Eu data collection framework (dcf), reg. 199/2008, 665/2008 and decision 2008/949/EC



Download 1.29 Mb.
Page7/11
Date16.01.2018
Size1.29 Mb.
#36820
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

TOR 2: Inventory of fisheries


EU MS Involved - Vessels active in the Area in 2009:

Germany: 3 vessels, Lithuania: 2 vessels, The Netherlands: 2 vessels, Poland: 2-3 vessels (total GT capacity of 78 610 GT). The total catches in 2009 amounted to 117 569 tonnes, with 112 391 of Jack Mackerel and 5 178 of Chub Mackerel. EU vessels, involved in the fishery in Pacific Ocean are also active in other areas (e.g. CECAF, ICES, other). The activity of the EU vessels in the South Pacific is on a seasonal basis.

The EU also has historical catches in the Area (1972-1984) - PL reported average annual catches of Jack Mackerel at the level of 100.000 tonnes a year, LT of 75.000 tonnes a year and LV of 100.000 tonnes between 1988 and 1992.

    1. TOR 3: Current and future coordination

      1. Current situation with the collection of the data in South Pacific RFMO.

        1. DCF obligations


There are no obligations for MS to undertake biological sampling in Pacific Ocean in the DCF as at the time when DCF was introduced, no SPRFMO initiative was ongoing. This is the reason why no species or separate Pacific Ocean area is currently defined in the DCF.

The implementation of the Convention of SPRFMO should request the revision of the DCF and accordingly an introduction of new fishing areas and target fisheries in the relevant Commission Decision.


        1. Requirements from the Convention with regards to the requirements of DCF


EU will have to provide the data for vessels fishing in the SPRFMO. An evaluation of the rules of the Convention and EU fleet regulation showed, that some information about EU vessels is missing in the present fleet register. The additional data required for the Convention are:

  • moulded depth;

  • beam and

  • hold capacity.

As the EU fleet is only fishing using pelagic trawls, RCM LDF analyzed the requirements of the Convention for trawl fishing activity. The data need to be collected on an un-aggregated (tow by tow) basis. The following fields of information need to be collected:




Data required by the Convention

EU data collection

Comments

(a)

Vessel flag

Yes




(b)

Vessel name

Yes




(c)

Vessel call sign

Yes




(d)

Registration number of vessel

Yes




(e)

Tow start date

Yes




(f)

Tow start time

Yes




(g)

Tow end date

Possible

There is an obligation in the logbook regulation to provide the duration of the fishing activity. These data can thus be calculated from tow start date and time and duration of fishing activity.

(h)

Tow end time

Possible

(i)

Tow start position (1/10th degree resolution)

Yes

VMS data

(j)

Tow end position (1/10th degree resolution)

Yes

VMS data

(k)

Intended target species

No

Not in the logbook reg.

(l)

Type of trawl, bottom or mid-water

(use appropriate bottom or midwater trawl codes from the standard

ISCCFG fishing

gear standards attached at Annex 10)



Yes




(m)


Type of trawl: single, double or triple (S, D or T)

Yes




(n)

Height of net opening

No

Not in the logbook reg.

(o)

Width of net opening

No

Not in the logbook reg.

(p)

Gear depth at start of fishing

No

Not in the logbook reg.

(q)

Bottom depth at start of fishing

No

Not in the logbook reg.

(r)

Catch retained on board by species in live weight

Yes




(s)

An estimation of the amount of living marine resources discarded by

species if possible



Yes/No

Not reported precisely.

(t)

Were any marine mammals, seabirds or reptiles caught (yes/no)

No

Not in the logbook reg.

The Observer Programmes need to be created and implemented in the South Pacific Ocean. In the past there were only two MS observer programmes implemented for the Pacific region, by The Netherlands and Poland. The Polish biological and fishery data in the South Pacific have been collected in 2009 in accordance with the NP 2009-2010 and funded by DCF. The Netherlands programme was funded by the Ministry of LNV and the Dutch pelagic industry on a contract basis.

According to the convention of SPRFMO, participants are to develop, implement and improve observer programmes to attain the following objectives:

i) To collect vessel information, effort and catch data for all fisheries and fished species in the Area, including target, by-catch and associated and dependent species.

ii) To collect biological or other data and information relevant to the management of fishery resources in the Area, as specified in these standards, or as identified from time to time by the SPRFMO Science Working Group or through processes identified by the Commission.

iii) To collect relevant scientific information related to the implementation of the provisions of the Interim Measures adopted by the Participants to the negotiations for the formation of a South Pacific RFMO.

iv) To collect representative data, including length-frequency and biological samples, across the Area, distribution of fishing effort, seasons, fishing fleets and fleet types.

Since all EU vessels (Poland, Lithuania, Germany, and the Netherlands) are operating in the same fishery with the same gear, it is suggested by RCM LDF to set up a common EU sampling strategy. One possible sampling strategy could take the form of an EU observer programme covering 10% of the EU effort, ensuring that the sampling protocol adheres data requirements specified by SPRFMO. The common observer programme is anticipated to be more cost efficient than separate national observer programmes. Given this the MS are recommended to foresee the collection of biological data in the South Pacific Ocean during the preparation of NP 2011-2013.

Germany and the Netherlands have already established a short term bilateral agreement on a pilot basis to collect biological data in the SPRFMO area. RCM LDF now suggests evaluating and preferably extending this bilateral agreement by Polish and Lithuanian participation, which then could be transferred into the common EU observer programme for the Pacific as suggested in the paragraph above. In a case of other MS joining in this fishery it is strongly recommended that these MS will have to join in the research and monitoring (observer-schemes) obligations/activities/programme as well.


    1. TOR 4: Identification of Metiers


The EU fishery in SPRFMO area is rather homogeneous. All EU vessels are targeting small pelagic species with mid-water trawls (OTM). The main target species is Chilean jack mackerel with some by-catch of chub mackerel and other species.
  1. ToR 6: Propose issues for following years


The RCM participants consider that ToR for the forthcoming RCM LDF could be the same as for the others RCM.
  1. Venue and dates of the next meeting


The next RCM LDF is scheduled to be held in autumn 2011 as the other RCM.

One of the ideas to strengthen cooperation with the Mediterranean and Black Sea RCM and to help continue the same direction is taking place both at the same date and place, so RCM LDF will await the decision of RCM Med & BS for the next venue.



However, LDF RCM recognizes the organization problems to hold two RCMs on the same date and place. If this situation is not possible, the RCM LDF accept the offer to hold the meeting in Sicily in 2011, and suggest the attendance of the chairman of RCM LDF tuna subgroup to the next RCM Med & BS.
  1. Summary of Recomendations


Métier variables: Fishing activities and sampling coverage

RCM LDF 2010 Recommendation

All MS involved in industrial small pelagic fishery in “From Morocco to Guinea Bissau” fishing ground to ensure adequate sampling coverage for the landings and discards.

Follow-up actions needed

All MS involved in fishery to draft one agreement to share tasks.

Responsible persons for follow-up actions

National Correspondents from all MS involved in fishery. The Netherlands will take initiative.

Time frame (Deadline)

Before the next RCM LDF, to be approved and signed at that RCM.



Allocation of large pelagic species to one or various RCMs

RCM LDF 2010 Recommendation

Ensure that the Regional Co-ordination Meetings (RCMs) move into the same direction

Follow-up actions needed

Assistance from the LM to have clearer views on allocation of large pelagic species to one or various RCMs

Responsible persons for follow-up actions

Liaison Meeting

Time frame (Deadline)

Next Liaison Meeting in 2010.



Métier identification: Codification and naming convention

RCM LDF 2010 Recommendation

Review the table produced during the meeting and makes a proposal about how to identify and codify their metiers for the next meeting.

Follow-up actions needed

Review codification shown in table 8 at national level.

Responsible persons for follow-up actions

All MS involved in tuna and tuna-like fisheries.

Time frame (Deadline)

Before the next RCM LDF, to be shown at the meeting.




  1. Download 1.29 Mb.

    Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page