Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120357987
label
Antarctic: Antarctica: CCAMLR [Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120357987
contentType
document
title
Antarctic: Antarctica: CCAMLR [Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120357987
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg1-001-016-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8ad8d5c56a6b055a
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
2618
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Antarctic: Antarctica: CCAMLR [Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Liv |Resources]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
5
8
1
THE ANTARCTICA PROJECT
707 D Street, S.E.
Pls file
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel. (202) 544-0236
Antarctica- CCAMUR.
FAX: (202) 544-8483
Econet: jbarnes
Telex: 158215480
TO: Folks interested in Antarctica
FM: Beth Marks
RE: ASOC Report of CCAMLR XI
DA: March 1, 1993
Enclosed is ASOC's Report of the meeting of XI CCAMLR. Note that this report was
written by the various ASOC folks who attended XI CCAMLR, and is not the US NGO
report, as I have written in past years. Life in Washington is too hectic to afford the luxury
of two reports!
BEEL
Printed on recycled paper
ANTARCTIC AND SOUTHERN OCEAN COALITION
ASOC
707 D Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
TEL: (202) 544-0236
FAX: (202) 544-8483
ASOC REPORT ON THE XITH MEETING OF THE
COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF
ANTARCTIC MARINE LIVING RESOURCES
1.
INTRODUCTION
The XIth meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources was held from 26 October to 6 November 1992, with the meeting of the
Scientific Committee taking place from 26 to 30 October, 1992, in Hobart, Australia. The
XII meeting will be held from 25 October through 5 November 1993, in Hobart, Australia.
Progress was made on several issues in which ASOC was involved, including the adoption
of a scientific observer scheme. 19 Conservation Measures (CMs) and one resolution were
adopted, and two CMs were amended. As in past years, consensus was not reached in
several important areas, including:
#
defining an exploratory fishery, i.e., reclassifying as an "exploratory" fishery, any
fishery that was previously classified as a "new" fishery. This would have ensured that new
fisheries do not develop ahead of the acquisition of biological and demographic
information;
#
limiting or closing the krill fishery during critical periods to protect krill predators;
#
closure of nursery grounds to fishing to protect juvenile fish (for the second year,
data were not available);
As in past years, the fishing nations attempted to gain consensus for catch levels which were
economically beneficial, regardless of the state of the fishery. Although submission of data
was better than in the past, timely submission of data is still a problem. Several new or
"expanding" fisheries were also reported, and new nations are starting Antarctic fisheries
(Ukraine, Bulgaria, Chile and U.S.). We worked closely with CCAMLR nations to try to
ensure that new fisheries would develop slowly.
Seven people from Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) organisations were in
Hobart in various capacities:
Dr. Maj De Poorter (Greenpeace International/NZ) was the ASOC representative
in both the Scientific Committee and Commission.
Cassandra Phillips (Worldwide Fund for Nature International/UK) also attended
the Commission meeting as an ASOC observer.
Janet Dalziell (Greenpeace International/Australia) was the ASOC Australia
representative on the Australian delegation.
Indrani Lutchman (Worldwide Fund for Nature/UK) was the NGO on the UK
delegation.
Beth Marks (The Antarctica Project/US) was the NGO on the US delegation.
Kaye Dyson (Greenpeace Australia) and Johanna Wesnigk (Greenpeace Germany)
were in Hobart as lobbyists at the meeting but did not attend the meeting itself.
2.
RESULTS OF THE MEETING
2.1
KRILL
Krill catches for all areas have been increasing since 1986, but the total catch for 1991/92
showed a decline from the 1990/91 season. Catches were 19% less than 1990/91, totalling
288,546 tonnes. Most of the krill catch for 1991/92 was taken from sub-area 48.3 (South
Georgia), although there were substantial catches from subareas 48.1 (Peninsula) and 48.2
(South Orkneys).
Countries fishing for krill in the 1991/92 season were Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Korea, Chile
and Japan, with Russia taking the highest catches, followed by Japan and Ukraine. Most
countries said that their fishing activities for krill will not be expanded during the coming
season.
Although the total catch was much below the precautionary limit which was established last
year, there was concern about the lack of compliance with the conservation measure which
called for the monthly reporting of krill catches. It was assumed that this was because this
was the first year that Conservation Measure (CM) 32/X was in force, and compliance
would improve in the future. (CM 32/X requires monthly reporting of the krill catch in
Statistical Area 48.)
It was felt that the placing of observers on board Russian and Chilean vessels this past
season was very helpful in the collection of haul by haul data to be used in assessment
studies, and the placement of observers on fishing boats in the future was encouraged. The
importance of haul by haul data was once again emphasised at this meeting in the hope that
more countries would comply.
The Scientific Committee (SC) extensively discussed the work done by the Krill Working
Group during the last year on the topics of estimation of biomass, refining calculations of
potential yield, refining the precautionary principle, and the ecological implications of krill
fishing.
CM 45/XI was adopted, which sets a precautionary catch limit (pcl) of 390,000 tonnes for
2
Sub-area 58.4.2 (Prydz Bay) for any fishing season (defined as 1 July through 30 June of
the following year). This catch limit was calculated in a similar way to the pcl for Area 48
set in 1991. Australia reported that it was considering a proposal from an Australian
company to start a krill fishery. It would not proceed before the 1992/93 season, if then,
and would involve a maximum of four boats and an 80,000 tonne catch.
Several options for allocating pcl's to sub-areas were considered this year. It was suggested
that, ideally, the total biomass should be assessed along with predator demands and krill
movements. However, many delegations felt that this type of allocation scheme would be
very difficult to implement, and in any case, the total catch for 1991/92 was far below
620,000 tonnes, so there is little need to worry.
CM 46/XI was adopted, which divides the 1.5 million tonne total allowable catch (TAC)
for Area 48 into the various sub-areas on the basis of a combination of historic data in each
sub-area and an estimate of stock from the FIBEX survey. These figures total to more than
1.5 million tonnes, but there is still a requirement that total catch does not exceed 1.5
million tonnes. The limits shall apply to the 1992/93 and 1993/94 fishing seasons, after
which they shall be reviewed.
Now that this total has been divided into sub-areas, there is still one major issue to be
resolved. Last year, analyses were done that showed the considerable geographical overlap
between the krill harvest and the foraging ranges of krill-dependent predators during their
breeding season in three successive years in subareas 48.1 and 48.2. The SC stated that "a
situation whereby a substantial krill fishery consistently operates within the foraging range
of krill-dependent predators at a critical time of year (where the predators have dependent
offspring) had long been identified as a most serious concern and one where close and
urgent attention needs to be given appropriate management action." The meeting therefore
discussed the possibility of doing some analyses of past catches to see how a system of
closed areas and seasons aimed at preventing such overlap could be arranged, and how
various options would affect the fishery.
Several delegations, including Japan and Chile, stated that because of prevailing low catch
levels of krill, and the lack of scientific evidence pointing to the overlap having a negative
impact on predator populations, there was no need for additional measures (see section on
CEMP).
In the final report, the SC encouraged the Working Groups for Krill and CEMP to prepare
relevant information to assist with allocation by finer areas as a priority, and it was
suggested that sub-area 48.1 should be the first target for this work.
Several members also expressed interest in estimates of krill consumption by selected
predators (especially penguins and fur seals) for Subareas 48.1 and 48.2. WG-CEMP was
urged to try and complete the task for some Integrated Study Regions (ISR).
3
2.2
FISH
A.
Statistical Area 48
1.
Subarea 48.3 (South Georgia and Shag Rocks)
a.
Notothenia rossii
The reported catch in 1991/92 was one tonne, from a research vessel. The biomass estimate
of 7,309 tonnes was similar to estimates since the mid 1980s, which suggests that stocks are
still at a very low level.
Existing conservation measures (2/III and 3/IV) remain in force. These prohibit direct
fishing and aim at keeping bycatch as low as possible.
b.
Champsocephalus gunnari
In January 1992, a bottom trawl survey was undertaken (UK/Poland/Germany). Total
standing stock was estimated to be 37,311 tonnes around South Georgia, and 2,935 tonnes
around Shag Rocks. This suggests a general increase in stock since the 1991 survey.
The estimate is in accordance with the predictions based on a similar survey in 1991, which
suggests that the methods used in the survey are reliable.
The Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment (WG-FSA) also discussed calculated values
for the standing stock, using Virtual Population Analysis (VPA), based on 1977-1991 fishing
data, but concluded that the VPA as performed was not a good assessment of the current
status of the stock because the projected biomass and age structure was not consistent with
patterns observed in the survey. For example, projections from VPA predicted that 4 and
5 year old fish would be abundant in 1991/92, but the surveys in 1990/91 and 1991/92
indicated that fish of that age were no longer abundant.
Current stocks were hence estimated based on the survey results. From this, a maximum
TAC of 15,200 tonnes for 1992/93 was derived. This takes into account the effects only of
the catch on the target species. The implications of bottom trawling in relation to by-catch
of other species, as well as the adverse effects on the benthos, would lead to a much lower
TAC of 8,200 tonnes, and the implications of by-catch of other species in pelagic trawling
would lead to a TAC of 9,200-15,200 tonnes (pelagic trawling has a lower by-catch than
bottom trawling).
The SC report specified that a conservative approach would be to maintain the present
prohibition on directed fishing, because of the uncertainty surrounding the estimates of the
current status of the exploitable stock. It then went on to specify additional conditions, in
4
case the fisheries were re-opened anyway for 1992/93: the above mentioned TACs for
pelagic or bottom trawling, and additional recommendations on a temporal closure, a ban
on bottom trawling, and maximum by-catch specifications for the different by-catch species.
In the Commission, the UK, New Zealand, Australia and Argentina favoured the
conservative option of keeping the fisheries closed, but others did not agree.
CMs 49/XI, 50/XI, 51/XI and 52/XI were adopted. These set a TAC for C. gunnari of
9,200 tonnes in Subarea 48.3 for the 1992/93 season. The fishery will close if the TAC is
reached, or if the by-catch limit is reached for any one of the by-catch species (Notothenia
gibberifrons, N. rossii, N. squamifrons, Chaenocephalus aceratus, and Pseudochaenichthys
georgianus) as specified in CM 50/XI. There is also the requirement of moving to another
fishing ground within the subarea if, in one haul of directed fishing, by-catch of the species
named in CM 50/XI exceeds 5%. Bottom trawling is prohibited. The fishery shall be
closed from 1 April 1993 until the end of the 1993 Commission meeting.
There are further requirements for a five-day catch and effort reporting system, and a
monthly data reporting system for trawl fisheries.
c.
Patagonotothen guntheri and Notothenia squamifrons
The WG-FSA stated that they did not have enough information to assess current biomass.
The SC advised that therefore the fisheries should remain closed.
CM 48/XI was adopted, which prohibits directed fishing for these species. It was suggested
that the CM could remain in force until the SC recommended to lift it. Others only wanted
it to apply to the 1992/93 fishing season. In the end the Commission decided to have the
CM apply to the 1992/93 and the 1993/94 season.
d.
Notothenia gibberifrons, Chaenocephalus aceratus and Pseudochaenichthys
georgianus
These species are usually caught as by-catch, especially in bottom-trawling for C. gunneri.
Biomass estimates were available from a January 1992 survey, which indicate an increase
in stock size for all three species since the Conservation Measures were introduced in 1989.
However, the SC report recommended against a re-opening of directed fishing for these
species because the potential yields could already entirely be taken as by-catch in the C.
gunnari fishery.
The Commission followed this advice and included these three species in CM 48/XI, which
prohibits directed fishing on these species, as well as on N. squamifrons and P. guntheri.
5
e.
Electrona carlsbergi
The reported catch of E. carlsbergi was down to 46,960 tonnes in 1991/92, which was less
than in 1990/91, and only 19% of the TAC set for 1991/92. Data and assessments on these
species are no longer current, and the SC refused to advise on a value for a TAC under
those circumstances.
During the discussion in the Commission, it was pointed out that the lower catch could
mean that the stock is not less abundant than in the past. Australia, New Zealand and
Sweden argued that in the absence of current biological data the TAC should not remain
the same as last year, but should be 20% lower as a precautionary approach. Russia argued
that the lower catch was due not to biological factors, but to economic ones (they could not
fish as much because they cannot afford market prices for fuel) and that the TAC should
hence not be lowered. Japan argued that lowering a TAC in the absence of advice of the
Scientific Commission would be a "bad precedent". (This was one of several examples of
Japan's aggressive attempts this year to block a true precautionary approach.)
The Commission agreed that the principle on how to set TACs in the absence of advice
from the SC should be discussed further.
In the end the Commission decided to set a TAC at the same level as last year's, and
adopted CM 53/XI. It sets a TAC of 245,000 tonnes in Statistical Subarea 48.3, with an
additional proviso that the catch in 1992/93 shall not exceed 53,000 tonnes in the Shag
Rocks area. Catches in 48.3 or in the Shag Rock area shall stop if the TAC is reached, or
if the level of by-catch specified in CM 50/XI is reached. If the by-catch of the species
mentioned in the latter Measure exceeds 5% in any one haul the fishing vessel must move
to another fishing ground.
CM 54/XI specifies biological data that should be reported on a monthly basis.
f.
Dissostichus eleginoides
The TAC for 1991/92 was 3,500 tonnes. The TAC was reached early in the season, because
several Chilean vessels entered the fishery for the first time. These Chilean vessels are
bigger and more efficient than the Russian ones. One Bulgarian vessel also participated.
The SC recommended a TAC for 1992/93 in the middle of the range between 750 to 5,370
tonnes, similar to that of the previous season, and advised that further expansion of the
number of vessels would be undesirable.
The TAC was in fact exceeded in the 1991/92 season, in part because Russia, having lost
out against Chile, initiated a "research" cruise after the TAC was reached and the fishery
was closed (see section on "Scientific Research Exemption"). Also, Chilean vessels had
6
been (unofficially) observed fishing after the closing date of the fishery, and Chilean vessels
were impounded in the Falklands/Malvinas for longlining out of season. It was also almost
certain (though not confirmed) that the measures to avoid bird-catch were not applied
properly in many cases.
In view of this, the EEC argued that the TAC should be reduced by the amount over taken
above the 91/92 TAC, and should be around 3,000 tonnes. Chile argued that last year's
TAC had been set in a conservative way, in the absence of much data. They also said that
they should not be penalized for the Russian's "research" take. Also, because the fishermen
have not yet been tried and found guilty, the Commission could not take the possibility of
illegal fishing into account in setting the TAC. They argued that they had been very good
at providing data from their fisheries, and that it would be "unfair" to use those data to
come up with a much lowered TAC compared to last year.
Russia then brought up the fact that Russia is much further away from the fishing grounds
than Chile, and that it was not fair that Chile could get there first and use up most of the
TAC. Chile's reply was along the lines of "Well, if Northern hemisphere nations want to
fish in the Southern Ocean, it was not Chile's problem that the Southern Ocean is closer
to Chile than to Russia." Russia argued repeatedly for allocation of TAC by country -
which created quite a stir as this has not been done before by CCAMLR. It is also
probably impossible, legally, for CCAMLR to do this. It was pointed out that CCAMLR
is not an economics convention, but a fisheries convention, whose purpose is to sustainably
manage fisheries, not allocate fisheries.
Russia also pointed out that a simple TAC would cause intense competition which would
result in the effort being concentrated at the beginning of the season, leading to a very short
season. This would be contrary to the need for data over a longer period of the year, in
order to get better stock assessments. This argument was acknowledged as valid by other
scientists. Russia then suggested that the number of vessels allowed should be set at ten,
and that this should be divided equally among the nations fishing for this species. This too
provoked strong opposing reactions.
The compromise that was reached was that each fishing state that is a member of
CCAMLR and that fished last year (i.e., Russia and Chile) were asked to make assurances
that they would not increase the number of vessels in the fishery. Bulgaria, which had one
vessel fishing for this species, is likewise thought to only have one vessel planned for next
season.
CM 55/XI sets a TAC of 3,350 tonnes for D. eleginoides in Subarea 48.3 in 1992/93, and
specifies that the number of vessels of members who have been fishing in the 1991/92
season should not increase. It also provides for a five-day catch and effort reporting system.
CM 56/XI specifies an effort and biological data reporting system.
Because of the above debate, the Conservation Measure for this species took quite some
7
negotiation in small groups in order to reach a consensus between the various interests. It
was unclear, almost until the last day, if agreement on a TAC would be reached, and many
nations, and ASOC, were concerned that if agreement could not be reached then the fishery
would be wide open. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed, and the CM was reached. This
highlights the problems in getting nations to abide by the precautionary principle when their
economic interests are at stake.
2.
Subarea 48.2 (South Orkney Islands)
Based on the advice from the SC that there are major uncertainties about the status of fish
stocks (specifically, C. gunnari stocks), this subarea remains closed to fishing. CM 57/XI
prohibits directed fishing on finfish in Subarea 48.2 for the 1992/93 season.
3.
Subarea 48.1 (Antarctic Peninsula)
Based on the advice from the SC that there is no information about the status of fish stocks,
this subarea remains closed. CM 58/XI prohibits directed fishing on finfish in Subarea 48.2
for the 1992/93 season.
B.
Statistical Area 58
1.
Division 58.5.1 (Kerguelen)
D. eleginoides
This species has been trawled since 1984/85 in the Western Shelf area, and trawling in the
northern part of the plateau started in the 1990/91 season. The northern grounds accounted
for most of the 6,787 tonnes trawled in 1991/92. In the western grounds, 705 tonnes were
caught in 1991/92 by an exploratory longline fishery.
In view of the increase in catches and simultaneous decline in CPUE, the SC advised a
TAC of no larger than 1,100 tonnes each for both the western and northern grounds.
However, as usual, France made it clear that they would use their right to reject CMs in the
Kerguelen Area. Rumour in the corridors had it that they had already agreed on larger
TACs in bilateral agreements with fishing states. As a result, no CM was agreed on, and
the report just states that catches in the western ground should not exceed 1,100 tonnes, and
catches for the northern ground should be substantially below those taken last year.
8
2.
Division 58.4.4 (Ob and Lena Banks)
N. squamifrons
This fishery was prohibited in 1991/92. The SC report mentions that in 1990 a stock
biomass of 6,000 tonnes was calculated for Lena Bank, and 3,500 tonnes for Ob bank. In
view of the slow growth of this species, the stock size is likely to have changed little since
1990. The SC concluded that, although it appears that the stock could sustain a fishery of
a few hundred tonnes, a survey should be undertaken before the fishery is re-opened.
During the Commission Meeting, however, Ukraine, which is an observer but not a full
member, presented its plans for a fishery on this species in the Ob and Lena Banks.
Much discussion followed outside the official meeting. As a non-member, Ukraine would
not be bound by any CM that closes the fishery. But it was felt that since Ukraine, as well
as CCAMLR, wanted Ukraine to join CCAMLR as a full member, it made sense to
encourage and deal positively with Ukraine, especially because of its willingness to discuss
its planned fishing and survey with CCAMLR fisheries scientists. An additional
complication was that the Ukraine representative explained that they wanted to do the
research in the Ob and Lena area, but did not have sufficient funds for this unless they
were allowed to catch enough fish to sell (which would be greater than the catch which the
SC felt the fishery could sustain).
In the end, CM 59/XI was adopted. It sets a TAC of 1,150 tonnes for the combined
catches in 1992/93 and 1993/94. This is with the understanding that Ukraine will catch all
of that in the first year, with the result that the fishery will be closed in the second year.
This way, the total TAC for the two years is compatible with the recommendations of the
SC, even though the amounts that are expected to be caught in the first year are higher
than the catch recommended by the SC for one season.
The TAC of 1,150 tonnes for two years is further divided into 715 tonnes on Lena Bank and
435 tonnes on Ob Bank.
2.3 NEW AND EXPLORATORY FISHERIES
2.3.1 New Fisheries
CCAMLR received notifications for two new fisheries in Subarea 48.4 (South Sandwich
Islands), from the U.S. and Chile, for the 1992/93 fishing season.
1. The U.S. intended to take D. eleginoides in fish pots used to capture bait for the crab
fishery. However, since very few of these fish were captured during the first trip of the
crab vessel, it is unlikely that this fishery will go forward.
9
2. A Chilean fishing company plans to conduct an exploratory longline fishery for D.
eleginoides in Subarea 48.4. The fishery development plan stated that only one vessel
conducting one trip of 40 days would catch a maximum of 240 tonnes. A scientific observer
will be on board, and biological and other information will be collected. The SC supported,
and the Commission approved the application. CM 44/XI was adopted, which limits the
fishery by Chile to 240 tonnes, during the period 6 November 1992 to the close of the
Commission meeting in 1993.
2.3.2 Exploratory Fisheries
In the 1991/92 fishing season, one U.S. fisherman initiated an exploratory fishery for king
and stone crabs, Paralomis spinosissima and P. formosa, in Area 48. A total of 52,486
tonnes of P. spinosissima and 36,920 tonnes of P. formosa were caught in Subarea 48.3
during the first fishing trip (the second trip was just ending during the meeting). Based on
the limited data available from the fishery, it was estimated that there was a standing stock
of 155,000 tonnes.
Catch rates from the first year of a fishery tend to be high because there is a high standing
stock which tends to get fished out in a few years. Thus, this estimation of standing stock,
while attempting to be conservative, is very uncertain, and the SC agreed that until more
data had been collected, a precautionary approach would be appropriate. The Commission
requested that the SC develop a long-term management plan for the exploratory crab
fishery. A CCAMLR workshop, hosted by the US in April, will specify the data needed.
CM 60/XI was adopted. It closes the crab fishery from 15 November 1992 until the end
of the workshop and limits the fishery to one vessel per member. If more than three
vessels intend to fish then a total of 1,600 tonnes can be taken. The CM requires prior
notification of intent to fish, specifies data to be collected, establishes a reporting system,
limits the fishery to sexually mature males, and limits fishing gear to crab pots. CM 61/XI
specifies the ten-day catch and effort reporting system to be implemented for this fishery.
Agreement was not reached on a CM which would formalise the process of a new fishery
becoming an "exploratory" fishery. The major problem with the definition of a new fishery
adopted at CCAMLR X (CM 31/X) is that after the first year the fishery is no longer new,
and any country can start a fishery with no notification and reporting requirements. It was
hoped that consensus could be reached which would reclassify as an "exploratory" fishery,
any fishery that was previously classified as a "new" fishery, until sufficient information is
gathered to determine safe catch levels. This way a fishery can develop slowly, and be
studied at the same time.
The Commission agreed that it would be desirable to develop a formal procedure for the
development of an exploratory fishery, and directed the SC to consider this intercessionally,
with the expectation that a CM could be agreed at CCAMLR XII.
10
2.4 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH EXEMPTION
When the D. eleginoides fishery closed in March, the Russians sent a plan to CCAMLR for
taking 100,000 fish for research purposes between March and December 1992 (which is
many more fish than are needed for any scientific purpose!). Apparently the plan was
circulated with very little time before it was proposed to start. Most believe that Russia
initiated this scientific fishery because Chile took 75% of the d.e. TAC. Several nations,
including the UK, US, and NZ sent off strongly worded letters of protest, saying that this
shouldn't go ahead. The Russians initially agreed to not go ahead, but then went ahead,
and took 161.64 tonnes, which brought the total d.e. catch above the TAC.
At CCAMLR, this situation created quite a stir. It was pointed out that they didn't follow
the correct procedures for starting a scientific fishery (as far as registering their scientific
vessels, and notifying the Secretariat). The report of CCAMLR V detailed the
responsibilities prior to starting a scientific fishery, but these were not crystal clear and thus
open to misinterpretation.
Since many vessels are capable of taking large catches which could have a detrimental
impact on specific CMs, scientific review exemption procedures were agreed which would
be applied to all vessels planning to undertake research on species, or in areas, subject to
CMs.
CM 47/XI, Scientific Research Exemption Provisions, was adopted which stipulates that
catches taken during fishing for research purposes by commercial fishing vessels, or vessels
of a similar catching capacity, will be considered part of any catch limit. Reporting
procedures are set out.
Resolution 9/XI, Scientific Research Exemption Provisions for Finfish, details
notification procedures prior to inception of the fishery. These include information about
the vessel, including carrying capacity and anticipated catch, and details of the research
plan. A summary of the results must be sent to the Secretariat within 180 days of
completion of the research fishery.
The requirements in this resolution are considered interim, and the SC WGs will be
developing guidelines and standardised formats for the next meeting.
2.5 OBSERVATION AND INSPECTION
2.5.1 Scheme of scientific observation
This year saw (at last) the adoption of a scheme of scientific observation. Last year,
agreement had been blocked by the European Community, who wanted to avoid setting
precedents that could be used against them in other agreements. The scheme that was
11
finally adopted was a slightly modified version of the EC proposal (which itself was a
slightly modified version of the text that had almost been agreed upon last year.) Under
the scheme, members agree to take observers on board both research and harvesting
vessels. The country that wants to put observers on board and the fishing country then have
to come to a bilateral arrangement about when and how this will actually take place. These
bilateral arrangements have to be agreed in accordance with a list of principles that includes
a statement that the vessel operator has to cooperate fully with the observer and give them
access to data and operations, but otherwise is mainly about who is responsible for the
expenses involved.
The function of scientific observers is described as "to observe and report on the operation
of fishing activities in the Convention Area with the objectives and principles of the
[CCAMLR] in mind."
Tasks are listed as:
(a)
record details of the vessels operation.
(b)
take samples of catches to determine biological characteristics;
(c)
record biological data by species caught;
(d)
record by-catches, their quantity and other biological data;
(e)
record entanglement and incidental mortality of birds and mammals;
(f)
record the procedure by which declared catch weight is measures and collect
data relating to the conversion factor between green weight and final product
in the event the catch is recorded on the basis of weight of processed product;
(g)
prepare reports of their observations and submit them to CCAMLR through
their respective authorities;
(h)
submit copies of reports to captains of vessels;
(i)
assist, if requested, the captain of the vessel in the catch recording and
reporting procedures, and;
(j)
undertake other tasks as may be decided by mutual agreement of the parties
involved.
2.5.2
Inspections and Infringements
During the 1991/92 year, the UK did an inspection of a Chilean longliner, and the US did
an inspection of a Russian krill trawler. The British also watched a Russian longliner, but
was unable to board and inspect it, because of bad weather.
The Chilean ship inspected by the UK was not correctly using the devices required by
Conservation Measure 29/X, to minimise the attraction of seabirds to baited hooks.
The Chileans reported that they are prosecuting four Chilean ships that arrived in Port
12
Stanley and appear to have been longlining around South Georgia in June, several months
after the fishery was closed for the season. They are being charged with violations both of
CCAMLR and of Chilean fisheries law. However, because this is in front of the courts, it
could not be discussed further at the CCAMLR meeting.
2.6 ECOSYSTEM MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT
2.6.1
Monitoring Results
Prey data from both fishery and fishery-independent activities had been reviewed. Both
Russia and Chile submitted fine-scale catch data, including haul by haul and catch per unit
effort (CPUE) data. The value of this data was stressed, and Japan was requested to
submit its data. Japan again stated its inability in submitting fine-scale data (for fear it
would give away commercial data), but would submit data on a larger scale.
2.6.2
Ecosystem Assessment
For the first time WG-CEMP was able to review and assess data on the biological and
physical environment in the manner endorsed last year by the Commission. One result
corroborated previous findings, that 1991 was a year of poor availability of krill to predators
in Subareas 48.1, 2 and 3.
2.6.3
Potential Impact of Localised Krill Catches
Last year, an analysis by the Secretariat showed that the krill fishery in Subareas 48.1 and
2 overlaps the foraging ranges of krill-dependent predators at a critical time of year (when
the predators have a restricted foraging range due to dependent offspring). This year's
analyses reinforced these findings; 96 to 98% of the krill catch in Subarea 48.1 and 2 from
December to March is taken within the critical period-distance for foraging activity of
breeding penguins and fur seals. This has long been identified as a serious concern, and the
Commission requested that recommendations be made at this meeting.
Most Members wanted to implement a CM to provide adequate protection for predators
in 48.1 and 2 until such time that sufficient data are available to assess the situation more
precisely. Japan opposed this, stating that there is no evidence that the fishery is having any
effect on seal and penguin colonies.
The SC considered a proposal tabled by the US concerning allocation of krill precautionary
catches within the foraging ranges of land-based predators in Area 48 (after adoption of the
precautionary catch limit last year, members agreed to refine the estimate to provide
protection for predators). Chile, endorsed by Japan, Korea and Poland, objected to the
proposal because the low catch levels of krill did not warrant immediate attention. Chile
proposed the matter be given further consideration.
13
Japan then came up with a series of (unsubstantiated) reasons for opposing a reduction of
the krill catch. Most Members disagreed with Japan.
Japan stated that it was opposed to any proposition which might pre-determine the necessity
of closed area or closed season measures, in light of the current historical low catch levels.
Other Members stated that in recent meetings of CEMP and the SC, there had been near
unanimous concern over the persistent geographical overlap between the krill fishery and
the foraging ranges of krill-dependant predators at critical times of the year.
In addition, last year, the SC had agreed unanimously that it needed to give close attention
to the appropriate management action in these circumstances. Members had agreed that
some combination of catch limits, closed seasons and closed areas could mitigate the
potential impact on predators without imposing unacceptable changes to fishing practices.
To try to reach closure on this discussion (which became very contentious, and was yet
another area where Japan proved to be looking out for their own economic interests and
would not back down) Members currently engaged in krill fishing were asked to consider
and report (at the next meeting) on what potential measures would be acceptable to them.
2.6.2
Prey Requirements for Krill Predators
Considerable progress had been made in accumulating some of the necessary data. But a
knowledge of the functional relationships between krill availability and predator
performance is still needed. These data are necessary to help assess the consequence of the
overlap between the krill fishery and dependant predators. Also needed are estimates of
krill consumption by predators.
2.6.3
Seal Island CEMP Site
Last year, the Commission adopted Resolution 8/X which accorded protection to CEMP
sites on Seal Island. Comments were then sought from the Scientific Committee on
Antarctic Research (SCAR) and the Treaty Parties. Within SCAR, the management plan
was considered by the Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation
(GOSEAC), the Working Group on Biology (WGB), the Working Group on Geology
(WGG), and SCAR. GOSEAC, the WGB and SCAR endorsed the plan. The Some
members of the WGG were concerned that the management plan would restrict their access
to the area (as it should!).
The management plan was modified to permit access if the planned activity would not
result in the killing, injuring or disturbing of pinnipeds or seabirds, their breeding areas, or
access to their breeding areas. No negative responses had been received from any Treaty
Party.
14
CM 18/IX, Procedure for Affording Protection to CEMP Sites was amended with two
Annexes specifying the management plan for the Seal Island CEMP Sites. CM 62/XI,
Protection of the Seal Islands CEMP Site, was also adopted.
2.7 INCIDENTAL MORTALITY/MARINE DEBRIS
2.7.1
Longline fisheries
The main issue was with the use of streamer lines in the longline fishery. Last year's CM
stated that they needed to be used at night. It became clear from the UK inspection of a
Chilean ship that the definition of night (when they are not required) was unclear, and that
streamers should be used between nautical twilights, which in the Southern Ocean, might
be all night at some times of the year. In the end, CM 29/X was modified. CM 29/XI
requires streamer lines to be used at all times.
The Russians submitted a report about work they did to investigate ways of reducing
incidental mortality in the longline fishery. However, this report was not detailed enough
to be particularly useful, and the SC merely asked for more details. The UK observation
of a Russian longliner said that the Russians were using a "blinker" (which seems to be
some sort of brightly coloured buoy) that is towed behind the ship to deter birds from
diving for the bait. This is consistent with Greenpeace observations from the previous
summer.
The US also tabled a report about observations at Palmer Station of four live giant petrels
entangled in longline hooks and nylon line. This is apparently the first such record from
that area.
2.7.2 Trawl fisheries
Russia said that it was on track to remove net monitor cables from its trawlers as required
by CM 30/X (beginning of 1994), and that in the meantime it had been complying with the
requirement to use a system of pulleys to bring the cables down to water level immediately
behind the ship.
2.7.3
Marine Debris
Several countries, including the U.S., submitted reports on this item. The UK again
conducted a beach litter survey on South Georgia, and reported that the incidence of fur
seal entanglement in marine debris had declined, although the types of debris had not
changed. However, surveys by the U.S. at Seal Island demonstrated that the number of
entanglements was unchanged.
15
2.8 IWC WHALE SANCTUARY PROPOSAL
From the whale conservation point of view, an extremely important proposal was put
forward by the French Government at the June 1992 IWC meeting, for the whole Southern
Ocean (south of 40 degrees South) to be declared a whale sanctuary, where all commercial
whaling would be prohibited. No decision was taken on this at the IWC, but it was agreed
to put it on the agenda again at the 1993 IWC meeting, and in the meantime to request
CCAMLR, through its SC, and other relevant organisations, for their comments on the
scientific aspects of the proposal.
It was clear that the opponents of the sanctuary proposal (primarily Japan, supported by
Norway as the only other whaling country left in the IWC) would try to use CCAMLR to
get support for their case. ASOC's objective was therefore to prevent negative comments
on the proposal being recorded by the SC, and this was successfully achieved.
Japan tabled a paper just two days before the item came up, which appeared hastily written
and contained a number of errors. To counter the statements in this paper, delegates from
New Zealand, with support from Australia and others, worked with ASOC, the evening
before the discussion, to draft two further papers, one commenting on the Japanese paper
and one in support of the sanctuary. These papers were not in fact available before the
discussion took place, but were listed in the final report (the first tabled by Australia,
France and New Zealand, and the second by these countries and Sweden).
When the item was discussed in the SC, ASOC made a statement introducing the
background paper we had tabled in support of the sanctuary. There was a heated
discussion, about 40 minutes long, but in the end the SC report was neutral on the issue.
It recognised that "the IWC is the global international organisation with authority for the
management of whales" (this is important in the context of attempts to set up rival
organisations in the North Atlantic and elsewhere) and also had some useful language on
the need for cooperation with the IWC SC on the role of whales in the Southern Ocean
ecosystem. This was all repeated in the CCAMLR Report, although no further discussion
on the issue took place in the Commission itself.
2.9 OZONE DEPLETION
Ozone depletion was mentioned a few times during the course of the meeting. NZ
circulated a bibliography, and ASOC tabled, and spoke to, a paper outlining the extent of
the issue and suggesting actions CCAMLR could take. The Chair of the Commission, who
had been CCAMLR's observer to UNCED, reported that "concern for the ozone layer
depletion had ranked high within the Agenda 21 of UNCED." CCAMLR therefore duly
expressed concern about these impacts, but refused to go as far as to send that concern to
the Montreal Protocol.
16
2.10 APPOINTMENTS
One of the big background issues of the meeting was the appointment of an Executive
Secretary to replace Darry Powell, an Australian who has held the position since its
inception. There were five final candidates (Inigo Everson - UK, Karl Herman Koch -
Germany, Peter Welkner - Chile, Rennie Holt - USA, and Esteban de Salas - Spain). Spain
pushed its candidate (the only on that had national endorsement in this way) aggressively
both before, and at the meeting. Several countries were doubtful about appointing a
Spanish person, given Spain's reputation in fisheries matters, but in the end, it was the
Spanish person who was appointed. He has a background in fisheries management within
Spain.
The chairs of both the SC and Commission also came up for election at this meeting.
Karl-Herman Koch was elected to the chair of the SC. Members take turns, alphabetically,
to provide the chair of the Commission (for two-year terms) and this year it was the turn
of the European Community. Initially, there was some grumbling that EC countries were
getting more than one share in chairing, and that if the EC were to take it up, one of the
EC countries should therefore drop out. This grumbling was also spurred on by the almost
universal dislike, stemming from the year before, with which the EC commissioner was
regarded.
These objections were eventually dropped, but at the last minute further mutterings were
caused by the EC's inability to nominate exactly who it would provide for this position.
Apparently John Spencer, the current CCAMLR commissioner, will not be available next
year, and he could not say who the replacement would be. In any case, it is unlikely to be
someone who has much knowledge of the workings of CCAMLR. Some of the concern
centred around the question of who would fill in should any decisions be needed from the
chairperson.
3.
ASOC'S OBSERVER STATUS
ASOC had been invited to send someone to attend both the SC and Commission meetings
under the standing Rules of Procedure for the respective meetings. However, in the SC,
Japan claimed that it had not received the proposal from the Secretariat about this
invitation, and while it wasn't suggesting that ASOC should be removed, it's understanding
was that ASOC was attending under the additional conditions placed on ASOC's attendance
at the Xth meeting of the SC (i.e., scientific background, and promise of confidentiality of
proceedings). (Those extra conditions had been set in place for that year only.)
ASOC asked the Commission if two observers could attend the Commission meeting this
year. This caused a much greater ruckus than was expected. It was initially discussed at
the Heads of Delegation meeting, when the chair of the Commission confused the issue by
giving the wrong story (that we wanted someone to replace Maj when she had to leave the
17
meeting early). Japan referred back to the initial conditions put on ASOC at its first year
of attendance (which were formulated explicitly for that year only) that stated that there
should only be one observer. In the end, an unwritten deal was struck between the chair
and Japan that we could have an extra person in the meeting provided they didn't speak.
While this was not an ideal solution, at least there is no written precedent for next year.
4.
ASOC ACTIVITIES
This year for the first time, ASOC decided not to produce ECO - the newsletter that, in the
past, has been produced at the meeting for distribution to delegates. It was felt this year
that with the high level of access and acceptance that ASOC now has within the meeting,
it is becoming difficult to maintain a pretence that ECO is written solely from information
gained by outside lobbyists.
ASOC tabled two papers; one on the IWC Southern Ocean whale sanctuary proposal, and
one on the possible effects of ozone depletion on the Southern Ocean ecosystem.
5.
THE YEAR AHEAD
Pressures on the Antarctic ecosystem continue. As the world gains new nations, and these
turn to the Southern Ocean for what they perceive as easy, accessible fisheries, it becomes
increasingly difficult to apply the "precautionary principle," that is, erring on the side of
caution. Constant vigilance by ASOC and those CCAMLR Member nations that are truly
committed to protecting Antarctica's ecosystem is critical. Intersessional meetings with
delegates from the fishing nations is probably the best way to ensure that consensus will be
reached, at CCAMLR XII, for strong conservation measures.
For the year ahead, we need to focus on the following:
1. A CM defining an exploratory fishery, including reporting requirements for that
fishery; classified as a "new" fishery.
2. A CM limiting or closing the krill fishery during critical periods to protect krill
predators (including an allocation scheme for the Statistical Areas);
3. A CM protecting nursery grounds.
18