Appendix III - Meeting Documents

Meeting Document 01/3: Communication from Norway

Dear Mr Shotton,

Subject: Ad hoc Meeting on Management of Deepwater Fisheries Resources of the
Southwest Indian Ocean

Reference is made TO previous correspondence, in particular our facsimile of 6 December 2000 That included a table showing Norwegian catches in FAO-area 51 in 2000. For your information the table is also attached to this facsimile (./.).

No Norwegian representative will attend the forthcoming meeting in Namibia. We understand that more detailed information would be required a: the meeting in order 10 assess the situation. We have examined the logbooks from the Norwegian vessel (only one vessel) that participated in the fishery in 2000 and will give the following additional information:

a) there is an additional total quantity of tons of unspecified species;

b) the vessel has been fishing in FAO-area 51 during two periods in 2000, the first from... and the second from

c) the total catch in the first period is tons and in the second tons (the catch composition is more or less the same for the two periods);

d) the fishery has taken place in an area between the following positions: a) SE. and d)?

e) the gear used is a polyamid bottom-trawl with a mesh size of 100 mm.

Norwegian authorities presuppose that this information will be treated in a confidential manner at the meeting and afterwards.

Hvis der oppstär feil under sending, vennligst ring 55 23 80 69

If Transmission tails, please call T 47 55 23 80 69

NORWEGIAN CATCHES IN FAO-AREA 51. (Indian Ocean, Western) in 2000. Tons.

Meeting Document 01/4 Ukrainian Participation to SWIOFC

To: Mr. Geoff Rohan

AFMA, Australia, Chair of the Working Group
Email: [email protected]

To: Mr. Aubrey Harris

FAO Sub-Regional Office for Southern and East Africa Harare, Zimbabwe
Email: [email protected]

CC. Mr William Emerson N. Zealand; Mr. Horst Kleinschmidt RSA;

Mr. Kioshi Katsuyama Japan; Ms. Carmen Marti Spain

Subject: Ukrainian position on the South Indian, Ocean Fisheries Organisation (SIOFO)

Dear Sirs,

Thanks for your soon reaction to our application and doubts set out in our e-mail message of 18/01/2000. This is to confirm our interest to all developments in fisheries in this region. Believe you are aware of Ukrainian role in that fisheries, it mainly was presented at Hobart meeting (October 28, 2000), and accompanied with appropriate statistics. Let me remind once again that Ukrainian fishermen are actually discoverers of main stocks of South Indian ocean ridges and pioneers in its researches. Moreover for since 80-th we have set an example in its rational utilisation, providing at the same time all interested Parties, FAO included, with appropriate scientific information and statistics. That is why we can not agree with some principle provisions the FAO Draft Agreement which, in addition, really makes future Ukrainian fishing activities in that region problematic (Ukraine is not a FAO-member) and leads to losses of advantages and privileges which usually has the Party like ours in such cases in framework of the regional fisheries organisations.

We consider this work should certainly be based on appropriate provisions of the UNCLOS, Articles 63. 64 in particular, and especially on the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UN FSA) Article 8, with a proper consideration of experience in establishment and functioning of inter-governmental regional fisheries management organisations, as well as of provisions of appropriate Conventions, CCAMLR, IOTC and SEAFO Draft first of all. Also believe the New Zealandian Elements of a Draft Convention are very suitable for further discussion.

Please note we are trying to arrange our participation in Reunion Meeting although have very small confidence in reality of these intentions. So this is to forward (attached) Proposals of Ukraine regarding Convention on South Indian Ocean Fisheries. Kindly make these notes available to this meeting participants.

Awaiting your comments. Please note our fax no. 38-044 2166883 besides email may be used for further communications as well.

Sincerely yours
Dr. V. Herasymchuk
Head of the Division for the International Fishing Policy
State Department for Fisheries of Ukraine

Proposals of Ukraine regarding Convention on South Indian Ocean Fisheries

1) This document should definitely be titled as the Convention and structured accordingly.

2) First Articles of the Convention (regarding its objectives, establishment and structure of the Organisation, definitions, main principles, decision-making etc.) are to be based upon the existing conventions duly accommodated to the SIOFC purposes, with appropriate consideration of the New Zealandian Elements of a Draft Convention.

3) Area of competence, or Scope of Convention (Article 2 of the FAO Draft) is one of the most polysemantic and is subject to additional study and discussion. If our main concern is the stocks of the underwater mountain ridges of the Indian Ocean, we consider this area should comprise all waters of the Ocean beyond waters already under regulation of the other Conventions of the region (CCAMLR, APFIC, BOBC, Draft SEAFO etc). These waters should consist of i) Regulatory area and ii) waters under jurisdiction of the coastal states. The latter may be touched and considered by the Organisation upon request of these states only. Although, taking into account the non-survivability of former IOFC and the fact that ridges of the Northern part of the Ocean are not so widespread and are very poor in respect of commercial fish stocks, we would suggest Conventional area to cover all waters of the Indian ocean located in the Southern Hemisphere (or southward from the parallel 5 deg. South) beyond waters already under regulation of the other Conventions of the region (CCAMLR, APFIC, BOBC, Draft SEAFO etc). Probably some deviation(s) of northern boundary should take place to cover all parts of the ridges mentioned. The other matter is connected with species. We suggest the Convention should embrace all species out of regulation of the IOTC (the only fisheries organisation having mutual area of regulation -?)

4) Of course Ukraine can not be satisfied by Article III of the FAO Draft (Membership) which we consider contradicts some provisions of UNCLOS and UNFSA (mentioned in our covering letter) and puts some obstacles to non-FAO nations in utilisation of living resources of the area. At the same time we intend neither underestimate the FAO role in the World Fisheries no refuse co-operation with this Organisation. Hence suppose the CCAMLR Article 7 could be taken as a sample; it also includes possibility of participation for any regional economic integration organisation. We believe FAO will benefit much more being the Party of the Organisation

In addition we consider very important to have opportunity to be a Contracting Party to the Convention but not member of its working bodies, probably part of them, whilst our fishing activity is minimal (with all consequences connected with contributions to budget, right of vote, submitting objections etc.) and consequently to join all the Convention working bodies in case of spread of these activities This provision of Article 7.2.b of CCAMLR already has a due implementation in framework of CCAMLR: some 6 countries such as Canada, Peru, Namibia, Netherlands etc., are the Parties to the Convention but not members of the Commission. And these days Namibia is changing its status and to become the full-member or the Commission.

5) Decision-making Probably provision from the Draft Convention for Fisheries and Conservation of Living Resources of the Black Sea may be used as a pattern:

All decisions of the Commission shall be taken either on questions of substance or on other matters. Decisions of the Commission on the questions of substance shall be taken by consensus. Decisions on other questions shall be taken by a qualified majority of votes. The issue whether the question at hand is a question on other matters shall be decided by consensus.

Of cause, use of the best scientific advice available and precautionary approach will be needed, as well as the objection procedure. A lot of similar organisations adhere the same or close approach.

6) Aiming optimisation (read minimisation) of expenses, this is to support New Zealandian proposal to study the Antarctic Treaty experience in rotation of Secretariat functions, following the rotation of Chairman (President). (Would be pleased to hear more attractive suggestion of any Contracting Party). Because of the same reason we consider it should be only one (English) official language of the Convention. Compliance, surveillance and enforcement efforts probably would be concentrated in satellite tracking (VMS), hail reports and port inspections; control for landings \ transhipments and prohibition to discharge the IUU products might be the main remedy for that. Nevertheless the Scientific Committee (Council) should have maximum attention and appropriate funds, followed by necessity to provide international scientific observer on board each fishing vessel.

7). Scheme of distribution of annual contribution to the budget: 30 % - equal, 70 % - pro rata catches in the Conventional area.

8) Some ideas about Preamble. Basing upon the FAO Draft, we suggest:

a) to add new Paragraphs 1 and 2:

Taking into account the state of stocks of the SW Indian ocean waters as well as the present situation in their utilisation;

Noting the wishes of the States whose nationals have been habitually fishing in the area to co-ordinate their fishing activity;

b) To unite Paragraphs 5 and 6 and to move this new Paragraph to the end of Preamble and set them forth in the following view:

HAVING A MUTUAL INTEREST in the development and proper utilisation of the fisheries resources in the Conventional waters, as defined in the Article II hereinafter, and desiring to further attainment of their objectives through international co-operation which would be furthered by the establishment of non-governmental Organisation for the Long-Term Conservation and Sustainable use of Fishery Resources in the SW Indian Ocean which would best serve the purposes mentioned above

c) Agree with remaining paragraphs of the Preamble, probably except Paragraph 4 (RECOGNIZING FURTHER ...) since the coastal communities of South East Africa can hardly develop a distant and deep-water fishing which, as we understand, makes the main concern and interest of the Contracting parties.

Meeting Document 01/5: Ukrainian Position on the South Indian Ocean Fisheries Organisation (SIOFO)

Dear Dr. Shotton,

Many thanks for your invitation to participate in the Ad Hoc Meeting on Management of Deepwater Fisheries Resources of the Southwest Indian Ocean. Unfortunately it reached us too late, so we were in a position neither to arrange Ukrainian representatives´ direct participation in that meeting nor to prepare some report on Ukrainian statistics on research and fishing activities in that area as well as some assessment of state of stocks in its waters. As you are very likely aware, in particular from our report to the Hobart meeting (Oct.2000) and from our e-mail letters to the Reunion meeting (Jan. 27-th, 2001 - please find attached), there were just Ukrainian fishermen who discovered the main stocks of South Indian ocean ridges and since 70-th have set an example in the rational utilisation of these stocks basing on its regular researches, assessments and appropriate management measures, and providing at the same time all interested Parties, FAO included, with an appropriate scientific information and statistics. Hence we were much surprised to learn about FAO opinion expressed by Mr. Benedict Satia at the Reunion meeting - he classified these fishing activity in the Area as a "Newly developed deep-water fisheries". We consider it just as an attempt to cut out the many-years Ukrainian fisheries and researches mentioned, in that area. To a certain extent we can agree that last years these fishing operations have spread to more depths and on some new species, although this circumstance should not deny the Ukrainian role in the region. Since 1972, more than 70 Ukrainian research, search and exploratory fishing expeditions have been carried out in that area, manned with appropriate scientific crews onboard. Overwhelming majority of Ukrainian vessels engaged in fishing in that area during that time have had the scientific observes (or even group of those) onboard. All main results (set positions, catches, catch species compositions, biological analysis and size frequencies of principal species, environmental data, by-catch levels.) have been collected at the main Southern Scientific and Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (YUGNIRO, Kerch, Ukraine). Regret considerable part of those materials have not been transferred to the machine readable format, so they have not been duly considered and analysed. We would be glad to any technical and financial assistance of FAO or any other interested party to complete compilation of the appropriate database and to present main conclusions and results to the International Community. Regret also lack of funds makes Ukrainians´ direct and active participation in the present work on the subject matter, very difficult. Trying to do all our best in that conditions, in particular utilising the Internet possibilities, seeking co-operation in that field.

Some thought of ours in respect of Draft of Convention (Agreement-?) and FAO role in its elaboration, as well as FAO place in the field of conservation and sustainable use of living resources of the World Ocean in whole. In no circumstances we have intention to diminish the last. Taking into account the vast area this Convention expected to cover and that the coastal states mainly relate to developing ones, the FAO umbrella probably may become the only solution to complete the elaboration of the Convention and, what is the most important, to ensure due functioning of the Commission and its working bodies. And at the same time we can neither understand nor accept some provisions FAO strenuously inserts and keeps in this Draft. We mainly stated them in our previous letters mentioned. First of all this is the Membership (Article III). Believe attempt to restrict membership to non-FAO country is a fault of FAO, because in this case FAO, instead of assistance to food security in the whole World, put obstacles to this country in its participation to that new International Regional Fisheries Organisation as well as to its utilisation of such resources which were discovered, researched and efficiently used by this state on the scientific basis. Besides the appropriate provisions of the UNCLOS and UN FSA mentioned in our letter of 27 Jan.2001, which were ignored by promoters of this Convention, this is to quote another article of UNCLOS related to that matter directly, namely Article 119 -3: "States concerned (in conservation of the living resources of the open sea) shall ensure that conservation measures and their implementation do not discriminate in any form or in fact against the fishermen of any State". And, finally, we consider such approach to membership does not contribute to the latter International Community actions against IUU fishing.

Secondly, all arguments stated in the Reunion Draft about attention to requirements of developing states, new Article VI included, hardly comply with suggestion (paragraph 22 of the Draft) on equal contributions to budget. Our proposal of this January was 30 % - equal, 70 % - pro rata catches in the Conventional area. As it was stated in our letter above, " the coastal communities of South East Africa can hardly develop a distant and deep-water fishing which, as we understand, makes the main concern and interest of the Contracting parties". We have some doubts in the necessity of that Article VI mentioned, it likely simply duplicate some common FAO obligations before the developing countries. Returning to the budget matter, we consider it should be fare to place the main budget burden just on the developed deep-sea fishing nations. We are dreaming to be also enrolled, but nowadays our concern is to have the commensurable expenses which should enable Ukraine to become a full-right member-state of the Commission. Our support to New Zealandian proposal about rotation of Secretariat functions instead of expensive permanent working body, as well as suggestion to have only one official language (stated in our letter of 21 Jan., attached) - are devoted to the same purpose

Hence our main proposals to the Reunion Draft of Agreement are as follows:

1. Article III Para 1-2 - to amend provisions connected with obligation for a Member of the Commission to be a FAO Member; to supplement Para III.a.ii by wording " or who demonstrate the real interest to that fishing".

2. To delete references to the FAO Constitution, such as that mentioned in Art. I.

3. To minimise the expenses of participation in Commission and other working bodies of Convention (which really may assist developing countries of the Area as well as some other interested states such as Ukraine, to take part in mutual work and have the appropriate benefit) by way of adoption:

(a) distribution of annual contribution to the budget as follows: 30 % - equal, 70 % - pro rata catches in the Conventional area (or even 20 \ 80 %),

(b) rotation of Secretariat functions,

(c) use one official language only;

4. To specify the scope of Convention - are such species as tuna, sedentary, birds - embraced? (probably something like that has been done before, in respect of tuna in particular, hasn't that?).

And such small corrections: Article I, paragraph 3 line 1 wording "parallel of 30 deg. East" obviously should be red as "parallel of 30 deg. South" or probably "meridian of 30 deg. East"? - they cross besides.

At last we would emphasise once again our readiness to co-operation aiming to long-term conservation and sustainable utilisation of the marine living resources on the basis of UN CLOS, UN FSA and taking into consideration the other recognised International Agreements and Instruments.

With best wishes
For the Ukrainian State Department for Fisheries, Kyiv
Volodymir Herasymchook, Valentin Litvinov

For YUGNIRO Institute, Kerch
Evgeny Romanov

C.c. Mr. Benedict Satia, [email protected]
Mr. Aubrey Harris, [email protected]
Mr. Burge Oelofsen, [email protected]
Mr. Benedict Satia, [email protected]
Mr. David Doulman, [email protected]
Mr. Geoff Rohan, [email protected]

Meeting Document 01/6 Rev. 1: Treatment of Fisheries Data Made Available to the Ad Hoc Meeting on Management of Deepwater Fisheries of the Southern Indian Ocean

POLICY

Confidentiality of Fisheries Operations Data made available to the Ad Hoc Technical Meeting for Management of Deepwater Fisheries of the Southern Indian Ocean

1. Principles

i. Handling of fisheries data at the meeting will be in such a way that it is not possible to identify the activities of any single fishing boat or fishing company in any report or document.

ii. Data brought to the meeting will not necessarily be made available for general perusal; rather the data will only be available for groups undertaking specific analyses and for specific reasons.

iii. With recognition of items (i) and (ii). ot os recognized that good future management will require access to all existing data; participants should be encouraged to contribute by not witholding data unecessarily.

2. Data Handling Practices

i. People attending the meeting will not be permitted to copy any data (log books, etc.) provided by another participant without his permission.

ii. Detailed data sheets will not be removed from working rooms; at they end of sessions, data sheets will be returned to those providing them.

iii. Where there are no issue of confidentiality, or where owners waive their 'rights' of confidentiality, FAO will undertake archive data sheets, in conformity with 1(i).

3. Reporting Practices

i. Any data presented in any report from the meeting will be aggregated in accordance with the requirements of those who provided the data so that the activities of any single vessel or enterprise cannot be identified.

Meeting Document 01/7: Rules for Access and Use of CCAMLR Data

The following Rules for Access and Use of CCAMLR Data were adopted by the Eleventh Meeting of the Commission (CCAMLR-XI, paragraph 4.35^[6]):

(a) All data submitted to the CCAMLR Data Centre should be freely available to Members for analysis and preparation of papers for use within the Commission, the Scientific Committee and their subsidiary bodies.

(b) The originators/owners of the data should retain control over any use of their unpublished data outside of CCAMLR.

(c) Requests to the Secretariat by individual scientists of a Member for access to data in the CCAMLR Data Centre will only be considered if the request has been approved in writing by the Representative to the Scientific Committee (or his nominated deputy) of that Member. The Representative is responsible for informing the individual scientist requesting the data, of the rules governing access to CCAMLR data and for obtaining the requester's agreement to comply with these rules.

(d) When Members request access to data for the purpose of undertaking analyses or preparing papers to be considered by future meetings of CCAMLR bodies, they should indicate the reason for the request and the nature of envisaged data analysis. The Secretariat should supply the data and inform the originators/owners of the data of this action, together with the details of the original request. When data are requested for purposes other than consideration by future meetings of CCAMLR bodies, the Secretariat will, in response to a detailed request, supply the data only after permission has been given by the originators/ owners of the data.

(e) Data contained in papers prepared for meetings of the Commission, the Scientific Committee, and their subsidiary bodies should not be cited or used in the preparation of papers to be published outside of CCAMLR without the permission of the originators/owners of the data. Furthermore, because inclusion of papers in the Selected Scientific Papers series or any other of the Commission's or Scientific Committee's publications, constitutes formal publication, written permission to publish papers prepared for meetings of the Commission, Scientific Committee and Working Groups should be obtained from the originators/owners of the data and authors of papers.

(f) The following statements should be placed on the cover page of all unpublished working papers and background documents tabled:

This paper is presented for consideration by CCAMLR and may contain unpublished data, analyses, and/or conclusions subject to change. Data contained in this paper should not be cited or used for purposes other than the work of the CCAMLR Commission, Scientific Committee, or their subsidiary bodies without the permission of the originators/owners of the data.

Meeting Document 01/8: Communication from Mauritius

Please refer to your e-mail of 2 May 2001 on the above subject.

The invitation to attend the meeting has been transmitted to the operator of the Mauritian flagged vessels fishing for deepwater fishes in the Southern Indian Ocean and one of his representative could attend the meeting.

I am sending you the following information on Mauritius and the Deepwater Fisheries Resources in the Southern Indian Ocean for tabling at the meeting.

From September to December 1999 eight calls by trawlers were noted and 2529 tonnes of demersals fish were transhipped in Mauritius. From January to december 2000 there were 49 calls by 19 trawlers and 13,764 tonnes were transhipped in Port Louis, Mauritius. From January to April 2001 eleven (11) trawlers made 14 calls and transhipped 2,059 tonnes.

Two Mauritian registered trawlers Bel Ocean I and II unloaded 1,113.7 tonnes of demersal fish during 2000-2001.

It would be appreciated if you could kindly send us a report on the meeting.

With kind regards.

(M. Munbodh)

Meeting Document 01/9: CCAMLR Catch Documentation Scheme

The Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp. (as contained in Conservation Measure 170/XIX) became binding upon all CCAMLR Members on 7 May 2000. The Scheme is designed to track the landings and trade flows of Patagonian toothfish caught in the Convention Area and, where possible, adjacent waters. This will enable the Commission to identify the origin of toothfish entering the markets of all Parties to the Scheme, and help determine whether toothfish taken in the Convention Area were caught in a manner consistent with CCAMLR's conservation Measures. The following documents describe the Catch Documentation Scheme, its implementation and operation:

• Conservation Measure 170/XIX;
• Annex 170/A, Catch Document form, Re-export Document form;
• Explanatory memorandum;
• Resolution 13/XIX;
• Resolution 14/XIX;
• Resolution 15/XIX; and
• Policy to enhance cooperation with non-Contracting Parties.

Information on the operation of the Catch Documentation Scheme (special password required, access is given only to CDS Contact Officers nominated by Parties to CDS).

CONSERVATION MEASURE 170/XIX

Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp.

The Commission:

• Concerned that illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing for Dissostichus spp. in the Convention Area threatens serious depletion of populations of Dissostichus spp.,
• Aware that IUU fishing involves significant by-catch of some Antarctic species, including endangered albatross,
• Noting that IUU fishing is inconsistent with the objective of the Convention and undermines the effectiveness of CCAMLR conservation measures,
• Underlining the responsibilities of Flag States to ensure that their vessels conduct their fishing activities in a responsible manner,
• Mindful of the rights and obligations of Port States to promote the effectiveness of regional fishery conservation measures,
• Aware that IUU fishing reflects the high value of, and resulting expansion in markets for and international trade in, Dissostichus spp.,
• Recalling that Contracting Parties have agreed to introduce classification codes for Dissostichus spp. at a national level,
• Recognising that the implementation of a Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp. will provide the Commission with essential information necessary to provide the precautionary management objectives of the Convention,
• Committed to take steps, consistent with international law, to identify the origins of Dissostichus spp. entering the markets of Contracting Parties and to determine whether Dissostichus spp. harvested in the Convention Area that is imported into their territories was caught in a manner consistent with CCAMLR conservation measures.
• Wishing to reinforce the conservation measures already adopted by the Commission with respect to Dissostichus spp.,
• Inviting non-Contracting Parties whose vessels fish for Dissostichus spp. to participate in the Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp., hereby adopts the following conservation measure in accordance with Article IX of the Convention:

1. Each Contracting Party shall take steps to identify the origin of Dissostichus spp. imported into or exported from its territories and to determine whether Dissostichus spp. harvested in the Convention Area that is imported into or exported from its territories was caught in a manner consistent with CCAMLR conservation measures.

2. Each Contracting Party shall require that each master or authorised representative of its flag vessels authorised to engage in harvesting of Dissostichus eleginoides and/or Dissostichus mawsoni complete a Dissostichus catch document for the catch landed or transhipped on each occasion that it lands or tranships Dissostichus spp.

3. Each Contracting Party shall require that each landing of Dissostichus spp. at its ports and each transhipment of Dissostichus spp. to its vessels is accompanied by a completed Dissostichus catch document.

4. Each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with their laws and regulations, require that their flag vessels which intend to harvest Dissostichus spp., including on the high seas outside the Convention Area, are provided with specific authorisation to do so. Each Contracting Party shall provide Dissostichus catch document forms to each of its flag vessels authorised to harvest Dissostichus spp. and only to those vessels.

5. A non-Contracting Party seeking to cooperate with CCAMLR by participating in this Scheme may issue Dissostichus catch document forms to any of its flag vessels that intend to harvest Dissostichus spp.

6. The Dissostichus catch document shall include the following information:

(i) the name, address, telephones and faxes numbers of the issuing authority;

(ii) the name, home port, national registry number, and call sign of the vessel and, if issued, its IMO/Lloyd's registration number;

(iii) the reference number of the licence or permit, whichever is applicable, that is issued to the vessel;

(iv) the weight of each Dissostichus species landed or transhipped by product type, and

(a) by CCAMLR statistical sub area or division if caught in the Convention Area; and/or

(b) by FAO statistical area, sub area or division if caught outside the Convention Area;

(v) the dates within which the catch was taken;

(vi) the date and the port at which the catch was landed or the date and the vessel, its flag and national registry number, to which the catch was transhipped; and

(vii) the name, address, telephone and fax numbers of the recipient(s) of the catch and the amount of each species and product type received.

7. Procedures for completing Dissostichus catch documents in respect of vessels are set forth in paragraphs A1 to A10 of Annex 170/A to this measure. The standard catch document is attached to the annex.

8. Each Contracting Party shall require that each shipment of Dissostichus spp. imported into its territory be accompanied by the export-validated Dissostichus catch document(s) and, where appropriate, validated re-export document(s) that account for all the Dissostichus spp. contained in the shipment.

9. An export-validated Dissostichus catch document issued in respect of a vessel is one that:

(i) includes all relevant information and signatures provided in accordance with paragraphs A1 to A11 of Annex 170/A to this measure; and

(ii) includes a signed and stamped certification by a responsible official of the exporting State of the accuracy of the information contained in the document.

10. Each Contracting Party shall ensure that its customs authorities or other appropriate officials request and examine the import documentation of each shipment of Dissostichus spp. imported into its territory to verify that it includes the export-validated Dissostichus catch document(s) and, where appropriate, validated re-export document(s) that account for all the Dissostichus spp. contained in the shipment. These officials may also examine the content of any shipment to verify the information contained in the catch document or documents.

11. If, as a result of an examination referred to in paragraph 10 above, a question arises regarding the information contained in a Dissostichus catch document or a re-export document the exporting State whose national authority validated the document(s) and, as appropriate, the Flag State whose vessel completed the document are called on to cooperate with the importing State with a view to resolving such question.

12. Each Contracting Party shall promptly provide by the most rapid electronic means copies to the CCAMLR Secretariat of all export-validated Dissostichus catch documents and, where relevant, validated re-export documents that it issued from and received into its territory and shall report annually to the Secretariat data, drawn from such documents, on the origin and amount of Dissostichus spp. exported from and imported into its territory.

13. Each Contracting Party, and any non-Contracting Party that issues Dissostichus catch documents in respect of its flag vessels in accordance with paragraph 5, shall inform the CCAMLR Secretariat of the national authority or authorities (including names, addresses, phone and fax numbers and email addresses) responsible for issuing and validating Dissostichus catch documents.

14. Notwithstanding the above, any Contracting Party may require additional verification of catch documents, including, inter alia, the use of VMS, in respect of catches by its flag vessels outside the Convention Area, when landed at and exported from its territory.

Explanatory memorandum on the introduction of the catch documentation scheme (CDS) for toothfish (Dissostichus spp.)

1. Background

The scale of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing for toothfish (Dissostichus spp.) in the Southern Oceans is the most significant problem faced by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). During 1996-1999 the amounts of toothfish taken by IUU fishing have been of the order of 90 000t, more than twice the level of catches taken in CCAMLR regulated fisheries. This rate of extraction is unsustainable and has led to a significant depletion of toothfish stocks in some areas. In addition, the mortality of seabirds, principally albatross and petrel species, taken as a by-catch of the longline fisheries is also unsustainable and has resulted in declines in the populations of these species.

To address this problem a number of conservation measures have been introduced by CCAMLR over recent years relating to the toothfish fisheries in order to combat the problem of IUU fishing on the toothfish stocks. These measures in particular include:

• Flag State licensing requirement for all vessels in the fisheries
• conservation measures fixing fishing levels for all toothfish fisheries in the Convention's waters
• mandatory vessel monitoring systems (VMS)
• port inspections of landings and transhipments and
• marking of vessels and fishing gear.

In addition there has been an intensification of control in the Convention Area. Consequently, the number of inspections followed by sanctions has also increased, reaching a peak in 1998.

2. Terminology

For the purposes of consistent implementation of CDS and completion of its associated forms the following descriptions are provided (notwithstanding normal trade terminology):

Recipient: The person(s) who assumes(s) responsibility for the catch in its harvested or processed form upon landing or transhipment, i.e. vessel owner; buyer(s); master of the vessel to which the catch is transhipped.

Landing: The initial transfer of catch in its harvested or processed form from a vessel to dockside or to another vessel in a port, where the catch has been recorded by the port state or flag state as landed.

Transhipment: Transferring catch in its harvested or processed form from one vessel to another vessel either at sea or in port without the catch having been recorded by the port state or flag state as landed.

Export: The movement in trade of a catch in its harvested or processed form from the original country, free trade zone, or regional economic integration organisation of landing.

Import: The movement in trade of a catch in its harvested or processed form other than as a landing into a country, free trade zone or regional economic integration organisation.

3. Catch Documentation Scheme

As a further means to address this problem which threatens the conservation of the toothfish stocks, the CCAMLR Commission adopted at its 18^th Meeting a conservation measure (170/XVIII) on the introduction of a Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp. The purpose for the introduction of this Scheme is:

(i) to monitor the international trade in toothfish

(ii) to identify the origins of toothfish imported into or exported from the territories of Contracting Parties

(iii) to determine whether toothfish imported into or exported from the territories of Contracting Parties, if caught in the Convention Area, was caught in a manner consistent with CCAMLR conservation measures and

(iv) to gather catch data for the scientific evaluation of the stocks.

To meet this purpose, all landings, transhipments and importation of toothfish into the territories of Contracting Parties will require to be accompanied by a completed catch document. This will specify a range of information relating to the volume and location of catch, and the name and Flag State of the vessel. This Catch Documentation Scheme became operative on 7 May 2000 and will be open to all Flag States irrespective of whether they are Members of CCAMLR or not. The Scheme applies to all catches of Dissostichus spp. regardless of whether they were taken as by-catch or as a result of targeted fishing.

Non-Contracting Parties to CCAMLR are invited to participate in the Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp. To do so they will need to ensure that their vessels are provided with the standard Dissostichus catch documents for presentation to Contracting Party authorities as required.

4. Landing And Transhipment Procedures

4.1 Area

Toothfish are caught both inside and outside the CCAMLR Convention Area. Each Contracting Party shall require that each shipment of Dissostichus spp. imported into its territory be accompanied by the export-validated Dissostichus catch document(s) and, where appropriate, validated re-export documents that account for all the Dissostichus spp. contained in the shipment.

4.2 Procedures

The document required will have the form of the attached catch document. Each Flag State shall provide the standard Dissostichus catch document forms to each of its flag vessels authorised to harvest Dissostichus spp. and only to those vessels. On receipt of a request from a fishing vessel the Flag State will determine whether the catches that are intended for landing or transhipping are consistent with its authorisation to fish and if so will issue the vessel with a unique Flag State confirmation number.

The document will need to be countersigned by a Port State official when the catch is landed. This signature will confirm that the catches landed agree with the details on the document. The person who receives the catch must also countersign the document and state on the document the amount of the landed catch that has been received. In the case that the catch is divided on landing, copies of the catch document must be supplied by the master and completed by each receiver of a part of the landing.

In the case of transhipment, the master of a receiving vessel will sign the catch document presented by the fishing vessel master. When catches are landed from a vessel that has received a transhipment of toothfish the quantity of the toothfish to be landed must be confirmed by the countersignature of a Port State official on each catch document that was received from fishing vessels by the master of the receiving vessel. In all other respects the landing is treated similarly to a landing direct to port. Originals of all copies of the document must then be returned to the Flag State of the fishing vessel that caught the fish, which will forward a copy to the CCAMLR Secretariat. The copies of the document that were provided to each receiver must remain with the catch throughout all subsequent transactions, including export and import.

For catches taken in CCAMLR waters, the Commission is seeking to determine whether catches have been taken in a manner consistent with CCAMLR conservation measures including those in Attachment A. Full details of the CCAMLR conservation measures currently in force can be obtained from the CCAMLR Secretariat.

5. Export And Import Procedures

In the event that a part of the catch is exported from the country of landing, the exporter must complete the export and intended import details on the Dissostichus catch documents that account for all toothfish contained in the shipment. The exporter must also obtain validation of the catch documents by the relevant official of the exporting state. If a shipment is re-exported, similar validation must be obtained from a relevant official of the exporting states and copies of the original catch documents attached.

On importation, the relevant authorities may, if appropriate, contact the Flag State of the vessel to verify the authenticity of the content of the Catch Document. In the event that Contracting Parties importation authorities receive a shipment of toothfish that is NOT accompanied by a valid catch document, the shipment will be detained. In the event that checks carried out by the importation authorities with the Flag State fail to verify the legitimacy of a catch document, importation of the shipment will not be authorised.

6. Information

Should Flag States or fishing companies require further information or clarification on the operation of the Catch Documentation Scheme, they may contact the CCAMLR Secretariat at:

CCAMLR
PO Box 213
North Hobart 7002, Tasmania Australia
Telephone: 61 3 6231 0366 Facsimile: 61 3 6234 9965 Email: [email protected]

ATTACHMENT A

Conservation measures and other regulations, Relevant to toothfish fisheries in the convention area

LICENSING (CONSERVATION MEASURE 119/XVII, RESOLUTION 13/XIX)

The specific provisions of Conservation Measure 119/XVII and Article IV(c) of the System of Inspection must be complied with. Vessels must be licensed by their Flag States to fish in CCAMLR waters, and details of the licence (name of vessel, time period(s) of fishing, area(s) of fishing, species targeted and gear used) must be sent to the CCAMLR Secretariat within seven (7) days of the issue of the licence. Resolution 13/XIX urges all Contracting Parties, consistent with their domestic legislation, to avoid flagging a non-Contracting Party vessel or licensing such a vessel to fish in waters under their fisheries jurisdiction, if that particular vessel has a history of engagement in IUU fishing in the Convention Area.

Compliance with conservation measures

The provisions of all relevant conservation measures in relation to catch limits, fishing seasons, areas, and restriction of effort to named Parties must be complied with.

Data reporting

All toothfish fisheries require in-season catch reporting for the purposes of monitoring catch, as well as reporting of all catch, effort and biological data to CCAMLR (Conservation Measures 51/XIX, 121/XIX and 122/XIX), which must be complied with.

Scientific observation and inspection procedures

The relevant provisions of the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific observation and the System of Inspection must be adhered to. In particular all vessels engaged in toothfish fisheries must carry an international scientific observer designated in accordance with the Scheme of Observation. Vessels fishing in the Convention's waters will be subject to inspection by inspectors designated under the System of Inspection.

Vessel monitoring and marking (Conservation Measures 148/XVII, and 146/XVII and Resolution 16/XIX)

All vessels and fishing gear must be marked according to internationally accepted standards and vessels should have on board an operational VMS reporting to the Flag State. In accordance with Resolution 16/XIX it was agreed that, on a voluntary basis, subject to their laws and regulations, Flag States participating in the Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp. should ensure that their flag vessels authorised to fish for or tranship Dissostichus spp. on the high seas maintain an operational VMS, as defined in Conservation Measure 148/XVII, throughout the whole of the calendar year.

Mitigating measures

Measures for the mitigation of incidental mortality of birds in longline fisheries must be complied with (Conservation Measures 29/XIX). These include the deployment of bird-scaring devices, appropriate line-weighting regimes, prohibition on the use of plastic packaging bands on board vessels and the use of frozen bait, the requirement for night-time setting of lines, and the prohibition on the discharge of offal during hauling. General by-catch provisions associated with toothfish fisheries must be complied with.

Use of ports not implementing the Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp. (Resolution 15/XIX)

In accordance with Resolution 15/XIX it was agreed that Contracting Parties be urged:

1. Where they are unable to provide an authorised Flag State official(s) to monitor a landing for the purposes of validating Dissostichus Catch Documents, to discourage their flag vessels authorised to fish for Dissostichus spp. from using ports of Acceding States and non-Contracting Parties which are not implementing the Catch Document Scheme for Dissostichus spp.

2. To attach to the authorisation to fish a list of all Acceding States and non-Contracting Parties that are implementing the Catch Documentation Scheme.

Other measures

Any proposed development of new fishing areas must conform to the conservation measures dealing with new and exploratory fisheries. These include the requirement for research and data collection during the exploratory phase of a fishery (Conservation Measures 31/X and 65/XII). Vessels will be subject to inspection by Port States on landing or transhipping catches (Conservation Measures 118/XVII and 147/XIX).

The above is only a synopsis of the relevant measures. Those intending to be engaged in the Catch Documentation Scheme are advised to consult the actual texts of the measures to ensure compliance with their provisions.

POLICY TO ENHANCE COOPERATION BETWEEN CCAMLR AND NON CONTRACTING PARTIES

The Commission, in order to:

• ensure the effectiveness of CCAMLR conservation measures
• enhance cooperation with non-Contracting Parties, including those implicated in fishing which undermines the effectiveness of those measures (hereafter referred to as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) fishing) and
• eliminate IUU fishing, including that by non-Contracting Parties, hereby adopts the following policy:

I. The Executive Secretary is requested to develop a list of non-Contracting Parties implicated in IUU fishing and or trade either after the adoption of this policy or during the three years prior, which has undermined the effectiveness of CCAMLR conservation measures.

II. The Chairman of the Commission shall write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of each non-Contracting Party included in the above-mentioned list explaining how IUU fishing undermines the effectiveness of CCAMLR conservation measures. The letter, as appropriate, will:

(a) invite and encourage non-Contracting Parties to attend as observers at meetings of the Commission in order to improve their understanding of the work of the Commission and the effects of IUU fishing;

(b) encourage non-Contracting Parties to accede to the Convention;

(c) inform non-Contracting Parties of the development and implementation of the CCAMLR Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp. and provide them with a copy of the conservation measure and the explanatory memorandum;

(d) encourage non-Contracting Parties to participate in the CCAMLR Catch Documentation Scheme and draw their attention to the consequences for them of not participating;

(e) request non-Contracting Parties to prevent their flag vessels from fishing in the Convention Area in a manner which undermines the effectiveness of measures adopted by CCAMLR to ensure conservation and sustainably managed fisheries;

(f) if their flag vessels are involved in IUU fishing, request non-Contracting Parties to provide information to the CCAMLR Secretariat on their vessels' activities, including catch and effort data;

(g) seek the assistance of non-Contracting Parties in investigating the activities of their flag vessels suspected of being involved in IUU fishing, including inspecting such vessels when they next reach port;

(h) request non-Contracting Parties to report to the CCAMLR Secretariat on landings and transhipments in their ports in accordance with the format specified in Attachment A; and

(i) request non-Contracting Parties to deny landing or transhipments in their ports for fish harvested in CCAMLR waters not taken in compliance with CCAMLR conservation measures and requirements under the Convention.

III. Parties shall individually and collectively take all appropriate efforts to implement or assist in the implementation of this policy; such efforts may include taking concerted action on joint demarches on non-Contracting Parties to complement correspondence from the Chairman.

IV. he Commission will annually review the effectiveness of the implementation of this policy.

V. The Executive Secretary will regularly inform non-Contracting Parties concerned of new conservation measures adopted by CCAMLR.

ATTACHMENT B

Submission of information by non-contracting parties on landings and transhipments of toothfish (Dissostichus spp.) in their ports

To the extent possible the required information should be submitted in the following format:

(i) whether the vessel is a fishing or cargo vessel; if it is a fishing vessel, what type of vessel (trawler/longliner)

(ii) the name, international call sign and registration number of the vessel

(iii) the flag and port of registration

(iv) whether an inspection had been conducted by the Port State and, if so, its findings, including information on the fishing licence of the vessel concerned;

(v) the species of fish involved, including the weight and form of catch, and whether it was landed or transhipped

(vi) if a fishing vessel, the location(s) in which it had operated according to the vessel's records and where it reported the catch as having been taken (CCAMLR or non CCAMLR); and

(vii) the nature of any matters requiring further investigation by the Flag State.

Meeting Document 01/10 Rev. 1: List of Meeting Documents Prepared Prior to the Meeting

Meeting Document 01/11: List of Suggested Variables for Catch-per-Unit-Effort Analyses

M. Clark

NIWA, Wellington, Zealand

For the consideration at the Ad hoc Technical Meeting on management of deepwater fisheries resources of the Southern Indian Ocean.

There are two objectives to be achieved through the collection of catch and effort data from the commercial fishery:

i. to understand and describe fishing patterns and the general distribution and catch of the target and by-catch species and

ii. to determine an index of relative abundance to monitor changes over time and estimate stock biomass.

These two objectives are linked, in that a general analysis under (i) will help guide the structure of the data and analytical detail used in (ii).

A standardised catch-per-unit-of-effort (CPUE) analysis (objective ii) attempts to isolate changes in catch rate due to stock abundance from other factors which can influence the fishing success (such as the power of the vessel, experience of the skipper, time of the year, fishing location etc). This results in a "year effect" which can be used in stock assessment. Detailed and accurate data are needed for this type of analysis.

Vessel Information will usually be constant for any voyage. A summary form should be provided recording:

Flag state [codes]
Vessel operator
Vessel identification (name, or specific code)
Vessel length (m)
Vessel tonnage (t)
Vessel power (kW)
Processing capacity (daily) [fillet/H&G can affect target size of catch per tow]
Vessel class, i.e. produces H&G, fillets, fresh, other form of processing, etc.

For each tow separately, information is needed on:

Date (day, month, and year)
Target species
Trawl type (bottom or mid-water)
Time of start of trawl (when on bottom or at target depth)
Time of finish of trawl
Speed of vessel (average during the trawl)
Depth of gear at start (m)
Depth of bottom at start (m)
Depth of gear at finish (m)
Depth of bottom at finish (m) [or average values of these during the tow]
Latitude at start (vessel) [degree, minutes and decimal minutes]
Longitude at start
Latitude at finish
Longitude at finish
Net opening (m) [mainly for midwater trawls which vary in size]

Catch Data:

Valid tow performance (yes or no). An unsuccessful tow where would be if it came fast on the bottom, did not set properly or was aborted for some reason. A successful tow would include tows where no catch was taken, but the set was operationally successful. Further information should be recorded by the captain in the comment field.

Catch of orange roughy (kg or t, must be specified) [list of codes needed]

Catch of alfonsino

Catch of boarfish etc.

Comments

The format is easily handled in a spreadsheet, where there is one row per tow, and a column for each of the variables above. The fields are left blank if there are no data. If a consistent file format is used, then the information from different countries can be readily merged for analysis.

Note that standardised CPUE analyses are widely used for demersal fish species (such as orange roughy), but their application to midwater trawl-caught species (alfonsino) will need more careful consideration, as in New Zealand they have not proven very successful.

Meeting Document 01/12: Summary of Spatial Modelling of Orange Roughy Distribution Being Carried Out by the Bureau of Rural Sciences, Australia

by

R. Tilzey

Australian Fisheries and Forestry Authority

P.O. Box E11, Kingston ACT 2604, AUSTRALIA

1. Methods

The study area was defined as the seas and oceans within a box bounded by the coordinates 0,0 and 150,55, stretching from the Southeast Atlantic Ocean to the Tasmania Sea. This area included the provisional SIOFC Agreement area and parts of the CCAMLR region. Records of Orange roughy catches from vessels operating in the Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery, the Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery and the South East Trawl Fishery were extracted from AFMA databases. Four geo-referenced records of Orange Roughy 'hot spots' from the Namibian fishery were also included. Shots (records) containing less than 1000kg of Orange Roughy were removed from the dataset. Spatially inaccurate, imprecise or error records were also removed by intersecting fishing points with a bathymetry map and deleting all records occurring at depths greater than 2000m.

Two approaches to predicting the distribution of Orange Roughy stocks were used in this study. One method was to record or estimate environmental conditions at sites where the species has been caught and then determines the geographic distribution of locations with the same or similar environmental conditions. The use of general-purpose geographic information systems to build niche distribution models for species or assemblages in this way is known as subjective empirical modeling. These techniques have more commonly been developed for predicting the distribution of terrestrial plants, but are equally applicable to marine species provided there are sufficient oceanographic, biological and catch data for the species of interest.

Statistical modeling methods were also investigated, namely generalized linear modeling and generalized additive modeling. Generalised linear modelling is an extension of ordinary linear regression. Linear regression fits linear (straight line) functions relating a response (dependent) variable to one or more predictor (independent) variables. A basic assumption of linear regression is that the relationship between the response variable and each of the predictors can be approximated by a straight line. Generalised linear modelling removes this assumption by providing a class of models that allow nonlinearity in response functions. Generalized additive modeling is an extension of generalized linear modeling that relaxes previous assumptions concerning the functional form of species' responses to environmental variables. The principal difference between GAMs and GLMs in modeling species distributions is that GAMs allow the survey data to determine the shape of response curves, instead of being constrained by specified parametric forms. In other words, fewer assumptions are made about how species respond to their environment.

Both generalized linear modeling and generalized additive modeling have been used to model species distributions, most commonly as a logistic regression with a binomial (presence versus absence) response. These techniques generate a probability that a species will be present in a given location defined in terms of its environmental attributes.

The ideal site-based data set for spatially modeling biological data contains population numbers of all species from an unbiased survey of geo-referenced sites and includes measurements of all relevant environmental variables (Belbin et al. 1995). Austin and Heyligers (1989, 1991) and Austin and Meyers (1995) argue that representative sampling of the environments and geography of a region is an appropriate strategy for most ecological purposes, including modeling habitat and species distributions. In the marine environment therefore, surveys designed using an environmental stratification, including geographic replication where possible, and with sites systematically or randomly sampling bathymetric variation, should provide the best data for modeling spatial patterns.

The available Orange Roughy data were obviously biased by the targeted, rather than representative or random, nature of fishing operations, and by the sampling capacity of the fishing gear. The maximum depth for demersal trawling shots is currently around 1500 m and therefore the relative abundance of fish stocks at greater depth is largely unknown. Spatial models of the likelihood of occurrence of the species can still be developed, but should always be interpreted cautiously, with regard to the quality of both the logbook and environmental data and the known and potential sampling bias.

2. Data Analysis

2.1 Subjective Empirical Modelling

The environmental variables initially chosen to investigate this modeling technique were bathymetry and January sea surface temperature. To generate a function of the probability of occurrence of Orange Roughy with respect to sea surface temperature, catch records were first intersected with a sea surface temperature grid and temperature data was attached to the catch records. The function was then developed using these data and expert input from fisheries scientists in the Bureau. Two functional responses of the probability of occurrence of Orange Roughy with respect to bathymetry were developed using depth data recorded with shot records and expert input from fisheries scientists in the Bureau.

Combining (summing) the temperature and bathymetry functions produced two models of the likelihood of occurrence of Orange Roughy. The intervals and associated probabilities of occurrence for each model were used to reclassify the grids of bathymetry and January sea surface temperature. Data in the reclassified grids for each model were then added together. The resulting prediction grid for each model contained likelihood of occurrence estimates that were the sum of the probabilities from the classified bathymetry and sea surface temperature grids. The prediction grids for both models were subsequently bounded with respect to latitude such that predictions north of 19º S were down-weighted to 0.

2.2 Statistical Modelling

Because there were no trawl surveys targeted at demersal stocks and representative of the geographic space and environmental gradients of the study area, there were no useful absence data with which to rigorously model the distribution of Orange Roughy using statistical techniques. The Orange Roughy catch data were effectively 'presence only' data. To circumvent this problem and allow the application of logistic regression techniques, the data was enhanced by the inclusion of approximately 1000 'pseudo absences' randomly spatially selected from the study area. GAMS were fitted with a weighting applied to each of the pseudo absence sites to emulate an equal number of presences and absences. This was achieved using the case weighting option provided by S-PLUS (Hastie 1992). Each pseudo absence site was given a weight of nP/nA where 'nP' was the number of presence records for the species and 'nA' the total number of pseudo absences. Each presence site was given a weight of one. This weighting facilitated estimation of approximate degrees of freedom, deviance and significance levels appropriate to a presence-only model. The weighting also enabled predictions to be expressed in terms of an index of relative likelihood of occurrence ranging from zero to one. Unlike predictions derived from presence versus absence modeling this is only a relative index, not an estimate of probability. Confidence limits cannot be derived for presence-only models due to the weightings and approximations applied in deriving these models.

Orange Roughy records were intersected with a bathymetry grid and sea surface temperature grids for the months January, April, July and October. The records were also intersected with a 15 mile (¼ degree) grid of salinity at 1500m depth. Generalised additive modelling techniques were used to model the distribution of the species as a logistic regression. A forward and backward stepwise procedure was used to achieve the best possible model from those predictive variables found to have a significant relationship with the Orange Roughy catch data.

No significant relationship was found between Orange Roughy catch and salinity data from the ¼ degree salinity grid. Significant relationships however, were found with bathymetry and with all of the sea surface temperature variables. Once a model had been created, the likelihood of occurrence of Orange Roughy was spatially interpolated by applying the fitted GAM to the environmental grids within the study area. A look-up table containing function values for the fitted functions was derived and exported from S-Plus. This table contained fitted function values for 100 values of each predictor, evenly spaced across the range of the predictor. The look-up table was used in conjunction with the grids for the environmental predictors featuring in the model to predict the likelihood of the species occurring in each grid cell within the study area. The resolution of the grid cells in the final output grid was 5 miles; the spatial resolution of the coarsest predictive environmental grid in the model, i.e., the sea surface temperature grid.

3. Preliminary Results of the Statistical Modeling

Records of Orange Roughy catches from AFMA datasets dated back as far as 1986, but were predominantly from the 1990s. There were 465 records in the study area (SIO) following the data checking and filtering process described in the methods section.

A model based on bathymetry and April sea surface temperature was ascertained to be the best statistical model describing the distribution of Orange Roughy. This conclusion was based on both the amount of deviance explained by the model, as well as expert evaluation of the mapped predictions of likelihood of occurrence for the species. An example of model results is shown in the following table.

4. Summary

It was intended that a smoothed contoured representation of the relative intensity of Orange Roughy catch throughout the study area be attempted by applying a spatial neighbourhood-based density analysis to geo-referenced catch data using ArcView Spatial Analyst tools. However, the paucity of data able to be collated to date rendered this analytical technique unsuitable in most parts of the SIO fishery. In south-eastern Australia, enough fishing has occurred to generate catch and effort contours from geo-referenced logbook records and possibly to spatially represent changes in catch over time. Analysis of demersal fishing data in southern and eastern Australian waters will be undertaken to further assess this methodology.

More effort is needed in gaining access to fishing data from other countries and collating or deriving better quality oceanographic data. However, it is recommended that specific study areas and study objectives first be determined. Data on water mixing, up-welling, temperatures at depth, nutrients, etc may prove very useful for predictive spatial modelling of demersal stocks, but are not readily available at an appropriate spatial resolution on global or oceanic scales.

More sophisticated data analyses may be possible as fishing records and environmental data improve. For example, fisheries data could be broken down by month or season and then modelled against oceanographic data such as sea temperature and current data that have also been derived by month or season. Also, environmental data (depth, temperature, salinity, currents, sea floor slope and aspect etc.) collected at the time of fishing will generate more accurate ecological models than data attached to fishing operations by intersecting fishing records with environmental grids.

The flexibility of subjective empirical models is appealing. A workshop of experts convened to develop a series of response curves to various predictive oceanographic variables may yield interesting and valuable results.

The primary factors limiting the utility of the models are: the natural bias of the fisheries data, the poor geographic accuracy and precision of some of the fisheries records, the low spatial resolution of much of the readily available oceanographic data, and the lack of understanding of the level and type of response of demersal stocks such as Orange Roughy to oceanographic factors.

With respect to the last constraint, there is also the potential that the level and type of response to different environmental factors may differ from year to year, and that environmental variables of greatest importance cannot be readily derived at an appropriate spatial resolution throughout the geographic area of interest..

Meeting Document 01/13: Data Forms Country Catches and Vessel Fish Catches

Country ______________________ Year _______________

Indicate in catch in tonnes (three decimal places if possible) of whole (unprocessed) weight, e.g. 123.456t would be 123,456kg of whole product

Meeting Document 01/14: Analysis of Indian Ocean Orange Roughy Otoliths

ANALYSIS OF INDIAN OCEAN ORANGE ROUGHY OTOLITHS A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NEW ZEALAND MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

May 2001

Di Tracey and Malcolm Clark

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd
P O Box 14-901, Kilbirnie, Wellington

Introduction

As involved vessels from several countries including New Zealand, Australia, Namibia, and South Africa. Total catch levels are uncertain, but believed to be around 10,000 t in 1999 and 2000. Catch rates in 2000 are reportedly much lower than those for 1999 despite a dramatic increase in the number of vessels fishing the area (Anon. 2001). Efforts have begun to develop a management strategy for this high seas fishery, and recent meetings have included representation from the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. Data have also started to be collected from the fishery to enable researchers to describe the fishery and some of the basic biological aspects of the species in the area.

In late 2000 a data request was made by NIWA to obtain a small number of otolith samples from Indian Ocean orange roughy. A skipper fishing in the area was able to collect whole otoliths and associated data on approximate location, fish size, weight, and sex.

Analysis of these orange roughy otoliths from the Indian Ocean fishery was approved by the Ministry of Fisheries in February 2001 (MOF2000/02). This report provides age estimates for a small sample of orange roughy collected in the Indian Ocean. Data are compared with mean age at onset of maturity estimates from other exploited orange roughy stocks.

Methods

Length, sex, weight, and otoliths were obtained from 24 orange roughy caught from two tows in the Indian Ocean region in November 2000. Sampling sites were in the Southwest Indian Ridge, north of Isles Crozet. Photographs were taken of orange roughy gonads for four of the fish sampled to provide some information on reproductive state.

Otolith samples were prepared (Darren Stevens, NIWA) and zone counts made (Di Tracey), following the protocol described in Tracey and Horn (1999). Of the 24 otolith samples collected, 5 were unable to be sectioned due to the otoliths being broken. For the remaining sample, counts were made from the primordium to the transition zone (TZ), the assumed age at onset of maturity, and from the TZ to the edge. For consistency of reading each sample was read twice.

Results

Biological data for 15 females and 9 males are shown in Table 1. The length range was 41 to 57 cm standard lengths and total weight ranged from 2.3 to 5.2 kg. Photographs of the gonads showed that the orange roughy reproductive state was spent/resting.

Table 1: Biological and age data for the Indian Ocean orange roughy samples,

(f = female and m = male).

Age data are presented in Table 1. Zone counts were obtained from the primordium to the TZ for 18 otoliths, from the TZ to the edge for 17 otoliths, and total ages for 18 otoliths. For sample 8 no TZ was visible, the total age was 27 years. For otolith sample 21 the section was unreadable from the TZ to the edge hence no total age is available for this fish.

The age to TZ for the largest orange roughy measured (57 cm, sample 7) was 50 years. This fish had a maximum age of 160 years, although it was difficult to obtain a precise count from the TZ to the edge for this otolith.

The sample range of ages from the primordium to the TZ was 25 to 50 years. Mean age at maturity was 32.4 years. The total age range of the sample was 27-160 years. Length at age data is graphed in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Length at age data for the Indian Ocean orange roughy sample.

Discussion

Otoliths have been collected from exploited orange roughy stocks world wide and mean age of maturity data are available for several of the major fisheries (Horn et al. 1998). Table 2 presents results of mean age at maturity for orange roughy populations off New Zealand, Tasmania, Hatton Bank (North Atlantic), and Namibia. for comparison with the results obtained here from the Indian Ocean.

The sample size of otoliths from the Indian Ocean is small. Other studies have presented age at maturity data from samples of 33 and over (Horn et al 1998). However while only 18 samples to the transition zone are available, the indication from this study is that Indian Ocean orange roughy have a relatively high age at maturity. The result is greater than that found for the New Zealand and Australian fish, (t test, p< 0.01).

This result is consistent with the correlation between age at maturity and overall size structure noted by Horn et al. (1998). It indicates that orange roughy from the Indian Ocean have lower productivity, and emphasizes that cautious exploitation and strong management is needed to ensure a sustainable fishery.

Table 2: Estimates of mean age at onset of maturity (A_mat), by area (n = sample size;

Range = range of age estimates), (from Horn et al. 1998)

References

Anon 2001: Fleet flops on sea mounts: mountain of debt for Indian Ocean. Fishing News International 40 (1). 1.

Horn, P. L., Tracey, D. M., Clark, M.R. 1998: Between-area differences in age and length at first maturity of the orange roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus. Marine Biology 132: 187-194

Tracey, D. M. and Horn, P. L. 1999: Background and review of ageing orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus, Trachichthyidae) from New Zealand and elsewhere. N.Z. Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 33: 67-86

Acknowledgements

We thank those involved in the fishery for providing the otolith samples, biological data, and specimen photographs, and Darren Stevens for preparing the otolith slides.

Meeting Document 01/15: Data Collection Forms for the Analysis of Commercial Vessel Activity

Resource Management Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Namibia

RESDAT FORM 1A - for Commercial Vessels at Sea

RESDAT FORM 2A - Length Frequency For Individual Fish

RESDAT FORM 2A - Length Frequency For Individual Fish (continue)

RESDAT FORM 2C - Biological Samples for Individual Fish

RESDAT FORM 2C - Biological Samples for Individual Fish (continue)

Meeting Document 01/16: Control of Namibian Vessels on the High Seas

Directorate of Operations

Department of Monitoring Control and Surveillance

Ministryof Fisheries & Marine Resources

P.O. Box 159, Walvis Bay, Namibia

Namibia did not have the legislation to control its vessels outside its EEZ until the 1992 Fisheries Act (Act 29 of 1991). Having realized this and the other shortcomings, a new Marine Resources Act has been written and was passed by Parliament in December 2000. As soon as the new regulations are ready the whole act will be promulgated. For the new act, provision is made for (a), all Namibian vessels to be covered by VMS, (b) all vessels to carry marine observers and (c), all vessels to be licensed to operate on the high seas.

Up until now, a "gentleman's agreement provided the basis for the vessel operators to provide the Ministry with the data they collected on their vessel's landings. In the future this will be obligatory, under the new Act's provision, as a licence condition.