented by the New Zealand and Australian participants showing the results of work undertaken to map the sea floor in the study area. It was agreed that this work would greatly facilitate understanding of the fish stocks structure in the study area and the planning of future research and fishery monitoring activities. The Australian participant also described the work being done in his country on habitat preference analysis and ocean data analyses in relation to predicting the locations of preferred deepwater fish habitats. However, it was noted that further work is needed to validate these models.