| International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Printer friendly version | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
INTERNATIONAL BALTIC SEA FISHERY COMMISSION Thirtieth Session Gdańsk / Gdynia, 6 - 10 September 2004
Serial No 892 Proceedings No 1 30th Session: Report of the Standing Committee on Regulatory Measures
The Committee met on 7 and 10 September, 2004 under the chairmanship of Mr. Algirdas Rusakevicius. Present at the meetings were Delegations of all the Contracting Parties as well as Observers from ICES, FAO, NEAFC, HELCOM, Baltic 21 and CCB.
Ms. E. Milewska, Ms. M. Szopska and Ms. B. Szczypinska acted as Rapporteurs.
The Committee met to consider items 10 to 26 of the Agenda in order to formulate opinions to be presented to the Plenary.
Before addressing the main items on the agenda, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulatory Measures, Mr. Algirdas Rusakievicius, gave the floor to Mr. Gunnar Norén, the Observer from the Coalition Clean Baltic
Mr. Noren from Coalition Clean Baltic presented a paper on the control of Baltic fisheries and management measures for Baltic cod and salmon. He suggested new concepts for effective control of fisheries in the Baltic such as: cross-checking of both sales and landings, introduction of methods for comparison of landing records, sales records and tax records for fishing companies and control of illegal fisheries of the cod stock in the Sound area, between Denmark and Sweden. He expressed hope that the IBSFC will come with a concrete proposal on the separate management of the eastern and western cod stock with the substantial reductions in the TAC for 2005. Regarding Baltic salmon, he stated that changes in the exploitation are needed to safeguard those wild Baltic salmon stocks which are still weak. He noted that salmon habitat restoration should be developed urgently. He stressed that it is also important to consider the sea trout populations when deciding on the salmon TAC. He further stated that CCB is proposing the establishment of a new structure - institution for the management of the Baltic salmon, with the same openness and transparency as NASCO (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation).
Item 7: Utilisation of the year 2003 TACs recommended by the 28th Session
Opening the meeting, the Chairman of the Standing Committee, Mr. Algirdas Rusakevicius welcomed all the Contracting Parties to the meeting of the Standing Committee. He drew the attention to the difficult issues on the agenda and asked all Delegates for their co-operation. He expressed hope that the Committee would be able to find solutions to all unresolved issues.
The IBSFC Secretary, Dr. W. Ranke proceeded to present the utilisation of the TACs for 2003 on the basis of the Report on Utilisation prepared by the IBSFC Secretariat (Doc. 30/S/2004/7), which was distributed to all Contracting Parties with the Session documents. He drew the attention of the Delegates to the information on the cover page of this document explaining that in all cases the figures reported by the Contracting Parties responsible for the respective Fishery Zone have been used. This leads in some cases to different total catch figures than submitted by the Contracting Parties with their reporting sheets. The Secretary referred to the utilisation of the TAC for herring in Management Unit III, which amounted to 94% and to the utilisation of the herring TAC in the Main Basin and the Gulf of Riga which amounted to 98% in total. In the case of sprat, the TAC was utilised at a rate of 95%. The TAC for cod was utilised at a rate of 97%. The 2003 TAC for salmon in the Main Basin was utilised at approximately 75% and in the Gulf of Finland the utilisation rate was very low. The Committee took note of the Report on utilisation of Baltic TACs in 2003 as presented in Doc. 30/S/2004/7.
Item 8: Information of the IBSFC Secretariat on the implementation of Article 4 of the IBSFC Rule on inter-annual TAC flexibility (enforcement of TACs)
The Secretary of IBSFC, Dr. W. Ranke informed the Committee that according to the monthly catch reporting made by the Contracting Parties to the IBSFC Secretariat for 2003, three Parties had exceeded permitted landings (information sent to all Contracting Parties on 6 July 2004 . Doc. 30/S/2004/7): Estonia over-fished its herring TAC allocation by 2.2% or 576 tonnes, Lithuania over-fished its herring allocation by 2% or 41 tonnes and its cod TAC allocation by 0.4% or 11 tonnes, Poland over-fished its herring TAC allocation by 5% or 1,450 tonnes, its sprat TAC allocation by 5% or 3,917 tonnes and its cod TAC allocation by 0.7% or 111 tonnes. The Secretary noted that the respective Contracting Parties had been informed under Article 4, paragraph 3 of the IBSFC Rule on inter-annual TAC flexibility on 26 March 2004. He noted that Lithuania objected but did not indicate what was wrong with the figures.
The Polish Delegation explained that the over-fishing of its TAC allocations was due to the late submission of catch reports by fishermen. The reports arrived in the late December when it was too late to take any actions. It further referred to the changes in the reporting system in Poland, which includes of the introduction of a fully computerised system. It stressed that the data has been reported with honesty and declared its readiness to follow the IBSFC rules applied in case of over-fishing.
The Estonian Delegation stated that in this particular case the over-fishing of the herring TAC allocation had taken place in the Gulf of Riga. It also declared its acceptance of the IBSFC rules.
The Lithuanian Delegation explained that in these particular cases the over-fishing is minor and caused no damage to the fish resources. Referring to the actions taken in case of over-fishing it requested that the fact that monthly catch reports are preliminary should be taken into account and that the final figures are given only in June of the following year, when it is far too late to prevent over-fishing.
The EC Delegation stated that in its opinion Article 4(2) of the Rule on inter-annual TAC flexibility should be fully applied in any case of over-fishing.
The Committee took note of the explanations presented by the Polish, Estonian and Lithuanian Delegations with reference to the over-fishing their TAC allocations and decided to apply Article 4 of the Rule on the inter-annual TAC flexibility.
Herring and Sprat
Item 9: Implementation of Resolution XXII on mixed pelagic fisheries.
The EC Delegation presented information on the implementation of Resolution XXII on mixed pelagic fisheries, adopted by the 29th Session of the Commission. The EC Delegation stated that it has improved monitoring of industrial fisheries and is currently working on changing the legislation, which should lead to the correct reporting of catches. It further presented a report on improving the monitoring of industrial fishing within the EU (Annex to this Report)
The Russian Delegation presenting information on the implementation of Resolution XXII, noted that all requirements of this Resolution have been fulfilled by the introduction of a system of regulatory measures and rules which provide the possibility for separating catch statistics for sprat and herring in mixed fisheries. It provided the Delegations with a written report on the implementation of the regulatory measures regarding mixed pelagic fisheries. (Annex to this report)
The Latvian Delegation noted that with its very low herring TAC allocation, the fishermen use the 5% allowable by-catch of herring in the sprat fishery. The sprat quota allocated to Latvian fishermen already includes the by-catch of herring in the allowable amount. It stated that in Latvia sprat is used only for human consumption and therefore a different approach is applied than in industrial fisheries where there is no distinction between herring and sprat.
The Lithuanian Delegation stated that in Lithuania herring and sprat are used only for human consumption; catches are sorted after landing. It underlined that only one port exists in Lithuania and a strict control of landings is applied.
The Estonian Delegation indicated that sampling of mixed catches is imposed on fishermen through national regulations.
The Committee took note of the implementation of Resolution XXII by the Contracting Parties.
Item 10: Recommended 2005 TACs for Herring and Sprat
The Chairman of the Standing Committee opened the floor for the proposals regarding TACs for 2005.
The EC Delegation declared that it was not ready to present the exact figures at this point. It reminded Parties that the Commission works in the spirit of consensus and therefore further discussion was necessary. Regarding sprat, it remarked that according to the ICES estimates, the stock is in a very good condition therefore flexibility in decisions is possible. It turned the attention of the Committee to the fact that if sprat was fished separately the TAC could go up to 600,000 tonnes according to the advice given by ICES. However, the mixed nature of pelagic fisheries has to be taken into consideration. It further noted that it was prepared to consider a substantial increase of the 2005 TAC for sprat as compared to the TAC for 2004. With regard to herring the EC Delegation pointed out the need to follow the decision taken to manage herring in four separate management areas . Western Stock (sub-division 22-24), Main Basin ( sub-divisions 25-29 + 32), Gulf of Riga and old Management Unit III (sub-divisions 30 and 31 and the northern part of sub-division 29). It stated that it was not yet in a position to give precise figures for the herring TACs for 2005.
The Russian Delegation stated although it was not ready to discuss the TAC for herring at this point in time, it was prepared to consider the proposal to follow the ICES advice and to introduce four separate management areas for herring.
After long discussions held at the level of Heads of Delegations, the Committee decided to recommend to the Plenary: the TACs for herring in 2005 should not exceed in tonnes:
a) Taking into account the overshooting of fishing quotas in 2003 by 1,480 tonnes, the European Community.s allocation for 2005 is 116,172 tonnes. b) As an ad hoc measure for 2005, the Russian Federation can fish an additional quantity of 2,652 tonnes. This gives a final allocation for 2005 to the Russian Federation of 15,000 tonnes. c) Taking into account the overshooting of fishing quotas in 2003 by 576 tonnes, the European Community.s allocation for 2005 is 37,424 tonnes.
The Committee decided to recommend to the Plenary: the TAC for sprat in 2005 should not exceed 550,000 tonnes and is allocated as follows:
a) Taking into account the overshooting of fishing quotas in 2003 by 3,924 tonnes, the European Community.s allocation for 2005 is 490,636 tonnes.
Item 11: Decision on application of Article 3 and 4 (2) of IBSFC Rule on inter-annual TAC flexibility to herring and sprat stocks
The Committee decided not to apply the Rule on inter-annual TAC flexibility to herring in 2005. The Committee decided that the Rule on inter-annual TAC flexibility should be applied to sprat. The Committee decided to apply Article 4(2) (penalty applied for over-fishing of the permitted landings) to herring and sprat in 2005. The Committee decided to recommend these two decisions to the Plenary. Cod
Item 12 : Information on the implementation of the Management Plan for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea (IBSFC Resolution XX adopted at the Extraordinary Session, June 2003)
The EC Delegation referred to the Cod Management Plan that was adopted by the Extraordinary Session of IBSFC in 2003 and which is a core part of the guidance for cod management in the years to come. It stressed that the Plan had been fully implemented by the European Community, including the implementation of the BACOMA exit windows and the separate management of the two cod stocks.
The Russian Delegation referred the Delegations to its document on the implementation of the Management Plan for Cod following Resolution XX. This document explains the two measures which have been implemented: 1. Amendments to the Fishery Rules for the Russian Zone providing for fixing a minimum landing size for cod (38 cm) from 5 January 2003; 2. Adoption of additional measures for cod fishery regulation, such as closed area for cod trawl fishery in the coastal zone of the Russian Federation within 2.5 miles from the coast for the whole year, the hook size in cod longline fishery (16 mm), prohibition of keeping small size cod aboard the vessel in the target cod fishery for the whole year. The document also explains the implementation of the inspection scheme of monitoring in compliance with Resolution XXV (adopted by the 29th Session of IBSFC) with a note that Russia is using 120mm mesh in the BACOMA exit windows. Russia developed a joint programme of the BACOMA inspection with Latvia. (Annex to this report).
The Committee took note of the implementation of the Management Plan for Cod.
Item 13: Information on the outcome of Resolution XXIV on the closure of the Gotland Deep and Gdańsk Deep
The Secretary of the Commission noted the request addressed to ICES last year to advise, not later than 15.04.2004, on areas within the Gotland Deep and the Gdansk Deep where the hydrological conditions allow for a successful cod spawning in 2004. The Secretariat received the ICES advice in April and sent it to the IBSFC Parties. There was no proposal for a Recommendation received from the Contracting Parties.
The Committee took note of the information given by the Secretary of the Commission.
Item 14 : Recommended 2005 TACs for Cod
The EC Delegation remarked that the establishment of the cod TAC is the most difficult issue of the Session. It reminded the Delegates that according to the Management Plan for Cod, adopted by the Extraordinary Session in 2003, the eastern and the western cod stocks should be managed separately. It stressed that the separate management of cod stocks is in line with the scientific advice and should be followed in future to ensure rational management. It further stated that the western cod stock is not in the best shape. According to the assessment of ICES the TAC should not be higher than 23,700 tonnes. However, it noted that if the Cod Management Plan were to be followed, the TAC could be set at a somewhat different level. It pointed to the serious situation of the eastern cod stock. It also referred to the substantial uncertainties with regard to many elements of the stock assessment expressed by ICES in its advice. Once again it stressed that the Cod Management Plan should be the leading factor guiding the managers in regulatory actions.
Based on the replies to the questions formulated in the process of the discussion on the ICES advice for 2005, the Russian Delegation presented its comments on the issue of cod management. It remarked that: - the Plan is based on the old reference points (SSB<Blim 10 years) thus the reference points of the precautionary approach should be reconsidered; - the option for 30% fishing mortality in 2005 is absent; - the effect of new BACOMA type fishing gear upon selectivity improvement, exploitation model and stocks recovery is not considered; - the transition period is very short (3 years), the options of stock recovery for 5, 6 years should be prepared; - the measures on unreported catch revealing should be proposed; It pointed out that the main disadvantage of the Plan is the absence of any options and suggested providing options of TAC estimates for 2005 other than zero and the consequences for SSB on the long-term basis in order to give some alternatives to decision makers. It also remarked that it is clear, on the basis of the replies, that fishing gear selectivity improvement has not been considered in the fishing pattern; this can result in an underestimate of the stock recovery rate due to recruitment increase. It also pointed to the problem of a serious by-catch of flounder in the cod fishery.
The Committee continued the discussion in the Heads of Delegations meeting.
After lengthy co-ordination meetings of the EC, as well meetings of the Heads of Delegations the EC Delegation proposed establishing the 2005 TAC for cod for the western stock at the level of 24,700 tonnes. In view of the uncertain scientific advice the Delegation could not make a proposal for the establishment of the TAC for 2005 for the eastern stock. The proposal of the EC Delegation was as follows:
(a):Due to the uncertain scientific advice the Parties were not in a position to fix a TAC for the eastern cod stock for 2005. The Parties however agreed to limit their respective fisheries on both stocks in 2005 to levels below the allocations agreed for 2004, i.e. 71,250 tonnes for the European Community and 3,750 tonnes for the Russian Federation.
The Russian Delegation presented the following proposal for the TAC for cod for 2005: The TAC for cod subdivisions 22-24 and 25-32 should not exceed 70,000 tonnes, and should be allocated as follows:
As regards the EC proposal on the TAC allocation in sub-divisions 22 to 24 and the fact of not taking into account the interests of Russia in this area, the Russian Delegation stated that it considered this fact as non-observance of the adopted procedure of TAC allocation. This procedure has provided for the allocation of 5% from the total TAC estimate in sub-divisions 22 to 24 and 25 to 32. The proposal of the EC is an infringement of the adopted allocation keys and the Russian delegation can not accept it in either case.
The EC Delegation stated that, much to its regret, it cannot accept the Russian Delegation.s proposal for the total TAC for both stocks set at the level of 70,000 tonnes, of which 45,300 tonnes would be fished in the eastern part of the Baltic. The Delegation emphasised that it would be ready to commit itself to maintaining close contact in order to seek an agreement on the issue.
The Russian Delegation emphasised that it would also be prepared to continue the work on bilateral basis to seek a consensual solution to the difficult issue. It proposed voting on the TAC for cod for the eastern stock for 2005 in the Plenary meeting.
The Committee decided to continue the discussion on the establishment of the cod TAC for 2005 at the Plenary meeting.
Item 15: Decision on the application of Article 3 and 4(2) of IBSFC Rule on inter-annual TAC flexibility to Cod.
The Committee decided not to apply the Rule on inter-annual TAC flexibility to cod in 2005. The Committee decided to apply Article 4(2) (penalty applied for overfishing of the permitted landings) to cod in 2005. The Committee decided to recommend these two decisions to the Plenary.
Item 16: Possible additional regulatory measures for Cod.
The EC Delegation noted that the possible additional regulatory measures for cod include the closure of the Bornholm Deep, the summer ban and potential closures of the Gdańsk and Gotland Deeps.
After lengthy internal co-ordination discussions of the EC Delegation as well as meetings of the Heads of Delegations, the Committee decided to recommend to the Plenary that for 2005 a ban on cod fishing shall be introduced at least from 16 June to 15 August (both days included). The Committee further decided to recommend to the Plenary: for the Bornholm Deep, a ban on all fishing shall be introduced from 15 May to 31 August 2005, both days included. The Committee decided to recommend to the Plenary to adopt the following Resolution on the closure of the Gotland Deep and Gdansk Deep:.Pursuant to the advice of ICES, to be provided before 15.04.2005, on areas within the Gotland Deep and Gdansk Deep where the hydrological conditions allow for a successful cod spawning in 2005, the Contracting Parties will consider closure of the said areas in order to protect cod spawning in 2005. Based on a proposal for a recommendation on closure of the cod fishing in the areas identified by ICES, the Contracting Parties agree to consider and, if appropriate, vote on the recommendation within two weeks after it has been tabled..
Item 17: Report of the meeting of IBSFC Salmon Action Plan Surveillance Group, Copenhagen, 29-30 June 2004 and conclusions for the further implementation of the Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010.
Dr. Walter Ranke, Chairman of the Salmon Action Plan Surveillance Group reported on the meeting of the IBSFC Salmon Action Plan Surveillance Group. He started by saying that the Salmon Action Plan of the IBSFC was considered at the ICES Dialogue Meeting in Dublin, Ireland, in spring this year, and was a model for other international fishery organisations in the world. The main issues discussed at the meeting included a critical review of the list of salmon rivers where the target should be achieved by 2010 and the situation in the Gulf of Finland where salmon stocks are at a very low level. Generally, since the adoption of the Salmon Action Plan in 1998, an up to 3-fold increase in the wild salmon production in the Baltic Sea has been observed. He emphasised that this is a unique situation as the Baltic Sea is the only region in the North Atlantic and its adjacent seas with such a positive development. The Chairman reminded the Delegates that the Surveillance Group classified salmon rivers into 3 groups: rivers where the established target of 50% wild salmon stock by 2010 will certainly be reached (12 rivers), rivers unlikely to reach the target by 2010 (14 rivers) and new rivers added to the list of successful rivers (5 rivers). Generally, there is an improvement in wild salmon smolt production and salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea. Referring to the absence of the Russian Delegation at the meeting, he added that the list should be updated by rivers in Russia. He referred to the state of salmon in the Gulf of Finland which has been serious for many years. There is no clear indication of the reason underlying this situation. The TAC in the Gulf of Finland has been reduced drastically to protect the wild salmon in this area. The serious situation may be caused by some environmental changes, including changes in salinity, predation and hydrological changes. Dr. Ranke pointed out that these problems could not be solved uniquely by means of fishery management measures. Another issue addressed was the negative effect of the protection of seals on the protection of salmon. Since seals live on salmon, both species cannot be protected in the same area at the same time. Almost all salmon caught in the Gulf of Finland show signs of seal bites and this should not be underestimated. The Secretary stated that the 50% target of potential wild smolt production set by the Commission in the Salmon Action Plan was perhaps over-optimistic, and according to the ICES advice, it cannot be achieved in all the rivers by 2010.
The Committee took note of the report presented by Dr. Ranke.
Item 18: Recommended 2005 TACs for Salmon
After discussion held at the Heads of Delegations level, the Committee decided to recommend to the Plenary: The TAC for salmon in the Main Basin and the Gulf of Bothnia in 2005 should not exceed 460,000 individual fish and should be allocated as follows:
The TAC for salmon in the Gulf of Finland in 2005 should not exceed 17,000 individual fish and should be allocated as follows:
a) The level of this TAC will be revisited in the light of new scientific advice and the development of fishing practices.
Item 19: Decision on the application of Article 3 and 4(2) of IBSFC Rule on inter-annual TAC flexibility to salmon
The Committee decided not to apply the Rule on inter-annual TAC flexibility to salmon in 2005. The Committee decided to apply Article 4(2) (penalty applied for over-fishing of the permitted landings) to salmon in 2005. The Committee decided to recommend these two decisions to the Plenary.
FISHERY RULES
Item 20: New statistical Sub-divisions in Area 28 (Gulf of Riga . Sub-division 28-1; East of Gotland . Sub-division 28-2) to be established by ICES.
The Secretary of the IBSFC, Dr Walter Ranke pointed to the proposal for additional statistical sub-divisions in Area 28 to be established by ICES (Doc. 30/S/2004/5). He pointed to the need to separate the Gulf of Riga from the open sea area following the IBSFC decision to manage these areas as separate units. The Gulf of Riga would be referred to as sub-division 28/1 and open sea east of Gotland as sub-division 28/2 with an established boundary line. He noted that the project was submitted by ICES to the EUROSTAT meeting in Luxembourg (3 - 4 May 2004) where it was accepted and will be presented to the ICES Statutory meeting in Vigo in September this year for acceptance.
The Committee took note of the proposal regarding new statistical sub-divisions in area 28 to be established by ICES.
Item 21: Consideration of the possibility to change Rule 5 of the IBSFC Fishery Rules concerning the prohibition to retain on board female flounder and female plaice in Sub-division 22 (to extend it also to male flounder and plaice). (as proposed by Poland to the 29th Session . Proceedings of the 29th Session, page 331: .to come back to the matter at a later stage).
The Committee did not discuss this matter.
Item 22: Selectivity codend having a turned mesh 900. (as proposed by Poland to the 29th Session . Proceedings of the 29th Session, page 332: .to come back to the matter during the next Annual Session).
After some discussion held at the Heads of Delegations level, the Committee decided to recommend to the Plenary the adoption of Resolution XXXI on the introduction of trawls using 90º turned diamond meshes: Taking note of the ICES advice on the selective properties of trawls using 90º turned diamond meshes, the Contracting Parties agree to allow for this type of gear when fishing for cod. The Contracting Parties recognised that before this type of trawl can be introduced into the IBSFC Fishery Rules a detailed specification of the trawl is needed. The Contracting Parties therefore agreed to develop a technical specification and to revert to this matter when such a specification has been developed.
The Polish Delegation expressed appreciation for the adoption of this Resolution by the Committee and pointed out that this was a joint success of Polish and German scientists after two years of co-operation.
Item 23: Information by the European Community about its new Regulation on technical measures for Community waters in the Baltic Sea.
The EC Delegation informed the Delegations that it will present a report on the new Regulation on technical measures for Community waters in the Baltic Sea.
******* |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
