Activities to date
| Year | Meeting | Paragraphs | Text |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | CC-XXVI | 7.18 |
7.18 The Commission considered and endorsed the following Scientific Committee recommendations for future work on bioregionalisation:
|
| 2007 | SC-CAMLR-XXVI | 3.3 to 3.17 |
3.3 The Scientific Committee agreed that the instructions in the Scientific Observers Manual be revised (Annex 4, paragraph 4.34), and the interim fish larvae by-catch protocol (WG-EMM-07/25) be included in the manual, so that the various types of information urgently needed by the Scientific Committee could be systematically collected (Annex 4, paragraphs 4.64 to 4.72). 3.4 The Scientific Committee agreed to consider issues relating to observer coverage. 3.5 The Scientific Committee noted with interest WG-EMM’s deliberations on the issue of data collection by scientific observers which focused on previously agreed priorities (SC-CAMLR-XXV, paragraph 2.15). 3.6 The Scientific Committee endorsed WG-SAM’s advice which identified a need for high-quality length-frequency data from the fishery from several years in advance of implementing an integrated assessment, and recommended that the fishery start providing length-frequency data now, given that the coverage by research surveys is not likely to be sufficient for all regions (Annex 7, paragraph 3.13). 3.7 The Scientific Committee based its deliberations on the following two strategic objectives for scientific observations of the krill fishery:
3.8 The rationale behind this two-stage approach is that fisheries monitoring effort does not necessarily have to have indefinite maximum coverage if a reduced observation effort is sufficient to fulfil management requirements. There is, however, an expectation that there will be a long-term need for systematic data collection from the fishery. 3.9 The Scientific Committee agreed that it will only be possible to design the spatial and temporal level of observer coverage required for objective (ii) once objective (i) has been completed. A full investigation of (i) would require systematic spatial and temporal coverage by scientific observers across SSMUs, seasons, vessels and fishing methods. 3.10 The Scientific Committee agreed that there are a number of ways to collect the required scientific data from the krill fishery. For example, for both first and second stages the most comprehensive coverage, and the most rapid way to achieve objective (i), could be either of the following alternatives:
3.11 The Scientific Committee noted that reduced levels of observational effort could delay the achievement of objective (i) in paragraph 3.7, and may also introduce bias into the data if the observational effort is not reduced appropriately. This reduced effort could include:
3.12 It was clarified that:
3.13 The Scientific Committee encouraged interested Parties to submit plans to achieve systematic and consistent collection of the required scientific data from the fishery to the next WG-EMM, WG-SAM and ad hoc WG-IMAF meetings for scrutiny. These plans would include those that proposed 100% observer coverage and those that could demonstrate adequate data collection using lower levels of coverage. This work is essential in order that Members can agree on the level of coverage that enables collection of the data necessary to achieve the stated objectives. 3.14 The Scientific Committee agreed that the working groups should carry out an assessment of the consequences to the data collection effort of the different approaches suggested, and recommend the required level of observer coverage to the Scientific Committee in 2008. 3.15 The Scientific Committee acknowledged that each of the options for obtaining the priority data required would have consequential issues of implementation and the timescale of delivery. Risks associated with reduced coverage need to be thoroughly addressed by relevant experts before agreeing on an observer coverage plan. 3.16 The Scientific Committee further urged Members and Contracting Parties fishing for krill to send their experts to WG-EMM and WG-SAM to be fully engaged in the process. Orderly development of the krill fishery 3.17 The Scientific Committee agreed that a strategic approach to the orderly development of the krill fishery would allow the Commission to better control and mitigate the level of impact by the krill fishery on the krill stocks and on predator populations (Annex 4, paragraphs 4.73 to 4.76). This approach would also make the krill fishery consistent with other CCAMLR-managed fisheries. |
| 2007 | SC-CAMLR-XXVI | 10.8 and 10.9 | 10.8 Dr Constable agreed and recalled his suggestion from last year for a joint CEP-Scientific Committee workshop. To give greater impetus to that proposal, Dr Constable suggested that the Scientific Committee give consideration to holding such a workshop in 2009 and that representatives from WG-EMM in particular be encouraged to participate.
10.9 Dr Gilbert welcomed the proposal for a joint meeting in 2009 and offered that CEP would come forward to the next meeting of WG-EMM and the Scientific Committee with some firm suggestions for agenda items. |
| 2008 | CCAMLR-XXVII | 17.1 to 17.18 | 17.1 In accepting the Performance Review Panel Report (CCAMLR-XXVII/8), the Commission thanked the Panel and the Secretariat for their hard work in providing this comprehensive report to the meeting. Following its agreed approach (CCAMLR-XXVI, Annex 7, paragraph 10) the Commission considered the report, taking into account comments from SCIC, SCAF and the Scientific Committee.
17.2 While also thanking the Panel for its hard work, Argentina noted that the important debate on the criteria which should be taken into account for the Panel’s work had an important consequence on the efficiency of its work. 17.3 The Commission noted that it would base its discussion of the Performance Review Panel Report on the full body of the report. In noting that the report summary was useful, the Commission agreed that its contents were confusing in that there appeared to be eight items addressed while the actual report only comprised seven chapters. In that respect, it was agreed that issues relating to the Chairman’s Statement, which appeared in Item 8 of the summary, were more appropriately covered in Chapter 3.5.5 of CCAMLR-XXVII/8. Advice from SCIC 17.4 The Chair of SCIC informed the Commission that the Committee had focused on Chapter 4 of CCAMLR-XXVII/8 (Compliance and Enforcement) and had identified the following priority items (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.5):
17.5 The Commission also noted that the following recommendations from other chapters of the report were identified by SCIC Members as priority items (Annex 5, paragraph 7.6):
Advice from SCAF 17.6 The Vice-Chair of SCAF informed the Commission that SCAF considered the recommendations pertaining to Chapter 7 of the Report ‘Financial and Administrative Issues’ (Annex 4, paragraphs 33 to 37). She emphasised that:
Advice from the Scientific Committee 17.7 The Commission noted that the Scientific Committee had indicated that failure to read the entire Review Panel Report would result in the reader failing to become aware of the report’s many positive appraisals of CCAMLR’s performance (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 10.5). 17.8 The Scientific Committee had noted that almost every aspect of the report had indicated a need for additional work (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 10.6). 17.9 The Commission further noted that the Scientific Committee had considered the report’s 10 general recommendations made by the Panel. The latter had agreed that recommendations relating to CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Items 2.4 (Protected Areas), 3.1 (Status of Living Resources) and 3.2 (Ecosystem Approach) should be reviewed during the coming intersessional period and that the additional recommendations should be taken up on a longer-term basis (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 10.10). 17.10 The Commission appreciated that the Scientific Committee had requested its incoming Chair to form a Steering Committee to develop a ‘road map’ (plan of action) to tackle the Review Panel’s recommendation during the forthcoming intersessional period. This would provide direction to various subsidiary bodies of the Scientific Committee on how the three highest-priority recommendations above can be addressed and how the remaining recommendation might be addressed in the future. The objective of this work is to ensure the Scientific Committee is able to provide advice to the Commission on these topics at its 2009 meeting (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 10.11). Consideration of the Commission 17.11 The Commission welcomed the comments from the SCIC, SCAF and Scientific Committee Chairs. It very much appreciated that the Review Panel and standing committees had met all the deadlines and requirements outlined in paragraph 10 of CCAMLR-XXVI, Annex 7. The fact that the Panel had completed a significant amount of work in the time available was greatly commended. 17.12 The Commission agreed that it was now the responsibility of the Commission to act on the Review Panel’s recommendations. It appreciated that addressing some of the Panel’s recommendations may be straightforward, whereas others are likely to be more difficult. However, the latter should not be seen to provide a reason for inaction. 17.13 The Commission noted that CCAMLR was the first organisation of its type to undertake and respond to such a Performance Review in the context of the Convention’s objectives relating to both the conservation and rational utilisation of marine living resources. As a consequence, it was imperative to address the various priority items raised by SCIC, SCAF and the Scientific Committee during the intersessional period to advance discussion of the Review’s outcomes at the next meeting of the Commission. 17.14 The Commission generally endorsed the Performance Review Panel’s view (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 2.1) on the relationship between CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty. It noted in particular the need to reinforce the obligation set out in Articles III and V (and IV.1) of the Convention. The Commission also noted that implementing these recommendations into actual Commission decisions would require formal presentation of detailed proposals by Members. 17.15 In the latter regard, Australia as Depository, undertook to develop text to address the Panel recommendation given in CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 2.1.1.1a, and thereby bring to the attention of an Acceding State, or a State seeking accession, the particular Convention articles linking the Convention with the Antarctic Treaty. The Secretariat was also requested to prepare an information pack on CCAMLR and its links to the Antarctic Treaty to be made available to Acceding States, and other States indicating an interest in CCAMLR. 17.16 Japan noted that the Review had identified effectively combating IUU as a priority cross-cutting issue and this would include the rôle to be played by market-related and Port State measures. Furthermore, it noted that while the CCAMLR Performance Review had been conducted in accordance with the criteria agreed by CCAMLR, when these were compared with those of other RFMOs (i.e. ICCAT, IOTC and CCSBT) several elements were missing. For example, the CCAMLR criteria do not include compatibility of measures as reflected in Article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries or in Article 7 of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Therefore, CCAMLR should first examine the Performance Review Panel Report to identify missing elements, such as the compatibility of conservation measures, and then it should address these. Regarding the audit of the action taken against each recommendation in the Performance Review Panel Report, Japan drew attention to the suggestion included in the letter from the Panel Chair accompanying CCAMLR-XXVII/8 that the Performance Review should be conducted on a regular basis and that taking this into account, an audit of Commission actions should be conducted two or three years from now so as to fall midway between the current and the next review. 17.17 Some Members noted that unlike the organisations mentioned by Japan, CCAMLR is not an RFMO and recalled that it is a conservation organisation, where conservation includes rational use. It further noted that it is essential for any potential new entrants to CCAMLR to be fully aware of this distinction. 17.18 The Commission recognised that consideration of the Performance Review Panel Report at its meeting this year represented the first stage in a process to address the priority issues that had been identified. It further clarified that all relevant issues remained open for consideration at future meetings. |
| 2008 | CCAMLR-XXVII | 17.6 | 17.6 The Vice-Chair of SCAF informed the Commission that SCAF considered the recommendations pertaining to Chapter 7 of the Report ‘Financial and Administrative Issues’ (Annex 4, paragraphs 33 to 37). She emphasised that:
|
| 2008 | CCAMLR-XXVII | 17.14 |
17.14 The Commission generally endorsed the Performance Review Panel’s view (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 2.1) on the relationship between CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty. It noted in particular the need to reinforce the obligation set out in Articles III and V (and IV.1) of the Convention. The Commission also noted that implementing these recommendations into actual Commission decisions would require formal presentation of detailed proposals by Members. |
| 2008 | CCAMLR-XXVII | 17.14 and 17.15 | 17.14 The Commission generally endorsed the Performance Review Panel’s view (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 2.1) on the relationship between CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty. It noted in particular the need to reinforce the obligation set out in Articles III and V (and IV.1) of the Convention. The Commission also noted that implementing these recommendations into actual Commission decisions would require formal presentation of detailed proposals by Members.
17.15 In the latter regard, Australia as Depository, undertook to develop text to address the Panel recommendation given in CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 2.1.1.1a, and thereby bring to the attention of an Acceding State, or a State seeking accession, the particular Convention articles linking the Convention with the Antarctic Treaty. The Secretariat was also requested to prepare an information pack on CCAMLR and its links to the Antarctic Treaty to be made available to Acceding States, and other States indicating an interest in CCAMLR. |
| 2008 | CCAMLR-XXVII | 17.16 |
17.16 Japan noted that the Review had identified effectively combating IUU as a priority cross-cutting issue and this would include the rôle to be played by market-related and Port State measures. Furthermore, it noted that while the CCAMLR Performance Review had been conducted in accordance with the criteria agreed by CCAMLR, when these were compared with those of other RFMOs (i.e. ICCAT, IOTC and CCSBT) several elements were missing. For example, the CCAMLR criteria do not include compatibility of measures as reflected in Article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries or in Article 7 of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Therefore, CCAMLR should first examine the Performance Review Panel Report to identify missing elements, such as the compatibility of conservation measures, and then it should address these. Regarding the audit of the action taken against each recommendation in the Performance Review Panel Report, Japan drew attention to the suggestion included in the letter from the Panel Chair accompanying CCAMLR-XXVII/8 that the Performance Review should be conducted on a regular basis and that taking this into account, an audit of Commission actions should be conducted two or three years from now so as to fall midway between the current and the next review. |
| 2008 | CCAMLR-XXVII | 17.17 |
17.17 Some Members noted that unlike the organisations mentioned by Japan, CCAMLR is not an RFMO and recalled that it is a conservation organisation, where conservation includes rational use. It further noted that it is essential for any potential new entrants to CCAMLR to be fully aware of this distinction. |
| 2008 | CCAMLR-XXVII | Annex 5, paras 7.4 and 7.5 | 7.4 As an initial step, SCIC agreed to identify those recommendations contained in the report which Members believed should be addressed as a matter of priority and refer them to the Commission. SCIC stressed that this approach should not imply that other items were of lesser importance and stated that it intended to address remaining items in future as time permitted.
7.5 All Members were invited to convey their preferences for priority items to SCIC. Members generally agreed to focus on the section of the Performance Review Panel Report dealing with Compliance (Chapter 4). Recommendations of Chapter 4 of the report which were identified by SCIC Members as priority items were:
|
| 2008 | CCAMLR-XXVII | Annex 5, para 7.5 | 7.5 All Members were invited to convey their preferences for priority items to SCIC. Members generally agreed to focus on the section of the Performance Review Panel Report dealing with Compliance (Chapter 4). Recommendations of Chapter 4 of the report which were identified by SCIC Members as priority items were:
|
| 2008 | CCAMLR-XXVII | Annex 5, para 7.6 | 7.6 The Committee agreed that a number of items from other chapters of the Review Panel Report were also relevant to the work of SCIC. Recommendations from other chapters of the report which were identified by SCIC Members as priority which should be brought to the attention of the Commission were:
|
| 2008 | CCAMLR-XXVII | Annex 5, para 7.7 | 7.7 The UK also requested that, whilst the item in relation to CCAMLR’s relationship with the Antarctic Treaty System (Item 2.1 of the Review Panel Report) may not fall under the remit of SCIC, it should nevertheless be brought to the attention of the Commission as an important item. |
| 2008 | SC-CAMLR-XXVII | 10.2 and 10.10 | 10.2 The Scientific Committee considered general aspects of the PRP report and derived a plan for how recommendations made in the report could be considered, both during 2009 and beyond. PRP recommendations and subitems considered to be applicable to the Scientific Committee’s work were identified in CCAMLR-XXVII/BG/39 and are provided in Table 5. However, the Scientific Committee agreed that all subitems under each recommendation should be examined to determine which ones were applicable to its work and how they were to be undertaken.
10.10 The Scientific Committee agreed that all aspects of the 10 general recommendations (Table 5) made by the PRP, as well as those found in the subitems, should be considered. The Scientific Committee further agreed that three recommendations should be reviewed during the coming intersessional year and that the additional recommendations should be taken up on a longer-term basis. The three recommendations to be considered during this coming year are Items 2.4 (Protected Areas), 3.1 (Status of Living Resources) and 3.2 (Ecosystem Approach). |
| 2008 | SC-CAMLR-XXVII | 10.2 to 10.10 |
10.2 The Scientific Committee considered general aspects of the PRP report and derived a plan for how recommendations made in the report could be considered, both during 2009 and beyond. PRP recommendations and subitems considered to be applicable to the Scientific Committee’s work were identified in CCAMLR-XXVII/BG/39 and are provided in Table 5. However, the Scientific Committee agreed that all subitems under each recommendation should be examined to determine which ones were applicable to its work and how they were to be undertaken. General comments 10.3 The Scientific Committee congratulated the PRP for their diligence in providing a very comprehensive report written over a very short period. The Scientific Committee agreed that the PRP’s analysis of the scientific mission and activities was very thorough and illustrated a deep understanding of science in CCAMLR and how it relates to the Commission’s objectives on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources as contained in Article II. 10.4 The Scientific Committee appreciated comments made by the PRP concerning the status of advice provided to the Commission. The Scientific Committee was pleased to note that the PRP recognised the ‘uniqueness’ of CCAMLR because of its strong conservation credentials along with the precautionary principle and ecosystem approach (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 1.3). The Scientific Committee noted that the PRP recognised that CCAMLR is particularly advanced in its development and use of methods to manage prey species so as to protect dependent predators, in assessing and limiting fishery impacts on by catch species, and in providing a structured and precautionary process for the orderly development of new and exploratory fisheries (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 3.1.1.16). The Scientific Committee acknowledged several similar views of the various scientific aspects of CCAMLR were provided by the PRP. 10.5 The Scientific Committee noted that readers, especially non-CCAMLR readers, stood the danger of concluding that CCAMLR performance was deficient if they only read the Executive Summary and Summary of Recommendations sections of the report. Failure to read the entire report would result in the reader not being aware of the many positive aspects identified by the PRP. 10.6 The Scientific Committee further noted that the PRP had indicated that for almost every aspect of the report, recommendations of additional work were identified. Many of these, if implemented, would require a large amount of resources, both of financial and personnel. 10.7 The Scientific Committee recognised the role that science in CCAMLR plays in the Antarctic Treaty System and in the international community as a whole. It was noted that science in CCAMLR has recently expanded its role from the traditional fishery-oriented role to a broader international role (e.g. climate change, MPAs etc.). 10.8 However, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the Scientific Committee recognised that it lacked the resources to adequately meet its objectives. This is because of several reasons, including costs associated with sending scientists to meetings, loss of expertise to other competing national programs, and failure of some Members to send representatives to working group meetings (paragraph 16.7). 10.9 The Scientific Committee endorsed the proposal that a way to ensure that critical information reaches the Scientific Committee and its working groups was to invite submission of relevant papers (e.g. VME/benthos, climate change etc.) from non-Member scientists. These papers could be submitted with long lead times, maybe two months prior to the start of a working group meeting. The Chair of the Scientific Committee and the conveners of the working groups could then decide which papers were relevant to its agenda and then distribute appropriate papers. This would not result in additional travel costs or time associated with attending the meeting. 10.10 The Scientific Committee agreed that all aspects of the 10 general recommendations (Table 5) made by the PRP, as well as those found in the subitems, should be considered. The Scientific Committee further agreed that three recommendations should be reviewed during the coming intersessional year and that the additional recommendations should be taken up on a longer-term basis. The three recommendations to be considered during this coming year are Items 2.4 (Protected Areas), 3.1 (Status of Living Resources) and 3.2 (Ecosystem Approach). |
| 2008 | SC-CAMLR-XXVII | 10.8 and 10.9 | 10.8 However, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the Scientific Committee recognised that it lacked the resources to adequately meet its objectives. This is because of several reasons, including costs associated with sending scientists to meetings, loss of expertise to other competing national programs, and failure of some Members to send representatives to working group meetings (paragraph 16.7).
10.9 The Scientific Committee endorsed the proposal that a way to ensure that critical information reaches the Scientific Committee and its working groups was to invite submission of relevant papers (e.g. VME/benthos, climate change etc.) from non-Member scientists. These papers could be submitted with long lead times, maybe two months prior to the start of a working group meeting. The Chair of the Scientific Committee and the conveners of the working groups could then decide which papers were relevant to its agenda and then distribute appropriate papers. This would not result in additional travel costs or time associated with attending the meeting. |
| 2008 | SC-CAMLR-XXVII | 10.10 | 10.10 The Scientific Committee agreed that all aspects of the 10 general recommendations (Table 5) made by the PRP, as well as those found in the subitems, should be considered. The Scientific Committee further agreed that three recommendations should be reviewed during the coming intersessional year and that the additional recommendations should be taken up on a longer-term basis. The three recommendations to be considered during this coming year are Items 2.4 (Protected Areas), 3.1 (Status of Living Resources) and 3.2 (Ecosystem Approach). |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 3.10 | 3.10 The Commission noted that the suggestions for staff succession contained in CCAMLR-XXVIII/8 should be provided to the incoming Executive Secretary for future consideration, recognising that any recommendations with budgetary implications will need to be referred to SCAF (Annex 4, paragraph 13). |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 3.13 and 3.14 | 3.13 The Commission noted that translation will always have significant impact on the budget. It agreed with SCAF that all possible options for reducing translation requirements should be investigated before any proposal for additional translating staff could be considered (Annex 4, paragraph 21).
3.14 The Commission supported SCAF’s request that the Secretariat consult informally with Members requiring translation to or from each of the four languages to determine their specific needs and for SCAF to consider the outcomes of the Secretariat’s consultations at its 2010 meeting (Annex 4, paragraph 22). |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 4.53 |
4.53 The Commission recognised the value of obtaining input from the CEP and SCAR to discussions on marine protected areas (MPAs), to ensure harmonisation across the Antarctic Treaty System, and to facilitate the provision and use of the best available scientific data. It agreed that experts/observers should be invited to attend meetings of WG EMM, and to participate in intersessional work on the topic of MPAs, as appropriate (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 3.30). |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 7.3 | 7.3 The Commission recognised that areas to be designated as protected in the Convention Area be linked to a management plan specific to the area concerned. Therefore, when such a plan was established by the Commission, it should be reviewed by all Members, the Scientific Committee and the Commission as to its suitability. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 12.86 | 12.86 The Commission endorsed the Scientific Committee’s advice to implement an MPA on the South Orkney Islands southern shelf, to contribute towards the conservation of biodiversity in Subarea 48.2, and the development of a representative network of protected areas across the Convention Area (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraphs 3.14 to 3.19). Accordingly, Conservation Measure 91-03 (2009) (Protection of the South Orkney Islands southern shelf) was adopted. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 15.12 | 15.12 The Commission endorsed an amended version of the MOU and requested the Secretariat to forward the proposed text to ACAP (Annex 8). Once ACAP indicates that it agrees with this text, the CCAMLR Executive Secretary would then be authorised to sign the MOU and notify all Members through a Commission Circular. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.2 to 16.25 | 16.2 The Chair noted that the Commission had agreed to continue considering advice from the Scientific Committee, SCIC and SCAF on matters arising from the 2008 CCAMLR Performance Review Panel Report (CCAMLR-XXVII, paragraphs 17.9, 17.10, 17.14 and 17.18). He invited the Chairs of these committees to report on their respective discussions of such matters.
16.3 The Chair of the Scientific Committee provided a summary of the Committee’s discussion on how to address the highest-priority recommendations of the Performance Review Panel Report (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraphs 10.1 to 10.25). This included establishment of a Science Capacity Fund and an ‘Ad hoc Correspondence Group to Develop Options to Build SC-CAMLR Capacity in Science to Support CCAMLR’ (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraphs 10.22 and 10.23) (see also paragraphs 16.7 to 16.11 below). 16.4 The Chair of SCIC reported the Committee’s deliberations on implementing various Performance Review Report recommendations (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.6). Issues discussed included monitoring, control and surveillance (Annex 5, paragraph 7.2(i)) and market-related measures (Annex 5, paragraph 7.2(ii)). SCIC will continue consideration of such matters, along with any other relevant recommendations arising from the above report that affect the Committee’s work. Regular updates will be provided to the Commission. 16.5 The Acting Chair of SCAF advised the Commission that there were no issues relevant to the Performance Review arising from that Committee’s deliberations. 16.6 The Commission thanked the Scientific Committee for identifying specific issues and deficiencies especially with respect to the constraints on resources available to provide the Commission with high-quality scientific advice on the conduct of CCAMLR fisheries consistent with Article II of the Convention. The Commission endorsed the need to develop the capacity to address the priority issues identified by the Scientific Committee as outlined in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 10.1. 16.7 Norway noted that there was a need for the Commission to make specific suggestions on, and commitments to, addressing the issue of scientific capacity. It welcomed the Scientific Committee proposal to establish a fund to address this issue and to develop the procedures to identify how such a fund should be used. Norway informed the Commission that it would seek to take a lead and that it wished to contribute A$100 000 to the above fund. It encouraged other Members and the fishing industry to also make contributions. 16.8 Noting with appreciation, the generous offer by Norway to provide A$100 000, the Commission established a ‘General Science Capacity Special Fund’ under Financial Regulation 6.2. 16.9 The Fund’s primary purpose is to secure wider participation, not least from young scientists, in the work of the Scientific Committee, to promote burden sharing and build capacity within the Scientific Committee, assisting with the collection, study and exchange of information relating to the marine living resources to which the Convention applies. It will also serve to encourage and promote the conduct of cooperative and collaborative research in order to extend knowledge of the marine living resources of the Antarctic marine ecosystem and in the provision of the best scientific information available to the Commission. 16.10 Recalling the Scientific Committee’s deliberation on the above, the Commission noted that the ‘Ad Hoc Correspondence Group to Develop Options to Build SC-CAMLR Capacity in Science Support to CCAMLR’ would address the objective, rules of operation and administrative mechanisms of the fund, and the criteria whereby funds should be allocated to tasks and projects (SC CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 10.23). The outcomes from this work will be considered by the Scientific Committee and Commission at their 2010 meetings. 16.11 The Commission agreed that there is some urgency in providing for wider scientific capacity development during the 2009/10 intersessional period. Therefore, and as an interim arrangement, applications for financial support from the above Fund should be communicated to the Secretariat. Any requested monies will only be released after consultation with all Commission Members, including consideration of the deliberations of the Scientific Committee’s Ad Hoc Correspondence Group. This interim procedure will be reconsidered at CCAMLR-XXIX along with the outcomes of the Scientific Committee’s work on this subject. 16.12 COLTO commended Norway for its generous contribution to increasing CCAMLR’s science capacity, stating that its membership is committed to collecting and providing CCAMLR with high-quality fisheries data, to ensure the sustainable management of Antarctic fisheries. COLTO further stated that as legal commercial fishers, it has a vested interest to ensure CCAMLR has the capacity to analyse those data and report results back to the Commission. COLTO members pledged to contribute A$10 000 towards the General Science Capacity Special Fund. 16.13 The Commission thanked COLTO for its support of the fund. 16.14 New Zealand proposed that funds forfeited from the withdrawal of two New Zealand notifications from new and exploratory fisheries in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 in 2009 be paid into the General Science Capacity Special Fund to give it further momentum. Several Members supported this approach. 16.15 The Commission noted that such forfeited funds create an annual surplus that forms part of the income in next year’s CCAMLR budget and agreed that the financial implications of the diversion of any such funds would need to be considered. Some Members expressed concern and noted that any diversion of such funds from the CCAMLR budget income would need to be balanced by increases in Members’ annual contributions. The Commission referred the matter to SCAF for discussion at its 2010 meeting. It requested the Secretariat to prepare a background paper on the matter. 16.16 The Commission noted that many organisations look to CCAMLR for a lead, not only in having undertaken a Performance Review but how to actively implement its recommendations. It recognised that this is an ongoing and evolving process. 16.17 The UK recalled that there was a minority of Members providing the majority of scientific advice (paragraphs 4.49 to 4.51). It noted the potential approaches to addressing this issue, outlined in CCAMLR-XXVIII/31 and that these should be considered by the Scientific Committee’s Ad Hoc Correspondence Group (paragraph 16.3). 16.18 France noted its concern about the Performance Review Panel’s discussion of the implementation of CCAMLR conservation measures in EEZs within the Convention Area. France recalled that the existence of an EEZ places numerous responsibilities on a coastal State and that there was no inconsistency in the measures implemented by France and CCAMLR conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXVIII/34). France further stated that the notion of an EEZ enables standards to be set more rigorously than in international waters, as exemplified by France’s actions in respect of IUU fishing. 16.19 The European Community stated that it always looked to CCAMLR as an example of how to best address the challenges posed by marine living resources management and conservation, including rational use. It expressed concern at a lack of progress on certain key issues (CCAMLR-XXVIII/28). Therefore, the Community hoped that the response(s) stimulated by the Performance Review Report would engender action on priority issues. Such issues included adoption of a market-related measure in order to improve compliance with CCAMLR conservation measures, development of CEMP, capacity building and the orderly development of the krill fishery. The European Community noted that as part of the orderly development of the krill fishery, it was essential that the data reporting requirements and other measures related to the management of this fishery should be consistent with those of other CCAMLR fisheries. 16.20 Australia thanked Norway for its contribution and made the following statement:
16.21 China recalled paragraph 16.1 of the report of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII) noting that the mutual understanding and cooperation were of primary importance to the Commission. It was therefore essential to provide for equality of involvement and influence in all parts of the Commission, particularly from Members for which English was not their first language. 16.22 The Commission agreed that, given the importance of the issues being addressed by CCAMLR debates, these might at times be complex and difficult. However, the Convention’s objectives should not be neglected and the equality of expression and involvement by all Members should be promoted and preserved. 16.23 The Commission noted the Secretariat-prepared information pack (CCAMLR-XXVIII/BG/16), and the covering note prepared by Australia (as Depositary) (CCAMLR-XXVIII/BG/38) in response to the Commission’s request last year (CCAMLR-XXVII, paragraphs 17.14 and 17.15). These highlighted connections between the CAMLR Convention and the Antarctic Treaty. They also outlined obligations arising from such connections, along with other information, to be provided to States wishing to accede to the Convention, as well as to Acceding States wishing to become Members of the Commission. The Commission agreed that the Secretariat should liaise with Australia to ensure consistency and remove duplication in these documents. 16.24 The Commission requested the Secretariat to provide a progress report on the Performance Review Report. This should list papers and activities, as well as actions taken by the Commission, to address issues arising from the report and should be delivered sufficiently ahead of CCAMLR-XXIX to provide guidance to Members in developing future meeting documents. 16.25 ASOC presented CCAMLR-XXVIII/BG/29 urging the Commission to create an effective mechanism to ensure that the actions arising from the Performance Review Panel are maintained, noting the challenge of turning the Panel’s recommendations into policy and monitoring their progress to determine whether actual changes are being achieved. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.3 and 16.4 |
16.3 The Chair of the Scientific Committee provided a summary of the Committee’s discussion on how to address the highest-priority recommendations of the Performance Review Panel Report (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraphs 10.1 to 10.25). This included establishment of a Science Capacity Fund and an ‘Ad hoc Correspondence Group to Develop Options to Build SC-CAMLR Capacity in Science to Support CCAMLR’ (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraphs 10.22 and 10.23) (see also paragraphs 16.7 to 16.11 below). 16.4 The Chair of SCIC reported the Committee’s deliberations on implementing various Performance Review Report recommendations (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.6). Issues discussed included monitoring, control and surveillance (Annex 5, paragraph 7.2(i)) and market-related measures (Annex 5, paragraph 7.2(ii)). SCIC will continue consideration of such matters, along with any other relevant recommendations arising from the above report that affect the Committee’s work. Regular updates will be provided to the Commission. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.5 |
16.5 The Acting Chair of SCAF advised the Commission that there were no issues relevant to the Performance Review arising from that Committee’s deliberations. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.6–16.13 and 16.17 |
16.6 The Commission thanked the Scientific Committee for identifying specific issues and deficiencies especially with respect to the constraints on resources available to provide the Commission with high-quality scientific advice on the conduct of CCAMLR fisheries consistent with Article II of the Convention. The Commission endorsed the need to develop the capacity to address the priority issues identified by the Scientific Committee as outlined in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 10.1. 16.7 Norway noted that there was a need for the Commission to make specific suggestions on, and commitments to, addressing the issue of scientific capacity. It welcomed the Scientific Committee proposal to establish a fund to address this issue and to develop the procedures to identify how such a fund should be used. Norway informed the Commission that it would seek to take a lead and that it wished to contribute A$100 000 to the above fund. It encouraged other Members and the fishing industry to also make contributions. 16.8 Noting with appreciation, the generous offer by Norway to provide A$100 000, the Commission established a ‘General Science Capacity Special Fund’ under Financial Regulation 6.2. 16.9 The Fund’s primary purpose is to secure wider participation, not least from young scientists, in the work of the Scientific Committee, to promote burden sharing and build capacity within the Scientific Committee, assisting with the collection, study and exchange of information relating to the marine living resources to which the Convention applies. It will also serve to encourage and promote the conduct of cooperative and collaborative research in order to extend knowledge of the marine living resources of the Antarctic marine ecosystem and in the provision of the best scientific information available to the Commission. 16.10 Recalling the Scientific Committee’s deliberation on the above, the Commission noted that the ‘Ad Hoc Correspondence Group to Develop Options to Build SC-CAMLR Capacity in Science Support to CCAMLR’ would address the objective, rules of operation and administrative mechanisms of the fund, and the criteria whereby funds should be allocated to tasks and projects (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 10.23). The outcomes from this work will be considered by the Scientific Committee and Commission at their 2010 meetings. 16.11 The Commission agreed that there is some urgency in providing for wider scientific capacity development during the 2009/10 intersessional period. Therefore, and as an interim arrangement, applications for financial support from the above Fund should be communicated to the Secretariat. Any requested monies will only be released after consultation with all Commission Members, including consideration of the deliberations of the Scientific Committee’s Ad Hoc Correspondence Group. This interim procedure will be reconsidered at CCAMLR-XXIX along with the outcomes of the Scientific Committee’s work on this subject. 16.12 COLTO commended Norway for its generous contribution to increasing CCAMLR’s science capacity, stating that its membership is committed to collecting and providing CCAMLR with high-quality fisheries data, to ensure the sustainable management of Antarctic fisheries. COLTO further stated that as legal commercial fishers, it has a vested interest to ensure CCAMLR has the capacity to analyse those data and report results back to the Commission. COLTO members pledged to contribute A$10 000 towards the General Science Capacity Special Fund. 16.13 The Commission thanked COLTO for its support of the fund. 16.17 The UK recalled that there was a minority of Members providing the majority of scientific advice (paragraphs 4.49 to 4.51). It noted the potential approaches to addressing this issue, outlined in CCAMLR-XXVIII/31 and that these should be considered by the Scientific Committee’s Ad Hoc Correspondence Group (paragraph 16.3). 21 |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.8 |
16.8 Noting with appreciation, the generous offer by Norway to provide A$100 000, the Commission established a ‘General Science Capacity Special Fund’ under Financial Regulation 6.2. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.12 |
16.12 COLTO commended Norway for its generous contribution to increasing CCAMLR’s science capacity, stating that its membership is committed to collecting and providing CCAMLR with high-quality fisheries data, to ensure the sustainable management of Antarctic fisheries. COLTO further stated that as legal commercial fishers, it has a vested interest to ensure CCAMLR has the capacity to analyse those data and report results back to the Commission. COLTO members pledged to contribute A$10 000 towards the General Science Capacity Special Fund. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.14 | 16.14 New Zealand proposed that funds forfeited from the withdrawal of two New Zealand notifications from new and exploratory fisheries in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 in 2009 be paid into the General Science Capacity Special Fund to give it further momentum. Several Members supported this approach. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.18 |
16.18 France noted its concern about the Performance Review Panel’s discussion of the implementation of CCAMLR conservation measures in EEZs within the Convention Area. France recalled that the existence of an EEZ places numerous responsibilities on a coastal State and that there was no inconsistency in the measures implemented by France and CCAMLR conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXVIII/34). France further stated that the notion of an EEZ enables standards to be set more rigorously than in international waters, as exemplified by France’s actions in respect of IUU fishing. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.19 |
16.19 The European Community stated that it always looked to CCAMLR as an example of how to best address the challenges posed by marine living resources management and conservation, including rational use. It expressed concern at a lack of progress on certain key issues (CCAMLR-XXVIII/28). Therefore, the Community hoped that the response(s) stimulated by the Performance Review Report would engender action on priority issues. Such issues included adoption of a market-related measure in order to improve compliance with CCAMLR conservation measures, development of CEMP, capacity building and the orderly development of the krill fishery. The European Community noted that as part of the orderly development of the krill fishery, it was essential that the data reporting requirements and other measures related to the management of this fishery should be consistent with those of other CCAMLR fisheries. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.20 |
16.20 Australia thanked Norway for its contribution and made the following statement:
|
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.21 |
16.21 China recalled paragraph 16.1 of the report of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII) noting that the mutual understanding and cooperation were of primary importance to the Commission. It was therefore essential to provide for equality of involvement and influence in all parts of the Commission, particularly from Members for which English was not their first language. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | 16.23 | 16.23 The Commission noted the Secretariat-prepared information pack (CCAMLR-XXVIII/BG/16), and the covering note prepared by Australia (as Depositary) (CCAMLR-XXVIII/BG/38) in response to the Commission’s request last year (CCAMLR-XXVII, paragraphs 17.14 and 17.15). These highlighted connections between the CAMLR Convention and the Antarctic Treaty. They also outlined obligations arising from such connections, along with other information, to be provided to States wishing to accede to the Convention, as well as to Acceding States wishing to become Members of the Commission. The Commission agreed that the Secretariat should liaise with Australia to ensure consistency and remove duplication in these documents. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | Annex 4, paras 11 to 13 | 11. SCAF noted the report CCAMLR Secretariat Staff Succession Strategy (CCAMLR-XXVIII/8) prepared by the Executive Secretary, and suggested that some of the suggestions fall within the delegated authority of the Executive Secretary and do not require detailed approval by SCAF.
12. SCAF noted the incumbent Executive Secretary’s specific suggestions made in CCAMLR-XXVIII/8, namely: (i) Some of the Communication Officer’s more routine tasks could be delegated to the Publications Officer (formerly the Publication and Website Assistant). The Communications Officer should also liaise directly with the incoming Executive Secretary on a number of CCAMLR activities.
13. SCAF advised that these suggestions should be provided to the new Executive Secretary for future consideration, recognising that any recommendations with budgetary implications will need to be referred to SCAF. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | Annex 4, paras 19 to 22 | 19. From CCAMLR-XXVIII/10 Rev. 1, prepared by the Executive Secretary, SCAF noted the growing extent and complexity of CCAMLR’s translation commitments. In 2009, these commitments were met by a one-off budget contribution of A$100 000 for 2009 (CCAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 3.28). However, based on an analysis provided by the Secretariat to deal with future translation commitments, SCAF noted that translation will always have a significant impact on the budget.
20. Therefore, SCAF noted the various suggestions provided in the above paper as well as other ideas for reducing the cost of translations. These included:
21. SCAF stressed that all possible options for reducing translation requirements should be investigated before any proposal for additional translation staff be considered. It also recognised the need for language parity across all four of the official CCAMLR languages while acknowledging the highly specialised nature of some reports. 22. SCAF therefore agreed that a ‘blanket’ approach to translation needs was not appropriate. SCAF reiterated its request from the 2008 SCAF meeting to the Secretariat to consult informally with Members requiring translation to or from each of the four languages to determine their specific needs. In addition, potentially specialised needs of the CCAMLR scientific community and individual authors should be taken into consideration. SCAF also requested the Secretariat to come up with concrete proposals for how to reduce the amount of translation required. The outcomes of these requests will be considered at SCAF’s 2010 meeting. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | Annex 5, para 7.2 | 7.2 SCIC therefore revisited recommendations contained in Chapter 4 of the Performance Review Panel (PRP) Report1 which were identified by SCIC at CCAMLR-XXVII. SCIC recorded the following actions taken to address these items:
1 Available on the CCAMLR website – archive.ccamlr.org/pu/E/revpanrep.htm. |
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | Annex 5, para 7.2(ii) |
|
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | Annex 5, para 7.3(ii)(a) |
|
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | Annex 5, para 7.3(iii)(a) |
|
| 2009 | CCAMLR-XXVIII | Annex 5, para 7.5 |
7.5 In regard to Chapter 8 of the executive summary report of the Performance Review, France drew the attention of SCIC to the paper presented by France relating to the evaluation of the conformity of French law and practice with CCAMLR conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXVIII/34). |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 3.14 to 3.19 |
3.14 The Scientific Committee endorsed the advice from WG-EMM (Annex 4, paragraphs 5.15 to 5.37), noting that the establishment of a representative system of MPAs across the Convention Area is a high priority for the Scientific Committee (SC CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 3.55) and the Commission (CCAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 7.2). 3.15 The Scientific Committee agreed that significant further work is required to progress the establishment of a representative system of MPAs by 2012, within the timeline agreed by the WSSD, and it endorsed the advice from WG-EMM on the types of projects which would contribute towards the achievement of this target (Annex 4, paragraph 5.33). It was agreed that the MPA Special Fund should be used to facilitate this work. 3.16 The UK presented SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/14, describing a preliminary proposal for marine spatial protection to be implemented around the South Orkney Islands, to contribute towards the conservation of biodiversity in Subarea 48.2, and the development of a representative network of protected areas across the Convention Area. The proposed area was selected on the basis of a systematic conservation planning analysis, the initial results of which were presented to WG-EMM in 2008 and 2009. It includes representative examples of two pelagic bioregions occurring in Subarea 48.2, and incorporates an area of key importance for winter penguin foraging and unique oceanographic frontal systems. 3.17 Additional areas have also been identified as important for the conservation of biodiversity in Subarea 48.2, and it was noted that further work is required to determine the requirements for spatial protection in these areas, particularly in the context of circumpolar frontal systems which extend into neighbouring regions, and VMEs which have recently been identified in the South Orkney Islands shelf region. 3.18 All types of fishing would be prohibited within the proposed area, however, scientific research activities would be permitted under conditions agreed by the Scientific Committee (and in accordance with Conservation Measure 24-01). 3.19 The Scientific Committee: (i) endorsed the work undertaken to date, and recommended the adoption of a protected area in the South Orkney Islands region (as defined in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/14, Figure 3), noting that the data had been used appropriately and that the method was able to deliver robust scientific results; |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 3.14 to 3.33 |
3.19 The Scientific Committee: (i) endorsed the work undertaken to date, and recommended the adoption of a protected area in the South Orkney Islands region (as defined in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/14, Figure 3), noting that the data had been used appropriately and that the method was able to deliver robust scientific results; 3.20 While expressing its appreciation for the UK’s continued efforts in the development of spatial management, China expressed its concern about forwarding the proposal to the Commission, as the proposal is not accompanied by any workable plans, and in particular, the management plan for potential scientific research activities. 3.21 The UK confirmed that the intention of its proposal was that advice on the requirements for, and content of, a management plan should subsequently be developed by the Commission, and that this could include a research plan. 3.22 The Scientific Committee agreed that WG-EMM consider research plans that could be used to support the management plan. 3.23 The CEP Observer noted that part of the South Orkney Islands analysis had been presented to CEP XII earlier this year, and that the CEP had endorsed the method and preliminary results and encouraged further development of this work. The CEP Observer also encouraged the submission of information on this proposal to CEP XIII in 2010. 3.24 The Convener of the MPA Special Fund Correspondence Group (Dr Grant) reported on the discussions held by this group during the intersessional period (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/13). The group agreed that priorities for support by the MPA Special Fund are: (i) the collation of data to facilitate the development of MPAs, fine-scale bioregionalisation and systematic conservation planning (as endorsed by SC CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 3.55); 3.25 The group also noted the importance of a work plan to ensure progress towards the achievement of a representative system of MPAs by 2012. 3.26 The Scientific Committee noted that projects were already under way to develop marine spatial protection in several of the 11 priority regions identified by WG-EMM (Annex 4, paragraph 5.23), (including the Western Antarctic Peninsula, South Orkney Islands, Kerguelen Plateau, Prydz Bay, northern Ross Sea and Ross Sea shelf), and that further projects were planned for other priority areas. It encouraged Members to collaborate on such work, and to develop proposals for use of the MPA Special Fund as appropriate, given the priorities identified in paragraph 3.24. The Scientific Committee welcomed notification from the CEP Observer that the CEP had also endorsed the 11 priority regions for focused attention. The Scientific Committee further noted that work should not be limited to the 11 priority regions. For example, additional considerations could include regional or circumpolar features such as the fronts of the ACC. 3.27 The Scientific Committee agreed that a set of milestones would be useful in guiding its work towards the achievement of a representative system of MPAs within the Convention Area by 2012. It noted that work may progress at different rates for different priority regions, that work for some regions may be completed earlier than these milestones, and that ongoing progress was not dependent on the completion of work in each region. Projects which aim to achieve one or more of these milestones could be considered for support (either in full or in part) by the MPA Special Fund. 3.28 The Scientific Committee agreed the following milestones describing tasks which should be completed by the end of each year leading up to 2012, with relevant work presented to the Scientific Committee and its working groups during each year: (i) by 2010, collate relevant data for as many of the 11 priority regions as possible (and other regions as appropriate), and characterise each region in terms of biodiversity patterns and ecosystem processes, physical environmental features and human activities; 3.29 To provide support for the achievement of these milestones, the Scientific Committee requested that WG-EMM should consider the following topics as part of its agenda item on spatial management to facilitate the conservation of marine biodiversity: (i) provision of advice on the development of a representative system of MPAs within the Convention Area by 2012; 3.30 The Scientific Committee recognised the value of obtaining input from the CEP and SCAR to discussions on MPAs, to ensure harmonisation across the Antarctic Treaty System, 3.31 The Scientific Committee agreed that the MPA Special Fund Correspondence Group should continue to work under the remit of WG-EMM, with the aim of assisting with the review of proposals for use of the MPA Special Fund if requested to do so by the Scientific Committee. The existing participants in the group are listed in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/13, and any additional Members are also encouraged to join the group. 3.32 The Scientific Committee agreed that the proposed workshop in early 2011 should be a priority for support by the MPA Special Fund. It requested that the MPA Special Fund Correspondence Group should develop a proposal for such a workshop, and that funds could be set aside for this purpose as required. 3.33 The Scientific Committee recommended that the following guidelines should be adopted for submission and review of proposals, and allocation of funds from the MPA Special Fund: (i) proposals for use of funds from the MPA Special Fund may be submitted directly to the Scientific Committee, or to the Secretariat at any time of year; |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 3.25 to 3.33 |
3.25 The group also noted the importance of a work plan to ensure progress towards the achievement of a representative system of MPAs by 2012. 3.26 The Scientific Committee noted that projects were already under way to develop marine spatial protection in several of the 11 priority regions identified by WG-EMM (Annex 4, paragraph 5.23), (including the Western Antarctic Peninsula, South Orkney Islands, Kerguelen Plateau, Prydz Bay, northern Ross Sea and Ross Sea shelf), and that further projects were planned for other priority areas. It encouraged Members to collaborate on such work, and to develop proposals for use of the MPA Special Fund as appropriate, given the priorities identified in paragraph 3.24. The Scientific Committee welcomed notification from the CEP Observer that the CEP had also endorsed the 11 priority regions for focused attention. The Scientific Committee further noted that work should not be limited to the 11 priority regions. For example, additional considerations could include regional or circumpolar features such as the fronts of the ACC. 3.27 The Scientific Committee agreed that a set of milestones would be useful in guiding its work towards the achievement of a representative system of MPAs within the Convention Area by 2012. It noted that work may progress at different rates for different priority regions, that work for some regions may be completed earlier than these milestones, and that ongoing progress was not dependent on the completion of work in each region. Projects which aim to achieve one or more of these milestones could be considered for support (either in full or in part) by the MPA Special Fund. 3.28 The Scientific Committee agreed the following milestones describing tasks which should be completed by the end of each year leading up to 2012, with relevant work presented to the Scientific Committee and its working groups during each year: (i) by 2010, collate relevant data for as many of the 11 priority regions as possible (and other regions as appropriate), and characterise each region in terms of biodiversity patterns and ecosystem processes, physical environmental features and human activities; 3.29 To provide support for the achievement of these milestones, the Scientific Committee requested that WG-EMM should consider the following topics as part of its agenda item on spatial management to facilitate the conservation of marine biodiversity: (i) provision of advice on the development of a representative system of MPAs within the Convention Area by 2012; 3.30 The Scientific Committee recognised the value of obtaining input from the CEP and SCAR to discussions on MPAs, to ensure harmonisation across the Antarctic Treaty System, 3.31 The Scientific Committee agreed that the MPA Special Fund Correspondence Group should continue to work under the remit of WG-EMM, with the aim of assisting with the review of proposals for use of the MPA Special Fund if requested to do so by the Scientific Committee. The existing participants in the group are listed in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/13, and any additional Members are also encouraged to join the group. 3.32 The Scientific Committee agreed that the proposed workshop in early 2011 should be a priority for support by the MPA Special Fund. It requested that the MPA Special Fund Correspondence Group should develop a proposal for such a workshop, and that funds could be set aside for this purpose as required. 3.33 The Scientific Committee recommended that the following guidelines should be adopted for submission and review of proposals, and allocation of funds from the MPA Special Fund: (i) proposals for use of funds from the MPA Special Fund may be submitted directly to the Scientific Committee, or to the Secretariat at any time of year; |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 4.3 to 4.6, 9.2 to 9.9 and 10.13 |
4.3 It was unclear whether the shift of the fishery away from Subarea 48.3 in the 2008/09 season was the result of the absence of krill, or whether it was for other operational reasons; however, monthly catch data indicated a significantly higher than average winter catch from Subarea 48.2 so that the overall catch in Area 48 remained similar to that in 2007/08 despite the lack of a fishery at South Georgia. The Scientific Committee, however, noted that this shift in operational behaviour of the fishing fleet indicated that the historical pattern of krill fishing may not be observed in every year, and that concentration of fishing in smaller areas can occur. Krill fishery notifications in 2009/10 4.4 Seven countries submitted krill fishery notifications for 13 vessels with a total notified catch of 363 000 tonnes which is considerably lower than the notified catch for the 2008/09 season of 629 000 tonnes. All notifications were for Area 48 but one notification also indicated fishing in Area 58. 4.5 Notifications to fish for krill were received from seven nations: China (3 vessels), Japan (1 vessel), Republic of Korea (3 vessels), Norway (3 vessels), Poland (1 vessel), Russia (1 vessel) and Ukraine (1 vessel). In addition, Chile submitted a notification for one vessel which arrived one month after the notification deadline of 1 June 2009 (CCAMLR-XXVIII/12 Rev. 1); this was therefore not considered further. 4.6 China notified its intention to fish for krill in Area 48 for the first time with three vessels and a projected catch of 9 000 tonnes. 9.2 On behalf of the Joint Steering Committee, the CEP Observer (Dr Gilbert) introduced SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/6, the report of the Joint SC-CAMLR–CEP Workshop, held in Baltimore, USA (3 and 4 April 2009). The Workshop was convened by Drs Bizikov, Frenot, Gilbert and Watters (paragraph 1.9(i)). 9.3 The Scientific Committee recalled the terms of reference of the Joint Workshop (contained in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/6) and noted that the discussions were focused on the following six topics: • key objectives, priorities and challenges for the CEP and SC-CAMLR 9.4 As a first meeting between the two committees, Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop had been most successful in achieving its objectives. Dr Gilbert summarised the following outcomes from the discussions: (i) on climate change, the Joint Workshop recognised the significance of a changing Antarctic climate to the respective management interests of the two committees and made several recommendations with regard to ongoing cooperation on the matter. In this regard, the CEP Observer drew the Scientific Committee’s attention to the ATME on Climate Change planned to be held in Norway 9.5 Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop report had been considered by the CEP at its 12th meeting and that the CEP had welcomed the report, endorsed the recommendations and commended the report to the Scientific Committee. In doing so, the CEP had stressed the importance of maintaining momentum on the issues identified by the Joint Workshop. 9.6 As Convener of WG-EMM, Dr Watters thanked the CEP Observer for introducing the Joint Workshop report and noted that WG-EMM had also considered the report and endorsed the recommendations it contained. With reference to the ATME on Climate Change (paragraph 9.4(i)), Dr Watters suggested that improved ways need to be found for coordinating intersessional meetings between CCAMLR and the ATCM in order to facilitate attendance at those meetings. 9.7 The Scientific Committee thanked those involved in organising what was a very successful and productive workshop and agreed that recommendations from the workshop be considered by the Scientific Committee under the relevant agenda items and that consideration also be given to ensuring that momentum is maintained in cooperating with the CEP, including the consideration of when future meetings might occur. 9.8 The Scientific Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Joint SC-CAMLR–CEP Workshop report. 9.9 The Scientific Committee recommended that the Chairs of the respective committees should liaise during the intersessional period in order to consider and suggest to their respective committees: • options for making progress on the various recommendations from the Joint Workshop; 10.13 The Scientific Committee noted the need to continue developing its positive relationship with the CEP, as had occurred at the Joint Workshop in April 2009, which provided a major advance in establishing a joint understanding of how these two bodies might work together in the future. In the work of developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, CCAMLR should coordinate the activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs as appropriate. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 4.3 to 4.6, 9.4 to 9.9 and 10.13 |
4.3 It was unclear whether the shift of the fishery away from Subarea 48.3 in the 2008/09 season was the result of the absence of krill, or whether it was for other operational reasons; however, monthly catch data indicated a significantly higher than average winter catch from Subarea 48.2 so that the overall catch in Area 48 remained similar to that in 2007/08 despite the lack of a fishery at South Georgia. The Scientific Committee, however, noted that this shift in operational behaviour of the fishing fleet indicated that the historical pattern of krill fishing may not be observed in every year, and that concentration of fishing in smaller areas can occur. Krill fishery notifications in 2009/10 4.4 Seven countries submitted krill fishery notifications for 13 vessels with a total notified catch of 363 000 tonnes which is considerably lower than the notified catch for the 2008/09 season of 629 000 tonnes. All notifications were for Area 48 but one notification also indicated fishing in Area 58. 4.5 Notifications to fish for krill were received from seven nations: China (3 vessels), Japan (1 vessel), Republic of Korea (3 vessels), Norway (3 vessels), Poland (1 vessel), Russia (1 vessel) and Ukraine (1 vessel). In addition, Chile submitted a notification for one vessel which arrived one month after the notification deadline of 1 June 2009 (CCAMLR-XXVIII/12 Rev. 1); this was therefore not considered further. 4.6 China notified its intention to fish for krill in Area 48 for the first time with three vessels and a projected catch of 9 000 tonnes. 9.4 As a first meeting between the two committees, Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop had been most successful in achieving its objectives. Dr Gilbert summarised the following outcomes from the discussions: (i) on climate change, the Joint Workshop recognised the significance of a changing Antarctic climate to the respective management interests of the two committees and made several recommendations with regard to ongoing cooperation on the matter. In this regard, the CEP Observer drew the Scientific Committee’s attention to the ATME on Climate Change planned to be held in Norway 9.5 Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop report had been considered by the CEP at its 12th meeting and that the CEP had welcomed the report, endorsed the recommendations and commended the report to the Scientific Committee. In doing so, the CEP had stressed the importance of maintaining momentum on the issues identified by the Joint Workshop. 9.6 As Convener of WG-EMM, Dr Watters thanked the CEP Observer for introducing the Joint Workshop report and noted that WG-EMM had also considered the report and endorsed the recommendations it contained. With reference to the ATME on Climate Change (paragraph 9.4(i)), Dr Watters suggested that improved ways need to be found for coordinating intersessional meetings between CCAMLR and the ATCM in order to facilitate attendance at those meetings. 9.7 The Scientific Committee thanked those involved in organising what was a very successful and productive workshop and agreed that recommendations from the workshop be considered by the Scientific Committee under the relevant agenda items and that consideration also be given to ensuring that momentum is maintained in cooperating with the CEP, including the consideration of when future meetings might occur. 9.8 The Scientific Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Joint SC-CAMLR–CEP Workshop report. 9.9 The Scientific Committee recommended that the Chairs of the respective committees should liaise during the intersessional period in order to consider and suggest to their respective committees: • options for making progress on the various recommendations from the Joint Workshop; 10.13 The Scientific Committee noted the need to continue developing its positive relationship with the CEP, as had occurred at the Joint Workshop in April 2009, which provided a major advance in establishing a joint understanding of how these two bodies might work together in the future. In the work of developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, CCAMLR should coordinate the activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs as appropriate. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 4.134 to 4.136, 4.162 and 10.7 to 10.10 |
Assessment and management advice for other fisheries Antarctic Peninsula (Subarea 48.1) and South Orkney Islands (Subarea 48.2) 4.134 The Scientific Committee noted the reported recovery of Notothenia rossii populations in Potter Cove, South Shetland Islands, to levels close to that of the early 1980s and that WG FSA had (Annex 5, paragraph 5.179) cautioned that extrapolation of these findings to a subarea scale was premature. 4.135 In reference to WG-FSA-09/31, the Scientific Committee recalled that N. rossii has been the first overexploited fish species in the Southern Ocean and that, after three decades from the end of commercial fishery operations in Subarea 48.1 (1979/80), this species is showing signs of recovery in Potter Cove in 2008/09. This emphasised that the period required for the apparent recovery of N. rossii in Subarea 48.1 exceeds the limit of two to three decades established in Article II of the Convention, and that the same situation could be happening with other overexploited Antarctic fish species. 4.136 On the basis of the results of a multi-species research survey in Subarea 48.2 (Annex 5, paragraph 5.180), the Scientific Committee agreed that the populations of previously exploited species, including C. gunnari and N. rossii, show little sign of recovery in Subarea 48.2 despite the closure of the fishery after the 1989/90 season (see Annex 5, paragraph 3.41). 4.162 The Scientific Committee recalled that participation in exploratory fisheries represents a commitment towards undertaking research that will lead to a stock assessment before the stock is reduced to the target status. It further noted that research programs will have to operate in a different manner in fisheries that have not been previously exploited compared to those which have been depleted. In the latter case, the Scientific Committee agreed that the research strategy needs to be designed so as to ensure that research requirements do not impact on the ability of the fishery to recover. 10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to: (i) how CEMP may be expanded to satisfy the needs of feedback management of the fisheries; 10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM: Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA): Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP. Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch): (i) develop candidate feedback management systems for the krill fishery; Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate): (i) develop a list of species which appear to be depleted; 10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM: Task 4 (WG-SAM): Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR. 10.10 In respect of CCAMLR fishery categories, the Scientific Committee agreed that this was primarily a matter for the Commission, but considered that the Commission’s debate could be informed by some advice from the Scientific Committee. Accordingly, it defined the following task: Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA): Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 6.6 to 6.12 | 6.6 The Scientific Committee considered and approved recommendations from ad hoc TASO concerning the aspects of the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation discussed in Annex 9, paragraphs 2.7 to 2.8, 2.17 to 2.19, 2.22, 2.24 to 2.26, 3.5 to 3.7, 3.16 to 3.21, 4.5 and 4.10 to 4.13).
6.7 The Scientific Committee noted that with respect to the training of observers, experience in domestic fisheries and initial supervision by more experienced observers (Annex 9, paragraph 4.5(x)), although highly desirable, was not always possible. The Scientific Committee urged that such training of observers occur wherever possible. 6.8 The Scientific Committee recommended that the development of standards for all participants in the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation via an accreditation scheme should be pursued as a core component of the work plan of ad hoc TASO (Annex 9, paragraph 5.2). 6.9 The Scientific Committee thanked the Co-conveners of ad hoc TASO for preparing SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/BG/9 on the development and implementation of an accreditation framework for participation in the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation. 6.10 The Scientific Committee noted that the further development of an accreditation framework for participation in the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation should consider:
6.11 The Scientific Committee recommended that the development of baseline requirements to accredit observer programs be undertaken by ad hoc TASO and reported back to the Scientific Committee in 2010. On this basis, and subject to the adoption of the baseline requirements to accredit programs in 2010, ad hoc TASO would be tasked with reviewing observer programs against the baseline requirements in 2011, with a view to the Scientific Committee providing detailed advice on this matter to the Commission in 2011. 6.12 The Scientific Committee urged all Members to ensure that their technical coordinators provide the Secretariat with the detailed information required to achieve the work identified in paragraph 6.11 by May 2010 at the latest. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 7.12 |
7.12 The Scientific Committee also endorsed the conclusions in Annex 4, paragraph 3.103, which specifies that detection and attribution of climate change impacts at established monitoring sites remains problematic and may require reference (control) sites, noting that: (i) the data currently reported to CEMP are often a component part of research by individual Members, and procuring resources for additional data collection, particularly if new CEMP sites are required, will pose challenges for national programs; |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 9.2 to 9.11 | 9.2 On behalf of the Joint Steering Committee, the CEP Observer (Dr Gilbert) introduced SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/6, the report of the Joint SC-CAMLR–CEP Workshop, held in Baltimore, USA (3 and 4 April 2009). The Workshop was convened by Drs Bizikov, Frenot, Gilbert and Watters (paragraph 1.9(i)).
9.3 The Scientific Committee recalled the terms of reference of the Joint Workshop (contained in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/6) and noted that the discussions were focused on the following six topics:
9.4 As a first meeting between the two committees, Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop had been most successful in achieving its objectives. Dr Gilbert summarised the following outcomes from the discussions:
9.5 Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop report had been considered by the CEP at its 12th meeting and that the CEP had welcomed the report, endorsed the recommendations and commended the report to the Scientific Committee. In doing so, the CEP had stressed the importance of maintaining momentum on the issues identified by the Joint Workshop. 9.6 As Convener of WG-EMM, Dr Watters thanked the CEP Observer for introducing the Joint Workshop report and noted that WG-EMM had also considered the report and endorsed the recommendations it contained. With reference to the ATME on Climate Change (paragraph 9.4(i)), Dr Watters suggested that improved ways need to be found for coordinating intersessional meetings between CCAMLR and the ATCM in order to facilitate attendance at those meetings. 9.7 The Scientific Committee thanked those involved in organising what was a very successful and productive workshop and agreed that recommendations from the workshop be considered by the Scientific Committee under the relevant agenda items and that consideration also be given to ensuring that momentum is maintained in cooperating with the CEP, including the consideration of when future meetings might occur. 9.8 The Scientific Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Joint SC-CAMLR–CEP Workshop report. 9.9 The Scientific Committee recommended that the Chairs of the respective committees should liaise during the intersessional period in order to consider and suggest to their respective committees:
CEP 9.10 Dr Gilbert drew the Scientific Committee’s attention to SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/BG/16 that contained the CEP’s annual report to the Scientific Committee. Dr Gilbert noted that the report had been shortened this year to focus only on the topics of common interest that had been recommended by the Joint Workshop. 9.11 The Scientific Committee thanked the CEP Observer for the annual CEP report and agreed that its format provided a useful means for exchanging information on the topics of common interest. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 9.4 to 9.9 |
9.4 As a first meeting between the two committees, Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop had been most successful in achieving its objectives. Dr Gilbert summarised the following outcomes from the discussions:
9.5 Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop report had been considered by the CEP at its 12th meeting and that the CEP had welcomed the report, endorsed the recommendations and commended the report to the Scientific Committee. In doing so, the CEP had stressed the importance of maintaining momentum on the issues identified by the Joint Workshop. 9.6 As Convener of WG-EMM, Dr Watters thanked the CEP Observer for introducing the Joint Workshop report and noted that WG-EMM had also considered the report and endorsed the recommendations it contained. With reference to the ATME on Climate Change (paragraph 9.4(i)), Dr Watters suggested that improved ways need to be found for coordinating intersessional meetings between CCAMLR and the ATCM in order to facilitate attendance at those meetings. 9.7 The Scientific Committee thanked those involved in organising what was a very successful and productive workshop and agreed that recommendations from the workshop be considered by the Scientific Committee under the relevant agenda items and that consideration also be given to ensuring that momentum is maintained in cooperating with the CEP, including the consideration of when future meetings might occur. 9.8 The Scientific Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Joint SC-CAMLR–CEP Workshop report. 9.9 The Scientific Committee recommended that the Chairs of the respective committees should liaise during the intersessional period in order to consider and suggest to their respective committees:
|
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.2 | 10.2 A Steering Committee was established by the Acting Chair of the Scientific Committee, Mr Iversen, and included conveners of all working groups (WG-FSA, WG-EMM, WG-SAM, WG-IMAF and ad hoc TASO) and the CCAMLR Science Officer. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.5 and 10.6 | 10.5 The Scientific Committee agreed that the science issues, in summary, were:
10.6 In respect of item (i), the Scientific Committee agreed that all recommendations relating to MPAs were being adequately addressed in its work program on MPAs (paragraphs 3.14 to 3.33). |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.5 and 10.7 | 10.5 The Scientific Committee agreed that the science issues, in summary, were:
10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:
|
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.5 to 10.10 | 10.5 The Scientific Committee agreed that the science issues, in summary, were:
10.6 In respect of item (i), the Scientific Committee agreed that all recommendations relating to MPAs were being adequately addressed in its work program on MPAs (paragraphs 3.14 to 3.33). 10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:
10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM: Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA): Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP. Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):
Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):
10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM: Task 4 (WG-SAM): Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR. 10.10 In respect of CCAMLR fishery categories, the Scientific Committee agreed that this was primarily a matter for the Commission, but considered that the Commission’s debate could be informed by some advice from the Scientific Committee. Accordingly, it defined the following task: Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA): Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.5, 10.7 and 10.8 | 10.5 The Scientific Committee agreed that the science issues, in summary, were:
10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:
10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM: Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA): Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP. Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):
Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):
|
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.5, 10.7 to 10.9 | 10.5 The Scientific Committee agreed that the science issues, in summary, were:
10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:
10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM: Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA): Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP. Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):
Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):
10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM: Task 4 (WG-SAM): Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.5, 10.7, 10.8 and 10.11 | 10.5 The Scientific Committee agreed that the science issues, in summary, were:
10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:
10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM: Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA): Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP. Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):
Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):
10.11 In respect of the orderly development of the krill fishery, the Scientific Committee noted that the recommendations of the PRP are consistent with the work plan of the Scientific Committee. Although some of the recommendations are not currently implemented by CCAMLR – for instance, data reporting requirements from the krill fishery, feedback management strategies, and an increased frequency of fishery-independent surveys – all recommendations of the PRP are currently being considered by WG-EMM, or will be satisfied in the execution of Task 2 above. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.5 and 10.7 to 10.10 | 10.5 The Scientific Committee agreed that the science issues, in summary, were:
10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:
10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM: Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA): Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP. Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):
Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):
10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM: Task 4 (WG-SAM): Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR. 10.10 In respect of CCAMLR fishery categories, the Scientific Committee agreed that this was primarily a matter for the Commission, but considered that the Commission’s debate could be informed by some advice from the Scientific Committee. Accordingly, it defined the following task: Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA): Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.5, 10.10 and 10.11 | 10.5 The Scientific Committee agreed that the science issues, in summary, were:
10.10 In respect of CCAMLR fishery categories, the Scientific Committee agreed that this was primarily a matter for the Commission, but considered that the Commission’s debate could be informed by some advice from the Scientific Committee. Accordingly, it defined the following task: Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA): Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II. 10.11 In respect of the orderly development of the krill fishery, the Scientific Committee noted that the recommendations of the PRP are consistent with the work plan of the Scientific Committee. Although some of the recommendations are not currently implemented by CCAMLR – for instance, data reporting requirements from the krill fishery, feedback management strategies, and an increased frequency of fishery-independent surveys – all recommendations of the PRP are currently being considered by WG-EMM, or will be satisfied in the execution of Task 2 above. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.6 | 10.6 In respect of item (i), the Scientific Committee agreed that all recommendations relating to MPAs were being adequately addressed in its work program on MPAs (paragraphs 3.14 to 3.33). |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.7 and 10.8 | 10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:
10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM: Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA): Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP. Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):
Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):
|
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.7 to 10.10 | 10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:
10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM: Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA): Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP. Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):
Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):
10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM: Task 4 (WG-SAM): Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR. 10.10 In respect of CCAMLR fishery categories, the Scientific Committee agreed that this was primarily a matter for the Commission, but considered that the Commission’s debate could be informed by some advice from the Scientific Committee. Accordingly, it defined the following task: Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA): Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.8 and 10.9 | 10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM:
Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA): Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.
Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):
10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM: Task 4 (WG-SAM): Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.8 and 10.11 | 10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM:
Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA): Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.
Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):
10.11 In respect of the orderly development of the krill fishery, the Scientific Committee noted that the recommendations of the PRP are consistent with the work plan of the Scientific Committee. Although some of the recommendations are not currently implemented by CCAMLR – for instance, data reporting requirements from the krill fishery, feedback management strategies, and an increased frequency of fishery-independent surveys – all recommendations of the PRP are currently being considered by WG-EMM, or will be satisfied in the execution of Task 2 above. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.10 | 10.10 In respect of CCAMLR fishery categories, the Scientific Committee agreed that this was primarily a matter for the Commission, but considered that the Commission’s debate could be informed by some advice from the Scientific Committee. Accordingly, it defined the following task:
Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA): Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.11 | 10.11 In respect of the orderly development of the krill fishery, the Scientific Committee noted that the recommendations of the PRP are consistent with the work plan of the Scientific Committee. Although some of the recommendations are not currently implemented by CCAMLR – for instance, data reporting requirements from the krill fishery, feedback management strategies, and an increased frequency of fishery-independent surveys – all recommendations of the PRP are currently being considered by WG-EMM, or will be satisfied in the execution of Task 2 above. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.12 and 10.13 | 10.12 The Scientific Committee noted that the relationship between itself and the CEP is a mandatory one because of the responsibilities in the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention of CAMLR. This is different from other bodies. It was also noted that there is a need to continue receiving advice from bodies such as SCAR and ACAP, even though the relationship is more of an advisory one.
10.13 The Scientific Committee noted the need to continue developing its positive relationship with the CEP, as had occurred at the Joint Workshop in April 2009, which provided a major advance in establishing a joint understanding of how these two bodies might work together in the future. In the work of developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, CCAMLR should coordinate the activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs as appropriate. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.12 to 10.14 | 10.12 The Scientific Committee noted that the relationship between itself and the CEP is a mandatory one because of the responsibilities in the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention of CAMLR. This is different from other bodies. It was also noted that there is a need to continue receiving advice from bodies such as SCAR and ACAP, even though the relationship is more of an advisory one.
10.13 The Scientific Committee noted the need to continue developing its positive relationship with the CEP, as had occurred at the Joint Workshop in April 2009, which provided a major advance in establishing a joint understanding of how these two bodies might work together in the future. In the work of developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, CCAMLR should coordinate the activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs as appropriate. 10.14 Enhanced coordination with ICED, SOOS and Sentinel would also be useful to the Scientific Committee’s work. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.13 | 10.13 The Scientific Committee noted the need to continue developing its positive relationship with the CEP, as had occurred at the Joint Workshop in April 2009, which provided a major advance in establishing a joint understanding of how these two bodies might work together in the future. In the work of developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, CCAMLR should coordinate the activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs as appropriate. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.15 to 10.20 | 10.15 One of the most important institutional issues identified by the PRP and the Steering Committee is that of burden sharing. Achieving a more appropriate distribution of the scientific burden in a voluntary process requires appropriate incentives. The three essential steps in a process to identify such incentives are to:
10.16 One approach that has a precedent in CCAMLR is to establish a Scientific Capacity Fund, payment into which could either be voluntary or pro rata with catches, to be utilised to address Scientific Committee priority science to be undertaken by cross-Member consortia. 10.17 The Scientific Committee further considered the proposals for burden sharing and capacity building in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/12, CCAMLR-XXVIII/31 and BG/29. The key issues to be overcome are presented below:
10.18 Understanding and communication of the work of SC-CAMLR amongst scientists within SC-CAMLR could be addressed by:
10.19 Regarding enhanced participation by Member scientists at workshops and working groups, a number of things could be implemented immediately to build capacity:
10.20 A number of longer-term capacity building suggestions were also made:
|
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | 10.15 to 10.23 | 10.15 One of the most important institutional issues identified by the PRP and the Steering Committee is that of burden sharing. Achieving a more appropriate distribution of the scientific burden in a voluntary process requires appropriate incentives. The three essential steps in a process to identify such incentives are to:
10.16 One approach that has a precedent in CCAMLR is to establish a Scientific Capacity Fund, payment into which could either be voluntary or pro rata with catches, to be utilised to address Scientific Committee priority science to be undertaken by cross-Member consortia. 10.17 The Scientific Committee further considered the proposals for burden sharing and capacity building in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/12, CCAMLR-XXVIII/31 and BG/29. The key issues to be overcome are presented below:
10.18 Understanding and communication of the work of SC-CAMLR amongst scientists within SC-CAMLR could be addressed by:
10.19 Regarding enhanced participation by Member scientists at workshops and working groups, a number of things could be implemented immediately to build capacity:
10.20 A number of longer-term capacity building suggestions were also made:
10.21 SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/7 included a proposal for a Scientific Capacity Fund, which would contribute to burden sharing and capacity building, and could be used for a variety of purposes, such as those considered in paragraphs 10.19 and 10.20. 10.22 The Scientific Committee endorsed the concept of this fund, and agreed that the mechanism in which contributions are made to such a fund should be discussed by the Commission. 10.23 To take these issues further, the Scientific Committee created an ad hoc correspondence group to develop options to build SC-CAMLR capacity in science to support CCAMLR. It was agreed that this group, which should have a wide membership, would make use of web-based communication systems and two telephone conferences over the forthcoming intersessional period (May and August), and would work to the following terms of reference: To develop options for consideration by SC-CAMLR on approaches and mechanisms for:
|
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | Annex 7, 13.11 to 13.14 |
13.11 In order that WG-IMAF can consider the impacts of lost fishing gear on Convention Area seabirds and marine mammals in the future, the Working Group encouraged the improved collection of data regarding lost fishing gear by observers and in all catch and effort data. This should be reflected in an alteration in the observer reports. 13.12 The Working Group recommended that observers no longer need to collect photographs of potential marine debris from fishing vessels (paragraph 7.12). 13.13 The Working Group recommended that photos of beach debris of fisheries-origin should be submitted to CCAMLR with future marine debris reports. This may aid in tracking the provenance of the marine debris to fishery, country or vessel, in order to better target any program to reduce marine debris. 13.14 The Working Group encouraged those Members conducting marine debris surveys to continue to seek input from fishing industry experts about the potential origins of any fishing gear debris. |
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | Annex 9, paras 3.1 to 3.25 | DATA COLLECTION PRIORITIES ACROSS CCAMLR FISHERIES
Methods of estimating green-weight removals in krill trawl fisheries 3.1 TASO-09/6 provided details of the procedures used by krill vessels in Subarea 48.3 to estimate green weight of krill, this included product-specific conversion factors that were regularly measured on board the vessel, as well as fixed conversion factors supplied by the Flag State. This analysis suggests that, for krill fisheries in Subarea 48.3, the uncertainty in catch arising from uncertainty in the use of conversion factors may not be as large as suggested in WG-EMM-08/46. 3.2 Dr M. Kiyota (Japan) informed the Technical Group that the operator of the Fukuei Maru (formerly the Niitaka Maru) considered that the use of a fixed conversion factor was the most appropriate means of estimating green weight. Estimation of catch from measurements from the fish ponds were problematic because there were three product-specific fish ponds. In one pond, catches were often mixed from consecutive hauls. The fish ponds also often held relatively little krill and access to the fish ponds for the purposes of sampling krill to calculate volume-to-mass conversions may be problematic. 3.3 The Technical Group noted that when green weight of krill was estimated without the use of conversion factors, this was achieved by visual codend mass estimation as well as from measurement of the depth of the krill in the fish pond. 3.4 The Technical Group noted that many vessels estimate the volume of krill in the fish pond and used a scaling factor to produce an estimate of weight of krill. However, no details of such volume-to-mass scaling was available. 3.5 The Technical Group agreed that the current protocol for observers to estimate conversion factors, involving taking a subsample of 500 kg of krill through processing on board a vessel, is unworkable and that a different approach to gaining a better understanding of actual green weight of krill caught is required. 3.6 The UK agreed to implement a trial procedure involving the collection of volume-to-mass data for krill samples from the krill fishery and to report on this to ad hoc TASO and WG-EMM next year. 3.7 The Technical Group suggested that WG-EMM take note of:
Taxonomic resolution of invertebrate by-catch 3.8 Conservation Measure 22-07 requires that longline by-catch be monitored for VME indicator taxa. The 2008/09 fishing season was the first season during which this monitoring was required, and work presented in TASO-09/8 evaluated the ability of observers to record information related to VMEs and classify VME indicator taxa at sea. The evaluation was conducted by comparing classifications made by observers (who were untrained with respect to invertebrate taxonomy) with those made by trained taxonomists. The observers worked on four New Zealand and one South African longliners fishing in the Ross Sea. The observers collected benthic invertebrate by-catch specimens and classified them on the basis of the Benthic Invertebrate Classification Guide. The specimens were returned to New Zealand and subsequently reclassified by taxonomists. 3.9 The results in TASO-09/8 demonstrated that the observers were generally able to provide very good classifications of VME indicator taxa. Misclassifications were largely taxa-specific, and most inaccuracies were due to classifying stylasterids as stony corals. Other inaccuracies included mis-classifications of gorgonians as stony corals, hydroids as gorgonians, and ascidians as sponges. There were also some difficulties classifying organisms that were found attached to other organisms. Regardless of these mis-classifications, over 60% of 708 specimens were correctly classified. 3.10 Despite some mis-classifications, the Technical Group agreed that the results of the work were encouraging because the observers very rarely classified non-VME taxa as VME indicator taxa, and thus there appears to be little risk that ‘false positives’ could cause more VME Risk Areas than should have been. 3.11 The Technical Group noted a number of conclusions from TASO-09/8:
Data recording procedures –
3.12 The Technical Group thanked New Zealand for conducting the work and agreed it usefully demonstrated that observers can collect significant information on the by-catch of VME taxa and other benthic organisms. It was noted that the new sampling required of Conservation Measure 22-07 (as well as work conducted as part of the Year-of-the-Skate) had caused the observers to collect less biological information on toothfish and other by-catch species (e.g. macrourids). Nevertheless, the new data were considered to be a substantial improvement over that previously held in the CCAMLR database, which have been shown to be of limited use for describing and quantifying by-catch of benthic invertebrates (CCAMLR-XXVII/26). 3.13 The Technical Group recommended that TASO-09/8 and the discussion here be tabled to the VME Workshop and that the workshop should use the information in the paper to re evaluate, among other issues, which invertebrate taxa should be monitored in the future. The Technical Group requested that WG-FSA consider how data on invertebrate by-catch can be used to facilitate precautionary approaches to by-catch mitigation of benthic invertebrates not considered in discussions on conserving VMEs. Revision of the Scientific Observers Manual 3.14 The Secretariat presented the proposed changes to the Scientific Observers Manual (TASO-09/4). These changes reflect the current advice from the Scientific Committee and its working groups. The revision contains general updates of material which had become out of date, with a track-change version provided in Appendix 1 of the paper. In addition, two proposals were also presented to the Technical Group for its consideration:
3.15 The Technical Group thanked the Secretariat for preparing the draft review of the manual. 3.16 The Technical Group noted that the current proposal for the fish sampling protocol would require observers to take a total of six 50 kg samples and keep only one. It was felt that this was unnecessarily time-consuming. The Technical Group proposed an alternative approach, which would be to collect one 50 kg random sample and ask the crew to retain all of the remaining large fish from the haul. 3.17 The Technical Group made the following recommendations for the Scientific Observers Manual:
3.18 The Technical Group noted that the section in the manual relating to the collection of fish scales for ageing purposes may no longer be needed, and recommended that WG-FSA consider removing this section from the manual. 3.19 The Technical Group also noted that the updates to the Scientific Observers Manual would benefit from review by observers. It therefore recommended that technical coordinators provide the proposed changes to their observers and submit comments to the Secretariat in time for the manual to be updated for WG-FSA (no later than 15 September 2009). 3.20 It was identified that there is a need for specific advice from the working groups on the minimum observer data collection requirements needed for them to carry out their work. The Technical Group proposed that a list of observer priorities be included in the Fishery Reports, and requested WG-FSA and WG-IMAF to consider implementing this over time. 3.21 The Technical Group also recommended that the sections of this report dealing with the revision of the Scientific Observers Manual and other observer matters be circulated to Members for information. Data collection workloads 3.22 Dr Hanchet presented information on the New Zealand training program and instructions to their international and national observers (TASO-09/9). 3.23 The Technical Group noted that in situations where both national and international observers are on board vessels, it is important that their respective responsibilities are well understood. The primary responsibility of an international observer must be to collect CCAMLR data, while the national observers will often have additional tasks specified by their national program. 3.24 The Technical Group also noted New Zealand’s efforts to streamline and improve the quality of data collected by observers; this included the development of new tools such as waterproof touch-screen laptops, otolith label scanners and an improved VME taxa identification guide (TASO-09/9). 3.25 The Technical Group noted that WG-SAM raised concern over the possible delay in the submission of observer data and its impact on assessments. Two issues that contribute to this and their solutions were discussed:
|
| 2009 | SC-CAMLR-XXVIII | Annex 9, paras 4.5 and 4.10 | 4.5 The Technical Group agreed that the training of observers should include, inter alia, the following areas:
4.10 The Technical Group reiterated that a benchmark for the accreditation of observers must be established (SC-CAMLR-XXVII/BG/6, paragraph 4.6). The Technical Group recommended that the Scientific Committee consider how this should be achieved, which could include:
|
| 2010 | CCAMLR-XXIX | 4.79 | 4.79 The EU noted that there was a need for the Commission to ensure that the General Science Capacity Special Fund had sufficient funds to secure the future of the CCAMLR Scientific Scholarship Scheme and informed the Commission that it intended to make a contribution of €50 000 this year. |
| 2010 | CCAMLR-XXIX | 7.1 to 7.20 |
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 7.1 The Commission noted the extensive discussion undertaken in the Scientific Committee and its working groups on bioregionalisation and systematic conservation planning and endorsed the guidance of the Scientific Committee for Members undertaking bioregionalisation and systematic conservation planning in the CAMLR Convention Area, particularly in respect of the use of systematic conservation planning principles (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraphs 5.14 to 5.16). 7.2 The Commission noted that ‘a discussion of how rational use can best be incorporated into MPA planning has relevance to the Scientific Committee, but that discussions of what types of activities constitute rational use and how to measure success in balancing rational use and conservation was primarily a Commission issue’ (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraph 5.18). 7.3 With respect to how rational use can best be incorporated into MPA planning, some Members noted the utility of approaches such as those described in SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraph 5.34. With respect to what types of activities constitute rational use, some Members considered that the concept of rational use was adequately accommodated in Article II of the Convention and that this had served the Commission well for 30 years. 7.4 Argentina said that Article II of the Convention, apart from including the ‘rational use’ in the concept of conservation, requires potential recovery in a term of 20 or 30 years. This period should not be taken as from the present status of the ecosystem but from a previous one, at least at the time of the adoption of the Convention. One of the main premises of the establishment of MPAs is to provide such a point of reference. 7.5 The Commission endorsed the terms of reference and potential workshop outputs from an MPA Workshop to be hosted in France in 2011. It is proposed the workshop will review progress, share experience on different approaches to the selection of candidate sites for protection, review draft proposals for MPAs in the CAMLR Convention Area and determine a work program for the identification of MPAs in as many of the priority regions as possible (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraphs 5.21 to 5.25). 7.6 The Commission endorsed the revised management plan for ASPA No. 149, Cape Shirreff and San Telmo Islands (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraph 5.26). The USA acknowledged the endorsement of the Commission of this plan and undertook to work with Chilean colleagues to take this management plan forward for consideration by the CEP. 7.7 The Commission noted the discussions of the Scientific Committee on a process to elaborate a representative system of MPAs (RSMPA) that could be applied to data-poor areas, while different approaches may be more appropriate in regions where sufficient datasets exist, such as the Ross Sea and the South Orkney Islands (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraphs 5.27 to 5.33). 7.8 The Commission endorsed the recommendation that the process for designation of an MPA include the development of a research and monitoring program to be conducted within a specified timetable (e.g. 3 to 5 years), and that the development of a designation process and a monitoring plan may proceed in a stepwise fashion or both processes may occur simultaneously (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraphs 5.36 and 5.37). 7.9 Many Members noted developments related to MPAs outside the Convention Area, including the work of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). The EU stated that work on establishment of MPAs is being undertaken under relevant EU legislation, including the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Integrated Maritime Policy of the EU, and that scientific knowledge underpins that work. 7.10 Japan said that it does not categorically object to the establishment of MPAs in the CAMLR Convention Area and is able to accept MPAs which may, on the basis of sufficient scientific evidence, prohibit fishing activities. However, Japan is unable to accept the establishment of an MPA which prohibits rational use of fish resources without clear objectives and scientific justification. Other important elements with respect to the establishment of MPAs are monitoring mechanism and periodical mandatory review processes to assess whether the established MPA is achieving its objectives. Japan also noted that MPAs will attract IUU fishing which undermines the objectives of the Convention. 7.11 The Commission welcomed those comments of Japan which underlined the importance of scientific knowledge and noted that there may be a requirement for different approaches for designating MPAs depending on different levels of information available. 7.12 Australia introduced CCAMLR-XXIX/38 Rev. 1 and expressed appreciation to Members for the work undertaken during the meeting to progress an overarching measure that it had proposed to support the establishment of an RSMPA (see also paragraphs 12.73 to 12.75). Australia recalled that consideration of principles for the establishment of an RSMPA had commenced in 2005 and that, since then, significant progress had been made. This included the establishment of the South Orkney Islands MPA last year. Australia was of the view that a general conservation measure is necessary to provide: (i) a transparent process for adopting individual MPAs, including a provision for review; 7.13 This approach has been directly modelled on CM 21-02, the exploratory fisheries conservation measure, which is an overarching conservation measure that establishes broad principles for exploratory fisheries and is then followed by a series of conservation measures for individual exploratory fisheries. 7.14 Such a measure will provide a road map for the consideration of all proposals for MPAs as the Commission moves towards meeting the 2012 deadline of the World Summit on Sustainable Development while, at the same time, providing a means to ensure MPAs meet individual objectives. Australia advised that it will be submitting proposals for seven MPAs in East Antarctica to the MPA Workshop in 2011 that are intended to be included within the framework of the general conservation measure if it is implemented. 7.15 Members considered that an overarching measure to implement MPAs should be linked to the objectives of the Convention and be based on sound science, and could provide guidance on ‘sufficient’ size, and include provisions for scientific research, monitoring and review. Consideration of the impacts of IUU fishing on MPAs, established as part of the system, would also require consideration. In addition, some Members considered that MPAs should be established on a case-by-case basis, each with its own objectives for protecting particular components of the ecosystem. 7.16 In subsequent discussion, some Members proposed that any measure concerning the designation and review of MPAs needed to be consistent with the international legal framework provided by UNCLOS, the Antarctic Treaty and the CAMLR Convention, and be guided by three principles: (i) protection of the environment 7.17 The Commission noted that, in 2005, the Scientific Committee had identified a number of conservation objectives that could be achieved through the establishment of MPAs. While representativeness was one such objective, other objectives include those identified in SC-CAMLR-XXIV, paragraphs 3.54(i), (iii), (iv-b) and (iv-c). The value of MPAs as a means to monitor change in the Antarctic ecosystem was also noted. 7.18 The Commission acknowledged that an overarching measure may help facilitate the designation of MPAs in the future and, therefore, it was important that such as a measure reflected appropriate conservation and policy objectives, including consideration of the types of vessels/activities to be covered by the measure, including vessels not flagged to CCAMLR Members. The Commission recognised that this underscored the need to consider CCAMLR’s relationship to other organisations in further development of such a measure. 7.19 In relation to Australia’s proposal regarding an RSMPA, Argentina referred to the possible implications of the term ‘representative system’. It pointed out that the establishment of precise general definitions, terms and objectives was appropriate and may assist in deliberations on this matter, but stated that a clear definition of future MPAs administrative procedures should be included and needs to be fully consistent with international law and the Antarctic Treaty System. 7.20 ASOC welcomed the initiative to develop a conservation measure that would provide the framework for developing an RSMPA within the Southern Ocean. This would provide clarity on the purposes and processes of MPA designation, and facilitate the development of an RSMPA that will deliver on multiple objectives and be more than the sum of its parts. ASOC appreciated the substantive discussion on MPAs at this meeting and looked forward to the outcomes of next year’s MPA Workshop. It encouraged all Members to work on identifying candidate MPAs of sufficient scale to protect biodiversity and ecological function in time for the workshop. ASOC submitted that designating the Ross Sea continental shelf and slope as an MPA is a high priority and noted that support for protecting the Ross Sea shelf and slope was growing amongst the wider scientific community, with 462 scientists from 37 countries having already signed a statement calling for their protection. |
| 2010 | CCAMLR-XXIX | 12.9 | 12.9 The Commission agreed to extend all VMS reporting requirements in CM 10-04 to vessels fishing in krill fisheries (Annex 6, paragraph 2.48). Footnote 4 was deleted from that measure and the revised CM 10-04 (2010) was adopted. |
| 2010 | CCAMLR-XXIX | 15.8 | 15.8 Australia will work with interested Members to further review CCAMLR-XXIX/BG/13 Rev. 2 and provide it to the Secretariat to be circulated intersessionally for any additional comment and review prior to its release, including posting on the Commission’s website. |
| 2010 | CCAMLR-XXIX | Annex 5, para 23 |
23. In considering the proposal from Norway, UK and the USA to revise Financial Regulation 8.2, and in light of recent financial events, SCAF saw merit in undertaking a general review of the existing Financial Regulations. To this effect SCAF recommended that:
|
| 2010 | SC-CAMLR-XXIX | 3.59 | 3.59 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-FSA had reviewed preliminary stock assessments developed during the intersessional period for D. eleginoides and D. mawsoni in Subarea 48.4, and C. gunnari in Subarea 48.3 and Division 58.5.2, in preparation for the assessments. The discussions relative to preliminary assessments of these three fisheries are set out in Annex 8, paragraphs 4.4 to 4.13. |
| 2010 | SC-CAMLR-XXIX | 5.14 to 5.39 |
Marine Protected Areas 5.14 The Scientific Committee endorsed the advice of WG-EMM regarding terminology relevant to bioregionalisation and systematic conservation planning (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.105 and 3.106). The Scientific Committee recalled its advice in 2005 (SC CAMLR-XXIV, paragraph 3.54) that: (i) the whole Convention Area is equivalent to an IUCN Category IV MPA, but there are areas within the Convention Area that require further special consideration in a representative system; and (ii) the ideas, concepts and terminology used by CCAMLR were to fulfil the objectives specified in Article II of the Convention and may not be related to terminology used elsewhere. 5.15 The Scientific Committee also endorsed the advice of WG-EMM which referred to ecological terminology in systematic conservation planning (Annex 6, paragraph 3.108). The Scientific Committee recognised that it was currently not feasible to develop a single set of terms that would adequately and accurately describe the classification of ecosystem components, processes and properties across all scales for all MPAs. However, the Scientific Committee agreed that it would help increase understanding amongst the CCAMLR community if practitioners of such planning could, to the extent possible, explain how they have implemented the systematic conservation planning principles. It was agreed that different analytical methods may be used to develop proposals for MPAs, based on systematic conservation planning. 5.16 The Scientific Committee reviewed approaches to bioregionalisation and agreed that Members planning to undertake bioregionalisation and systematic conservation planning in the Convention Area should (Annex 6, paragraph 3.110): (i) where biological data are lacking, use bathymetric, oceanographic or climatological data indicative of biogeographic boundaries to define large-scale biogeographic provinces within which spatial planning will occur separately; Rational use 5.17 The Scientific Committee agreed that it was important for both the Scientific Committee and Commission to provide guidance on how to address the topic of rational use in the development of a Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (RSMPAs) (Annex 6, paragraph 3.117). In response to a recommendation by WG-EMM (Annex 6, paragraph 3.118), Dr Constable had coordinated an informal intersessional discussion which resulted in a paper focusing on how scientific issues related to rational use may be considered in the development of MPA proposals (SC CAMLR-XXIX/BG/9); he noted that this paper represented a point in time at which comments in an ongoing discussion were compiled. There was no attempt to weigh the merits of various points of view nor to consolidate a single view. The discussion included a number of topics, such as data needs, data availability and how to further progress on MPAs in the absence of comprehensive ecological data. 5.18 Members acknowledged that a discussion of how rational use can best be incorporated into MPA planning has relevance to the Scientific Committee, but that discussions of what types of activities constitute rational use and how to measure success in balancing rational use and conservation was primarily a Commission issue. 5.19 The Scientific Committee observed that a discussion on the balance between conservation and rational use would benefit from scientific understanding of the marine ecosystem. It was noted that the selection of methodologies to assess the goals of rational use and conservation goals was a complex matter, which would benefit from further discussion by the Scientific Committee. 5.20 The Scientific Committee recalled that it had agreed that it should, as a priority, continue the process of consolidating scientific views to maintain a common basis for the development of MPAs (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 3.55(iv)). The Scientific Committee noted that it was important to create a transparent process by which multiple objectives for spatial protection could be considered in balance with rational use. It agreed that the discussions would best proceed with a focus on individual MPA proposals, rather than at a broad overarching scale. This is due to the expectation that different MPAs could have a different combination of objectives as agreed by CCAMLR-XXIV, paragraph 4.14, i.e. protection of ecosystem processes, habitats and biodiversity, and protection of species, including population and life-history stages. In the development of MPA proposals there is a need to clearly identify how achievement of the objectives will be assessed, while taking account of uncertainty. MPA Workshop 5.21 The Convener of WG-EMM noted that there was agreement on a set of milestones to progress the development of MPAs (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 3.28). To achieve the second milestone, the Scientific Committee agreed to convene a workshop in 2011 to review progress, share experience on different approaches to the selection of candidate sites for protection, to review draft proposals for MPAs in the CAMLR Convention Area, and to determine a work program for the identification of MPAs in as many of the priority regions as possible (and other regions as appropriate). 5.22 The Scientific Committee endorsed the following terms of reference, based on advice provided by the MPA Special Fund Correspondence Group (Annex 6, paragraph 3.126): (i) To review progress on the development of a Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (RSMPAs) in the Convention Area, including consideration of: (a) recently designated MPAs and other spatial protection/management measures; (ii) To share experience on different approaches to the selection of candidate marine sites for protection, including consideration of: (a) types of scientific information that could be used for the identification of areas of conservation importance; (iii) To review draft proposals for MPAs or an RSMPA in the CAMLR Convention Area, submitted for this purpose, such that Members developing proposals can incorporate feedback from the workshop and revise their proposals accordingly in advance of SC-CAMLR in 2011. (a) regions in which further work to identify MPAs is now required, based on current progress and considering the 11 priority regions and other regions as appropriate; 5.23 The Scientific Committee also recommended a list of workshop outputs (Annex 6, paragraph 3.127): (i) Summary of progress on developing an RSMPA, which could include: (a) the current status of existing and proposed MPAs in the Convention Area; (ii) Work program for finalising recommendations on an RSMPA for the Commission meeting in 2012. 5.24 The Scientific Committee noted that practical aspects of the 2011 workshop included the selection of a time and venue for the workshop, as well as planning to ensure that technical experts (e.g. representatives from SCAR, CEP and IUCN) were invited, subject to the Scientific Committee’s Rules of Procedure. 5.25 France’s offer to host the 2011 MPA Workshop was welcomed by the Scientific Committee. Proposals 5.26 The Scientific Committee endorsed the revised management plan for ASPA No. 149, Cape Shirreff and San Telmo Islands (WG-EMM-10/21) (Annex 6, paragraph 3.134), and forwarded the plan to the Commission for consideration. Members were reminded that, in an effort to harmonise protection of the site within the ATS and avoid duplication of effort, CCAMLR’s protection of Cape Shirreff was rescinded with the lapse of CM 91-02. 5.27 Dr Constable presented SC-CAMLR-XXIX/11 which described a process to elaborate RSMPAs in data-poor regions, using the bioregionalisation process, available ecological and biodiversity data and outcomes in a systematic conservation planning framework for a region in East Antarctica. 5.28 The Scientific Committee agreed that this process could be applied to other data-poor areas, while different approaches may be more appropriate in regions where sufficient datasets exist, such as the Ross Sea and the South Orkney Islands. 5.29 In an example from East Antarctica, Australia applied the Comprehensiveness, Adequacy and Representativeness (CAR) principles (Annex 6, paragraph 3.123), resulting in a proposal for seven separate MPAs in the East Antarctica RSMPA. It was noted that these areas were designed to be sufficiently large to protect conservation values during a period in which further data will be collected. Such data could be used in a review process at a later date to refine and reduce the size of the areas if warranted. 5.30 Members acknowledged the challenges involved in designating MPAs in data-poor areas, with some Members noting the advantages of the transparent approach used in the development of this proposal. Some Members noted that it was important to have clear objectives for individual areas and in some cases, no-harvesting protected areas might need to be established as reference areas while other areas could potentially have some harvesting that would not impact their objectives. 5.31 The Scientific Committee recalled that in 2005 it endorsed the advice of the Workshop on Marine Protected Areas (SC-CAMLR-XXIV, paragraph 3.54) which stated that the Convention Area as a whole would qualify as Category IV in the IUCN System of Protected Areas. Prof. Koubbi suggested that it could be useful to examine criteria and standards for protected areas according to Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and to the international Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative (GOBI). 5.32 The large size and the number of MPAs in the East Antarctic RSMPA was a subject of concern to some Members, particularly given the lack of ecological data in the region. Dr Constable noted that there were different objectives for the various areas, with some being designated for benthic values, others for conservation of pelagic biodiversity or as reference areas for studies of the impacts of climate change or harvesting. He indicated that they had been developed together as a system in order to identify the important areas for representing different biogeographic provinces, combined with some areas that would be useful as reference areas for monitoring climate change impacts without interference from fishing. As above in paragraph 5.29, he noted that further knowledge would be needed to refine the areas needed to achieve the objectives. 5.33 Some Members supported application of the above approach for East Antarctica due to the paucity of ecological data in the region, but noted that in other areas where there is more ecological data, analysis could go further than bioregionalisation for purposes of demonstrating representativeness, in the process of identifying a system of MPAs. It was recommended that the identification of MPAs could also be based on consideration of biological or ecological data to achieve other possible objectives for MPAs identified by the Scientific Committee, i.e. protection of ecosystem processes, habitats and biodiversity, and protection of species (including population and life-history stages) (CCAMLR-XXIV, paragraph 4.14). 5.34 It was noted that spatially explicit representations of the distribution of harvestable resources (e.g. modelled species distributions or catch effort histories) could be used in the design of a system of MPAs, to evaluate potential costs to rational use. Members noted that the systematic conservation planning approach is designed to address multiple spatial protection objectives, and to achieve a balance between protection and rational use, and has been endorsed by the Scientific Committee as an appropriate method for designing a system of MPAs in the CCAMLR area (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 3.55(iii)). 5.35 The Scientific Committee expressed concern about the process and timetable for a review of MPAs. Some Members suggested that the Scientific Committee develop guidelines for the process. Some Members noted that establishment of RSMPAs should be grounded on the best available scientific data. 5.36 The Scientific Committee agreed that the process for establishing each MPA should include the development of a research and monitoring program to be conducted within a specified timetable (e.g. 3 to 5 years). The results of these research and monitoring programs should be submitted to the Scientific Committee for review and a possible recommendation for revision of the status and boundaries of particular MPAs. 5.37 Some Members noted that the processes for the designation of MPAs and the development of a monitoring and review plan may best proceed in a step-wise fashion. Other Members suggested that both processes may occur simultaneously. 5.38 Some Members stressed the importance of data derived from harvesting activities and noted that this could be the main source of information about marine ecosystems. These Members felt that limiting fishing within a system of MPAs could result in insufficient data for monitoring purposes. Other Members noted that national and international collaborative research programs could be a valuable source of monitoring and process study data on marine ecosystems. 5.39 Prof. Koubbi presented France’s strategy for designating MPAs in the Crozet and Kerguelen Archipelago and East Antarctica (SC-CAMLR-XXIX/13). The scientific framework to be applied by France is in accordance with research conducted in East Antarctica regarding regionalisation and to the studies in the Ross Sea for the ecological approaches. A multiple-category approach according to different IUCN categories will be used by France and should be encouraged when vast areas or RSMPAs are considered. Some Members strongly supported the French strategy, noting in particular the use of biological distributions and ecological data to locate pelagic and benthic habitats at smaller spatial scales, or areas of particular importance to fish life cycles and top predators. |
| 2010 | SC-CAMLR-XXIX | 6.6 |
6.6 The Scientific Committee reiterated its previous advice that gillnets are less selective than longlines, the by-catch of fish and seabirds and impact on benthos are unknown, and nets continue to fish if abandoned or lost. The Scientific Committee agreed that gillnets are a destructive fishing method. Every effort should be made to end gillnet IUU activity in the Convention Area. Additional information and approaches are urgently required to better document the extent of IUU fishing and its impact on toothfish stocks and the environment. |
| 2010 | SC-CAMLR-XXIX | 10.1 and 10.2 |
10.1 The CEP Observer to SC-CAMLR (Dr Penhale) presented SC-CAMLR-XXIX/BG/7 on the ongoing collaboration between CEP and SC-CAMLR, as discussed at CEP XIII held in Uruguay in May 2010, on the following five areas of common interest: (i) Climate change – 10.2 Dr Penhale noted that there are two ASMAs (1 and 7) and two ASPAs (152 and 153) that contain marine components with the potential for harvesting. While these ASPA and ASMA designations have previously been reviewed by CCAMLR, there is no mention of them in CCAMLR conservation measures. |
| 2010 | SC-CAMLR-XXIX | Annex 8, 5.1 to 5.12 |
Development of a research framework for data-poor fisheries 5.1 The term ‘data-poor fisheries’ was considered by the Working Group as referring to a fishery for which a robust stock assessment that provides advice on catch limits according to CCAMLR decision rules has not been developed due to lack of information. 5.2 The Working Group recalled general principles and requirements for CCAMLR sponsored research (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraphs 8.9 and 8.10), the characteristics of a well-designed research program (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, Annex 6, paragraphs 2.34 to 2.40), and the recommendations of WG-SAM-10 for WG-FSA in assessing any research fishery design and the data requirements for a stock assessment (Annex 4, paragraphs 3.20 and 3.23). 5.3 The Working Group agreed that its objective for data-poor fisheries is to develop management advice on catch levels consistent with Article II of the CAMLR Convention. At present, robust assessments of stock status of toothfish are lacking in many areas (e.g. Subareas 48.6 and 58.4). 5.4 The Working Group identified that the system of SSRUs (open and closed areas) may need to be revised in order to improve the capacity for estimating stock status of D. mawsoni. This is further considered in developing research plans below when trying to identify areas of greatest importance to address specific research questions. 5.5 The Working Group recalled issues with the development of a tag-recapture-based assessment, including: (i) high levels of post-tagging mortality of tagged fish (e.g. the effect of depredation, or the health and condition of released fish); 5.6 The Working Group recalled issues with the use of CPUE indices, including that: (i) a single point index or short time series of CPUE cannot be used to estimate abundance; 5.7 The Working Group recalled that the characteristics of successful assessments included the use of well-designed experiments to develop an integrated tag-based assessment of Dissostichus spp. in Subarea 48.4 (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 4.87), and the use of a multi-national multi-year tag-based assessment for Subareas 88.1 and 88.2. In recalling these successful experiments, the Working Group agreed that concentrating tagging effort spatially was a key factor that led to the success of the tag-based assessment. Further, the Working Group noted that successful assessments in Subarea 48.3 and Division 58.5.2 have also included data collected from trawl surveys. 5.8 The Working Group noted the previous successful work to standardise survey requirements amongst CCAMLR Members, including developing standard methods for demersal fish trawl surveys (SC-CAMLR-XI, paragraph 3.20) and for acoustic surveys (SC CAMLR-XVII, paragraphs 5.4 to 5.14). 5.9 The Working Group noted that both the ability of vessels to meet an appropriate research standard and the calibration between vessels’ data would need to be considered in developing a research plan. For example, in a tagging program, the calibration would need to consider: (i) survivorship of fish as a result of the fishing method being used 5.10 The Working Group agreed that the development of a generalised work plan would assist Members in developing proposals, individually or in a multinational program, that would satisfy the CCAMLR-sponsored research principles above. 5.11 The Working Group agreed that the generalised work plan for implementing research in data-poor fisheries would be: 1. Define the objective and appropriate field and analytical methods. For example, sampling platforms may be longline or trawl and these may be fishery dependent or independent. 5.12 The Working Group recommended that some specific elements of the work plan be considered as a high-priority focus topic for WG-SAM in the coming intersessional period according to following terms of reference: (i) methods for evaluating the capability of vessels and gear types to contribute to research outcomes and for calibrating vessels and gears, including specific case studies relevant to current exploratory fisheries such as in tag-recapture programs; |
| 2010 | SC-CAMLR-XXIX | Annex 8, para 5.186 | 5.186 The Working Group considered the requests of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraphs 10.8 and 10.10). |
| 2011 | CCAMLR-XXX | 7.1 to 7.43 |
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 7.1 The Commission noted the outcomes of the Workshop on MPAs (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 6) and expressed its gratitude to France for hosting the workshop and to the Co conveners for their extensive work in preparation for and during the workshop. 7.2 The Commission endorsed the recommendation that the CCAMLR Secretariat liaise with the UK to further develop the GIS database to aid the management of spatial data, including in the development of proposals for MPAs and to make this database available for the use of all Members (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraph 5.13). 7.3 The Commission endorsed the Scientific Committee’s advice that proposals for MPAs should include a clear description of the balance between the protection of ecological function and allowance for, and impact on, harvesting (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraph 5.16). 7.4 The Commission welcomed the development of planning domains for representative systems of MPAs (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 6, Figure 3) and endorsed these to replace the priority areas defined in 2008 as the basis for planning MPAs in the Convention Area. It also endorsed proposals by Members to hold technical workshops to examine the Western Antarctic Peninsula–South Scotia Arc domain (domain 1), the del Cano–Crozet domain (domain 5) and the circumpolar systematic conservation planning (SC CAMLR-XXX, paragraph 5.20). 7.5 In response to the request from the Scientific Committee on how plans for management of MPAs, including implementation plans and research and/or scientific monitoring plans, might be developed (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 5.22 to 5.27), the Commission agreed that as MPA proposals are brought forward, there will be different needs for monitoring and management plans and, therefore, advice on how these associated plans are developed should be considered on a case-by-case basis. 7.6 The Commission agreed that management plans for MPAs need to be in accordance with the objectives for that MPA and that, given the scale of the CCAMLR region and of the proposed MPAs system, while it may be the responsibility of the proponent to articulate the broad aims of the proposal, there is a clear need for a process that allows wider engagement in the process of determining and implementing management arrangements for each MPA. 7.7 Some Members suggested that management plans that accompany MPA proposals should address surveillance and control of IUU fishing. The USA agreed that IUU fishing threatens the success of MPAs, but noted that the threat of IUU fishing is circumpolar. The USA recommended that CCAMLR develop an overall strategy for surveillance and control of illegal activities, which would support all MPAs in the Convention Area, and ensure that IUU fishing does not threaten the values for which the MPAs are established or other elements of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. The USA recalled from the discussion on IUU that legal fishing vessels are not the most important source of information about the presence of IUU vessels, and the USA saw little evidence that keeping areas open for fishing will deter IUU fishing. 7.8 Argentina made the following statement:
7.9 The EU expressed its support for the establishment of MPAs on the basis of best scientific evidence, in line with the commitments of World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 as well as the Convention on Biological Diversity, and hoped that CCAMLR will soon be in a position to adopt a representative network of MPAs. Ross Sea region 7.10 The USA introduced SC-CAMLR-XXX/9, which presented a scenario for an MPA in the Ross Sea planning domain that articulated three policy aims to guide its effort, all of which were consistent with Article II of the Convention. The USA noted its view that establishing an MPA to achieve these aims will constitute rational use. It also noted that the Scientific Committee had concluded that the proposed scenario supports the identification of areas for protection consistent with its aims (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraph 5.45). The USA invited all Members to endorse the establishment of an MPA in the Ross Sea Region to:
7.11 New Zealand introduced SC-CAMLR-XXX/10 which presented a scenario for an MPA in the Ross Sea planning domain. New Zealand sought to apply the systematic conservation planning method in a transparent, rigorous and scientifically defensible manner consistent with international best-practice as referenced in SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraph 5.12 and following the advice of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 5.14 to 5.18). The specific areas assigned the highest protection targets in Table 1 of SC-CAMLR-XXX/10 were chosen to eliminate identifiable risks to the stated objectives of the MPA in different areas, and were endorsed by the Workshop on MPAs (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 6, paragraph 3.40). The scenario achieves high protection while minimising associated displacement of fishing effort; fishery displacement under this scenario is 15% with respect to catch, or 21% with respect to effort. The scenario was also planned with careful consideration of ice dynamics, of the potential for vessel crowding under existing effort levels and of the effect of the MPA on tag returns to inform stock assessments. 7.12 New Zealand sought the views of Members regarding appropriate protection targets for different objectives and on appropriate trade-offs between protection and rational use. New Zealand reiterated that it can provide the MPA planning software and associated data used in the New Zealand MPA planning process to other Members in order to explore such trade-offs. 7.13 The Commission thanked New Zealand and the USA for the significant amount of work contained in both scenarios for an MPA in the Ross Sea planning domain and noted the advice of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 5.45 to 5.47) that the scenarios are based on the best scientific evidence available and that no further scientific analysis and debate is needed in that Committee. 7.14 Italy thanked the USA for its scenario for a Ross Sea MPA. In Italy’s view, the US proposal represented an appropriate balance and was a good basis for discussion of a Ross Sea MPA in 2012 pending future deliberations of this issue. 7.15 Norway stressed the importance of a balanced approach with regard to the provisions in a measure to establish an MPA. For Norway, sustainable, ecosystem-based, responsible fishing founded on science is a fundamental part of harvesting and harvesting is a fundamental part of Article II of the CAMLR Convention. Any suggestion that raises doubt of the definition of ‘rational use’ as it is defined in Article II in the Convention will not be helpful and cannot be supported. 7.16 Some Members supported the rigorous and transparent approach used in the New Zealand proposal for the MPA scenario in the Ross Sea and especially the two-phase ‘systematic conservation planning’ that clearly outlines the available scientific data, analysis and resulting management decisions that could be proposed on the basis of these data. This provides a sound basis for further consideration of the proposal. At the same time, some Members questioned the size and border of the suggested MPA and encouraged the USA and New Zealand to explore different levels of protection for different objectives and resulting outcomes, and forward a revised version to the Commission next year. 7.17 Sweden believed it is important that work on biodiversity, as well as fishing-related issues, continues in order to protect the living organisms within Antarctic waters, and it supported the establishment of the suggested MPAs. It also recalled a suggested definition of rational use found in the report of the Workshop on MPAs (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 6): 7.18 Argentina expressed its disagreement with the definition of ‘rational use’ included in the report of the Workshop on MPAs (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 6, paragraph 5.16), which was offered by one of the invited experts, since it considers inappropriate in the context of CCAMLR to limit this concept to the sustainable use of the resources and to the conservation of the ecosystem, if necessary, for the exploited populations. In its view, the objectives set out in Article II also apply to non-exploitable species as established in Article I.2 of the Convention. 7.19 The Commission agreed that both the US and the New Zealand proposal for an MPA for the Ross Sea region are very good starting points for further discussions. In Norway’s view, the New Zealand text takes a more holistic approach, enabling a customised approach to the different parts of an MPA and to what kind of measures are needed in each MPA. Norway also appreciated the transparency of the proposal. 7.20 Japan reiterated its position that restrictions on fishing activities as part of an MPA should be commensurate with the objectives of the MPA. It therefore requested further scientific analysis of the impact of fishing activities on the specific objectives of the proposed MPA. 7.21 China and Russia appreciated the work done by New Zealand in accommodating comments from Members, especially in providing clarity on the conservation objectives and the level of protection provided. They also noted the advantage in having mechanisms to explore the effects of different levels of protection for different values being protected to provide different options for consideration by the Commission. 7.22 Japan welcomed the approach taken in the New Zealand scenario and the analysis of the potential impacts of fishing on specific objectives of each target area. It also welcomed the idea of making the protection target proportional to the expected impact of fishing in the objectives of the MPA as a useful concept for MPA planning. Japan noted that further examination of the New Zealand scenario is necessary to examine the appropriateness of the size and delineation of the proposed MPA. 7.23 New Zealand and the USA confirmed their willingness to undertake further consultation with Members and encouraged all interested parties to engage in these discussions with the intention of bringing forward proposals for the formal establishment of an MPA to the Commission in 2012. East Antarctica 7.24 Australia and France jointly presented the proposal for a representative system of MPAs for the whole East Antarctic planning domain (SC-CAMLR-XXX/11). 7.25 Australia noted that the system aims to conserve representative areas of marine biodiversity in the region based on analyses of biology, ecology and biogeography of biota in the region. It highlighted that the system will provide reference areas for measuring the effects of climate change independent from the effects of human activities, and provide the reference areas necessary for managing ecosystem effects of fishing. 7.26 The Commission thanked Australia and France for the significant amount of work contained in their proposal in the East Antarctic planning domain and noted the discussion of the Scientific Committee on the proposal (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 5.48 to 5.62) and its advice that the proposal contained the best scientific evidence available (SC CAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 5.63 to 5.66). 7.27 Australia and France appreciated the views and advice of the Scientific Committee on the scientific paper for MPAs in East Antarctica and expressed their intention to prepare a conservation measure for consideration by the Commission in 2012. 7.28 South Africa endorsed the basis on which the proposal on the East Antarctic planning domain is based on and agreed that the analyses proposed by Australia and France for a representative system of MPAs within the East Antarctic region are based on the best scientific evidence available when their analyses were performed. 7.29 Australia and France also invited other Members to consider the analyses presented in the current proposal and to provide comments in the intersessional period. 7.30 China welcomed the statements by Australia and France and encouraged the proponents to adopt a more explicit, and preferably, a statistical approach to deal with the impact on rational use (in the present context, the fishery) as done in other proposals. Protection of habitats newly exposed by the collapse of ice shelves 7.31 The Commission noted the UK proposal in SC-CAMLR-XXX/13 concerning the protection of marine habitats that may be newly exposed as a consequence of ice-shelf collapse. The EU presented to the Commission a proposal for a conservation measure to provide protection for such areas, noting that this had been borne out of the recommendations of the Workshop on MPAs, and, in particular, focused on protection in the Antarctic Peninsula region, given the risk to ice shelves associated with the elevated rate of warming in this region. 7.32 The Commission noted the advice of the Scientific Committee in regard to this proposal and noted that the science available was limited because the areas to be protected were currently inaccessible (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 5.76 and 5.77). 7.33 Some Members noted that, as with other proposals, there was a desire to have a clearly articulated research and monitoring plan before the Commission could proceed with this proposal. In response, the UK noted that, in following the precautionary approach described in the proposal, there was a strong case to put in place measures to protect newly exposed habitats before plans for scientific research and monitoring could be fully developed. Furthermore, detailed research and monitoring plans would depend on the precise location of any individual ice-shelf collapse. 7.34 Russia expressed concern that establishment of MPAs adjacent to the Antarctic Peninsula may impede logistic operations of national Antarctic programs. Russia seeks clarification about the legal framework for the establishment of MPAs adjacent to land masses in the CCAMLR area. 7.35 China expressed its understanding that a thorough scientific analysis might not be feasible as the proposal was mainly aiming to protect areas which would be the results of future events, but noted that information describing the recent trend and the present state of those ice shelves would be of great help. China indicated that because the area to be protected had significant scientific merits, research and monitoring plans would be particularly needed. At the same time, China questioned the necessity to protect all of those areas and stated that the fact that those areas were not utilised by any fishery or logistic activities at present should not constitute an excuse to exclude such activities in the future. 7.36 Many delegations expressed the view that the protection of the unique habitats found when ice shelves collapse would have been a sound precautionary measure, noting that it had been recommended by the Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on Climate Change, held in 2010, and endorsed by the CCAMLR MPA Workshop held this year in France. These delegations stressed that protecting those habitats would have had no implications for harvesting or logistics, but would have protected the areas for science, as envisaged under Article IX.2(g) of the CAMLR Convention. These delegations further noted that the lack of progress during the meeting on this issue meant that there would be no new designations for marine protection going into 2012. These delegations urged greater progress by the Commission in respect of MPAs next year. Proposal for a general conservation measure on MPAs 7.37 Australia presented CCAMLR-XXX/30, a conservation measure that provides a general framework for the establishment of CCAMLR MPAs. In presenting this proposal, Australia noted that the general conservation measure for establishing MPAs was introduced last year (CCAMLR-XXIX, paragraphs 12.74 to 12.76), considered through intersessional correspondence, and has been discussed extensively in SCIC (Annex 6, paragraphs 2.71 to 2.73). 7.38 Australia stated that it was of the view that there is general support for this proposal and noted the importance of establishing a framework for CCAMLR MPAs. Australia noted that CCAMLR is held in high regard for its leadership in managing the conservation and sustainable use of Antarctic marine living resources, and that it greatly values the positive and cooperative approach taken by Members to conclude the development of a general conservation measure on MPAs this year. 7.39 Russia pointed out that a general conservation measure on CCAMLR MPAs should include a clear timeframe within which a management plan and research and monitoring plan associated with every MPA should be reviewed, as well as a clear timeframe within which MPA status should be reviewed on the basis of information collected under these plans. 7.40 Australia noted the considerable discussion to date regarding the balance between conservation and rational use in the establishment of MPAs, and recognised the need for the general conservation measure on MPAs to adequately reflect Article II to achieve the appropriate balance. 7.41 Australia acknowledged the general goodwill to date of Members to conclude the development of a general conservation measure this year to guide the establishment of MPAs in 2012, and encouraged Members to focus on the text of the measure to ensure this can be achieved. 7.42 The EU welcomed the adoption of this general conservation measure and expressed its appreciation for the flexible approach of Members in agreeing to this measure, which will guide the establishment of CCAMLR MPAs in the future (paragraph 12.39). 7.43 ASOC made the following statement in respect of MPAs:
|
| 2011 | CCAMLR-XXX | 7.8 |
7.8 Argentina made the following statement:
|
| 2011 | CCAMLR-XXX | 8.7 to 8.9 and 9.8 |
Compliance evaluation procedure 8.7 The Commission noted the advice of SCIC that significant progress had been made in refining DOCEP and that CCAMLR was in a position to develop a compliance evaluation procedure to be put forward as a draft conservation measure for possible adoption at CCAMLR-XXXI. One Member noted that a compliance evaluation procedure would have been of significant value to the Commission in 2011 in considering the case of the Insung No. 7 and urged that work on DOCEP be advanced with some urgency. 8.8 Some Members expressed disappointment that the Commission was not able to adopt a compliance evaluation procedure at this stage and urged Members to engage with Australia in the 2011 /12 intersessional period. 8.9 The Commission thanked Australia for its work to progress the development of a compliance evaluation procedure and echoed SCIC’s advice that Members actively engage with Australia to contribute to intersessional work toward drafting a conservation measure for consideration by CCAMLR in 2012. Control of nationals (CM 10-08) 9.8 The Commission noted the report submitted by Chile in relation to new domestic legislation for the control of nationals who engage in IUU fishing. The Commission also noted a report submitted by Spain in relation to the implementation of CM 10-08 during 2010/11 relating to investigations involving Spanish nationals, some of which resulted in sanctions and penalties. |
| 2011 | CCAMLR-XXX | 12.52 to 12.54 |
12.52 The Commission considered the EU’s proposal on fishing capacity and effort in exploratory fisheries (CCAMLR-XXX/38). The proposal included an analysis of the possible impacts on the fisheries from overcapacity of effort, and recommended that the Commission consider instruments and mechanisms to ensure that deployed fishing capacity is commensurate with the resources and the recommendations of the Performance Review. The EU noted that the first option would be a consideration of limits on the number of vessels that may participate in the exploratory fisheries. 12.53 The Commission agreed on the need for a discussion on capacity management and called for restraint in exploratory fisheries while this issue was being developed in order to avoid further exacerbating the problems of overcapacity. The Commission urged Members to consider this matter, and to begin applying domestic constraints on fishing capacity and effort in exploratory fisheries while the discussions are ongoing in the Commission. 12.54 The EU encouraged Members to provide written comments on the proposal in CCAMLR-XXX/38 during the intersessional period in order to further refine the proposal and provide a sound basis for the Commission’s consideration in 2012. |
| 2011 | CCAMLR-XXX | 15.2 | 15.2 The Commission noted the concerns expressed in 2008 by the Scientific Committee and the Performance Review Panel at the declining levels of participation in the Scientific Committee and its working groups; it welcomed the information from the Scientific Committee that the measures introduced to address this have resulted in an increase in the participation by individual scientists and by Members in the work of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraph 19.2). |
| 2011 | CCAMLR-XXX | 15.3 | 15.3 Norway and the EU informed the Commission of contributions of A$100 000 and €20 000 respectively to establish a CEMP Special Fund to support ecosystem management as a central component of the management of the krill fishery. The Commission noted the discussion of this issue by the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 11.1 to 11.3) and endorsed the establishment of an ad hoc CEMP Fund Correspondence Group to develop the terms of reference for use of the fund. |
| 2011 | CCAMLR-XXX | 15.6 | 15.6 The Commission noted the advice from the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 11.4 to 11.13) that the first CCAMLR scientific scholarship had been awarded to Dr R. Wiff from Chile. The EU congratulated CCAMLR on the establishment of the Scholarship Scheme and advised it would make a further contribution of €20 000 to the General Science Capacity Fund in the coming year. |
| 2011 | CCAMLR-XXX | Annex 5, 19 |
19. SCAF recommended that the Commission:
|
| 2011 | CCAMLR-XXX | Annex 5, 30 | 30. The Executive Secretary presented CCAMLR-XXX/7 which summarised the practices in other multilateral organisations that support the engagement of Developing States, following recommendations 6.5.2.1, 6.5.2.1(b) and 7.1.1.3 of the Performance Review Panel (PRP) and requested at CCAMLR-XXIX (CCAMLR-XXIX, paragraph 15.9). SCAF noted the range of support available to Developing State Members through ongoing or occasional initiatives of the Commission, and other sources, and undertook to keep this matter under review. |
| 2011 | CCAMLR-XXX | Annex 6, 2.41 to 2.46 and 2.48 to 2.54 |
Control of nationals 2.41 SCIC considered a report submitted by Chile on the implementation of CM 10-08 during 2010/11 (CCAMLR-XXX/BG/17) that outlined new domestic legislation for the control of nationals who engage in IUU fishing. 2.42 Members commended Chile for its efforts in this and the timely manner in which this work occurred. 2.43 SCIC considered a report submitted by the EU in relation to Spain’s implementation of CM 10-08 as transposed in EU Regulation 1099/2007 during 2010/11 (CCAMLR-XXX/BG/35) which reported a number of sanctions imposed on Spanish nationals. 2.44 The EU reported that, due to insufficient evidence, Spain had not been able to proceed against individuals reported by Australia to be Spanish nationals on the vessel Kuko as the only evidence was a transcript of radio communication and this was not sufficient to pursue prosecution. 2.45 Australia advised SCIC that it did not have the authority to board the vessel Kuko because it was a flag-of-convenience IUU vessel, and noted that Australia has provided all the information it has obtained legally to the Secretariat. Australia further requested that Spain continue its efforts in making enquiries regarding its nationals through Port States and Flag States. Australia advised that information exchange between Australia, Spain and the EU is continuing. 2.46 The EU reported that Spain investigated the case of the vessel Tchaw which has remained in the port of Vigo since October 2010 and that this investigation is likely to lead to sanctions. The EU reiterated the actions taken by Compliance Evaluation Procedure 2.48 SCIC considered intersessional work conducted by Australia as the Convener for the Development of a Compliance Evaluation Procedure (DOCEP) (CCAMLR-XXX/31). The Convener reported on further work associated with DOCEP and thanked the EU, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, UK and the USA for contributions both intersessionally and at this meeting. 2.49 SCIC acknowledged the significant work undertaken by Australia in the intersessional period and noted that the procedure could benefit from further refinement and simplification. SCIC noted the need for an incremental approach. 2.50 SCIC expressed support for DOCEP and drew attention to the importance of monitoring and reporting on compliance in a standardised way. 2.51 A number of issues were raised in respect of the procedure, including: (i) the complexity of the process and the potential for administrative burden it poses 2.52 Through SCIC and the Drafting Group, significant progress was made in refining the compliance evaluation procedure. Australia was of the view that CCAMLR is now in a position to develop a compliance evaluation procedure that could be put forward as a draft conservation measure for adoption although it is possible that for now, the work of DOCEP itself may have been exhausted. Consequently, Australia invited interested Members to work informally with Australia to contribute to the development of a draft conservation measure for submission and possible adoption at CCAMLR-XXXI. 2.53 Russia encouraged the DOCEP group to continue to work actively to provide substantive advice to SCIC. The situation in respect of the Insung No. 7 demonstrated the urgency for a compliance evaluation procedure, particularly in terms of evaluating the severity of such incidents. Russia was of the view that an unprejudiced decision could be made by using an appropriate procedure for categorising the seriousness of conservation measure violations, similar to the compliance evaluation procedure proposed by the DOCEP group. The incident with Insung No. 7 demonstrated the necessity for the DOCEP group to adopt specific recommendations on a conservation measure’s violation severity as soon as possible. Russia suggested that the incident with Insung No. 7 should not be considered in future as a precedent for categorising the seriousness of conservation measure violations and bypassing DOCEP. So far as DOCEP was not applied in that case, Russia was in doubt about the ultimate validity of the inclusion of the Insung No. 7 in the Final CP IUU Vessel List and reserved its position for discussion at the Commission. 2.54 SCIC congratulated Australia for the work undertaken on this matter to date and welcomed its suggestion to undertake further intersessional consultation to develop a new conservation measure proposal for next year. All Members were encouraged to engage constructively. |
|
2011 |
SC-CAMLR-XXX |
Symposium on Feedback Management of Krill
3.33 The Scientific Committee endorsed the six components proposed by WG-EMM that will form the basis of its future work to develop a feedback management procedure for krill (Annex 4, paragraph 2.155). The six components are:
3.34 The Scientific Committee specifically recommended that the Commission note advice from WG-EMM on each of these six components (Annex 4, paragraphs 2.156, 2.160, 2.163, 2.167, 2.172 to 2.174, 2.179, 2.182, 2.186, 2.188 and 2.191). 3.35 The Scientific Committee endorsed the proposed work schedule outlined by WG EMM (Annex 4, paragraph 2.157). It acknowledged that such a work schedule would be facilitated by the development of computer simulation models and that such models could expedite the delivery of the feedback management approach. It agreed that WG EMM would undertake elements 1 to 2 of feedback management development in 2012, 3 to 4 in 2013 and 5 to 6 in 2014. |
|
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | 3.169 | 3.169 The Scientific Committee agreed that estimation of fishing mortality due to lost gear was a useful development and should be estimated for other fishery regions and considered for use in other assessment models (Annex 7, paragraphs 4.35 and 4.36). The Scientific Committee reminded Members of the requirement to complete C2 fields, by reporting zeros if no hooks attached to sections of the main line were lost. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | 5.10 to 5.81 |
5.10 Dr Penhale and Prof. Koubbi presented the report of the Workshop on Marine Protected Areas held in Brest, France, from 29 August to 2 September 2011 (Annex 6). 5.11 The Scientific Committee noted that a number of methods could be used for designing a representative system of MPAs, including bioregionalisation and/or systematic conservation planning (SCP). 5.12 The Scientific Committee noted that insights from the invited experts may assist in the development of SCP processes in the Southern Ocean (Annex 6, Appendix D). 5.13 The Scientific Committee endorsed further development of a GIS database proposed by the UK (Annex 6, paragraph 2.5) as this would aid the management of spatial data, including in the development of proposals for MPAs. It encouraged the CCAMLR Secretariat to liaise with the UK to further develop the GIS database so that it may be made available for the use of all Members. 5.14 The Scientific Committee recalled the kinds of objectives for which MPAs may be designated to achieve the aims of Article II (SC-CAMLR-XXIV, paragraphs 3.53 and 3.54). It also noted that MPA proposals should clearly state the specific objectives for which they are designated in different areas. 5.15 Some Members recommended that the areas selected for protection, as well as the levels of protection sought for each area, should be made explicit for all MPA proposals, consistent with the discussion in Annex 6, paragraph 3.41. Proposals should clearly define conservation values, monitoring plan, implementation and research plans (hereunder time horizons) for MPAs. 5.16 The Scientific Committee recommended that proposals include a clear description of the balance between protection of ecological function and allowance for, and impact on, harvesting. 5.18 The Scientific Committee noted paragraph 5.6 of Annex 6, which noted that in order to achieve a representative system of MPAs:
5.19 The Scientific Committee discussed progress made to develop MPAs in the 11 priority areas identified in 2008. It was noted that the utility of the priority area was limited, because the entire CCAMLR area was not included. Research on bioregionalisation for MPA development, such as for East Antarctica, the Ross Sea and Crozet–Kerguelen, identified larger regions of importance. 5.20 The Scientific Committee endorsed the development of planning domains for representative systems of MPAs (Annex 6, Figure 3). It noted the substantial work done on the Ross Sea and Eastern Antarctica and agreed that the next phase of development of MPAs could include the Western Antarctic Peninsula–South Scotia Arc domain (domain 1), the del Cano–Crozet domain (domain 5) and the circumpolar SCP effort (SCP) (Annex 6, paragraph 6.22). The Scientific Committee endorsed proposals by Members to hold technical workshops for each of these areas in 2012, and encouraged them to present their results to WG-EMM for consideration by all Members. 5.21 Dr Pshenichnov informed the Scientific Committee that Ukraine will begin research in the coming season on the determination, and establishment, of an MPA in the area of the Argentine Islands Archipelago (SC-CAMLR-XXX/BG/11). The research plan will include geophysical, hydrological and biological research, and a survey of coastal areas adjacent to an MPA and accessible benthic habitat. After completion of the research, final MPA boundaries will be determined and the management and ecological monitoring plans for the MPA will be developed and submitted according to the procedure described in Annex V to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. 5.22 Some Members noted that it was important that management plans and research and/or scientific monitoring plans be associated with every MPA proposal, together with a clear timeframe within which MPAs will be reviewed on the basis of the information collected under these plans. Scientific review needs to consider the timescales of the relevant ecological processes, and may vary from a few years to several decades. 5.23 Some Members considered that monitoring and research plans should be developed prior to the designation of an MPA. Other Members considered that it was possible to first designate MPAs and later to consider such plans. 5.24 Some Members considered that the process for designating the South Orkneys MPA should not be considered a precedent for the establishment of MPAs because it did not include a management plan or scientific monitoring plan. 5.25 Dr Trathan reminded the Scientific Committee that at the time of adoption of CM 91 03, the conservation measure was viewed as the management plan (CM 91-03, paragraph 1). He informed the Scientific Committee that the UK continued to undertake research on the ecosystem covered by the South Orkneys MPA. 5.26 Taking account of the views of Members expressed in paragraphs 5.22 to 5.25, the Scientific Committee requested the Commission to consider how monitoring and implementation plans for MPAs might be developed and provide guidance to the Scientific Committee, on what the Commission expected of it in this regard. 5.27 The Scientific Committee agreed that monitoring could take several forms and there is a need to be clear, when using the term, which type of monitoring was being referred. For example, monitoring could be:
Proposals 5.28 The Scientific Committee received two submissions describing MPA scenarios for the Ross Sea region (New Zealand and the USA), one proposal for a representative system of MPAs covering East Antarctica (Australia and France) and one proposal concerning areas now covered by ice shelves that in the future are expected to collapse or disappear due to climate change (UK). 5.29 At the introduction of the debate on specific proposals, the Scientific Committee Chair clarified that the objective of the work of the Scientific Committee would be to comment on the science underlying the MPA proposals, and in particular whether this was the best available scientific advice to support the proposed MPA boundaries consistent with the objectives of the proposal. Ross Sea planning domain 5.30 Dr Watters introduced the US scenario for an MPA in the Ross Sea region (SC CAMLR-XXX/9). It was emphasised that this was not a proposal to be forwarded to the Commission this year, but that a proposal was intended to be forwarded next year. The scientific basis of the suggested proposal had been evaluated and endorsed at the MPA Workshop in Brest. 5.31 Several delegates questioned the basis for the boundaries and size of the proposed area, and also the difference in area boundaries between the US and New Zealand proposals. Dr Watters emphasised that the areas were selected taking into account several ecological aspects as outlined in the proposal, and that the aims and methods differed between the US and New Zealand proposals, but that the scientific approaches were sound. The exact boundaries need to be re-thought for the final version. 5.32 Dr Arata expressed concern that a reallocation of the fishery out of the proposed MPA would potentially affect fish populations outside the MPA through concentration of effort. The areas closed to fishery may also result in an overcrowding of the fishing vessels in the open areas outside the proposed MPAs. Dr Arata also expressed that in regard of the area being proposed for protecting the spawning ground for D. eleginoides, he considered that there are other measures that are more appropriate such as seasonal closures, so before proceeding, the expected outcome of creating such an MPA should be better discussed within the appropriate CCAMLR working group. Dr Watters acknowledged that these issues would have to be considered in the final proposal with a monitoring plan. 5.33 Dr Kiyota stated that since one objective of the US scenario for an MPA in the Ross Sea region was a reference area, it should have a mechanism to ensure the exclusion of human activities that would negatively impact the objectives established for the MPA. Dr Watters emphasised that rational use in the definition was not simply related to fishing. 5.34 Several delegates expressed concern about the feasibility of implementing a monitoring plan for such a large area to ensure its value as a reference area. Dr Watters agreed that there would be large, but not insurmountable, challenges connected to the monitoring and research that would have to be considered when developing a monitoring plan. 5.35 Dr Sharp introduced the MPA scenario by New Zealand for the Ross Sea region (SC CAMLR-XXX/10). It was emphasised that this was not a finished proposal to be forwarded to the Commission this year, but that New Zealand sought feedback from the Scientific Committee and Commission on boundaries and the MPA planning method that New Zealand used. The scientific basis had been evaluated and endorsed at the MPA Workshop in Brest. 5.36 Dr Bizikov supported the planning approach used in the New Zealand proposal and especially the rigorous and transparent approach and the consultation process with the stakeholders during the preparation. He questioned the size of the suggested MPA. Dr Sharp pointed out that the size and the borders result from the input parameters (protection targets) as shown in Table 1 of SC-CAMLR-XXX/10. They can be changed with accompanying changes in outcomes. 5.37 Dr Kiyota emphasised the need for an SCP process when planning MPAs since many of the stakeholders’ interests could be considered in the light of clear objectives and conservation target. He welcomed the use of SCP in the New Zealand proposal, and the fact that it had explicitly considered the effect of fisheries on the value of each target area, which was requested by Japan during the discussion at the MPA Workshop (Annex 6, paragraph 5.10). Dr Kiyota noted that such analysis of the effect of the fishery on the value of target areas should be included in every MPA scenario. 5.38 Mr L. Yang (China) commented that the suggested area was quite large and that there was not enough data presented for the eastern part of the proposed MPA. 5.39 Dr Sharp responded that the northeast area protects spawning D. mawsoni providing recruits to the Ross Sea stock (target area 22), and that the southeast area protects moulting habitats for emperor penguins and crabeater seals (target area 5). The eastern area at moderate latitudes is protected only to achieve representativeness targets with respect to bioregions, and is of lesser importance. 5.40 Dr Sharp emphasised that the similarities between the US and New Zealand scenarios reflect protection objectives that were broadly similar and MPA planning methods that were different but compatible. The differences between the New Zealand and US scenarios reflect different policy aims regarding choosing an appropriate balance between protection and rational use. Specifically, the New Zealand scenario includes a higher level of accommodation for fishery outcomes than does the US scenario. The appropriate balance between protection and rational use is a decision for which advice from the Commission would be useful. 5.41 Some Members questioned whether protection of benthic features in the absence of a clearly identified threat provided sufficient justification for declaring MPAs over large areas. 5.42 Dr Sharp clarified that the New Zealand MPA scenario was only weakly driven by benthic protection objectives, because even though benthic habitat areas were assigned high protection targets in Table 1 of SC-CAMLR-XXX/10, these areas are very small (WS MPA-11/25, Figure 2). He emphasised that the boundaries of the New Zealand MPA scenario are strongly driven by the choice of high-protection targets for target areas 10 (Pleuragramma antarcticum), 13 and 14 (top predators on toothfish), 18 and 19 (habitats for sub-adult D. mawsoni), and lower protection targets for target areas 21 and 22 (presumed D. mawsoni spawning locations), and that the rationale for these protection targets was endorsed by the MPA Workshop (Annex 6, paragraph 3.40). Dr Sharp emphasised that under the systematic conservation planning framework described in SC-CAMLR-XXX/10, assigning similar protection targets for these areas will result in MPA boundaries similar to those in the New Zealand scenario. 5.43 Dr Sharp offered to share the MPA planning software used in New Zealand’s planning process with interested Members, to aid transparent MPA development and evaluation. The software will generate the information in Table 1 of SC-CAMLR-XXX/10 for any user-defined MPA boundary. 5.44 The ASOC Observer (Dr R. Werner) pointed out that the Ross Sea’s unique values make it extremely valuable to science and that 520 scientists world-wide had signed a statement calling for protection of the entire shelf and slope to prevent degradation of those values by human activities. Furthermore, the ASOC Observer also noted that in 2010 the Commission had concluded that the development of a designation process and a monitoring plan may proceed in a step-wise fashion or both processes may occur simultaneously (SC CAMLR-XXIX, paragraphs 5.36 and 5.37; CCAMLR-XXIX, paragraph 7.8). Recommendations to the Commission 5.45 The Scientific Committee endorsed the scientific basis of the Ross Sea region scenarios put forward by New Zealand and the USA. It agreed that the scenarios contained the best scientific advice for the area, and supported the rationale for the identification of conservation objectives presented in the scenarios. 5.46 The Scientific Committee agreed that the differences between the scenarios reflected different objectives and choices for implementation, in particular, the relative weight given to the displacement of fishing effort, but that these were matters for the Commission. 5.47 The Scientific Committee agreed that these scenarios needed no further scientific analysis and debate within the Scientific Committee. East Antarctica planning domain 5.48 Dr Constable presented the proposal by Australia and France for a representative system of MPAs (RSMPA) in the East Antarctica planning domain (SC CAMLR-XXX/11). This paper proposed that the East Antarctic RSMPA be endorsed by the Scientific Committee and that it be recommended to the Commission as part of the commitment to delivering MPAs by 2012:
5.49 Drs Bizikov and Pshenichnov pointed out that the proposal was not adequately translated into Russian. This was due to time constraints and length of the proposal due to it representing seven suggested MPAs. The Scientific Committee agreed to allow Dr Constable to present the proposal to enable discussion of its scientific background. 5.50 Dr Bizikov and Mr Yang noted that the proposal for a representative system of MPAs by Australia and France lacks sufficient scientific logic and data in identifying the threat or risk from which the values of the proposed MPAs should be protected, and to which extent and through what mechanism. Thus, the conservation values in this proposal are not properly identified. They noted that the proposed sizes of the MPAs are unnecessarily large, and their boundaries are not well justified. As most proposed MPAs cover existing and former fishing grounds of toothfish and krill, and there is no quantitative analysis of historical fishing distributions, it is not clear how the proposed system of MPAs is balanced with ‘rational use’. 5.51 Dr Constable noted that data on historical fisheries activities in the region were analysed and included in the paper on rational use submitted to the Scientific Committee last year (SC-CAMLR-XXIX/BG/9). He had been advised that such data would not be useful in this work and, as a result, they have not been included in the paper this year. The analyses can be consulted if needed, but confirm the additional analyses undertaken this year. 5.52 Dr Bizikov and Mr Yang acknowledged the efforts of Australia and France in conducting research on bioregionalisation of East Antarctica and made a general request for further data to prove the necessity to protect particular areas, the objectives and aims of protection, research and monitoring programs for each protected area and the proposed periodicity of revision of the research programs and MPA status by the Scientific Committee. 5.53 Dr Bizikov questioned the actual boundaries and the size of the suggested MPAs and thought that, since they followed the meridians and not any other feature, the MPAs became unnecessarily large. This claim was supported by Dr Pshenichnov. It was also questioned why the suggested MPAs seem to follow those already established SSRUs that are currently closed for the toothfish fishery. 5.54 In response, Dr Constable noted the following partial longitudinal overlap between the proposed MPAs and current access to SSRUs in exploratory fisheries for Dissostichus spp.:
5.55 Some Members of the Scientific Committee felt that the constraints to fisheries were not adequately covered in the proposal. 5.56 Mr Yang and Drs Bizikov and Pshenichnov also pointed out insufficient background data supporting any of the claims that would warrant an MPA. They questioned the conservation targets and argued that there was no identified risk to any of the ecosystem components. 5.57 Dr Constable noted that conservation targets were likely to be satisfied because the scale of population and ecosystem processes have determined the size of the MPAs, particularly the reference areas. 5.58 This view was supported by Prof. Koubbi and Drs Watters and Trathan. 5.59 In summarising the discussion, many Members noted that:
5.60 Prof. Koubbi emphasised that the results and justification of the East Antarctica RSMPA were presented last year and, with improvements, this year to the appropriate forums of the Scientific Committee. There is a strong scientific basis for this proposal following the use of approved concepts of bioregionalisation and the approach for establishing a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) system. Additional ecoregionalisation of the D’Urville Sea–Mertz area since last year enabled revision of the location of the D’Urville Sea–Mertz MPA. Further, a long-term monitoring program is being established for this region. 5.61 Dr Trathan noted that the work undertaken by Australia and France in East Antarctica provided the best available scientific evidence for providing spatial marine protection for the ecological values present in that region. He noted that Australia and France had jointly collated all available evidence and that it was difficult to conceive what other evidence could be provided. Dr Trathan noted that it would be helpful if those Members that felt the evidence was insufficient could provide detailed and specific comments so that Australia and France could address any outstanding objections. Dr Trathan noted that the work of the Scientific Committee could only move forward if scientific proposals were evaluated and subjected to detailed scientific criticism, rather that receiving less-well-defined broad generic concerns. 5.62 Dr Watters concurred with this view and stated that if specific comments and criticism could not be provided, the Scientific Committee must infer that the evidence presented is indeed the best available. He also noted that some of the MPAs are unique at a circumpolar scale, including the D’Urville Sea–Mertz and Gunnarus MPAs. Recommendations to the Commission 5.63 The Scientific Committee agreed that the East Antarctica proposal (SC-CAMLR-XXX/11) contains the best scientific evidence available. 5.64 Some Members argued that there is insufficient scientific background to say that there is great risk to specific conservation values, and requested more and better scientific background for the proposal. 5.65 Other Members argued that the MPAs were an appropriate size to achieve the specific objectives for the MPAs, including conservation and reference areas, while allowing for rational use. They also noted that there was sufficient information for the Commission to establish the East Antarctica RSMPA. 5.66 The Scientific Committee had no further scientific guidance on how the proposal might be improved and whether there is sufficient information for the Commission to decide on these matters. It requested the Commission to consider the proposal to decide if it is sufficiently detailed, and if not, provide guidance on how this proposal can be progressed. Ice shelves 5.67 Dr Trathan presented an MPA proposal for protection of marine habitats exposed after the collapse of an ice shelf (SC-CAMLR-XXX/13). He recalled that regional climate change is now known to be well established in the Antarctic, particularly in Area 48 and especially in the Antarctic Peninsula region. One of the most evident signs of climate change has been ice-shelf collapse and glacial retreat; overall, 87% of the Peninsula’s glaciers have retreated in recent decades. 5.68 The Scientific Committee recognised that ice-shelf collapse will lead to the exposure, and generation, of new marine habitats and to subsequent biological colonisation. It noted that colonisation of these habitats may simply include species from areas that are immediately adjacent to the collapsed ice shelf; however, other complex processes may also take place as warmer waters may also create opportunities for species to return that were last present during the last interglacial, a warmer period than at present. In addition, altered ecosystem dynamics may also allow new alien species to invade as ocean warming potentially removes physiological barriers that have previously led to the isolation of the Antarctic benthos. 5.69 The intent of the UK MPA proposal was to provide strong protection which does not preclude scientific research in the future. The Scientific Committee thought that the newly exposed marine environments after a shelf collapses offer a unique chance to study colonisation and other important processes. The Scientific Committee noted that scientific research on ecological processes underneath, and adjacent to, ice shelves was already being carried out and that any spatial protection must not restrict the ability of scientists to undertake scientific research. 5.70 Drs Zhao and Bizikov stated that they thought the proposal lacked any clear conservation target and furthermore contained no scientific analysis. 5.71 The Scientific Committee noted that providing spatial protection to the areas occupied by ice shelves would not have any impact on any existing fisheries or logistic operations because the areas covered by ice shelves are not currently accessible or utilised by shipping. However, it recognised that regional climate change will make these areas more accessible in the future and greater access would increase the risk of human perturbation. 5.72 The Scientific Committee emphasised that any proposals to designate areas under ice shelves as ASMAs/ASPAs would require coordination of the CEP and ATCM with CCAMLR since areas under ice shelves were marine areas and any agreed spatial protection would require CCAMLR’s prior approval. 5.73 Dr Trathan recalled the Scientific Committee’s previous discussions concerning the ATME on Climate Change (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraphs 8.3 to 8.7). ATME Recommendation 26 highlighted the need to provide automatic interim protection to newly exposed areas such as marine areas exposed through ice-shelf collapse. 5.74 The IUCN Observer (Ms D. Herr) welcomed the precautionary approach put forward by the UK in its proposal on providing precautionary protection for locations under retreating ice shelves, and underscored the need to develop enhanced spatial management responses based on the use of best scientific evidence available. 5.75 The ASOC Observer thanked the UK for this paper and its proposal to protect areas of the Southern Ocean that are exposed by the retreat or collapse of ice shelves. Protecting these areas provides a unique opportunity to understand how ecosystems respond to environmental change, including climate change. Implementing such protection is consistent with CCAMLR’s precautionary approach to management. Plans for research would be useful and the ASOC Observer pointed out that research is currently proposed by Australia to investigate changes in the oceanic environment where the Mertz Glacier tongue has recently calved away and it is these types of studies that the UK proposal would facilitate. Recommendations to the Commission 5.76 The Scientific Committee recognised that the UK proposal necessarily lacked detailed scientific data. Nevertheless, it acknowledged the scientific and conservation value of habitats exposed after an ice-shelf collapse, and their value to scientific research. 5.77 The Scientific Committee noted that spatial protection could be implemented as a precautionary measure, so that protection was automatically afforded to those areas when ice shelves collapsed. Alternatively, it recognised that protection could be implemented in a reactive manner once ice-shelf collapse had occurred. The Scientific Committee therefore requested that the Commission provide advice about the manner (precautionary or reactive) in which spatial protection should be afforded to ice shelves, ice tongues and glaciers. General comments 5.78 Drs Parkes and Leslie noted that the Scientific Committee had received a number of well-developed papers concerning the establishment of MPAs in the Antarctic this year and that earlier versions of some of these papers had already been reviewed by WG-EMM-11 and the MPA Workshop. The establishment of MPAs is itself a reflection of the choice between a precautionary and a reactive management approach. CCAMLR has a long history of taking a precautionary approach and establishment of MPAs on the basis of the best scientific evidence available is entirely consistent with that. Dr Parkes expressed concern that, during discussion of these papers, some Members had articulated views that appeared to contradict the precautionary approach and reverse the burden of proof by judging the sufficiency of data and scientific advice rather than whether it is the best available. Dr Parkes considered that such views were extremely disturbing as they had the potential to seriously undermine the work of the Scientific Committee. 5.79 Drs Zhao and Bizikov expressed the view that it is the lack of a suitable working mechanism that is creating all these difficulties. At present, the working process towards the establishment of an MPA is primarily a one-way bottom-up process in that not enough guidance has been given to the Scientific Committee from the Commission, especially on issues with a policy nature but that have important scientific implications; and not enough effort has been invested in seeking a common ground amongst Members on important issues that govern the outcomes of the working process, and different proponents may aim at different objectives and with different protection targets. They urged the Scientific Committee to seek advice from the Commission on this matter. 5.80 The IUCN Observer recalled the Commission’s endorsement of the use of MPAs as one means to furthering the objective of CCAMLR and of the work plan towards the achievement of a representative system of MPAs within the Convention Area by 2012. She highlighted that the critical aspect of representativeness is dependent on the inherent characteristics of ecosystems. It is not dependent on the potential impacts of human uses or activities. 5.81 The IUCN Observer reiterated that MPAs function as a long-term insurance policy for the conservation of nature and associated ecosystem services. They range from strictly protected no-take areas to multiple-use zones, with different objectives and characteristics as laid out by the IUCN Protected Areas categories. Protected areas should prevent any exploitation or management practices that will be harmful to the objectives of designation. However, activities consistent with these objectives are permissible. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | 5.20 | 5.20 The Scientific Committee endorsed the development of planning domains for representative systems of MPAs (Annex 6, Figure 3). It noted the substantial work done on the Ross Sea and Eastern Antarctica and agreed that the next phase of development of MPAs could include the Western Antarctic Peninsula–South Scotia Arc domain (domain 1), the del Cano–Crozet domain (domain 5) and the circumpolar SCP effort (SCP) (Annex 6, paragraph 6.22). The Scientific Committee endorsed proposals by Members to hold technical workshops for each of these areas in 2012, and encouraged them to present their results to WG-EMM for consideration by all Members. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | 7.15 | 7.15 The Scientific Committee noted the recommendation of WG-FSA (Annex 7, paragraph 8.7) to constitute a task group with representation from all interested parties (including WG-FSA, WG-EMM, WG-IMAF and SCIC) to review observer sampling requirements across all fishing sectors and conservation measures. The Scientific Committee recommended that the Secretariat develop a scoping paper on this matter in the intersessional period. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | 7.19 and 7.20 | 7.19 The Scientific Committee Chair introduced SC-CAMLR-XXX/8, which presented a proposal for the implementation of the CCAMLR Observer Training Program Accreditation Scheme (COTPAS). The Scientific Committee noted that COTPAS represented significant progress in ensuring uniform high-quality data is maintained across CCAMLR observer programs. The Scientific Committee Chair thanked the co-authors of the paper for their work in significantly advancing this issue.
7.20 The Scientific Committee endorsed the proposal described in SC-CAMLR-XXX/8 but noted that some of the details required further scrutiny. The Scientific Committee requested that Members provide commentary on the details of the proposed procedure described in SC CAMLR-XXX/8 early in the intersessional period to assist the Scientific Committee to progress this issue. It also encouraged Members to consider participating in a trial of the initial review and technical peer review (parts a–c of the proposed procedure), to enable the Scientific Committee Chair to provide a final proposal for the implementation of COTPAS at SC-CAMLR-XXXI. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | 11.18 | 11.18 The Scientific Committee also noted that WG-EMM (Annex 4, paragraph 6.7) and WG-FSA (Annex 7, paragraph 10.12) gave further consideration to alternative ways of enhancing transparency and communication with observer groups and audiences outside the CCAMLR community more broadly (e.g. the public and the media). While the Secretariat may be able to play an increased role in such communication (e.g. as per suggestions in CCAMLR-XXX/8), the Scientific Committee agreed that this should be carefully considered in the light of the other priorities set for the Secretariat. It was recognised that, if Members’ participants from the working groups engage in outreach and communications, it would be useful for the Secretariat to provide standard material for these activities. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | 15.5 | 15.5 In considering the priorities for the work of the working groups (Table 6) the Scientific Committee agreed that the priority items were feedback management of krill, research proposals for data-poor exploratory fisheries and MPAs. It also noted:
|
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | Annex 4, 2.157 | 2.157 The Working Group agreed that the six components should be considered over the next three years, with focus on components 1 to 3 in 2012, components 4 and 5 in 2013 and component 6 in 2014. The Working Group also agreed that fully developed candidate feedback management approaches should be evaluated earlier than 2014 if they were available. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | Annex 5, 2.1 to 2.44 |
2.1 The Working Group agreed to structure the focus topic on data-poor fisheries (paragraph 1.4) by reviewing a summary of available data, a historical progression of catch limits, current activities in data-poor fisheries, previous examples of methods and approaches to achieve robust assessments for CCAMLR fisheries, general approaches toward advancing assessments for data-poor fisheries and area-specific considerations. It was agreed that general principles could be applied to specific areas in order to provide advice. Summary of available data types 2.2 To assist Members with developing research proposals, the following section outlines a summary of the current knowledge of the stock structure, the spatial distribution of the various length classes, and the hypothetical life histories of the two Dissostichus species within the three ocean sectors. Dissostichus mawsoni 2.3 The stock structure of D. mawsoni was reviewed in WG-FSA-10/24. Three studies using a variety of genetic techniques, including mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), nuclear DNA introns, and nuclear and mitochondrial single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), have been carried out on samples of muscle tissue from D. mawsoni in the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Ocean sectors in the past 10 years (e.g. Kuhn and Gaffney, 2008). All studies found broadly similar results and that, despite the generally weak genetic diversity in D. mawsoni, there was some evidence for significant genetic differentiation between the three ocean sectors but limited evidence for differentiation within ocean sectors. Results of tagging studies have produced results consistent with the genetic studies. 2.4 The spatial distribution of D. mawsoni by length was reviewed in WG-FSA-10/24. Sub-adult toothfish (<100 cm TL) are generally found on parts of the Antarctic shelf and upper slope, with known concentrations in the southern Ross Sea, Subareas 88.2 and 88.3 and the west of SSRUs 5842B–D. Maturing toothfish (100–135 cm TL) are typically found on the continental slope all around the Antarctic continent. The largest fish (>135 cm TL) are typically found in deeper parts of the continental slope and on the banks, ridges and seamounts to the north of the continental slope, with known concentrations in Subareas 48.4, 48.6, 88.1 and 88.2, and Division 58.4.3b. 2.5 A hypothetical life cycle of D. mawsoni in the Pacific Ocean sector was developed by Hanchet et al. (2008). Several alternate hypotheses for D. mawsoni in the Indian Ocean sector were summarised in 2009 by WG-FSA (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, Annex 5, Figure 5). No equivalent hypothetical life history has been developed for the Atlantic Ocean sector. However, the adult concentrations found in the north of Subareas 48.4 and 48.6 probably originate from the Antarctic shelf and slope between the Antarctic Peninsula and eastern boundary of Subarea 48.6. Dissostichus eleginoides 2.6 Genetic analyses (Appleyard et al., 2002; Shaw et al. 2004; Appleyard et al., 2004) and tagging studies (e.g. WG-FSA-03/72) indicate that, similar to D. mawsoni, D. eleginoides stocks are isolated at the scale of ocean basins. It is likely that the D. eleginoides caught in the fisheries in the northern areas of Subarea 88.1, Divisions 58.4.3a and 58.4.3b, and Subarea 48.4, are vagrants from the nearby populations around Macquarie Island, the Kerguelen Plateau and Subarea 48.3 respectively. Recent evidence from Ob and Lena Banks (Divisions 58.4.4a and 58.4.4b) indicate that a self-sustaining population may exist in that area (WG SAM-11/6). 2.7 The Working Group summarised the historic longline fishing catch and effort (including research fishing) by division/subarea and SSRUs in Tables 1 to 3 on: • seabed area in fishable depths (600–1800 m) 2.8 In addition, maps were generated that examined the spatial distribution of catch and effort (e.g. Figure 1). The Working Group requested the Secretariat to finalise the following maps for consideration by WG-FSA on: • fishing locations 2.9 WG-SAM-11/4 described the deployment of research hauls in the exploratory fisheries in Subareas 48.6 and 58.4 in 2010/11. The Working Group recalled that the original objective of requiring research hauls was to assess the distribution and relative abundance of toothfish across fished SSRUs. It requested WG-FSA to evaluate whether research hauls have provided a different perspective of the stock to that provided by commercial hauls, e.g. in terms of fish distribution. It recommended that WG-FSA review the data derived from this method, and assess if other research methods would be more appropriate to achieve the goals of stock assessments in data-poor fisheries. Summary of historical progression of catch limits in data-poor fisheries 2.10 The Working Group agreed that it would be useful to have a summary of how historical catch limits in data-poor fisheries were derived and the evidence supporting current estimates of stock status where applicable, and recommended that these summaries be incorporated into the Fishery Reports. These historical summaries should include a description of the method by which catch limits were generated, the advice provided to the Scientific Committee, and how this advice was used by the Commission (Table 4). The Working Group requested that the Secretariat complete these summaries and provide the information in the draft Fishery Reports for the next WG-FSA meeting. Reports of current activities 2.11 WG-SAM-11/5 and 11/6 summarised research fishing activities for the closed Dissostichus spp. fisheries on BANZARE Bank (Division 58.4.3a) and Ob and Lena Banks (Divisions 58.4.4a and 58.4.4b) respectively. 2.12 Both papers included a comparison of fish condition between the trotlines and Spanish longlines. The Working Group noted that fish caught on trotline gear were generally in poorer condition than those caught on Spanish longlines, and that the poor condition was especially pronounced for fish smaller than 70 cm in both methods. The Working Group agreed that the difference in fish condition between fish caught at BANZARE Bank and Ob and Lena Banks was likely to be caused by a consequence of these observed differences. It expressed concern that the increased use of trotline gear may decrease the ability to complete tagging programs in many parts of the Convention Area. 2.13 The Working Group thanked Japan for its efforts in implementing and presenting the data collected through these research activities. In 2010/11, the Shinsei Maru No. 3 used standardised fishing methods, the tag overlap statistic was very high in both regions, the spatial overlap between locations at which previously tagged fish were released and locations at which subsequent catches were taken was high, fish condition was considered at release of tagged fish, and information on depredation rates on research hauls on which fish were tagged was provided. 2.14 The Working Group requested that Japan present information to WG-FSA on the frequency of single or multiple hook wounds sustained by trotline-caught fish as a function of their assessed condition, higher-resolution data indicative of the actual proportion of released fish that were released in the presence of depredating predators, and the average abundance of those predators when tagged fish were released. 2.15 The Working Group discussed the merits of reporting CPUE as a function of length of line rather than as a function of number of hooks, to inform more robust comparisons between methods (e.g. Spanish longlines versus trotlines). It recognised that the ‘fished area’ is a function of the length of the line, the number of hooks and the attraction distance. WG-SAM requested that in future, CPUE from longline research catches be reported in terms of both number of hooks and length of line. 2.16 The Working Group reviewed analysis for Ob and Lena Banks additional to that provided in WG-SAM-11/7, which included biomass estimates based on a simple Petersen estimator. The method used was the same as that applied when developing the assessment for the Dissostichus spp. fishery in Subarea 48.4 (WG-FSA-09/17), including estimation of confidence intervals using the method developed by Chapman (1948). The natural mortality, tag-induced mortality and tag-shedding rates used were also drawn from WG-FSA-09/17. Median estimates of current biomass were similar to those derived from the analyses conducted at WG-FSA in 2010 (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, Annex 8, paragraphs 5.116 and 5.117), however, because the analyses were conducted on two separate years of tag recaptures (each with two recaptures), the confidence intervals were wide. 2.17 The Working Group recommended that a preliminary assessment for Ob and Lena Banks be explored by using standardised CPUE tagging data, length-at-age and -maturity data and commercial and IUU catch history. The Working Group encouraged an assessment that would enable application of CCAMLR decision rules to estimate precautionary catch limits and a presentation of this assessment in the near future. 2.18 WG-SAM-11/5 confirmed that BANZARE Bank is a spawning ground for D. mawsoni, and that fish stocks here are likely linked to those in Division 58.4.1 and potentially other regions within the southern Indian Ocean. Therefore, any fishery is likely to have an impact on other parts of the stock outside BANZARE Bank. The Working Group recommended that the different hypotheses about the stock structure will need to be considered when attempting an assessment or designing new research to collect the necessary data to achieve an assessment. The Working Group also recommended further analyses in regard to interactions between the condition of fish with fish size and gear type. 2.19 WG-SAM-11/9 presented preliminary results of research fishing for the closed Dissostichus fishery in Subarea 88.3 undertaken in 2010/11. These results appeared to be broadly consistent with earlier longline surveys conducted by Chilean vessels (SC-CAMLR-XVII/BG/7) and New Zealand (WG-FSA-05/53), indicating that the density of toothfish in this area is likely to be low and that the fish are mostly small. WG-SAM-11/9 reported that 256 D. mawsoni were caught, of which 30 were tagged during the course of the survey. The Working Group requested that additional information regarding the spatial distribution of tag releases be presented at WG-FSA-11. The Working Group recommended that information on catch rates by line length and number of hooks, and the size distribution of catch, be provided to WG-FSA-11. It was also recommended that a description of the proposed analysis of otoliths and genetic samples be submitted to WG-FSA-11. 2.20 WG-SAM-11/19 provided a summary of crab research fishing efforts on the Patagonian shelf (Division 41.3.1), South Orkney Islands shelf (Subarea 48.2) and the North Scotia Ridge (Division 41.3.2). The Working Group noted Russia’s intention to produce an identification guide for crabs in the southern Atlantic Ocean. It was suggested that crabs should be tagged in the future and experiments conducted to estimate post-release mortality for crabs that are released. In addition, any further research fishing should be conducted in such a way to achieve an assessment in the future. General approaches 2.21 Previous Scientific Committee reports (e.g. SC-CAMLR-XXVIII and SC-CAMLR-XXIX) have outlined a range of considerations for the development of proposals for CCAMLR-sponsored research. There have been a few case studies where a consistent well-designed approach has led to a successful outcome in terms of assessment for either D. mawsoni or D. eleginoides. The key elements that contributed to the success of the low information assessments in SSRU 882E and Subarea 48.4 North were: (i) The research was guided by clearly stated research objectives focused on questions of highest priority for the achievement of an assessment, i.e. to achieve: (a) an index of stock abundance; (b) a hypothesis of relationship of fish in the area to the overall stock; (c) estimates of biological parameters relating to productivity (i.e. maturity, growth and recruitment). 2.22 The Working Group agreed that these successful examples of the progression of data-poor fisheries to fully assessed fisheries provide valuable guidance as to the overall approaches to research in data-poor fisheries. Papers describing these examples are included in Table 5. 2.23 WG-SAM-11/8 developed a set of principles that could be used for evaluating data collection plans in data-poor fisheries. The Working Group agreed that such principles would greatly assist the Scientific Committee in developing a framework to evaluate research proposals in data-poor fisheries, and would assist Members in designing and implementing proposals that have a high likelihood of achieving the Commission’s goals. 2.24 The Working Group recalled similar discussions between 1992 and 1993 (CCAMLR XI, paragraph 4.28; SC-CAMLR-XII, paragraph 7.4) and from 1997 to 2000 (SC CAMLR-XIX, paragraphs 7.2 to 7.20) as appropriate approaches to developing assessments in exploratory fisheries. 2.25 It was agreed that to achieve the objectives of Article II of the Convention, research in data-poor fisheries should follow these principles: (i) The primary purpose of research in data-poor fisheries is data collection that will lead to a robust estimate of stock status and enable the estimation of precautionary catch limits consistent with CCAMLR decision rules. Committee to achieve the objectives of the research. 2.26 Any research proposal should provide details on how these principles will be addressed, to enable the Scientific Committee to evaluate, inter alia, the likelihood that the proposal will satisfy CCAMLR-sponsored research as detailed in Table 6. 2.27 The Working Group noted that the first requirement of any new research proposal is that the objectives of the research be clearly stated and that the research be designed appropriately to achieve its stated objectives. The Working Group further noted the three pieces of information required for an assessment of stock status and to apply the CCAMLR decision rules to estimate precautionary yield, i.e.: (i) an index of stock abundance 2.28 The Working Group agreed that the highest priority for data-poor fisheries was to achieve an index of abundance, but that an index of abundance (i) for any particular area is only biologically meaningful in the context of a hypothesis of relationship of fish in the area to the overall stock (ii). Consequently, the requirement to achieve (i) and test (ii) would most strongly drive the design of a research proposal. It was agreed that simulations assuming alternative stock hypotheses would strengthen research proposals, although it was acknowledged that not every country had the experience to conduct simulations. 2.29 Estimates of biological parameters relating to productivity for requirement (iii) can in the first instance be derived from observations in other areas, and then improved over time using location-specific observations. Consequently, the collection of biological samples to address requirement (iii) would not in itself constitute sufficient justification to carry out new research in the absence of information meeting requirements (i) and (ii), and would not strongly drive the choice of research design. Nevertheless, these biological samples should be collected routinely and analysed in the course of the research. 2.30 WG-SAM-11/13 reported on the development of a generic operating model framework designed to evaluate data collection plans, assessment methods and management strategies. The Working Group encouraged further development of this operating model framework, as it could have a wide variety of applications for both data-poor and assessed fisheries in the CCAMLR area. 2.31 WG-SAM-11/15 compared tagging and other potential sources of stock assessment information between assessed and unassessed SSRUs. It calculated the numbers of additional tagged fish required to match the tag densities of assessed SSRUs for each currently unassessed SSRU and ranked the latter based on this metric in terms of the potential for assessment. The Working Group agreed that the compiled summaries of the current status of exploratory toothfish fisheries were very useful. The tag deficit statistic provided a consistent approach to compare tagging effort in assessed and unassessed areas. The Working Group noted that the likelihood of achieving a tag-based stock assessment was dependent on the number of toothfish that are tagged and available for capture as a proportion of total stock and scanning rate (i.e. catch) of that stock (i.e. see WG-SAM-08/6). When considering tagging effort, the poor performance of previous tagging effort in some areas needs to be accounted for, as there may be actually very few tagged fish available for recapture despite large numbers of tagged fish having been released. The Working Group agreed that the increased statistical power achieved by increasing the number of fish scanned (caught) needs to be balanced against consideration of the likely impact of the catch, given current understanding of stock status, including potentially depleted stocks. Summary of main methods 2.32 The Working Group identified a list of papers describing methods that have been used by CCAMLR in assessing data-poor fisheries (Table 5). The Working Group identified four assessment approaches that have been attempted: CPUE, depletion experiments, tagging programs and areal survey approaches. 2.33 CPUE alone is not used in assessed fisheries as it is seen to be a poor index of abundance in isolation. The Working Group therefore agreed that catch rates should be de emphasized as an index of abundance in data-poor fisheries, though it was stressed that there is a distinction between using a CPUE time series of an index of abundance and the use of catch rates with seabed area to provide an initial estimate of biomass in unassessed areas. With respect to depletion approaches, there was agreement that the use of depletion experiments in data-poor fisheries was unlikely to lead to a robust assessment that satisfies the CCAMLR decision rules. It was agreed that these two approaches on their own have shown not to be successful, and further will likely not lead to assessments in the future. However, both tagging programs and areal surveys have led to robust assessments for several stocks of Dissostichus in the Convention Area. 2.34 The Working Group recalled that tagging studies have led to stock assessments of toothfish in fisheries in Subareas 48.4 and 88.1 and SSRU 882E. It also recalled that trawl surveys have been important, resulting in precautionary by-catch limits for Macrourus spp. in Division 58.4.3b (van Wijk et al., 2000) and Subarea 88.1 (WG-FSA-08/32). 2.35 The Working Group agreed that it would be useful to provide guidance as to general aspects of research designs, standardised methods, performance metrics for a tagging program and areal survey approaches that would have the greatest potential to lead to an assessment in the near future. The Working Group agreed that data-poor areas should be prioritised in such a way that the potential for an assessment of the area within a reasonable timeframe is maximised. For example, areas more likely to have a fishable stock biomass, areas where there are already fish tagged that have a good chance of being recaptured, and areas where some tags have already been recaptured, should be considered higher-priority areas. 2.36 The Working Group compiled a list of recommended performance metrics by which the quality of research efforts could be evaluated, and recommendations for research designs and standardised methods. These are detailed below for both tagging and areal survey approaches. The Working Group noted that methods could be combined, e.g. tagging and areal methods could be conducted in a single research program (fish caught in a trawl survey could also be tagged and released). Tagging approaches A. Standards to be met 2.37 The Working Group noted that the success of previous research leading to assessments in exploratory fisheries in Subareas 88.1 and 88.2, and the fishery in Subarea 48.4 North, was in large part due to dedicated efforts by particular Members or vessels to adhere to robust and consistent multi-year experimental designs, and to execute the required tagging program with a high standard of quality. Conversely, the Working Group recognised that the failure to develop assessments in other data-poor fisheries despite several years’ research in which tagging was conducted, may be due to problems with research implementation or tagging performance, and not due to any shortcoming with respect to the actual research design, sampling intensity, or analytical methods (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, Annex 8, paragraphs 5.5 and 5.18 to 5.20). 2.38 To ensure that future research in data-poor fisheries is implemented to a high standard, the Working Group recommended development and use of the following performance metrics for tag-based research, to be used in the annual review and evaluation of research programs in progress. Members proposing to conduct new research should also include in their research proposals descriptions of the means by which they will ensure high levels of performance with regard to these metrics, to aid evaluation by WG-FSA and the Scientific Committee of the likelihood that the research will achieve its objectives: (i) Tag overlap statistic – this performance metric is already defined and required under Conservation Measure 41-01. 2.39 The Working Group encouraged Members to develop and propose these metrics for use in the evaluation of proposals by WG-FSA. B. Research design and standardised methods 2.40 The Working Group recommended applying the following research design for data-poor fisheries: (i) Choose an SSRU or some other spatially constrained area: (a) the area should be chosen with a reference to the stated objective of the research (ii) Develop an initial estimate of the plausible biomass for the unassessed area: (a) the ratio of CPUE and seabed areas for a reference area (where an assessment exists) might be considered to estimate the biomass that might be present in the unassessed area (iii) Use an appropriate method (e.g. WG-SAM-08/6) to: (a) determine an appropriate combination of catches, tag releases and research duration (years) to achieve a target CV for a tag-based biomass estimate, given the preliminary biomass estimate (e.g. scenarios see Figures 2 and 3). (iv) Apply a discount factor to the estimate of biomass to account for uncertainty and evaluate the likely impact of the research catch on the stocks (see e.g. SC CAMLR-XXIX, Annex 8, paragraphs 5.116 and 5.117). 2.41 The Working Group noted that the number of fish tagged and released will increase throughout the course of a multi-year tag-release program, but that not all released fish will be available for recapture due to the effects of tagging mortality, natural mortality and tag loss. 2.42 Dr Sharp noted that the number of tagged fish available for recapture in year t can be approximated by: Tt = Xt–1 Ct–1 (1 – Mx) (e–?) (e–M) 2.43 Dr Sharp noted that by applying this formula, it is possible to estimate the number of tags available for recapture (Figure 2) as a function of the tagging rate used in the survey. By superimposing the tagging rate in Figure 2 it is possible to examine the incremental improvement in the CV of the biomass estimate across multiple years of a tag-recapture experiment, as a function of tagging rate and annual catch. Alternately it is possible to set a target CV and derive multiple options for different combinations of tagging rate, annual catch and experiment length (number of years) to achieve that target CV under an assumed initial biomass. Figure 3 illustrates this relationship for a range of tagging rates in a four-year experiment, assuming constant annual catches and constant tagging rates in all years. 2.44 The Working Group noted that the number of tags available for recapture is contingent on high standards of tagging performance with respect to the performance metrics identified in paragraph 2.38. For areas in which tagging performance has been of consistently low quality (e.g. SC-CAMLR-XXIX, Annex 8, paragraphs 5.5 and 5.18 to 5.20), it may be necessary to assume very low numbers of available tagged fish despite a high number of historical releases. The Working Group recommended that WG-FSA examine this in further detail. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | Annex 6, 4.4 |
4.4 The Workshop further noted that a harmonised approach in the Antarctic Treaty System to spatial protection may result in having ASPAs and ASMAs designated by the ATCM within CCAMLR MPAs (paragraph 3.51). |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | Annex 6, 6.16 |
6.16 The Workshop noted that the potential development of MPAs under ice shelves might be of interest to the CEP. Following the collapse of ice shelves, benthic communities would be particularly vulnerable to invasion by non-native species. Understanding and addressing potential threats to biodiversity from tourism and other activities in these areas might require cooperation between the CEP and SC-CAMLR. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | Annex 7, 4.35 and 4.36 |
4.35 WG-FSA-11/48 reported on the development of a method to estimate unaccounted fishing mortality from lost fishing lines in the Ross Sea region and Subarea 88.2 D. mawsoni fisheries. Estimates suggest that on average 175–244 tonnes (5.3–7.4% of the 2011/12 recommended catch limit) of D. mawsoni may be killed annually due to lost gear in the two areas. Outputs from this analysis were incorporated as sensitivities into model runs of the preliminary assessments carried out for Subareas 88.1 and 88.2. 4.36 The Working Group acknowledged that estimation of fishing mortality due to lost gear was a useful development and should be estimated for other fishery regions and considered for use in other assessment models. The Working Group recommended that the Scientific Committee remind Members of the requirement to complete C2 fields, including zeros if no hooks attached to sections of the main line were lost. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | Annex 7, 5.22 |
5.22 The Working Group recalled the GYM scenarios run in 2010 in WG-FSA (SC CAMLR-XXIX, Annex 8, paragraph 5.117), which estimated the likely trajectory of a D. eleginoides stock that had been (i) at a median SSB of 20% SSB0 in 2006 (when the fishery in Ob and Lena Banks was closed), or (ii) was at a median SSB of 20% in 2009. These scenarios were rerun (including the catch of 35.4 tonnes taken in the most recent survey by the Shinsei Maru No. 3) to estimate current status and corresponding constant catch rates under which the stock is expected to recover to 50% B0 within two decades from the date of the fishery closure (as in WG-FSA-10/42). Under the first scenario, the median current status was estimated to be 36.5% SSB0 in 2010; the corresponding precautionary research catch is 1.25% B0, or 115 tonnes per year. Under the second scenario the median status was estimated to be 23% SSB0 in 2010; the corresponding precautionary research catch is 0.074% B0, or 58 tonnes per year. The actual current status of the stock is unknown, but these scenarios are thought to be conservative. On this basis, the Working Group advised that research catches up to 115 tonnes per year could be appropriate for this stock. |
| 2011 | SC-CAMLR-XXX | Annex 8, 7.6 |
7.6 A comparison of the numbers of hooks reported lost in the C2 data submitted by the vessel (WG-IMAF-11/4 Rev. 1) and that reported by observers, revealed some discrepancies. The Working Group noted that, while the issue of gear loss posed potential risk of incidental mortality to marine mammals and birds, the analysis presented in WG-FSA-11/48 also indicated the potential impact of such gear on target species. |
| 2012 | CCAMLR-XXXI | 5.19 |
5.19 The Commission noted possible signals of recovery for populations of C. gunnari and Notothenia rossii in Subarea 48.1 near the South Shetland Islands. The fishery targeting these species had been closed in 1990 to allow the stocks to recover. The Scientific Committee recommended that this fishery continue to remain closed until such time that research is undertaken to confirm the recovery of these populations and an assessment is provided. The Commission agreed to retain the prohibition of directed fishing for finfish in Subareas 48.1 and 48.2 (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraph 3.94). |
| 2012 | CCAMLR-XXXI | 5.57 to 5.69 and 7.60 to 7.109 |
Marine protected areas 5.57 The Commission welcomed the continued progress made by the Scientific Committee towards establishing a representative system of marine protected areas (MPAs) within the Convention Area arising from three MPA technical workshops held during the intersessional period for MPA Planning Domain 1 (Antarctic Peninsula) (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraphs 5.16 to 5.20), Domain 5 (Del Cano–Crozet) (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraphs 5.21 to 5.25) and Domains 3 (Weddell Sea), 4 (Bouvet and Maud Rise) and 9 (Amundsen and Bellingshausen Sea) (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27). 5.58 The Commission welcomed the offer from Germany to take the lead in developing an MPA proposal in Planning Domain 3 (Weddell Sea) for consideration in 2014. Germany informed the Commission that the development of such a proposal for the Weddell Sea would involve a series of national and international workshops and would take into account all of the discussions relating to proposals for MPAs considered by the Commission (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraph 5.28). 5.59 The Commission also welcomed the proposed collaboration between Sweden, the Republic of Korea and the USA to progress work on Domain 9 (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraph 5.29). 5.60 The Commission endorsed the advice from the Scientific Committee on the development of MPA Reports, to be organised according to MPA planning domains, as these would provide a standardised format to consolidate and maintain detailed scientific information, including analysis of the extent to which current or future activities may threaten the objectives of the MPA (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraphs 5.33 to 5.37). 5.61 In considering the proposal by Ukraine for an MPA network in the Akademik Vernadsky Station region on a research value basis, the Commission noted that, given the rationale for protection, a review of provisions for the establishment of protected and managed areas in the ATCM and CCAMLR may be appropriate for this proposal (SC CAMLR-XXXI, paragraphs 5.39 to 5.41). 5.62 The Commission endorsed the proposal for research and monitoring plans to identify research activities consistent with the specific objectives of the MPA (according to CM 91 04). Such plans should be organised geographically, identify research that relates to the achievement of multiple objectives simultaneously and contain research that is achievable in practice. The final research and monitoring plan would identify research and monitoring activities, and mechanisms and timescales for review (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraphs 5.57 to 5.59). 5.63 The Commission noted the discussion of the Scientific Committee on the establishment of precautionary spatial protection to facilitate the scientific study of habitats and communities in case of the future collapse of ice shelves (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraphs 5.42 to 5.56), in particular: (i) the proposal to protect areas and habitats under ice shelves following ice-shelf collapse was inherently different in nature from those MPA proposals being developed for the various MPA planning domains 5.64 In accordance with ATCM Decision 9 (2005), the Commission endorsed the advice of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraphs 5.60 to 5.73) in respect of: (i) the revised management plans for Antarctic specially protected area (ASPA) No. 144, ASPA No. 145 and ASPA No. 146 noting the importance of these areas for scientific research that were unlikely to be subject to harvesting 5.65 The Commission agreed that no issues with respect to CCAMLR had been identified in these proposals and that this advice should be communicated to the ATCM as these plans remain to be endorsed by that body. 5.66 The Commission noted that krill fishing had occurred in 2010 (two vessels conducted 31 hauls) and in 2012 (three vessels conducted 121 hauls) in ASPA No. 153, Eastern Dallmann Bay, and that the management plan for this ASPA does not allow for harvesting as a permitted activity (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraphs 5.65 to 5.73). Proposals for marine protected areas and special areas 7.60 On the first day of its meeting, the Commission agreed to consider proposals for MPAs in East Antarctica (one proposal), the Ross Sea region (two proposals) and under ice shelves, glaciers and ice tongues (one proposal). 7.61 In introducing its proposal to establish an MPA in the Ross Sea Region (‘Ross Sea region marine protected area’; CCAMLR-XXXI/16), New Zealand made a presentation which included the following points: In recognition of the globally significant ecological, environmental, scientific and historic values of this region, and in line with the work plan of the Commission and Scientific Committee to develop a representative system of Antarctic MPAs, the proposal would establish this MPA in order to achieve the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. The proposal is consistent with the general framework for establishing CCAMLR MPAs (CM 91-04) and with the process which was reviewed favourably by the Scientific Committee in 2011 (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraph 5.63), and provides a significant opportunity for the Commission to reaffirm its position as a flagship marine biodiversity conservation and management organisation. 7.62 In introducing its proposal to designate MPAs for the protection of habitats and communities under ice shelves, glaciers and ice tongues in Subareas 48.1, 48.5 and 88.3 (CCAMLR-XXXI/30), the EU made the following points: The designation of areas under ice shelves as MPAs is consistent with the Commission’s objective of establishing a representative system of MPAs by 2012 as well as the recommendation of the Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on Climate Change in 2010. This proposal, which was considered by the Scientific Committee and Commission in 2011 (SC CAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 5.67 to 5.77; CCAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 7.31 to 7.36), would afford precautionary protection of newly exposed habitats after ice shelves collapse, and protect the establishment of new biodiversity during colonisation of these areas. The proposal has been redrafted to take into account the framework set out in CM 91-04. 7.63 In introducing a proposal to establish a representative system of MPAs in the East Antarctica Planning Domain, France, Australia and the EU made a presentation which included the following points: The proposal is based on the best scientific evidence available (CCAMLR-XXXI/36). The proposal would establish seven MPAs and represents an important contribution to the Commission’s commitment to delivering MPAs by 2012 and in accordance with CM 91-04. Each MPA contains representative areas of biodiversity of the region, and the proposed representative system of MPAs would be a multiple-use system in which activities, such as fisheries, can be undertaken when those activities do not undermine the objectives of individual MPAs or the representative system of MPAs as a whole. The proposal embraces the view for a system of MPAs by 2012 while balancing conservation and sustainable utilisation of Antarctic marine living resources. 7.64 The USA presented its proposal for the establishment of the Ross Sea region MPA in CCAMLR-XXXI/40. In the view of the USA, the Ross Sea region’s high biological diversity and as yet largely intact ecosystems make it an exceptional candidate for the establishment of the proposed CCAMLR MPA. The USA stated that its proposal also offers valuable opportunities for scientific research. It noted that last year the Scientific Committee reviewed and endorsed the scientific conclusions and processes on which the US proposal had been developed. The proposal includes three specific conservation and scientific objectives. The proposed MPA, which consists of three zones, encompasses roughly 1.8 million km2. The USA highlighted that a major element of its proposal is the establishment of a fully protected no-fishing zone to preserve the ecosystem and serve as a scientific reference area for studying the ecosystem effects of fishing and climate change. 7.65 During discussion of these proposals, Members raised various general issues, including: (i) the role of the Scientific Committee in reviewing these proposal in 2012, given that CM 91-04 was adopted at CCAMLR-XXX and this measure includes the requirement for advice from the Scientific Committee (CM 91-04, paragraph 3) 7.66 With respect to these MPA proposals, the Commission recalled the Scientific Committee’s recommendations from SC CAMLR-XXX in 2011 and its further considerations at SC-CAMLR-XXXI in 2012. 7.67 ASOC submitted three MPA papers for CCAMLR’s consideration: (i) CCAMLR-XXXI/BG/09 proposed the creation of a network of MPAs and no take marine reserves in 19 areas in the Southern Ocean and described the geography, oceanography and ecology of these areas and the rationale for protecting large-scale Southern Ocean ecosystem processes and structure. 7.68 Extensive discussion and consultation was undertaken by Members during the course of the Commission meeting and resulted in further revision and development of each proposal. These developments are summarised under three general headings: (i) Revised proposals Revised proposals Ross Sea region marine protected area 7.69 New Zealand and the USA submitted a revised joint proposal for the establishment of a Ross Sea region MPA (CCAMLR-XXXI/16 Rev. 1). The joint proposal made significant steps toward accommodating many of the issues raised by Members during the first week of the meeting, and brought together respective conservation and research aspirations. The proposed MPA is designated to contribute to the following objectives: (i) to conserve ecological structure and function throughout the Ross Sea region at all levels of biological organisation, by prohibiting fishing in habitats that are important to native mammals, birds, fishes and invertebrates 7.70 The proposed MPA covers an area of about 2.27 million km2 and includes three zones: (a) a General Protection Zone (A) 7.71 The General Protection Zone formed the largest component of the MPA (approx. 1.6 million km2) and would be designated a ‘no-take’ area where fishing would not be permitted, except for research fishing that is approved in advance by the Commission. 7.72 The Special Research Area (which approximates the ‘red box’ where the original proposals most differed) conforms in most respects with SSRU 881K. A reduced level of fishing would be allowed in this area to accommodate both fisheries management issues, such as maintaining the continuity and integrity of the tagging program, and broader research interests in having a reference area to evaluate the impacts on marine ecosystem of climate change separately from the effects of fishing. Broadening the configuration of this area should also alleviate concerns about vessel crowding and safety issues. Specific controls that will apply in this zone are: (i) the catch will not exceed 1 450 tonnes of Dissostichus spp. in each fixed five-year period beginning with the 2013/14 season, with a limit of 500 tonnes in any one year 7.73 The Spawning Protection Zone would include a winter seasonal closure for toothfish fishing and prohibit other types of fishing year-round, while also accommodating some of the displacement effects of limiting toothfish fishing in the Special Research Zone. 7.74 The combined zones of the MPA would displace 20% of historic fishing catch (total catch 1998–2011). 7.75 The proposal also included the priority elements of a research and monitoring plan, and a management plan pursuant to CM 91-04. 7.76 Members welcomed the revised joint proposal. Some Members expressed the opinion that this proposal had merged the two original proposals and thus did not constitute a new proposal. 7.77 The Commission further considered the: (i) scientific basis for setting protection targets and identifying conservation threats East Antarctica representative system of MPAs 7.78 The proponents reported on extensive discussions and consultations during the meeting. They submitted a revised draft conservation measure for the establishment of the East Antarctic representative system of MPAs. The revisions made significant steps toward accommodating many of the issues raised by Members during the first week of the meeting, which included: (i) clarification of the general objectives for the representative system of MPAs, which were contained in the preambular paragraphs 7.79 The general objectives of the proposed representative system of MPAs for East Antarctica are: (i) to ensure the complex biogeographic provinces and sub-provinces in this region are represented, including the west, central and east Indian provinces with the central Indian province consisting of the sub-provinces of west Kerguelen, Prydz, east Kerguelen and Wilkes 7.80 The proposed representative system of MPAs contains seven MPAs (Gunnerus, Enderby, MacRobertson, Prydz, Drygalski, Wilkes, D’Urville Sea–Mertz) each forming a representative area with specific conservation objectives, as well as: (i) the proposed representative system of MPAs took the smallest size of MPAs to satisfactorily represent biodiversity in the planning domain while ensuring it remains adequate to sustain the biodiversity within the system 7.81 Other key elements of the proposed representative system of MPAs included: (i) a draft conservation measure consistent with CM 91-04, with Annex A detailing the mechanisms for approving activities, notably fishing, within MPAs, and Annex B indicating some areas where fisheries activities may take place that would not impact on the biodiversity or scientific values of the MPAs 7.82 Following further discussion and consultation, the Commission was unable to agree to the Ross Sea region proposal and the East Antarctica proposal during its meeting. 7.83 The USA made a statement which included the following points: ‘The USA expressed its thanks for the significant time the Commission has dedicated at this meeting to the important issue of designating MPAs in support of the collective commitment to implement a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area by 2012. It hoped that the Commission has not lost sight of this commitment, and expressed disappointment with the Commission’s lack of success in establishing MPAs, and the Ross Sea MPA in particular. The USA noted that it is especially distressing that procedural arguments were used to prevent progress and that suggestions that the science is lacking were asserted without any explanation. The USA strongly disagrees with these suggestions. The USA recognised that the process of designating MPAs is challenging, and requires those involved to take the best available science and bring it into the policy domain where difficult policy choices must be made about the relative values of scientific inquiry, protection, sustainable use, and other interests. The USA asserted that the Commission must maintain confidence in the science and in the ability as a Commission to take decisions. 7.84 New Zealand made a statement which included the following points: ‘New Zealand understands and shares the disappointment expressed by other Members about the progress made at this year’s Commission meeting on the important issue of marine protected areas. The flexibility shown by Members over the last day has enabled us to establish a way forward that demonstrates a collective commitment to progressing the MPA discussion in CCAMLR. New Zealand will approach the Special Meeting of the Commission and Scientific Committee in July in Germany positively, hearing and sharing with Members’ views, motivated by a desire to make positive progress on these important initiatives, particularly the joint New Zealand–US proposal for a marine protected area in the Ross Sea region.’ 7.85 Australia made the following statement: ‘Australia joins with the USA in thanking Members for giving a considerable amount of time in this meeting for discussion of marine protected areas. Australia is very disappointed that the proposed conservation measures for an East Antarctic representative system of marine protected areas and for a Ross Sea MPA were not adopted at CCAMLR-XXXI. But we welcome the commitment of Members to hold a Special Meeting in the middle of next year to focus on these proposals. Special areas for scientific research 7.86 Following extensive discussions and consultations during the meeting, the EU submitted a revised proposal related to the protection of habitats and communities under ice shelves, glaciers and ice tongues in Subareas 48.1, 48.5 and 88.3. The revised proposal sought to establish special areas for scientific research (SASRs) in marine habitats and communities exposed following ice-shelf collapse. The revised proposal made significant steps toward accommodating many of the issues raised by Members during the first week of the meeting. 7.87 The proposal recognised that ice-shelf collapse is one of the most evident signs of climate change, and 87% of the Antarctic Peninsula’s ice shelves have retreated in recent decades. The habitats revealed by collapsed ice shelves offer unique opportunities for scientific study, and given the interactions and the need to study these in absence of any effects caused by other human activities, the proposal provides a mechanism to establish SASRs in the event of ice-shelf collapse. These SASRs would be established in order to contribute towards the achievement of the following objectives: (i) the establishment of scientific reference areas for monitoring natural spatial variability and long-term change in Antarctic marine living resources and of the ecosystems of which they form part 7.88 Following further discussion and consultation, the Commission was unable to agree to the proposal during its meeting. 7.89 The EU made the following statement: ‘The EU deeply regrets the lack of progress regarding the adoption of the EU proposal on the interim protection of areas following the collapse of ice shelves in order to enable scientific research of the marine habitats and communities which are unique and of considerable scientific interest. 7.90 The UK made the following statement: ‘The United Kingdom is concerned that the Commission has been unable to agree to even interim time-bound protection for marine areas exposed by the collapse of an ice shelf. Such areas will be of extremely high scientific importance and many Antarctic national science programs will be keen to undertake research in such areas. That some Members are not even able to agree to hold off allowing fishing-related activities to encroach in these areas while such important scientific work is undertaken, rather suggests that the consideration of economic gain is starting to outweigh the importance of scientific research.’ Further Commission consideration of MPA proposals 7.91 The EU made the following statement: ‘The European Union is very disappointed with the lack of progress at this meeting on the establishment of a representative network of marine protected areas (MPAs). 7.92 France made the following statement: ‘Mr Chairman, esteemed colleagues, 7.93 The UK made the following statement: ‘The United Kingdom is extremely disappointed by the Commission’s failure to reach agreement on any of the MPA proposals before it in this critical year, particularly when the eyes of the world are upon us. This organisation has been a leader in conservation for over 30 years, but its credibility as such is now being called into question, and as a result of the outcome of this meeting this will be reflected internationally to its detriment. 7.94 Echoing the previous statements, Germany also expressed its deep disappointment about the failure to achieve consensus on the MPA proposals. Germany appealed to the Commission to demonstrate its clear political will to promote MPAs in the very near future. 7.95 Japan made the following statement: ‘Japan noted that it shares the feeling with the MPA proposed Members and has special sympathy to the EU who has made tremendous efforts to accommodate every comments stated by many Members, including Japan’s productive ideas. It further noted that in the past two weeks, Japan proactively and constructively participated in every discussions convened by the proposed Members, and it requested proposed Members not to forget the fact that all the Members and their participants contributed these fruitful discussions and served huge time and efforts to fill in the gap for mutual understandings. Japan further requested the proposed Members not to forget the constructive comments provided during these meetings and take such relevant comments into account in accomplishing their goals of establishing MPAs. Lastly, 7.96 Russia made a statement which included the following points: ‘Russia advised that it places significant value on the consensus agreement to undertake further work in relation to MPAs and the shared understanding of the general principles that will apply to that work. Russia notes the problem of creating MPAs is not limited to the number of proposals but is a complex process. The Special Meeting will discuss a spectrum of issues concerning the creation of MPAs. It will not only make decisions in relation to the Ross Sea and East Antarctica MPAs but also consider any other proposals that may come forward. Russia noted that the session of the Scientific Committee will be an extraordinary event as such a precedent has not been established before. Russia understands that the discussions at this meeting have touched many issues and that, as a result, the Scientific Committee should be able to consider all available information not that just that provided in the intersessional period. Russia was of the view that previous Scientific Committee advice was related to only some aspects of MPAs and that all available information needed to be considered. Russia advised that, considering all these issues, the decision to hold such an extraordinary meeting will result in the right outcomes.’ 7.97 The Delegation from Ukraine presented the following statement for the report: ‘Marine protected areas are one of the approaches available to manage an ecosystem or part thereof. We should probably then ask why we are implementing this type of management and what are we aiming to achieve as a result of implementing this approach. 7.98 In response to the statement by Ukraine, the UK stated that it did not accord with the views expressed by Ukraine. Article IX, paragraph 1(f) of the Antarctic Treaty committed Parties to the preservation and conservation of living resources in Antarctica. Moreover, the UK also referred Ukraine to the report of the SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraph 5.38, which set out the range of scientific activities the United Kingdom was planning to bring forward relating to the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA. 7.99 The Republic of Korea made the following statement: ‘The Government of the Republic of Korea noted with satisfaction the common desire of the Contracting Parties to support the proposals for CCAMLR marine protected areas (MPAs) on the Ross Sea region and on East Antarctica. The Korean delegation expressed its strong support for the establishment of the MPAs and actively participated in the discussion during the Commission meeting as well as informal sessions with concerned Members with the view to move forward the process of establishing the MPAs as expeditiously and as scientifically sound as possible. Korea made a suggestion to address the procedural and scientific issues raised by some Members in line with the spirit of consensus within CCAMLR. The Korean Government, therefore, welcomes the decision by the Commission Members to convene a Special Meeting of the Commission in Germany, preceded by the Scientific Committee in 2013. Korea hopes that the procedure for reaching a consensus on CCAMLR MPAs will be facilitated through this Special Meeting and other consultative mechanisms and bring about fruitful results.’ 7.100 Chile made the following statement: ‘Chile favours and promotes the multilaterally agreed establishment of MPAs supported by clear scientific evidence. This is demonstrated by our participation in CCAMLR meetings and in scientific meetings where initiatives of this kind have been examined, such as the recent workshop that took place in May 2012 in Valparaíso, Chile, within CCAMLR’s framework, to identify the elements that would contribute to the establishment of MPAs in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Scotia Arc. With respect to this, we thank Australia, France and the European Union for their proposal to establish an MPA in Eastern Antarctica, as well as New Zealand and the United States for their proposal to establish an MPA in the Ross Sea. We believe that these proposals encompass scientific and political complexities that deserve serious reflection. The Chilean Delegation is, and will continue to be, prepared to discuss the essence of these proposals, and appreciates the breadth of the discussions that the proposals have generated in CCAMLR-XXXI. We think that these discussions have led to a better understanding of the positions and concerns of Members. We are pleased to see the interest that these initiatives have elicited amongst CCAMLR Members, an interest that is demonstrated by the agreement to hold a Special Meeting of CCAMLR in order to examine this matter, preceded by a meeting of the Scientific Committee in July 2013.’ 7.101 Brazil made the following statement: ‘As I have already said, Brazil sees important merits in both MPAs proposals. The Commission, during this meeting, has been able to have important and fruitful discussions on this matter. The fact that we have now a joint proposal with regard to the Ross Sea is an important proof of the progress that have been made and how all delegations have been fully engaged, in good faith, in good spirit, in this very important discussions. 7.102 Argentina made the following statement ‘Argentina reiterates its strong commitment to reach a positive outcome of the deliberations with regard to MPAs which will reaffirm CCAMLR’s conservation objectives. As Brazil pointed out, the fact that USA and New Zealand developed a joint proposal, is a substantive step achieved at this meeting. Therefore, Argentina understands that the result of this two weeks’ work should not be seen as a lack of success, but as a step forward in the path to reach a solid consensus on the establishment of the CCAMLR system of marine protected areas.’ 7.103 India made the following statement: ‘Thank you Chairman. 7.104 ASOC made the following intervention: ‘Delegates, my first CCAMLR meeting was during the negotiation of the Convention in 1980. I have followed closely the evolution of the Convention since then. Today I am feeling sad and angry. Special Meeting of the Commission 7.105 The Commission agreed to the following proposal, introduced by New Zealand, relating to a Special Meeting of the Commission and an intersessional meeting of the Scientific Committee in July 2013 to continue the Commission’s work in relation to MPAs: (i) the Special Meeting of the Commission will consider MPA issues and make decisions, if possible, on the joint New Zealand and USA MPA proposal on the Ross Sea region and the joint Australia, France and EU MPA proposal on East Antarctica 7.106 The Commission further agreed that Mr Løbach will chair the Commission for the purpose of this Special Meeting, given his experience of the issues from CCAMLR-XXXI. 7.107 The Commission agreed to establish a voluntary trust fund for the purpose of contributing to the Secretariat’s costs associated with the Special Meeting, and invited Members to contribute to this fund. Members undertook to explore their ability to contribute to the fund. 7.108 The Chair of the Scientific Committee informed the Commission that the decision to convene a session of the Scientific Committee in advance of the Special Meeting was consistent with Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee. He invited scientists to actively engage in that meeting by providing data and analyses that may be integrated to the existing data and information that underpin the data layers for the Ross Sea and East Antarctica proposals. He considered that, unless such additional information is forthcoming, the Scientific Committee will conclude that the MPA proposals are based on the best available science. He also advised that, following the special meeting in July of the Scientific Committee, the regular session of the Scientific Committee in October 2013 will have no additional work in relation to the East Antarctica and Ross Sea MPA proposals. 7.109 Many Members advised that, although it had not been possible to reach a consensus agreement at this meeting, much had been achieved. The merged proposal by the USA and New Zealand for the Ross Sea was a very positive outcome of this meeting, all Members had gained an improved understanding of the proposals for both the Ross Sea and East Antarctica, views had been presented in a constructive manner that has allowed scientific and political views to be shared, and this initial experience with the application of CM 91-04 was invaluable in terms of the work that all Members will engage in in the lead up to, and during, the next meeting of the Scientific Committee and the Special Meeting in July 2013 (paragraphs 7.105 to 7.108). All Members affirmed their commitment to working towards positive outcomes from the Special Meeting. |
| 2012 | CCAMLR-XXXI | 5.66 to 5.69, 7.54, 9.4 and 9.8 |
5.66 The Commission noted that krill fishing had occurred in 2010 (two vessels conducted 31 hauls) and in 2012 (three vessels conducted 121 hauls) in ASPA No. 153, Eastern Dallmann Bay, and that the management plan for this ASPA does not allow for harvesting as a permitted activity (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraphs 5.65 to 5.73). 5.67 Japan provided its apologies to the Commission that one of the vessels that fished in ASPA No. 153 was a Japanese-flagged vessel. This regrettable situation had arisen from the vessel captain’s ignorance of the ASPA management plan. Japan had provided strict instructions to the vessel regarding this issue, noting that this vessel had now been reflagged. Should Japan re-enter the krill fishery, clear guidance would be provided to ensure that such incidents do not happen again. 5.68 The Republic of Korea also informed the Commission that regrettably its vessels had also fished in ASPA No. 153 and that it was committed to observe the specific requirements of ASPA and ASMA management plans. 5.69 The Commission agreed that fishing in ASPA No. 153 had occurred as a result of a lack of awareness of the requirements of the management plan and that there was a need for a clear mechanism to provide a direct link between CCAMLR conservation measures and the management plans for ASPAs and ASMAs as endorsed by the ATCM with the approval of CCAMLR as described in ATCM Decision 9 (2005). The Commission approved CM 91-02 (2012) (Protection of the values of Antarctic Specially Managed and Protected Areas) (paragraph 7.54). 7.54 The Commission agreed to a new conservation measure on the protection of the values of Antarctic specially managed and protected areas. This measure seeks to ensure that fishing vessels licensed in accordance with CM 10-02 are aware of the location and relevant management plans of all ASPAs and ASMAs which include marine areas. The management plans for these areas can be found on the Antarctic Protected Areas database which is available from the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (ATS) website. CM 91-02 (2012) was adopted. 9.4 The discussion of the Commission in respect of proposals for ASPAs and ASMAs is contained in paragraphs 5.64 and 5.65, and the Commission requested that these be communicated to ATCM XXXVI and CEP XVI. 9.8 The ARK Observer made the following statement: |
| 2012 | CCAMLR-XXXI | 7.26 |
CCAMLR Compliance Evaluation Procedure 7.26 The Commission endorsed the CCAMLR Compliance Evaluation Procedure which had been considered extensively by SCIC (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3; see also CCAMLR-XXXI/29). The procedure will use information already provided to the Secretariat, as required under the Convention, conservation measures and other rules and procedures such as the System of Inspection as well as provide an opportunity for Members to comment on the compliance with CCAMLR measures. The procedure also gives the Secretariat a formal mechanism to capture and record information on the implementation of conservation measures by Members. Accordingly, CM 10-10 (2012) (CCAMLR Compliance Evaluation Procedure) was adopted. |
| 2012 | CCAMLR-XXXI | 7.54 |
7.54 The Commission agreed to a new conservation measure on the protection of the values of Antarctic specially managed and protected areas. This measure seeks to ensure that fishing vessels licensed in accordance with CM 10-02 are aware of the location and relevant management plans of all ASPAs and ASMAs which include marine areas. The management plans for these areas can be found on the Antarctic Protected Areas database which is available from the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (ATS) website. CM 91-02 (2012) was adopted. |
| 2012 | CCAMLR-XXXI | Annex 6, 2.27 and 3.1 to 3.3 |
Control of nationals 2.27 SCIC considered information submitted by Spain on the implementation of CM 10-08 during 2011/12 regarding domestic legal proceedings against the master and the ship owner of the IUU-listed vessel Tchaw. Spain also reported on action it is pursuing against Spanish nationals implicated in the activities of the IUU-listed vessels Pion, Kuko and the provisionally IUU-listed refrigerated cargo vessel Baiyangdian. Spain emphasised that it continues to take firm action against any of its nationals where there is evidence of involvement with IUU fishing. 3.1 SCIC considered the development of a conservation measure provided by Australia as the Convener for the Development of a Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCAMLR-XXXI/29). Australia noted that the draft conservation measure incorporated the comments received from a number of Members at CCAMLR-XXX and in the intersessional period. 3.2 Several Members thanked Australia for its work on this initiative over several meetings and welcomed the draft conservation measure that had been submitted. The conservation measure was regarded by many Members as a useful tool to assess the effectiveness of conservation measures. Some Members thought highly of the proposed conservation measure, stressing that compliance with conservation measures is essential to achieving the objective of CCAMLR. Some concerns were expressed with respect to the number of conservation measures that would be used as assessment criteria, the potential workload for the Secretariat, and the time lag between the assessment and consideration by the Commission. Members agreed that these issues could be satisfactorily accommodated in the drafting of the measure which was referred for adoption by the Commission. 3.3 It was noted that conservation measures included in the CCAMLR Compliance Evaluation Procedure report template were selected on the basis of their suitability for the procedure, not preventing other CCAMLR bodies to propose the inclusion of other conservation measures. |
| 2012 | SC-CAMLR-XXXI | 3.125 and 3.126 |
Hook loss 3.125 The Scientific Committee noted that 313 000 to 318 000 hooks attached to sections of longline were lost in each of the last two seasons in exploratory fisheries (Annex 7, paragraph 5.5). It agreed that minimising hook loss was a high priority. However, it noted that not all vessels engaged in exploratory fisheries reported numbers of hooks lost, and therefore a comprehensive assessment of hook loss was not possible. 3.126 The Scientific Committee requested the Commission consider an appropriate mechanism to ensure that all vessels provide the required information on loss of hooks attached to sections of longline in the C2 form. |
| 2012 | SC-CAMLR-XXXI | 5.15 to 5.59 |
Marine Protected Areas MPA technical workshops 5.15 The Scientific Committee reviewed outcomes from the three MPA technical workshops held during the intersessional period (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraph 5.20; Annex 6, paragraphs 3.43 to 3.58; SC-CAMLR-XXXI/BG/16) to evaluate progress towards the implementation of a representative network of MPAs in the CAMLR Convention Area. The workshops concerned Domain 1 (Antarctic Peninsula), Domain 5 (Del Cano–Crozet), and Domains 3 (Weddell Sea), 4 (Bouvet and Maud) and 9 (Amundsen and Bellingshausen Sea). Domain 1 5.16 The Scientific Committee thanked the Co-conveners, Drs Arata and Marschoff, of the CCAMLR Technical Workshop on Planning Domain 1 (Antarctic Peninsula–South Scotia Arc), held in Valparaíso, Chile, from 28 May to 1 June 2012, at the Chilean Sub-secretary for Fisheries (WG-EMM-12/69) for a successful workshop and noted that participants from seven countries (Argentina, Australia, Chile, Japan, Norway, UK and the USA), as well as the Secretariat, had contributed to this successful work. The planning domain includes parts of Subareas 48.1, 48.2 and 88.3. Domain 1 already contains one CCAMLR MPA (CM 91-03, South Orkney Islands), five marine (and four partially marine) ASPAs and three ASMAs. 5.17 The Scientific Committee noted that the workshop had agreed to a comprehensive list of MPA objectives, which were consistent with the guidance of CM 91-04. Further, the Scientific Committee noted the significant opportunity afforded in this region to compare reference and fished areas, by comparing data collected within the LTER Program and the US AMLR Program and that other activities besides krill fishing, in particular tourism activities, should be evaluated in terms of potential impacts. These analyses should reflect costs and benefits to both conservation and fisheries objectives. 5.18 The Scientific Committee noted the future plans to progress work on the MPA planning activities for Domain 1. The plan is: (i) Dr Arata will coordinate the collation and submission of data layers and associated metadata to WG EMM-13 Further planning could proceed via a second Domain 1 workshop or via correspondence to come to agreement on a unified MPA proposal, which would be prepared and submitted for review during 2015. 5.19 The Scientific Committee agreed that Dr Arata will continue to act as the coordinator of the Planning Domain 1 initiative until the completion of the first phase of this work and endorsed the work plan for Domain 1. 5.20 A discussion ensued in the Scientific Committee, where all Members agreed that WG EMM will be the point of coordination for all future developments on Domain 1 (and other MPA planning efforts). Some Members were concerned about qualitative, rather than quantitative, targets being set as the goals. The workshop coordinator suggested that this is still open for discussion in WG-EMM. The need to target areas that were sufficiently large to maintain their long-term viability and dynamic nature was noted. Domain 5 5.21 The CCAMLR Technical Workshop on Planning in Domain 5 (del Cano–Crozet) (WG EMM-12/33 Rev. 1) was held in St Pierre, Réunion Island, France, from 15 to 18 May 2012, at the Headquarters of TAAF (French Southern and Antarctic Territories). Prof. Koubbi and Dr R. Crawford (South Africa) served as Co-conveners. Scientists from five countries contributed to the writing of the report (Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and South Africa). The Scientific Committee noted the significant progress made by the workshop with respect to planning within Domain 5, by describing categories of research, collating data layers for pelagic and benthic species and on seabirds and mammals. A brief history of fishing in the domain was also provided, in reflection for achieving the Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) for this area. 5.22 The Scientific Committee agreed that Prof. Koubbi will continue to act as the coordinator of the Planning Domain 5 initiative until completion of the first phase of this work, which consists of compiling and submitting GIS data layers and associated metadata by mid-2013. A synthesis concerning Planning Domain 5 will then be proposed to WG-EMM and the Scientific Committee in 2013. Prof. Koubbi pointed out that the work plan for getting GIS layers is included in the French Ecoregionalisation Programme in the Southern Ocean that will be completed in July 2013. The work plan will be achieved in tight collaboration with South African researchers and with the cooperation of all Members. 5.23 The data layers will be available for the use of WG-EMM in 2014 for undertaking SCP. It was proposed that WG-EMM considers an SCP process for the high-seas part of Domain 5, whereas the time frame for the South African and French EEZs will be different and the work will be conducted at a finer spatial scale. 5.24 The Scientific Committee recommended that the Commission consider collaboration with other regional initiatives in the southern Indian Ocean, particularly concerning the conservation of seabirds that breed in the Convention Area but forage in the subtropical and tropical zones to the north that are threatened by fisheries that operate under different conservation objectives compared to CCAMLR. 5.25 The Scientific Committee endorsed the work plan for planning Domains 1 and 5 and recommended that WG-EMM coordinate this work and evaluate the progress of development in each planning domain. Domains 3, 4 and 9 – Circumpolar Gap Analyses Workshop 5.26 The Scientific Committee thanked the organisers of the Circumpolar Gap Analysis Marine Protected Areas technical workshop, Drs van de Putte and Danis, which was held in Brussels, Belgium, 10 to 14 September 2012. This workshop dealt with three planning domains (Domain 3 – Weddell Sea, Domain 4 – Bouvet–Maud Region and Domain 9 – Amundsen and Bellingshausen Sea). This workshop was unique in that approximately one-third of its participants participated via teleconferencing, which was deemed very successful and financially efficient. The workshop succeeded in identifying protection objectives, specific regional conservation objectives and commenced the compilation of data layers (SC CAMLR-XXXI/BG/16, Table 2). 5.27 The Scientific Committee noted that the results of this workshop, which was held following WG-EMM’s 2012 meeting, should be presented to WG-EMM in 2013. It was also noted that more work is needed to develop MPAs within these domains. 5.28 Dr S. Hain (Germany) informed the Scientific Committee that Germany offered to take the lead on the MPA planning in Domain 3 (Weddell Sea). This offer was heartily welcomed by the Scientific Committee. 5.29 Dr I. Yeon (Republic of Korea) reported that Korea is considering compiling data for Domain 9 (Amundsen and Bellingshausen Sea) and perhaps may also collect new data. Prof. B. Fernholm (Sweden) reported that Sweden would be interested in taking the lead in the MPA planning for this region. Likewise, Dr Penhale, referring to the joint work with the US vessel Nathaniel B Palmer and the Swedish vessel Oden, suggested that the USA was willing to participate in advancing the planning for this area. All of these expressions of interest were welcomed by the Scientific Committee, that noted that this is a great example of the CCAMLR community working together. ASOC supported this multinational advancement of the planning for this region and others. 5.30 Prof. Koubbi suggested that MPA workshop progress should be compiled in a combined report to help ensure that our approaches are as similar as possible and Dr Constable noted that further discussions about the mechanisms by which we will share expertise needs to take place. The Scientific Committee noted that a joint MPA report could be the way of achieving this. Tools for MPA planning and reporting 5.31 New Zealand has developed a custom GIS-based marine spatial planning tool designed to aid the development of MPA scenarios. The tool was originally developed for the Ross Sea but is now customised to allow its use in any planning domain. The tool and documents can be obtained from the CCAMLR website. Dr Sharp offered to provide tutorials and pointed out that the tool does not have an underlying operating model, but rather facilitates a sequence of GIS manipulations. Feedback from Members who use this tool are welcomed by New Zealand. 5.32 A web-based GIS tool is under development by the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) to aid the management by the Secretariat of spatial data, including spatial data relevant to MPA planning. The Scientific Committee agreed with the conclusion of WG-EMM (Annex 6, paragraph 3.66) supporting the need to develop this tool and to encourage collaborative approaches among Members, in particular for the development of MPA proposals. The proposed GIS tool would allow for effective dissemination of a range of spatial information to Members, as well as to other organisations, including the CEP. 5.33 The Scientific Committee agreed to establish MPA reports (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.73 to 3.75) to help provide a standardised format to consolidate and maintain detailed scientific information in a readily accessible document through the CCAMLR website which could be updated regularly by Members and managed by the Secretariat. It was recommended that MPA reports be organised according to MPA planning domains. 5.34 WG-EMM would be the appropriate working group for primary responsibility with respect to reviewing and updating the content of MPA reports. 5.35 The Scientific Committee recognised that technical consideration of MPAs would benefit from interpretation. It requested the Commission to consider arrangement of simultaneous interpretation in CCAMLR’s official languages or other appropriate mechanisms to support this work. 5.36 Mr L. Yang (China) stated that threat analysis is as important as protection objectives that have to be considered for the establishment of MPAs and should be listed as one of the elements in the MPA report. He considered that the format is not acceptable without the item of threat analysis. 5.37 The Scientific Committee agreed that analysis of the extent to which current or future activities may threaten the objectives of the MPA was a valid scientific question to inform the design and/or management of MPAs. 5.38 The development of the MPA report would also allow Members to contribute data and information to the review in 2014 of CM 91-03 which established the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA. Dr Trathan informed the Scientific Committee of scientific elements that the UK plans to bring forward for this area, including studies on bathymetry, oceanography and foraging behaviour of predators and benthos. Other MPA discussions Protection of areas near Akademik Vernadsky 5.39 The Scientific Committee noted that the area near Akademik Vernadsky Station, Argentine Island Archipelago, had high scientific value due to its benthic diversity and agreed that the area warranted protection and thanked Ukraine for its work from 2005 to 2011 in developing ideas regarding the first MPA network in the Akademik Vernadsky Station region (WG-EMM-12/25; SC-CAMLR-XXXI/BG/04 Rev. 1). 5.40 Some Members questioned the rationale for seeking MPA protection for this area on a research value basis under CCAMLR, as compared to an ASPA or ASMA under the ATCM. It was noted that both the ATCM and CCAMLR have provisions for the establishment of protected and managed areas, but the Scientific Committee agreed that this subject will be more appropriately discussed at the Commission on a case-by-case basis. 5.41 The Scientific Committee expressed its hopes that Ukraine would continue this important work and wished it success, but supported Ukraine’s own suggestion that this work was preliminary and that further work must take place in the next few years, before this proposal is ready to go to the Commission or ATCM. Although this is in Domain 1, the Ukrainian proposal was not part of the technical workshop for that area. Marine areas following ice-shelf retreat or collapse 5.42 The Scientific Committee considered WG-EMM’s discussion on the establishment of precautionary spatial protection to facilitate the scientific study of habitats and communities in case of the collapse of ice shelves in the future, noting that the recently exposed areas of ocean uncovered by the collapse of the Larsen A and Larsen B ice shelves were not included in the proposal (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.26 to 3.33). 5.43 The Scientific Committee recognised that the proposal was designed to be proactive and future-looking. Further that, should the areas already uncovered by the collapse of the Larsen ice shelves be considered worthy of protection, this could be achieved through a separate proposal for protection, or incorporated into the current proposal (Annex 6, paragraph 3.28). 5.44 The Scientific Committee noted that the proposal to protect areas and habitats under ice shelves following ice-shelf collapse was inherently different in nature from those MPA proposals being developed for the various MPA planning domains (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 6, paragraph 6.6). 5.45 Consensus was not reached within the Scientific Committee on the points above. Dr V. Bizikov (Russia) indicated that it was unclear how you would be conferring protection for an under-ice ecosystem when the ice was gone. He suggested that we cannot stop global warming and that an MPA was not an appropriate tool to protect such an area for scientific study purposes. 5.46 Dr Trathan recalled the recommendation of the Scientific Committee during 2011, requesting that the Commission provide advice about the manner (precautionary or reactive) in which spatial protection should be afforded to ice shelves, ice tongues and glaciers, and further stated that there had been no decision by the Commission on this issue. 5.47 Some Members considered that the proposed areas are currently well protected by the ice in the shelves, tongues and glacier masses, where no vessels can access these areas, and they are thus not under immediate threat. Mr Yang suggested that it was better to consider this proposal as a scientific research program rather than an MPA proposal. 5.48 The Scientific Committee had previously agreed that research and monitoring plans for the areas under ice shelves should be developed and that this research was important. The Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraphs 5.76 and 5.77) and the Commission (CCAMLR-XXX, paragraph 7.32) had also previously noted that the ability to acquire the necessary science from under ice shelves was limited because the areas to be protected were currently inaccessible. 5.49 Dr Zhao questioned the necessity to protect, and the capacity to monitor, so many areas. As the aim of the protection is for scientific study in the case of the ice-covered areas, especially monitoring of colonisation processes within the benthic community, a concrete scientific research plan should be in place, submitted with the proposal, so that prompt action could be carried out when an ice-shelf collapse happens. 5.50 The Scientific Committee discussed the divergent views on the floor at some length. 5.51 Dr Constable noted that this proposal was aimed at providing the Scientific Committee with an opportunity to acquire important information for advising the Commission on rapid changes arising from climate change impacts on the continental shelf in the region as well as estimating the productivity of species and the ecosystem before any exploitation occurs. This will help ensure that the Commission will be able to meet the objectives of Article II under climate change in the future. 5.52 Dr Bizikov noted that the necessity to carry out research on exposed shelf ecosystems does not imply the necessity to establish an MPA in this area. 5.53 Dr Trathan reminded the Scientific Committee that the proposal to protect ice-shelves is in accord with Recommendation 26 from the 2010 Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on Climate Change which recommended the automatic interim protection to newly exposed areas such as marine areas exposed through ice-shelf collapses (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraphs 8.3 to 8.7) so that if they collapse valuable scientific opportunities would be available with a potential to understand climate change. 5.54 Dr Trathan noted that the current total area extent of marine areas covered by ice shelves is approximately 165 000 km2, equivalent to 3.9% of Subarea 48.1, 0.2% of Subarea 48.5 and 2.8% of Subarea 88.3. 5.55 Dr Zhao expressed the view that there is no scientific bearing between the proposed percentage of protection and the necessity to protect an area. 5.56 The Scientific Committee had received no advice from the Commission last year regarding whether to work with a precautionary or a reactive approach concerning the collapse of ice shelves; nevertheless it agreed that areas revealed by retreating glacial ice were unique and of considerable scientific interest. Research and monitoring plans 5.57 There is currently no agreed structure and content for such plans required under CM 91-04. New Zealand and the USA have developed two drafts (WG-EMM-12/46 and 12/57) that were submitted to WG-EMM of potential plans for the Ross Sea region. The drafts were different in structure and focus. 5.58 The Scientific Committee endorsed the conclusions of WG-EMM (Annex 6, paragraph 3.42) which agreed that the research and monitoring plan should identify research activities within various regions or spatial areas within the MPA consistent with the specific objectives of the MPA in that area (according to CM 91-04). It was agreed that the research and monitoring plan should be organised geographically and would ideally identify research that relates to the achievement of multiple objectives simultaneously. The Scientific Committee concluded that plans should contain research that is achievable in practice. The final research and monitoring plan would identify research and monitoring activities, and mechanisms and timescales for review. 5.59 The research and monitoring plans have to be coordinated amongst Members and include systematic efforts that are based on scientific design and sampling procedures. Within this context, scientific fishing within MPAs could facilitate collection of data relevant to assessment of protection objectives, within a suite of observation methodologies that in combination work towards assessing impacts of climate change in combination with stressors such as fisheries. |
| 2012 | SC-CAMLR-XXXI | 5.65 to 5.73 |
5.65 The Scientific Committee was informed that krill fishing vessels have recently been observed within ASPA No. 153, Eastern Dallmann Bay, off the northwest coast of Brabant Island. The management plan of the ASPA, which is approximately 676 km2, does not allow for harvesting as a permitted activity (Annex 6, paragraph 3.16). 5.66 The Scientific Committee noted that, based on catch data reported to the CCAMLR Secretariat, krill fishing had occurred in ASPA No. 153 in 2010 (two vessels conducted 31 hauls) and in 2012 (three vessels conducted 121 hauls). 5.67 It was suggested by some Members that the recent appearance of krill fishing vessels within ASMA No. 1 and ASPA No. 153 probably occurred due to a lack of awareness of the existence of these designated areas among those responsible for fishing vessels. Noting that the Convention (Articles V and VIII) provided for close cooperation between CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty, the Scientific Committee observed that there was a lack of informative and timely communication between the ATCM and CCAMLR with regard to the location and management plans of ASPAs and ASMAs containing marine areas. 5.68 The Scientific Committee endorsed the need to improve communication, perhaps by linking the management plans of relevant ASPAs and ASMAs to CCAMLR conservation measures so that management plans (with maps) could be readily accessed by fishing vessels. The Scientific Committee also encouraged Members to be proactive in passing on information to fishing vessels under their jurisdiction. 5.69 Concern was expressed by several Members regarding the impacts of harvesting that has occurred in some of these protected areas in recent years and the fact that there is very limited ability to detect when this occurs. 5.70 Dr Barrera-Oro noted that in summer 2010 penguin diets had little krill in them following an incursion by krill fishing vessels in the previous winter season in Admiralty Bay (paragraph 3.4). He requested that any additional information from the surrounding areas, where several science bases operate, be reported to WG-EMM. 5.71 The Scientific Committee had further discussions of ASMAs and ASPAs, reflecting on whether they affect the Commission’s ability to do its business. They are declared by the ATCM, and have no affiliated conservation measures. It was, however, noted that the CEP looks to CCAMLR for approval. 5.72 Dr Bizikov felt that this issue should be addressed by SCIC because it was a compliance issue, while Dr Constable thought it a matter for the CEP and ATCM because of the absence of affiliation with conservation measures. 5.73 The Scientific Committee concluded that the link between conservation measures and the ATCM needs to be strengthened and recommended that the Commission look at this issue. |
| 2012 | SC-CAMLR-XXXI | 10.2 | Committee for Environmental Protection 10.2 Dr P. Penhale (USA) presented the annual Report of the CEP Observer to SC-CAMLR (SC-CAMLR-XXXI/BG/02). Increased cooperation between the two bodies resulted in the development of a list of five topics of mutual interest and a common reporting format. The topics of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Non-native Species and Species Requiring Special Protection were mostly focused on terrestrial issues. |
| 2012 | SC-CAMLR-XXXI | 5.185 to 5.191 and 9.26 to 9.29 |
Assessment and management advice for depleted and recovering stocks Subarea 48.1 – C. gunnari and N. rossii 5.185 WG-FSA-12/10 summarised the results of a random stratified trawl survey undertaken on the shelf of the South Shetland Islands (Subarea 48.1). The Working Group recalled that C. gunnari and Notothenia rossii were heavily exploited in this subarea in the late 1970s and 1980s, and the fishery was closed in 1990/91 due to a collapse of these stocks. Thus, the recovery of these species from depletion is of considerable interest to CCAMLR. 5.186 It was noted that C. gunnari were regularly encountered across much of the western and northern shelves of Elephant Island (WG-FSA-12/10, Figure 2F). The estimate of total standing stock biomass for C. gunnari (WG-FSA-12/10, Table 3A) for the total surveyed area was 25 038 tonnes, primarily composed of age 3+ fish. The Working Group noted that the survey indicated the first substantial signal of recovery for this stock, and the highest level of biomass observed since the fishery was closed and the stock monitored on a semi-annual basis by the USA and Germany (1996 to 2012). 5.187 The Working Group recommended that this fishery remain closed until such time that another survey(s) be undertaken to confirm the recovery of these populations and an assessment be undertaken. C. gunnari Kerguelen Islands (Division 58.5.1) 5.188 There is currently no Fishery Report for this species in Division 58.5.1. 5.189 The Working Group reviewed a preliminary stock assessment of C. gunnari in the vicinity of the Kerguelen Islands (Division 58.5.1) based on the 2010 POKER biomass survey (WG-FSA-12/16 Rev. 1). The assessment used the same procedure to that used for this species in Division 58.5.2. 5.190 The Working Group agreed that it may be possible to compare dynamics between icefish populations in Divisions 58.5.1 and 58.5.2 based on recent survey results (e.g. correlations in trawl surveys). Recruitment between two areas may indicate that the different populations are responding to environmental changes at the scale of the Kerguelen Plateau (e.g. Sokolov and Rintoul, 2009). Management advice 5.191 The Working Group agreed that the approach outlined in WG-FSA-12/16 Rev. 1 was a valid methodology to use for assessing icefish in this division and encouraged progress toward a new assessment based on the 2013 POKER survey. 9.26 WG-FSA-12/P01 provided information on trends in relative catch rates for two previously overexploited demersal notothenid species sampled by trammel net over a 28-year period. The Working Group noted that the low sampling effort and site-specific nature of the survey means that it may not necessarily be informative for understanding the stock status of the species considered over the geographic range of the stock. 9.27 Changes in abundance of the marbled N. rossii sampled by trawl surveys since 1998 in Subarea 48.1 were presented in WG-FSA-12/19. An increase in catches of N. rossii around Elephant Island over this period was observed, although the aggregating nature of this species means that trawl surveys have a high number of hauls with zero/low catches, and a few sites with high catch rates (>5 tonnes per 30 mins). This variability can result in uncertain biomass estimates. Indeed, this survey was not originally designed to monitor this species. The Working Group noted that further analyses could be undertaken on catch rates, and that modification to existing survey design would compromise the time series, and a species-specific survey may be required. The Working Group recommended a further survey to be undertaken using an improved survey design. 9.28 Current catch rates for Gobionotothen gibberifrons (WG-FSA-12/20) during surveys are substantially lower than at the start of the time series (1998). This time series indicated low recruitment since 2000, even though fisheries on this species ceased in the early 1980s and were prohibited after 1989/90. The Working Group considered that the current status of this species remains unclear and our knowledge of what environmental factors influence recruitment for Antarctic demersal fishes remains poor. 9.29 Article II.3(c) of the Convention aims to prevent changes that are not potentially reversible over two or three decades. Given that targeted fisheries for N. rossii and C. gunnari were prohibited over two decades ago, studies on these populations may now inform on the appropriateness of this time frame for their recoveries. The Working Group noted that improved studies on the age composition of these populations would be valuable in assessing population age structure as an indicator of stock recovery. |
| 2012 | SC-CAMLR-XXXI | Annex 7, 5.35 and 5.36 |
5.35 The Working Group evaluated aspects of research fishing designs, assumptions, proposed tagging approaches and catch rates, and likelihood of achieving objectives, taking into consideration previous research endeavours, progress made, or new/refined approaches in these areas. In addition, the Working Group discussed general matters relevant to all research plans. 5.36 The Working Group endorsed the research fishing proposal evaluation process recommended by WG-SAM using the criteria laid out in Annex 5, Table 6 and CM 24-01, Format 2. The Working Group also considered the specific advice provided by WG-SAM on the individual research proposals, as well as vessel suitability, to complete the proposed research. Results of the WG-FSA evaluation using Table 6 of WG-SAM for all research proposals are provided in Tables 9 to 13. |
| 2013 | CCAMLR-XXXII | 3.9 to 3.14 |
Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCEP) 3.9 The Commission commended the Secretariat and the Chair of SCIC for their efforts to guide SCIC through the first year of implementing CCAMLR’s Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCEP). 3.10 The Commission agreed that the CCEP had been a very useful process to consider compliance and implementation issues in a transparent manner. It was noted that the CCEP had assisted in identifying opportunities to revise conservation measures and to clarify issues regarding implementation. 3.11 The USA noted that infringements will always occur, and it is how CCAMLR addresses these infringements as Members and as a Commission, that will make the difference in how effective CCAMLR is in achieving the objectives of the Convention. 3.12 Some Members expressed appreciation to those Members who suggested a non-compliant status for their vessels identified as having a compliance issue in the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. All Members with issues reported in the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report were encouraged to follow this example. It was noted that this was important for ensuring the integrity of the CCEP as a mechanism for evaluating compliance and implementation of Commission decisions. 3.13 The Commission noted the conclusions of SCIC that there was a need to develop a consistent approach to each compliance issue, rather than basing the compliance status on the self-nomination of the Member concerned. The Commission noted that in order for the CCEP to be meaningful going forward, it will be important for CCAMLR to reopen efforts to reach agreement on the gravity of various compliance and implementation issues. Members were encouraged to engage with other Members during the intersessional period to consider this issue as well as identify possible refinements to the CCEP. 3.14 The Commission adopted the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report as recommended by SCIC (Annex 6, Appendix II). |
| 2013 | CCAMLR-XXXII | 5.76 to 5.87 and 7.1 to 7.57 |
Marine protected areas 5.76 The Commission noted the progress reported by the Scientific Committee towards a representative system of MPAs within the Convention Area (SC CAMLR-XXXII, paragraphs 5.13 to 5.55). Progress in relation to Domain 1 (Western Antarctic Peninsula–South Scotia Arc) is reported in SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraphs 5.13 to 5.21, including a proposal from Norway and the UK outlining the potential need to harmonise the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA with CM 91-04 as appropriate. 5.77 The Commission recognised that CM 91-03 was agreed prior to CM 91-04; that the South Orkney Islands MPA was the first MPA in the CAMLR Convention Area; and that such harmonisation may help improve clarity in the future designation of MPAs in the CAMLR Convention Area. 5.78 The Commission noted the preparatory work for the spatial planning process for MPAs in Domains 3 (Weddell Sea) and the southern part of Domain 4 (Bouvet–Maud) up to 20°E. The Commission welcomed the proposal for an international workshop in April 2014 in Bremerhaven, Germany, to progress the scientific work on a Weddell Sea MPA, to which scientists and experts from all CCAMLR Members will be invited in accordance with Germany’s desire to cooperate with all Members in this planning process (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraph 5.23). 5.79 The Commission also noted that Norway has undertaken preliminary discussions about the potential for an MPA planning process around Bouvet Island, which would augment the work carried out in the southern part of Domain 4 (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraph 5.26). 5.80 The Commission welcomed the update on the collaborative efforts to advance planning in Domains 5 and 9 (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraphs 5.29 to 5.32). 5.81 The Commission noted the general considerations of research and spatial planning (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraphs 5.33 to 5.36), including the proposal by Russia that the opening of closed SSRUs would improve the availability of research data coming from these areas. 5.82 The Commission noted that the development and implementation of fisheries research proposals in all parts of the Convention Area is possible under the provisions of CM 24 01. The opening of closed SSRUs should be scientifically and systematically structured in conjunction with other spatial management measures. 5.83 The Commission noted the consideration by the Scientific Committee of Antarctic specially managed areas (ASMAs) and Antarctic specially protected areas (ASPAs) in the Convention Area (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraphs 5.38 to 5.41) and endorsed the advice that, consistent with the procedure established in ATCM XXVIII Decision 9 (2005), any proposal to undertake commercial harvesting within an ASMA should be submitted to CCAMLR for its consideration and that the activities outlined in that proposal should only be taken with the prior approval of CCAMLR. The Commission agreed that the provision of advice from CCAMLR to the ATCM, in order that such advice could be included in decision-making, was consistent with the spirit of cooperation and harmonisation between CCAMLR and the ATCM. MPA review process 5.84 The Commission considered the desire for a systematic approach for the preparation and review of future MPA proposals in CCAMLR, and some Members suggested that the process of review could be streamlined with the development of a ‘checklist’ of practical and operational issues related to the consideration of MPA proposals, as well as the implementation of an MPA. The first phase of this could be achieved in parallel with the consideration of the conservation measures related to the current proposals. Some Members felt that the development of such a checklist would help to facilitate a common understanding of an MPA proposal, including its scientific objectives, in the context of the general requirements of CM 91-04. 5.85 The Commission noted that CM 91-04 provided the basis for the designation of MPAs. Objectives of individual MPAs would be different, given the range of conditions that exist throughout the Convention Area, hence a checklist could be very useful in ensuring that individual MPAs can be established in accordance with CM 91-04 while accommodating their individual conservation objectives. 5.86 The Commission recognised that the extensive discussions of the MPA proposals for the Ross Sea Region MPA and the East Antarctica Representative System MPA (EARSMPA), during intersessional and subgroup meetings, had helped to improve understanding of the implementation process. Some Members suggested that in the future, extensive discussions like those held on the East Antarctic and Ross Sea Region MPA proposals, could be streamlined and facilitated by such a checklist. 5.87 The Commission also noted the need to recognise the interaction between science and policy in the development of MPAs, and that this required an effective interaction between the Scientific Committee and the Commission. CONSERVATION MEASURES Proposals for new conservation measures Marine protected areas 7.1 The Commission established an MPA Working Group, chaired by Mr C. Bentancour Fernandez (Uruguay). The MPA Working Group discussed the two proposals for the establishment of MPAs (CCAMLR-XXXII/27 and XXXII/34 Rev. 1). The Chair periodically reported back to the Commission on the progress of the MPA Working Group. For clarity in this report, the discussions have been grouped under each proposal where appropriate. 7.2 Australia, France and the EU introduced a revised proposal to establish a representative system of MPAs in the East Antarctica Planning Domain (EARSMPA; CCAMLR-XXXII/34 Rev. 1). This proposal reflected the input provided by Members throughout the development of the proposal; the discussions that took place at SC-CAMLR-IM-I and CCAMLR-SM II; and the comments and suggestions offered by Members in response to COMM CIRC 13/87. The proponents noted that the proposal was based on the best available science as confirmed by the Scientific Committee in 2011 (SC-CAMLR-XXX, paragraph 5.63) and reaffirmed at SC-CAMLR-IM-I (paragraph 2.55). In addition, a staged approach was introduced, starting with the implementation of four of the seven MPAs originally proposed. The revised proposal also removed restrictions on activities and, instead, includes a process for the Commission to use existing conservation measures and procedures for managing activities in order to comply with the objectives of the MPAs. 7.3 New Zealand and the USA introduced a revised proposal for the establishment of a Ross Sea Region MPA (CCAMLR-XXXII/27). First submitted at CCAMLR-XXXI and again at CCAMLR-SM-II (CCAMLR-SM-II/04 Rev. 1), the proposal would establish an MPA to conserve marine living resources; maintain ecosystem structure and function; protect vital ecosystem processes and areas of ecological significance; and promote scientific research, including through the establishment of reference areas. The proposal reflected the careful consideration of discussions and the advice from SC-CAMLR-IM-I and CCAMLR-SM-II and the many constructive discussions and comments received from Members intersessionally, while still achieving the key scientific and protection objectives envisioned by the original joint proposal. 7.4 The proposal for the Ross Sea Region MPA included four new preambular paragraphs, which highlighted and reflected many of the important concepts and views that Members had shared. The Scientific Committee agreed that the science related to the objectives in the Ross Sea shelf and Balleny Islands components of the proposal represented the best available science and that the designation of those areas was appropriate. As such, the boundaries for those areas were not changed. Key revisions included: (i) removal of the spawning protection zone in response to advice that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support the objective of protecting toothfish spawning grounds for the northern seamounts 7.5 The boundaries of the Special Research Zone remain unchanged but the catch limit formula was revised in response to advice from the Scientific Committee to a percentage of the overall catch limit for the Ross Sea fishery, thus linking it to the Scientific Committee’s regular stock-assessment process. A level of 10% was proposed as a level that maintained: (i) the integrity and continuity of the toothfish tagging program; and (ii) ensured contrasting local exploitation rates between the Special Research Zone and the Mawson and Iselin Banks, which is vital to the purpose of the Special Research Zone. 7.6 The proponents also clarified that the Commission may amend the proposed MPA conservation measure following each 10-year review. 7.7 The USA and New Zealand thanked Members and the Scientific Committee for their valuable engagement and input to date and expressed their hope to work together with other Members to find consensus to approve an MPA in the Ross Sea during this meeting. 7.8 The Commission requested the Scientific Committee to advise on how the revised proposals had taken account of advice and other outcomes of the discussions at SC-CAMLR-IM-I. The outcomes of discussions presented by the Scientific Committee were provided in SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraphs 5.42 to 5.55. 7.9 The MPA Working Group considered, inter alia: (i) General matters – (a) the boundaries and sizes of proposed MPAs, with reference to the specific objectives (ii) EARSMPA – (a) multi-stage approach for establishing a representative system of MPAs (iii) Ross Sea Region MPA – (a) reporting of research and monitoring activities, review mechanism and period of designation (CCAMLR-XXXII/BG/38 Rev. 1) 7.10 Norway stated that it continues to support its commitment to the development of a CCAMLR network of MPAs, including protected areas in all designated domains. 7.11 For the Ross Sea Region MPA proposal in the form with new ideas presented by New Zealand and the USA, Norway noted: ‘(i) the Ross Sea is a data-rich area, which makes good decisions by this Commission easier Ross Sea Region MPA 7.12 With regard to the Ross Sea Region MPA, many Members recalled that the proposal is based on the best available science. Many Members commented on the responsiveness of the proponents to the scientific advice and general views provided at SC-CAMLR-IM-I and CCAMLR-SM II, and during informal discussions in the lead-up to CCAMLR-XXXII. Many Members supported the proposal as it stood, while some Members wished to discuss some outstanding concerns. 7.13 In response to the concerns raised during CCAMLR-XXXII, the proponents presented additional information and ideas for discussion on potential ways to move forward, noting that these were not formal proposals (slide presentations and CCAMLR-XXXII/BG/38 Rev. 1 and BG/40 Rev. 1). Russia also expressed some alternative ideas on the proposed MPA boundaries for discussion. 7.14 New Zealand and the USA presented an idea about the possibility of including a potential smaller-sized General Protection Zone in the northwestern area and a second Special Research Zone for SSRU 882A to achieve the scientific objectives described in SC CAMLR-XXXII, paragraphs 3.76 and 3.157 to 3.159. 7.15 The proponents presented requirements in CM 91-04 regarding MPA research and monitoring and how these had been addressed in the proposal. Specifically, this included the priority elements for a research and monitoring plan contained in Annex C of the Ross Sea Region MPA draft conservation measure and the development of a draft research and monitoring plan (SC-CAMLR-IM-I/BG/03 Rev. 1). A table showing known current and planned research against the priority elements was presented. The proponents thanked those Members that had already engaged on the draft research and monitoring plan and reiterated the invitation to other Members to do so. 7.16 Russia noted that fishing had not occurred around the Balleny Islands in the proposed northwestern General Protection Zone since 2005 and that the absence of fishing would mean that opportunities for collecting data to monitor that region of the MPA would be limited. In addition, with no fishing, Russia considered that the area around the Balleny Islands was already afforded protection. 7.17 Many Members recalled the Scientific Committee’s advice that the science related to the objectives in the Balleny Islands represented the best available science and the designation of that component as part of the General Protection Zone was appropriate (SC-CAMLR-IM-I, paragraph 2.31i). 7.18 In relation to the Special Research Zone, Russia proposed to reduce Special Research Zone 1 to one-third of its present size with the reduction of catch in it up to 3% of the catch limit for the Ross Sea area. In the event of the creation of Special Research Zone 2 in SSRU 882A, its size should be comparable to Special Research Zone 1 with a corresponding catch. 7.19 The MPA Working Group conducted a read-through of the proposed draft conservation measure for the Ross Sea Region MPA. Many Members expressed their gratitude for the revised proposal and the progress made since CCAMLR-SM-II, and voiced their full support for the proposal as submitted or with further possible amendments presented in the MPA Working Group. Many Members provided comments on the text of the proposal (CCAMLR-XXXII/27), including specific proposals and other substantive suggestions. The proponents welcomed the suggestions to improve the proposal, provided answers to many questions raised, and invited Members to provide specific text to reflect their comments. East Antarctic Representative System of MPAs 7.20 Following discussions, the proponents of the EARSMPA proposal presented an amended proposal which aimed to address the discussions in the MPA Working Group, as well as specific matters raised in further discussions with Members. The changes included, inter alia: (i) recognition of the value of scientific activities undertaken by fishing vessels, and the need for subsequent stages in the development of the representative system 7.21 The MPA Working Group discussed these amendments, including further discussion on: (i) relationship between the size and boundaries of areas and the general and specific objectives 7.22 Some Members expressed concern about the size of the proposed MPAs, noting that an MPA of such size would not be feasible in the northern hemisphere. In their view, the size proposed was also incompatible with existing mechanisms for area protection in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). It was the view of Ukraine that CCAMLR should delegate responsibility for marine area protection to the Madrid Protocol. 7.23 Other Members noted that the size of the MPAs were determined by the area required to satisfactorily encompass the scale of ecological processes as needed to achieve the objectives for the MPAs, including in accordance with CM 91-04, paragraph 2(i). 7.24 The MPA Working Group also discussed the science-based criteria that would be applied to a review of outcomes of research and monitoring plans and the time frame required to mobilise appropriate resources and partnerships to support meaningful research and monitoring activities. 7.25 Some Members stated that the proposed conservation objective to protect representative areas of pelagic and benthic biodiversity was too general and subject to uncertainty. In their view, more precision was required in developing objectives for MPAs. Some Members also noted that the revised proposals required time to assess and appraise, particularly in relation to the scientific basis of amendments and the implications of these changes on the stated conservation objectives. 7.26 The proponents provided a synopsis of the conservation objectives of the four MPAs considered in Stage 1 (Gunnerus, MacRobertson, Drygalski, D’Urville Sea–Mertz) and the underlying research and current scientific activities in those areas. The justification for the objectives has been reviewed by the Scientific Committee, in particular in 2011, based on the details in SC-CAMLR-XXX/11. 7.27 In response to a specific question from China, the proponents expressed the view that the revised proposal was in full compliance with CM 91-04, paragraph 3(iii), i.e. the proposed activities would be ‘managed in the MPA or parts thereof’. 7.28 The MPA Working Group conducted a read-through of the proposed draft conservation measure for the EARSMPA. Many Members expressed their gratitude for the revised proposal and the progress made since CCAMLR-SM-II, and voiced their full support for the revised proposal tabled during the meeting. Many Members provided comments and concerns on the text of the proposal, including specific proposals and other substantive suggestions, especially with regard to the size of the MPAs. The proponents welcomed the suggestions to improve the proposal, provided answers to many questions raised, and invited Members to provide specific text to reflect their comments. General 7.29 Norway proposed text for inclusion in both MPA proposals, noting that MPAs should be implemented in a manner consistent with the rights and obligations of states under international law, including those reflected in the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea. In addition, Norway proposed that a paragraph similar to the Ross Sea Region MPA proposal, paragraph 20, regarding CCAMLR’s relations with other international organisations, also be included in the EARSMPA proposal. 7.30 Some Members noted that they had supported marine spatial and temporal protection initiatives for many years in areas under their national jurisdiction. These Members noted that, in their experience, it was inappropriate to implement a long or indefinite time frame on the designation of an MPA because situations change and there needs to be mechanisms to refine the original arrangements, if needed, to respond to such change. 7.31 Many Members reiterated their views that MPAs should be designated indefinitely. 7.32 The Commission was unable to reach consensus for the implementation of either of the two MPA proposals. However, the Commission agreed on the importance of continuing work towards establishing a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area, and encouraged all Members to continue consultations on this matter. 7.33 The Commission also expressed its appreciation to Mr Bentancour Fernandez for chairing the MPA Working Group. 7.34 Australia made the following statement: ‘Firstly, may I thank Members who have participated in these MPA discussions in a constructive way and have shown goodwill in entering into meaningful negotiations on the East Antarctic Representative System of MPAs. I feel that we have made good progress and are in a strong position to address outstanding specific issues in drafting. 7.35 The USA made the following statement: ‘We appreciate the commitment of all Members at this meeting to undertake detailed and substantive discussions on the proposal for a CCAMLR MPA in the Ross Sea Region, as well as on the proposal for a system of MPAs in East Antarctica. In addition, we thank the Scientific Committee for its willingness, despite its previously agreed schedule, to undertake a scientific review of the revised Ross Sea Region MPA proposal and provide advice to the Commission. We have found the comments on the Ross Sea Region MPA proposal provided by many Members to be both insightful and useful in thinking about how to progress the MPA toward consensus. 7.36 Sweden made the following statement: ‘Sweden supported the original MPA proposals and with respect to the Ross Sea Region MPA proposal regretted the drastic reduction in size that took place when the spawning protection zone was taken away already before this meeting in order to reach a compromise. We had detailed and promising discussions about both proposals this week and we regret that we could not reach a conclusion. We believe in the long-term protection of the Antarctic biota through creation of MPAs and we urge especially the opponents to give a detailed explanation of what they believe is needed to be able to reach a meaningful consensus decision at the next meeting.’ 7.37 The EU made the following statement: ‘The European Union regrets the outcome of the XXXII CCAMLR Annual Meeting as regards the East Antarctica Representative System of Marine Protected Areas – a proposal that was presented to CCAMLR for a third time. 7.38 Italy made the following statement: ‘Also Italy would like to express regret that the proposals of the two MPAs have not been approved considering the CCAMLR commitment to establish such areas in the Southern Ocean. 7.39 France made the following statement: ‘The French Delegation would first like to thank the Delegations of Australia and the European Union for the work they have done over a number of years with regard to the representative systems of marine protected areas in East Antarctica. The French Delegation also wishes to thank the Members of the Commission for the quality of the exchanges we have had since the beginning of our meeting regarding the two proposals for marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean. We have made progress since the Bremerhaven meeting last July, as these proposals now have almost unanimous support. This indicates their relevance as regards their objectives in terms of the conservation of the marine ecosystems and biodiversity of the Southern Ocean. However, despite this progress, we deeply regret the fact that CCAMLR Members have not been able to arrive at a consensus with a view to adopting these proposals. 7.40 The UK made the following statement: ‘The United Kingdom shared the frustration and disappointment expressed by others that it had not been possible to reach consensus on the establishment of marine protected areas, either in the Ross Sea, or in East Antarctica. The United Kingdom expressed its sincere thanks for all those who had worked so tirelessly since the last annual meeting to try to achieve a consensus outcome. The United Kingdom was concerned that as a result of what had transpired during this meeting, there would be questions about whether the economic interests of a very small minority was undermining CCAMLR’s global reputation as a progressive conservation organisation. The United Kingdom reiterated that it remained fully committed to implementing a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area, based on the best scientific evidence. The United Kingdom urged all Members to work constructively and transparently in order to deliver the commitments made by all Members to achieve this.’ 7.41 South Africa made the following statement: ‘South Africa has always believed that MPAs are a valuable tool to address issues concerning resource use and conservation as agreed in the Johannesburg plan of implementation, and these views have been confirmed with the declaration of the Prince Edward Islands MPA earlier this year. The South African Delegation therefore believes that both the Ross Sea and the East Antarctica MPA proposals address the protection of Antarctic marine living resources and representative biodiversity. South Africa feels that the updated proposals for the Ross Sea and East Antarctica have addressed many of the concerns raised in earlier CCAMLR meetings, Bremerhaven and the MPA Working Group at the current CCAMLR meeting. 7.42 Chile made the following statement: ‘Chile would like to express its gratitude to the United States and to New Zealand for this revised proposal presented to the Commission for its consideration and that would have created an MPA in the area of the Ross Sea. This initiative was supported by the Chilean Delegation. 7.43 Spain made the following statement: ‘Spain wishes to express its appreciation to Australia, France, European Union, United States and New Zealand for their efforts in submitting the current MPA proposals with the aim to achieve consensus between CCAMLR Members and have them approved, and regrets that this consensus was not reached during this meeting. 7.44 Uruguay made the following statement: ‘The Thirty-Second Meeting of the Commission has yet another opportunity to progress in the consideration of the various proposals for the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) within CCAMLR’s framework. 7.45 Argentina made the following statement: ‘Argentina would like to reiterate its position already expressed at previous meetings, stressing its commitment to the establishment of a system of MPAs in the Convention Area, as enshrined in CM 91-04. 7.46 New Zealand made the following statement: ‘CCAMLR has been working to develop marine protected areas since 2005. In 2009, eleven priority areas for conserving marine biodiversity were identified, including the Ross Sea region. Since 2010, New Zealand and the United States have presented extensive scientific analyses to underpin an MPA in CCAMLR Planning Domain 8. 7.47 Germany made the following statement: ‘In line with the Statements made by the proponents of the MPAs, Germany deeply regrets that, again, consensus could not be found on the two proposals on marine protected areas. Marine protected areas are an essential and necessary instrument for the protection of marine biological diversity and sustainable use of marine living resources. This has been stressed by the international community a number of times, already at Johannesburg in 2002 and again at the Rio Summit last year. The international community agreed on the goal to establish a representative system of marine protected areas which covers 10% of the worldwide oceans by 2020, and we all agreed within CCAMLR to establish a representative system of MPAs. 7.48 Norway made the following statement: ‘Norway reaffirms our commitment to the development of a CCAMLR network of MPAs, including protected areas in all designated domains. 7.49 Brazil made the following statement: ‘As we have had the chance to express on many occasions, Brazil favours and promotes the multilaterally agreed establishment of MPAs in the CCAMLR area supported by strong scientific foundations and based on the general framework agreed by CCAMLR. 7.50 Japan made the following statement: ‘Japan shares the view and sentiment expressed by previous speakers. Japan has been vigorously participating in the deliberations regarding the MPA proposals in the Ross Sea and the East Antarctic in order for CCAMLR to establish good models for this organisation and for other RFMOs. Japan is committed to continue to work constructively with other Members to this end.’ 7.51 Belgium made the following statement: ‘Belgium finds the development of representative systems of MPAs very important for the conservation of marine biodiversity in the Convention Area and the protection of the unique ecosystems in the Antarctic. We would therefore like to express our disappointment in the fact that none of the two MPA proposals were successfully turned into conservation measures at this meeting. 7.52 The Republic of Korea made the following statement: ‘This delegation shares the feeling with other delegations that it was disheartening that we could not reach a consensus on either of the MPAs. This delegation’s heart especially goes to the proponents of both MPAs that have exerted sincere efforts, time, and energy to address the concerns and questions raised inside and outside the meeting room, showing flexibility but without compromising the fundamental goals of the establishment of MPAs. 7.53 India made the following statement: ‘India strongly supports both these proposals towards establishment of MPA, one in the Ross Sea region and the other in the East Antarctic zone. In addition, India also wanted to participate actively in these proposed MPAs to carry out research and develop technology with regard to atmospheric sciences, physical oceanography, chemical oceanography, and biological including microbiological characteristics of water, sediment and biota etc. during the entire tenure.’ 7.54 Namibia made the following statement: ‘Namibia subscribes to the ideals of MPA establishment. We have noticed with interest different views by Member States on a number of issues on MPAs. It is our observation that there exists a unified will from all Member States to agree but there is need of creating a mode to merge our wishes in order to reach a consensual agreement. Namibia encourages Members to continue with positive engagement until appropriate and CCAMLR satisfying results are reached.’ 7.55 Poland made the following statement: ‘Poland would like to express our disappointment that consensus has not been achieved during this session regarding both MPA proposals. We still support both proposals and we hope that proposals will be adopted during next year’s annual session. We would also like to thank all the proponents for their work, which has been done during this session and we would like to underline that they can still count on our support.’ 7.56 Russia made the following statement: ‘The Russian Party notes a constructive (extensive) dialog in relation to the proposals for the establishment of MPAs in the Antarctic, submitted to the CCAMLR meeting. We reached a substantial progress in the course of substantive discussions on that issue. We proceed from the assumption that the remarks and suggestions made by the parties concerned could be eliminated and the consensus could be reached. 7.57 ASOC made the following statement: ‘ASOC – on behalf of the millions of people around the world who are supporters of our 25 member groups and the Antarctic Ocean Alliance’s 30 members – is very sad today. In this context, ASOC also represents the tens of millions of creatures which depend on CCAMLR to make rational decisions to protect their home – the Antarctic marine ecosystem. They do not get a vote here. |
| 2013 | CCALR-XXXII | Annex 6, 62 to 72 |
Compliance Evaluation Procedure 62. SCIC recalled that at CCAMLR-XXXI, the Commission adopted CM 10-10 for the implementation of the CCAMLR Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCEP). 63. SCIC considered CCAMLR-XXXII/BG/07 which reported on the first year of implementation of the CCEP and includes the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report for 2012/13. 64. SCIC noted that the CCEP covered the period from 1 December 2012 to 31 July 2013 and evaluated the implementation of 14 conservation measures: CMs 10-01, 10-02, 10-03, 10 04, 10-09, 22-07, 23-06, 23-07, 24-02, 25-02, 25-03, 26-01, 31 02 and 41-01. 65. In accordance with CM 10-10, paragraph 1(i), the Secretariat prepared Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports for all Members of the Commission and made these available to Members on 9 August 2013. 66. SCIC considered the necessity of preparing a Draft CCAMLR Compliance Report for Members with no Port and/or Flag State obligations. SCIC also considered the possibility of preparing Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports for Acceding States that have Port State obligations. 67. SCIC noted that in compiling information for Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports for each Member, the Secretariat used data submitted under compliance and data-related conservation measures, the CDS, VMS, and the System of Inspection and the Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO). 68. SCIC noted that in accordance with CM 10-10, paragraph 2(i), the Secretariat prepared a Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report (CCAMLR-XXXII/BG/07) based on the Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports and Members’ responses. 69. SCIC considered the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report and other information in developing the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. SCIC recalled that in accordance with CM 10-10, paragraph 3(ii), it will adopt, by consensus, a Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. This report shall include an assessment of compliance status, in accordance with CM 10-10, Annex 10-10/B, as well as recommendations on remedial action, amendment to conservation measures, priority obligations and other responsive action. Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report 70. In developing the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report (CM 10-10, Annex 10 10/A), SCIC agreed that the first annual report would list compliance issues identified by the Secretariat, include Members’ responses with additional clarification if provided, and include a compliance status (CM 10-10, Annex 10-10/B) for each issue as agreed by SCIC. 71. SCIC agreed that issues may be linked to multiple status categories (e.g. compliant, other information required), noting that other information required may include a review of a conservation measure to address any technical impediments to implementation. SCIC also agreed to include comments where required, and to note issues where a particular status could not be agreed by all Members. The compliance status reported was that nominated by the relevant Member. 72. The Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report is in Appendix II. |
| 2013 | SC-CAMLR-XXXII | 3.170 to 3.225 |
Data-poor fisheries Progress in developing assessments in data-poor exploratory fisheries 3.170 The Scientific Committee considered general progress on research in data-poor exploratory fisheries reported by WG-SAM (Annex 4, paragraphs 2.1 to 2.8) and WG-FSA (Annex 6, paragraphs 6.1 to 6.28). The Scientific Committee endorsed the specific advice in Annex 4, paragraph 2.7, and agreed that the accompanying diagram in Figure 1 usefully summarises advice to date. The Scientific Committee agreed that this advice describes an excellent process to guide research to achieve stock assessments in data-poor areas. 3.171 The Scientific Committee noted that development of the framework for data-poor fisheries has been a very labour-intensive process within WG-SAM and WG-FSA since 2011 when CCAMLR first undertook to provide scientific advice to guide research in data-poor fisheries (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 5, paragraphs 2.1 to 2.44). The Scientific Committee agreed that this process now provides a rigorous and transparent roadmap by which proposals for research fishing may be developed, evaluated and annually updated, subject to the advice of CCAMLR’s scientific working groups, to ensure that catch limits are precautionary while providing sufficient information to develop stock assessments in a reasonable time period. The Scientific Committee recognised that in some data-poor areas, research plans developed under this process had already yielded substantial progress toward the development of stock assessments, and that the advice this year was sufficiently developed that in future the evaluation of research plans in data-poor fisheries would likely constitute a much smaller workload within the working groups, requiring only minor adjustments on an annual basis consistent with the process already developed, at least until substantially more data is available to inform modification or expansion of the research designs. 3.172 The Scientific Committee discussed the application of by-catch move-on rules and line separation rules in the context of research plans (SC-CAMLR-XXXII/07 Rev. 1, paragraphs 6.7 to 6.10). The Scientific Committee agreed that by-catch should not unduly impede research implementation in the short term but that cumulative impacts on by-catch species should also be considered in the longer term as research proceeds toward the development of assessed fisheries. 3.173 The Scientific Committee recommended that paragraph 5 from CM 33-03 should continue to apply to research in data-poor fisheries with a 1 tonne threshold except where another threshold had already been agreed. 3.174 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-FSA had recommended that paragraph 6 from CM 33-03 should no longer apply to research and data-poor fisheries. However, Dr Watters could not support the recommendation because more research on the cumulative impacts of Macrourus by-catch in data-poor fisheries is needed. Therefore, the Scientific Committee did not endorse this recommendation. 3.175 The Scientific Committee endorsed the advice of WG-FSA that current line separation rules in CM 41-01 should continue to apply and should apply separately per vessel and per season. 3.176 The Scientific Committee noted advice regarding appropriate application of biomass estimation methods, appropriate reference areas for use in CPUE analogy method, and estimating ‘effective’ tags available for recapture for use in Petersen estimators (Annex 6, paragraphs 6.11 to 6.18). The Scientific Committee recommended that Members further develop these methods to more explicitly represent uncertainty regarding estimated biomass and expected numbers of tag recaptures. 3.177 The Scientific Committee noted that several Members requested flexibility in their research for situations when ice restricted access to research blocks, and agreed that research in Antarctic waters was always challenging and that contingencies for bad ice years are a necessary part of any research plan. However, it also noted that ice charts included in the research proposals indicated that the research blocks were ice free in most years, and that there were several research blocks in each of the areas where research was being proposed which should allow for some variation in ice conditions between years. 3.178 The Scientific Committee suggested that research fishing could be extended to include those fine-scale rectangles immediately adjacent to the existing research block if the research block was partially covered by ice (Annex 6, paragraphs 6.19 to 6.21). 3.179 While recognising that the ability to extend fishing to adjacent fine-scale blocks does provide some flexibility, some Members noted that during 2012/13 vessels from Japan and the Republic of Korea were able to occupy only one of the research blocks in SSRUs 5841C, 5841E and 5842E due to adverse ice conditions (Annex 6, paragraph 6.53) and that these vessels thereby incurred substantial costs. 3.180 Flexibility in fishing location (i.e. fishing outside the specified research blocks) in years of severe ice conditions was requested by some Members. The Scientific Committee noted that the following three points are relevant to this request: (i) the primary objective of research in data-poor areas is to collect data that will lead towards a stock assessment 3.181 Given the three points listed in the preceding paragraph, the Scientific Committee concluded that the request for additional flexibility is a matter for the Commission. 3.182 The Scientific Committee noted that Annex 6, paragraphs 6.19 to 6.21 and 6.53, are also relevant to this topic. Advice on catch limits 3.183 The Scientific Committee discussed the process by which advice on precautionary catch limits was developed within research blocks, consistent with the framework for data poor fisheries, including the use of alternate plausible biomass estimates to represent uncertainty, and evaluation of appropriate catch limits with reference to precautionary local exploitation rates, expected tag recaptures and the proportion of fishable area over which research fishing is occurring at the scale of each SSRU (Table 4; Annex 6, paragraphs 6.23 to 6.27). The Scientific Committee agreed that the process summarised in Table 4 provided a transparent and objective basis by which to evaluate the appropriateness of different catch limits despite uncertainty, and should be updated on an annual basis as biomass estimates improve. 3.184 The Scientific Committee discussed the extent to which advice on catch limits was affected by the ‘status quo’, i.e. catch limits in place in the previous season. The Scientific Committee recalled that while there may be operational benefits to achieving consistency between years, status quo catch limits were sometimes agreed in the absence of scientific advice. The Scientific Committee noted that, where consistency with previous catch limits was considered in catch-limit discussions at WG-FSA, these catch limits were evaluated scientifically to ensure that they were within the appropriate range as described in Annex 6, paragraphs 6.23 to 6.27. 3.185 The Scientific Committee endorsed the research catch limits in Tables 4 and 5 as management advice for research fishing in data-poor fisheries in the 2014 season. Research block boundaries and locations are shown in Figure 2. Discussions pertaining to individual subareas or divisions are described below. Subarea 48.6 3.186 Notifications were received from Japan, South Africa and Ukraine for research in Subarea 48.6. Japan and South Africa had conducted research in 2013 based on a similar design. The notification from Ukraine was not accompanied by a research plan. 3.187 The Scientific Committee congratulated Japan and South Africa for successfully collaborating to carry out research in Subarea 48.6, and encouraged Members to consider developing multi-Member research plans in other data-poor fisheries. 3.188 The Scientific Committee discussed appropriate mechanisms to manage catches of D. eleginoides in the north of Subarea 48.6 (research blocks a and b) where they are mainly caught as a by-catch species of D. mawsoni, recalling Annex 6, paragraph 6.48, regarding management of mixed-species toothfish fisheries more generally. Members recalled the development of stock assessments for mixed toothfish species in Subarea 48.4 (paragraph 3.90). 3.189 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-FSA-13 had not achieved consensus regarding catch limits for D. eleginoides in these research blocks, suggesting a range of 14 to 28 tonnes depending on which biomass estimate was used. 3.190 Dr K. Taki (Japan) stated that he believed that the biomass estimate for D. eleginoides in this area derived from the CPUE analogy method (using CPUE in which the catch intention of the vessel was considered rather than when D. eleginoides was caught as by catch; see WG-FSA-13/63) was the more accurate estimate of biomass. He felt that the biomass obtained by the Petersen estimator was likely to be biased low, because it was applied across both research blocks (a and b) despite six of seven tag recaptures having occurred in research block b where D. eleginoides is primarily caught as a by-catch species (see also Annex 6, paragraphs 6.41 to 6.43). On this basis Dr Taki suggested a catch limit of 28 tonnes for D. eleginoides in research blocks a and b. 3.191 The Scientific Committee suggested that to aid WG-FSA in evaluating the potential for such bias in future years, Japan and South Africa could submit a characterisation of spatial and temporal patterns of tagged D. eleginoides releases and recaptures in Subarea 48.6. 3.192 The Scientific Committee endorsed 28 tonnes as a catch limit for D. eleginoides in Subarea 48.6 research blocks a and b. 3.193 The Scientific Committee did not achieve consensus regarding a catch limit for D. mawsoni in research block d. Some Members suggested 100 tonnes based on application of the method described in Annex 6, paragraphs 6.24 to 6.27, corresponding to an estimated local exploitation rate of 4%. Other Members recommended the status quo catch limit of 150 tonnes. These Members felt that the fact that no tags were recaptured in the 2013 season, despite the expectation of approximately 15 recaptures using the biomass estimated in Table 4, suggested that either the actual biomass was much higher or that fish in this area were highly mobile, and therefore the actual exploitation rate would be lower. 3.194 The Scientific Committee discussed the potential use of electronic pop-up tags in toothfish research, to address hypotheses regarding toothfish movement, recalling WG-FSA-11/49. 3.195 The Scientific Committee recommended that the catch limit for D. mawsoni in research block 48.6d should be either 100 or 150 tonnes (Annex 6, paragraphs 6.45 to 6.47). 3.196 The Scientific Committee endorsed the following catch limits for D. mawsoni in research blocks in Subarea 48.6: 48.6b: 170 tonnes 3.197 The Scientific Committee recalled that estimates of biomass, exploitation rates and expected tag recaptures arising from the CPUE analogy method are highly uncertain but that statistical estimates of variance are currently not available, because much of that uncertainty arises from structural assumptions regarding the choice of appropriate reference area rather than simply statistical uncertainty (Annex 6, paragraph 6.18). It was important to remember that estimates derived from these methods are indicative only, and that precaution is maintained by considering multiple plausible biomass estimates where more than one method is available, by applying precautionary exploitation rates, and/or by applying these methods only over a portion of the fishable area at the scale of a stock or SSRU (Annex 6, paragraphs 6.23 to 6.28). Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 3.198 A notification was received from Spain for research in Division 58.4.1. Research was conducted in 2013 under a similar design. 3.199 The Scientific Committee supported the continuation of research by Spain utilising a combined depletion experiment and tag recapture approach in Division 58.4.1. The Scientific Committee endorsed the following catch limits to be set aside for this research in 2013/14: 5841C: 42 tonnes 3.200 Research notifications were also received from Japan and the Republic of Korea for Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2. Both Members had conducted research in 2013 based on a similar design, with useful supplemental information provided in the updated proposals (Annex 6, paragraphs 6.53 and 6.55). 3.201 The Scientific Committee noted that interpretation of data in these areas was potentially affected by assumptions regarding the explanation for anomalous CPUE data (paragraphs 3.226 and 3.227) and that Members using data in this area should be explicit regarding how this data is used. 3.202 The Scientific Committee endorsed the continuation of this research with the following catch limits assigned to individual research blocks: 58.4.1C-a: 125 tonnes 3.203 The Scientific Committee noted that research catch limits for the depletion experiment by Spain are independent of those assigned to research blocks, but that in SSRU 5841G both types of research are potentially occurring in the same area. The Scientific Committee noted that the review of the results next year will be important for evaluating the estimates of local biomass from tag-recapture experiments on the Antarctic continental shelf in a comparison with estimates from a Leslie depletion experiment. Division 58.4.3a Elan Bank 3.204 Notifications were received from France and Japan for research in Division 58.4.3. Both Members conducted research in 2013 based on a similar design. 3.205 The Scientific Committee endorsed the continuation of this research consistent with the advice of WG-FSA, including a requirement that each vessel set a minimum of five research sets, separated by at least 3 n miles, east of the 70°E meridian, after which research sets, as defined in CM 41-01, can continue within the research block defined in 2012. The Scientific Committee further recommended that a minimum of 10 tonnes be made available to each vessel (Annex 6, paragraphs 6.68 and 6.69). 3.206 Recalling previous advice regarding high by-catch rates and mortality of skates in the 2012 season (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, Annex 7, paragraph 8.19 to 8.26) on board the French vessel, the Scientific Committee recommended the following measures be applied on board the French vessel: continued application of a by catch move-on rule, requirement to release alive all skates with a high likelihood of survival and restrictions on maximum soak time (Annex 6, paragraphs 6.63 to 6.65). The Scientific Committee requested that, to provide a basis for evaluating the effect of soak time on skate condition, France consider conducting an experiment to collect data on the condition of skates across a range of depths and soak times in an analogous area such as in Subarea 58.6, and provide an analysis to the next meeting of WG-FSA. 3.207 The Scientific Committee recommended that an updated biomass estimation and integrated assessment be prepared and presented at WG-FSA-14 by the research proponents. 3.208 The Scientific Committee endorsed the continuation of this research with a catch limit of 32 tonnes. Subarea 48.2 3.209 A notification was submitted by Ukraine for research in Subarea 48.2. 3.210 The Scientific Committee recalled discussions at WG-FSA that the notification was not accompanied by a fully developed research plan corresponding to the recommended format and content as described in paragraphs 3.170 and 3.171, and had not fully taken into account all the concerns raised by WG-SAM (Annex 6, paragraphs 6.70 to 6.79). 3.211 The Scientific Committee recalled that tagging performance is very important for research in data-poor areas, and that research proponents are encouraged to achieve tag overlap statistics as high as possible, not merely in excess of the 60% minimum statistic required under CM 41-01, noting that in 2013 most vessels had achieved overlap statistics in the range of 70–90% (Annex 6, Table 8). The Scientific Committee expressed concern at the low tag-overlap statistic (43%) of the Ukrainian vessel Simeiz in the Ross Sea fishery last year (Annex 6, Figures 8 and 9). 3.212 The Scientific Committee noted that a tag-overlap statistic of 43% is also a matter for SCIC. 3.213 Dr Pshenichnov made the following statement:
3.214 Some Members felt that the proposal had been filled out in the proper format, had contained sufficiently detailed content, and had followed the approved research design and process for research in the prospecting phase. These Members felt that evaluation of research proposals submitted under CM 24-01 should not be used to deny research notifications, because this could generate a risk that research would become limited to only a subset of CCAMLR Members. 3.215 Other Members felt that the research proposal was insufficiently developed and should be further developed and resubmitted next year. Recalling several years in which no progress had been made toward stock assessments in data-poor areas when research plans were not required and tagging performance was poor, these Members felt that the research design described in this proposal and using this vessel was unlikely to produce information leading to an assessment. These Members recalled that during the WG SAM and WG-FSA meetings, many Members had worked collaboratively together to improve the standard of all research proposals, and this process did not constitute a risk that research would become exclusive to only some Members. Subarea 48.5 Weddell Sea 3.216 A notification was received from Russia for three different options for research in Subarea 48.5. Russia conducted research in 2013 in the areas described under option 1. 3.217 The Scientific Committee noted that the research design in option 1 was modified in response to advice from WG-SAM and during the course of WG-FSA to include both a research block in previously fished locations in option 1, and additional prospecting phase sets under all three options. 3.218 The Scientific Committee endorsed this research to continue in 2014 as described in Annex 6, paragraphs 6.86 to 6.88, with catch and effort limits as follows: Option 1 inside research block: 60 tonnes, with 50% of lines separated by a minimum of 3 n miles. 3.219 The Scientific Committee noted that there was some discussion on the suitability of the survey area specified in option 3 due to concerns of vessel safety and the perceived limited opportunity to undertake multi-year research. The Scientific Committee recalled advice with respect of ice conditions contained in the report of WG-FSA-12 (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, Annex 7, paragraphs 5.105 and 5.106). 3.220 The Scientific Committee noted that the implementation of the three options was not guaranteed in any particular year due to unpredictable ice. The Scientific Committee agreed that the order of priority for completion of this research in 2014 was first the research block in option 1, then the prospecting sets in option 1, and last the completion of options 2 and 3. The Scientific Committee agreed that if ice conditions were favourable, then all three options could be completed in a single year. It also agreed that should sea-ice be unfavourable in option 1, then the sequence of research could be changed with the intention that option 1 would be completed before the end of the season if possible. Divisions 58.4.4a and 58.4.4b Ob and Lena Banks 3.221 A notification was received from Japan for research in Divisions 58.4.4a and 58.4.4b SSRUs C and D. Japan has conducted research in this area since 2008. 3.222 The Scientific Committee agreed that Japan’s research on Ob and Lena Banks provides a very positive example of how research can be planned and conducted successfully under the agreed framework for research plans in data-poor fisheries. The Scientific Committee recalled that this framework was developed and refined in large part by adopting and refining practices and methods first employed by the proponents of this research, in particular the use of a rigorous mechanism by which fishing effort is spread throughout the area of the research block to avoid spatial bias in tag recaptures. The Scientific Committee agreed that this research provides a clear example for others to follow of the progression of research in data-poor fisheries through the stages of the flowchart in Figure 1, and may soon make the transition to exploratory fishery with a robust stock assessment. The Scientific Committee discussed mechanisms by which this might happen in the near future, recalling the example of the regulatory framework (SC-CAMLR-XVIII, paragraphs 7.1 and 7.11 to 7.23). 3.223 The Scientific Committee encouraged Japan to note the advice of WG-FSA-13 (Annex 6, paragraph 6.93) to improve its stock assessment for this area to facilitate this process. 3.224 The Scientific Committee endorsed this research to continue in the 2014 season with a catch limit of 25 tonnes in SSRU C and 35 tonnes in SSRU D. Accordingly, the total catch limit for combined SSRUs C and D is 60 tonnes. The Scientific Committee also agreed that in 2013/14, the Shinsei Maru No. 3 would first complete research sets in each grid square as in 2012/13, and then be able to fish anywhere within the research block until the research catch limit is reached. Division 58.4.3b BANZARE Bank 3.225 The Scientific Committee discussed the status of Division 58.4.3b which under CM 41 07 has had a catch limit of 0 tonnes for several years with no research having been conducted since 2012. Some Members felt that the area could be declared a closed fishery. Other Members felt that future research in this area was a high priority and the current status should be maintained (see also paragraph 3.146). |
| 2013 | SC-CAMLR-XXXII | 5.13 to 5.37 and 5.42 to 5.55 |
Marine Protected Areas, ASPAs and ASMAs Domain 1 5.13 The Scientific Committee noted the discussions held at WG-EMM-13 on the preparatory work for the spatial planning for MPAs in Domain 1 (Western Antarctic Peninsula – South Scotia Arc) (Annex 5, paragraphs 3.11 to 3.34). 5.14 The Scientific Committee congratulated Dr Arata for his continuing leadership of work related to the Western Antarctic Peninsula in Domain 1. It noted that considerable amounts of spatial data had now been collated, converted to GIS shapefiles and that appropriate metadata detailing the methods were also complete. The Scientific Committee noted that the GIS shapefiles and metadata would now be circulated to the group of scientists that had contributed the original data in order that the synthesised data could be validated and any errors corrected (Annex 5, paragraph 3.11). 5.15 The Scientific Committee recognised the need for the collated data to be made available to scientists within the CCAMLR community, noting that this was a generic issue for all planning domains (Annex 5, paragraph 3.13). It agreed that data for Domain 1 should be located within a private area of the CCAMLR website accessible only to a CCAMLR subgroup (groups.ccamlr.org). 5.16 Dr Arata informed the Scientific Committee that since WG-EMM, further progress has been made and that Argentina and Chile had undertaken a planning workshop during September 2013. He advised the Scientific Committee that contributions from other Members with data and relevant expertise would be welcomed as part of the planning process for Domain 1. 5.17 The Scientific Committee noted the discussions at WG-EMM-13 on the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA (Annex 5, paragraphs 3.18 to 3.32). It recognised that these discussions included consideration of a draft MPA Report for the MPA, noting that the report could subsequently contribute to the broader MPA Report for Planning Domain 1. 5.18 The Scientific Committee endorsed advice from WG-EMM that the draft MPA Report be revised to form three separate documents: a management plan, a research and monitoring plan and an MPA Report (Annex 5, paragraph 3.22), noting that the authors should prepare an SC CIRC encouraging interested individuals to contribute towards the revised version. The Scientific Committee endorsed the suggestion that revisions to the text should be located within a private area of the CCAMLR website accessible to a CCAMLR subgroup (groups.ccamlr.org) (Annex 5, paragraph 3.34). 5.19 The Scientific Committee noted SC-CAMLR-XXXII/08, which introduced a proposal from Norway and the UK outlining the potential need to harmonise the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA (CM 91-03) with the general framework for the establishment of CCAMLR MPAs (CM 91-04). The Scientific Committee recognised that CM 91-03 was agreed prior to CM 91-04; it also noted that the South Orkney Islands MPA was the first MPA CCAMLR designated and that such harmonisation may help improve clarity in the designation of future MPAs in the CAMLR Convention Area. It therefore requested that the Commission consider whether such a harmonisation would be of benefit, including the development of a management plan. 5.20 The Scientific Committee also noted that SC-CAMLR-XXXII/08 included a proposal to establish an international collaborative project to provide further spatial management advice for the South Orkney Islands MPA. The Scientific Committee welcomed the initiative, recognising that better understanding is needed to manage the South Orkney Islands MPA, and that such understanding can best be achieved through the implementation of combined research and monitoring across a variety of platforms, including from fishing vessels. It noted that spatial protection proposals are best developed collaboratively and encouraged expert input, data or other contributions from other Members with an interest in the South Orkney Islands MPA. 5.21 The Scientific Committee noted that the proposal in SC-CAMLR-XXXII/08 included development and review of a management plan for the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA. It was recognised that this work must be undertaken with the appropriate engagement of the Commission. Domains 3 and 4 5.22 The Scientific Committee noted the discussions held at WG-EMM-13 on the preparatory work for the spatial planning process for MPAs in Domains 3 (Weddell Sea) and 4 (Bouvet–Maud) (Annex 5, paragraphs 3.4 to 3.9). 5.23 The Scientific Committee welcomed the progress report on the scientific data compilation and analyses carried out by Germany in support of the development of a CCAMLR MPA in the Weddell Sea (SC-CAMLR-XXXII/BG/07). The paper described the boundaries of the planning area, which in addition to MPA Planning Domain 3, includes the southern parts of Planning Domain 4 to 20°E. The extension of the planning area ensures that the specific oceanographic/ecological conditions and biological communities of the Weddell Gyre system as a whole can be considered as one entity in the data compilation and analyses. The paper reported details of a national German workshop held from 11 to 13 September 2013 which identified the work plan/schedule and the datasets collated so far, including identification of major gaps where further georeferenced data are being sought. The paper also provided details of a planned international workshop, which will be held in April 2014 in Bremerhaven, Germany (the exact date will be communicated in an SC CIRC to be issued in due course), to which scientists and experts from all CCAMLR Members will be invited. The main objectives of this international workshop are to actively engage CCAMLR scientists and experts in the discussions of the science and the data for the work to be carried out (inter alia to ensure that relevant data from other CCAMLR Members are being taken into account in the planning process) and to jointly evaluate any preliminary results of the analyses undertaken. 5.24 The Scientific Committee noted that Japan had a concern about the feasibility of research and monitoring in the area of Planning Domain 4. Japan indicated that the scientific and spatial analyses for the Weddell Sea MPA should be carried out in accordance with CM 91-04 and be based on the best available data, including data from the research fisheries carried out by Japan and other CCAMLR Members in the southern research blocks of Subarea 48.6. 5.25 The Scientific Committee welcomed the offer of Russia to support and collaborate with Germany in the future Weddell Sea MPA planning process. Russia indicated that it can contribute important historic and recent research data which complement the datasets already collated by Germany. 5.26 The Scientific Committee also welcomed reports from Norway which had undertaken preliminary discussions about the potential for an MPA planning process around Bouvet Island, that would augment the work carried out in the southern part of Domain 4. The Scientific Committee recognised that no MPA planning activities were yet under way for the eastern part of Planning Domain 4. 5.27 The Scientific Committee noted that the spatial planning software used in the development and evaluation of MPA scenarios in Domain 8 (WG-EMM-12/56) had been updated to allow its use in all CCAMLR MPA domains and was available on the CCAMLR website (www.ccamlr.org/node/76195). The software automates the spatial conversion of data layers to a common format with boundaries corresponding to the chosen MPA planning domain, and could be updated to accommodate alternate domain boundaries in Domains 3 and 4 if these should change (as proposed in SC-CAMLR-XXXII/BG/07). 5.28 Dr Constable thanked New Zealand for providing its planning software. However, he noted that Australia had experienced some problems with the use of the software and requested that the Secretariat update the input files and become familiar with the software in order to assist Members with its use. Domain 5 5.29 Prof. Koubbi reported that the collation of data is progressing for Domain 5 (del Cano – Crozet) (Annex 5, paragraph 3.35), and noted that the proponents plan to provide a comprehensive report for WG-EMM-14. 5.30 Cooperative research between South Africa and France has been planned to collate geographic layers and address data gaps in some areas. Spatial planning will begin on the basis of the available data in this domain. 5.31 The Scientific Committee noted that advice on data formats and handling of metadata would be helpful to the proponents and requested the Secretariat to liaise with Prof. Koubbi during the intersessional period. Domain 9 5.32 The Scientific Committee recalled that work is ongoing by Sweden to compile data relevant for Planning Domain 9 (Amundsen and Bellingshausen Sea) (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, paragraph 5.29). This includes data from cruises by the vessel Oden and work being undertaken by the Republic of Korea and the USA. General considerations of research and spatial planning 5.33 The Scientific Committee noted SC-CAMLR-IM-I/05 Rev. 1 and IM-I/07, which had been resubmitted by Russia as background information to the present meeting. 5.34 Dr Petrov introduced SC-CAMLR-XXXII/06, which expressed the views of Russia regarding the opening of SSRUs that had been closed for fishing since 2005, and the suggestion that the opening of these SSRUs would improve the availability of research data coming forward from these areas. He indicated that collaborative research and monitoring in currently closed SSRUs was required in order to ensure that data would become available for assessment and to identify which, if any, areas needed to be protected. 5.35 The Scientific Committee recalled that CMs 21-02 and 24-01 allow for the development and implementation of fisheries research proposals in all parts of the Convention Area, independent of the existence of SSRUs, or whether they are open or closed. The Scientific Committee recalled that SSRUs had been established in the context of the development of exploratory fisheries for toothfish, including appropriate conservation measures, and that the opening or closing of SSRUs for fishing was a matter for the Commission to address. The Scientific Committee further noted that the SSRUs had been very valuable for managing fishing and tagging effort so that data for managing the exploratory fisheries was collected effectively and in a manner that helped address important issues related to stock assessment.\ 5.36 The Scientific Committee agreed that a structured approach to research under CMs 21 02 and 24-01 was very valuable. Proposals that clearly articulated the reasons for research (CM 21-02, paragraph 1) and the sorts of data needed (CM 21-02, paragraph 3) were particularly valuable. 5.37 Prof. Koubbi indicated that the SCAR Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean (de Broyer and Koubbi) is in its final stage of editing. The atlas combines contributions of international experts and will be relevant to CCAMLR for spatial management. An electronic version will be developed which should be of interest to CCAMLR (http://atlas.biodiversity.aq/index.html). Revised proposal for the establishment of a Ross Sea 5.42 The Commission had requested the Scientific Committee to examine revised proposals under consideration at the present meeting of the Commission: (i) a draft conservation measure establishing an East Antarctic Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (CCAMLR-XXXII/34 and XXXII/34 Rev. 1) 5.43 The Scientific Committee was asked to comment on how recommendations made at the First Intersessional Meeting of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-IM-I) held in Bremerhaven, Germany, from 11 to 13 July 2013, had been incorporated by the proponents. 5.44 The discussion of these proposals took place in subgroups and these outcomes were presented at the plenary session of the Scientific Committee. The discussion of the meeting in a subgroup which took place outside the meeting of the plenary of the Scientific Committee is reflected in paragraphs 5.45 to 5.55. Proposal for the establishment of a Ross Sea Region MPA 5.45 Discussions focused on the following six concerns: (i) The northern seamounts were designated in the original proposal to provide toothfish spawning ground protection; this had been removed in the revised proposal because of a lack of scientific data supporting the conservation objective. However, one seamount area ‘ii’ in this northwestern region had been retained. Members asked why this was the case as the reasons were unclear. (a) The proponents clarified that this area was retained because it contained unique benthic bioregions within the broader Ross Sea area. These bioregions experience oceanographic regimes that are very different from those of similar seamount features further south, and this may be linked to the presence of different fish and invertebrate species assemblages. (ii) The size and placement of the Special Research Zone as well as the science plan for the area and the catch limit and fishing regime within the Special Research Zone were questioned. (a) The proponents clarified that their rationale for the placement and size of the Special Research Zone was based on the need to have two ecologically comparable areas: one that was fished as part of the normal fishery, and another (Olympic style) fishery with reduced fishing effort. This contrast was designed to detect possible effects of fishing. The banks to the northwest of the Special Research Zone are a major fishing area, so the placement of the Special Research Zone was designed to have two similarly sized focal areas along the shelf slope to provide for a good comparison – while minimising the impact on the fishery. (iii) The need for some fishing in component D (the southeastern continental slope area identified in Figure 1 of SC-CAMLR-IM-I) was identified, which should be designed in concert with the plan for the Special Research Zone, in order to allow for structured experiments across the slope. A better justification for area E (eastern Ross Sea persistent pack-ice area identified in Figure 1 of SC CAMLR-IM-I) was also requested. (a) The subgroup noted that sufficient catch must be available in the combined research fishing areas within the MPA in order to provide a sufficient flow of scientific data for managing the fishery and for advancing knowledge of toothfish distribution and movement. Increased tagging effort (3 toothfish per tonne) for these areas was strongly supported; it was felt that use of pop-up tags should also be incorporated into fishing-vessel tagging operations. (iv) Scientific planning should take place prior to the opening of the areas currently closed in Subarea 88.2 to maximise the scientific knowledge that can be accrued from fishing in these areas. (a) The subgroup noted that sufficient time is available for WG FSA to provide appropriate advice to start the opening process upon the MPA coming into force – such that the openings of closed areas in Subarea 88.2 provide maximum potential data yield. (v) The prioritised list of research and monitoring science is still ambitious. (a) The proponents agreed that the plan was indeed very ambitious, but this was done in an attempt to be inclusive and so that all Members wishing to, could contribute in joint, cooperative work programs. However, concern was also expressed that research and monitoring goals needed to be achievable so that when the first review period was reached, CCAMLR would be in a position to make firm conclusions regarding any assessment of whether conservation goals within this MPA were being met. (vi) Duration of the MPA. (a) The timing of any review and the duration of the MPA is a matter for the Commission. Conclusion 5.46 The subgroup noted the following conclusions from the deliberations on the proposal for a Ross Sea MPA: (i) the proponents were very responsive to the scientific advice given at Bremerhaven 5.47 Dr Petrov said that since the Intersessional Meetings of the Scientific Committee and the Commission in Bremerhaven, Russia had not changed its position regarding the purpose and boundaries of the MPA; these are set out in SC-CAMLR-IM-I/03, IM-I/05 Rev. 1, IM I/06 Rev. 2, and reflected in the statements of representatives of Russia in this Scientific Committee. 5.48 Dr Petrov noted that progress has been made on some issues in the new proposal, for example: (i) a change in the boundaries meant that the revised Ross Sea region MPA was 1.3 million km2, which is 41% less than the proposals contained in CCAMLR-SM-II/04 5.49 Dr Petrov outlined that the revised proposal presented by the USA and New Zealand for an MPA in the Ross Sea region could not be supported in its present form as it needs further amendments to address issues that were presented in SC-CAMLR-IM-I/03, IM-I/05 Rev. 1 and IM-I/06 Rev. 2. Proposal for the establishment of an East Antarctic Representative System 5.50 On behalf of the proponents, Dr Constable introduced the proposed EARSMPA (CCAMLR-XXXII/34 Rev. 1) and how it addressed the concerns of the Scientific Committee expressed at Bremerhaven. The proposal in CCAMLR-XXXII/34 Rev. 1 is not substantially different to that submitted to the Commission in CCAMLR-XXXII/34 except it introduces a staged approach to implement the proposed system of MPAs: (i) In developing a revised proposal, the proponents have listened to what was discussed in Bremerhaven and to the comments received through correspondence and most recently in consultations during this meeting. In revising the proposal, the proponents were seeking to achieve good conservation and scientific outcomes in the proposed system of MPAs in East Antarctica. 5.51 Discussions focused on the following concerns: (i) Some Members felt that there was insufficient time to understand and review the revised proposal, as the revised document had only been available for one day. 5.52 The discussion by the subgroup can be summarised as follows: (i) The proponents indicated that the revised proposal took into account scientific advice provided at Bremerhaven as described below. The revised proposal was submitted to the Commission by the due date in CCAMLR-XXXII/34. (a) The subsequent revision submitted during the meeting retains all the major changes presented in CCAMLR-XXXII/34 but separates the designation of MPAs within the system into two stages, with four MPAs to be included in stage 1 for consideration at this meeting; those MPAs were chosen on the basis of the discussion in the Scientific Committee in Bremerhaven. Three further MPAs are proposed to be considered for designation within a 10 year review period. (ii) The proponents believed that to achieve full representativeness in this domain, a number of individual MPAs are required. CCAMLR-XXXII/34 included seven MPAs, based on the diversity of bioregions and the differing pelagic and/or benthic communities in the entire domain and the requirements for nursery and reference areas. (a) With regard to the size of the individual MPAs, the proponents noted that the size of the areas was based on scientific data related to bioregions and on the biological requirements of benthic and/or pelagic ecosystem processes. Size was also determined by the requirements for scientific reference areas. (iii) With regard to the selection of the MPAs for phase I, the proponents noted that the underlying scientific objectives in the proposal remain the same as in previous versions. Based on the Scientific Committee’s discussions in Bremerhaven and in response to comments received since then on each of the seven areas, four MPAs were given higher priority and will be included in phase I. Specifically, the Gunnerus MPA is representative of benthic biodiversity in the West Indian Province. The Drygalski MPA, MacRobertson MPA and D’Urville Sea – Mertz MPA were identified as important scientific reference areas and are also representative of pelagic and benthic biodiversity and of important ecosystem processes in the Central Indian Province and the East Indian Province. The importance of these MPAs was highlighted in the report from Bremerhaven. Conclusion 5.53 The Scientific Committee expressed its appreciation for the opportunity to discuss science issues regarding the revised proposal the EARSMPA. 5.54 Dr A. Umezawa (Japan) expressed his delegation’s appreciation to the proponents for their dedicated efforts to try to reflect the discussions at SC-CAMLR-IM-I held in Bremerhaven. He pointed out that while the report of this meeting (SC-CAMLR-IM-I) contained a lot of paragraphs starting with ‘The Scientific Committee agreed …’ in the discussion part of the Ross Sea MPA proposal, such as paragraphs 2.30 to 2.33, there is no such paragraph in the discussion part of the EARSMPA proposal, except for paragraph 2.55, which states ‘The Scientific Committee agreed that the science related to objectives in the EARSMPA represented the best available science.’ He also referred that at the intersessional meeting in Bremerhaven many participants had expressed their views that: (i) it was unclear if the research and monitoring would be accomplished in such huge areas; and (ii) the large-scale MPAs might develop the vast blank areas lacking scientific data. Dr Umezawa requested the proponents to clarify the scientific justification of the change in the number of MPAs from 7 to 4, as well as the two-stage plan within 10 years to achieve the objectives. 5.55 Dr D. Freeman (New Zealand) recognised the East Antarctica proposal as an example of the representativeness approach to MPA implementation and noted the significant contribution this proposal would make to marine protection in the CCAMLR area. In terms of the revisions, she supported the additional reporting requirements in the revised proposal in paragraph 8 and considered that including an assessment of the research and monitoring data in the paragraph relating to the period of duration is a positive development. She recognised that the proponents have listened to the comments and views of other Members, including those expressed in Bremerhaven, in revising this proposal, and looked forward to working with the proponents as the system of MPAs in East Antarctica is developed. |
| 2013 | SC-CAMLR-XXXII | 5.38 to 5.41 |
5.38 The Scientific Committee noted the discussions on fishing within ASPAs and ASMAs at WG-EMM-13 (Annex 5, paragraphs 3.38 to 3.40). 5.39 The Scientific Committee noted that, consistent with the procedure established in ATCM XXVIII Decision 9 (2005), any proposal to undertake commercial harvesting within an ASMA should be submitted to CCAMLR for its consideration and that the activities outlined in that proposal should only be undertaken with the prior approval of CCAMLR. The Scientific Committee agreed that the provision of advice from CCAMLR to the ATCM in order that such advice could be included in decision-making, was consistent with the spirit of cooperation and harmonisation between CCAMLR and the ATCM. 5.40 The Scientific Committee noted that CM 91-02 had been adopted last year to raise awareness of the geographic location and the management plans of ASMAs and ASPAs with marine components and requested that the Secretariat include a report of any fishing that occurs in ASMAs and ASPAs in its regular report on the krill fishery to the Scientific Committee. 5.41 The Secretariat has plotted krill harvesting activities in the 2012/13 period (see CCAMLR-XXXII/BG/06 Rev. 1, Figure 1) and confirmed that no such krill fishing operations had taken place in ASMAs or ASPAs during the most recent krill fishing season. |
| 2013 | SC-CAMLR-XXXII | 8.9 |
8.9 Mr R. Nicoll, ASOC Observer to SC-CAMLR, then presented CCAMLR-XXXII/BG/15 and made the following statement: ‘As Members are aware, climate change is already affecting parts of Antarctica. The western Antarctic Peninsula is rapidly warming, with a winter temperature increase of 6°C since the 1950s, and the sea-ice season being shortened by 90 days since 1978. Rates of sea-ice loss are fastest in the southwest Atlantic, with potentially significant impacts on krill populations considered highly likely. This is of particular concern, due to the importance of krill for many Antarctic species. Furthermore, changes in sea-ice and temperature increases will facilitate the invasion of non-native species. These effects will have profound implications for the region. There is particular concern about multi-scale regime shifts, where entire biogeographical boundaries change. |
| 2013 | SC-CAMLR-XXXII | Annex 4, 2.5 to 3.8 |
Road map for developing and reviewing research plans 2.5 The Working Group noted that the recent focus by the Scientific Committee and its working groups had led to relatively rapid development of a framework for developing research plans to collect data and develop stock assessments in data-poor areas. It was noted that WG-SAM-13/37 collated and summarised this advice, particularly for developing tag-based toothfish assessments. The Working Group agreed that such a summary was useful and should be further developed. 2.6 The Working Group requested that an annotated flowchart be developed by Members showing the different stages of research leading to a stock assessment and that this be presented to WG-FSA, noting that this could also provide an efficient framework for summarising and reviewing progress of research plans. 2.7 The Working Group agreed that the following points are useful to guide the development and implementation of research plans: (i) In subareas or small-scale research units (SSRUs) for which no data are available, the objective of research in the ‘prospecting phase’ is to map the area for fish abundance in order to locate appropriate research blocks for the next phase of the research focused on recapturing tagged fish. In the prospecting phase research should be effort limited, not catch limited; however, catch limits in tonnes should also be calculated by applying a high CPUE from an analogous area, on the assumption this catch limit will not be reached and the full number of sets will be completed unless the CPUE is considerably higher than expected. 2.8 Dr A. Petrov (Russia) made the following statement:
Specific advice on research proposals Subarea 48.6 2.9 WG-SAM-13/05, 13/09, 13/11, 13/22 and 13/29 were considered under this section. 2.10 WG-SAM-13/05, 13/09 and 13/11 described research conducted by one South African and one Japanese vessel in 2012/13 in this subarea as proposed in 2012. Fishing focused in the four research blocks identified last year as being likely to have highest tag densities, as described in WG-FSA-12/60 Rev. 1. It was noted that fishing in 2012/13 may still continue in the north of Subarea 48.6 as the catch limit had not yet been taken, however, the southern area was now inaccessible due to sea-ice. 2.11 The Working Group recalled that within-season recaptures of tagged fish were exceptionally high in 2011/12; 32 of a total of 34 recaptures were fish released in that year. In 2012/13, 3 of the 13 recaptures were from fish released within season. While it was noted that within-season recaptures may have limited value in estimating stock biomass due to limited time for mixing, it was agreed that, due to the extensive coverage of much of the northern SSRUs in 2012/13, further investigation of the within-season recaptures from 2011/12 and 2012/13 should be conducted to ensure the maximum information on behaviour of toothfish after tagging and abundance of toothfish can be extracted. The Working Group requested that the Secretariat provide an analysis of within-season recaptures, including sex, species and size distribution, apparent growth, time and movement between release and recapture for consideration by WG-FSA. 2.12 The proponents of this research requested consideration of the following modifications to the research plan in Subarea 48.6: (i) a relaxation of the requirement to set lines with a separation of 3 n miles to enable greater operational flexibility 2.13 The Working Group noted that bias can arise from tag-based estimates of abundance where tags are not distributed proportional to the underlying abundance of the fish (WG SAM-12/23). The requirement for 3 n mile spacing of lines was one means of ensuring that fishing did not concentrate in just areas of high abundance, allowing an unbiased evaluation of abundance within a research block. It also noted that other mechanisms, such as fishing across a grid, or assigning sets to strata defined geographically as well as by depth, could achieve the same goal. Therefore, the Working Group agreed that research proponents could propose an alternative method of ensuring spatial coverage of the research block in their revised proposal to WG-FSA. 2.14 The Working Group noted that species-specific catch limits in this subarea were established as part of a collaborative research implementation plan between South Africa and Japan, based on the results of analyses presented in WG-FSA-12/60 Rev. 1. The proponents agreed to revise the design of the research blocks and/or propose an alternate catch-limit split between the two species of toothfish prior to review in WG-FSA-13, noting the need to avoid overexploitation of either species of toothfish while attempting to maximise coverage of research blocks where tagged fish had been released in previous years. 2.15 The Working Group recalled its previous discussions that the nature of tag-recapture programs made it difficult to prescribe a target number of recaptures of tagged fish, as the number of recaptured tagged fish is a function of the vulnerable biomass, tagged fish released and fish recaptured, which are all likely to vary spatially. It further noted that tag overlap also influenced the relationship between tagged fish recaptures and biomass estimates. It therefore recommended that research proponents provide a rationale for an appropriate number of expected tag returns, drawing on the advice provided in previous reports such as WG SAM 11 (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 5) and papers such as WG-FSA-12/18. 2.16 The Working Group noted that the research blocks used in Subarea 48.6 in 2012/13 were designated based on the numbers of tagged fish released in previous years, and noted that WG-SAM-13/09 identified another potential research block (48.6e) where over 300 tagged fish were estimated to be available for recapture in 2013/14. It was noted that very few tagged fish recaptures had occurred from fish released in the southern SSRUs of Subarea 48.6 (such as research block 48.6d on Gunnerus Ridge) and that a possible hypothesis for this may be that toothfish move out of areas where tagged fish have been released. It was noted that while toothfish can move large distances over their lifetime, it was unlikely that many fish had moved from research block 48.6d to 48.6e, and therefore expanding the boundaries of research block 48.6d may be more likely to detect tagged fish that have moved off Gunnerus Ridge to the continental slope. Therefore, it was suggested that the proponents consider expanding research block 48.6d to include contiguous areas of the slope and continental shelf. 2.17 The Working Group noted that paragraph 6 of CM 33-03, which regulates by-catch in new and exploratory fisheries, was intended for multi-vessel fisheries to prevent individual vessels from catching the full catch limit for by-catch species and thereby triggering a fishery-wide closure for other vessels. For this reason, application of this paragraph may be inappropriate or unnecessary in the context of research plans involving only a few vessels. It noted that paragraph 8 of CM 41-03 was changed to address this issue in Subarea 48.4 (SC CAMLR-XXVIII, Annex 5, paragraphs 6.28 to 6.31). It therefore agreed that information on by-catch in Subarea 48.6 be collated to enable an appropriate threshold for the by-catch limit to be determined, and that a paragraph similar to paragraph 8 of CM 41-03 be developed for Subarea 48.6. 2.18 The Working Group noted that WG-SAM-13/09 included point estimates of biomass exploitation rates and expected tagged fish recaptures in the research blocks in Subarea 48.6. However, many of the input parameters would have associated uncertainty, which would propagate through to the estimates of biomass, exploitation rates and expected tag recoveries. The Working Group therefore: (i) recommended that such uncertainties be presented in future to assist in interpreting the results of such calculations 2.19 The Working Group discussed the changes to research catch limits proposed by Japan based on the criterion of achieving an estimated 25 annual tag returns by the 2016 season. It supported the practice of setting research catch limits to achieve a target number of tagged fish recaptures necessary for a stock assessment, but agreed that 25 recaptures in a single year was higher than what has been required to achieve stock assessments in the past. 2.20 The Working Group noted that there had been no ageing of any toothfish from this subarea. It recalled that catch-at-age data are a key input into stock assessments, along with tag-recapture data, and requested that research proponents provide detail as to how such data will be acquired. 2.21 The Working Group congratulated Japan and South Africa for working together to deliver the research plan for this area. It noted the benefit of achieving agreements between proponents that avoid the race to fish during research, and encouraged such collaboration between proponents in other areas where research is planned. 2.22 The Working Group reviewed a research notification submitted by Ukraine to fish in Subarea 48.6 (WG-SAM-13/13 Rev. 1), with reference to the research plan evaluation table used by WG-FSA to evaluate new research plans in the same area in 2012 (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, Annex 7, Table 10). The Working Group noted that some of the necessary information to fully evaluate the proposed research was not provided. Ukrainian scientists said that they would provide a more fully developed plan to WG-FSA-13. The Working Group encouraged Ukraine to coordinate their efforts with ongoing research by Japan and South Africa in this area. 2.23 A Bayesian biomass model using catch and standardised CPUE was developed for toothfish in Subarea 48.6 (WG-SAM-13/29). The results were strongly influenced by priors, indicating that very little useful information on stock dynamics was contained in the available data. It was noted that this reinforced the need for an absolute index of abundance for assessing toothfish, such as from a tag-recapture program. 2.24 The Working Group noted that the catch-rate standardisations shown in WG-SAM-13/09 and 13/29 produced different results and requested that reasons as to why such differences may have arisen, such as differences in input data or analysis method, be investigated further. It was further noted that recording of lost hooks, and distinguishing between longline methods, had changed over the period analysed and that this needs to be considered in such standardisations. Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 2.25 Japan, the Republic of Korea and Spain had all conducted research in Division 58.4.1 in 2012/13 as reported in WG-SAM-13/09, 13/10, 13/12, 13/28 and 13/30. All vessels encountered significant difficulties in conducting research due to sea-ice conditions and the Shinsei Maru No. 3 was also unable to complete research in Division 58.4.2 due to low CPUE, attributed to potential localised depletion arising from activities by an IUU vessel. 2.26 Regarding the Japanese research plan in WG-SAM-13/09, the Working Group recalled that the spatial design and research plan methodology is largely unchanged from WG-FSA-12/60 Rev. 1, which was the basis for the Scientific Committee’s advice in these areas in 2012, and that very little new data was available to inform revisions to this design. Examination of variable ice patterns to evaluate the likely accessibility of potential research blocks between years (as in WG-SAM-13/07) would be useful to inform evaluation of future plans. 2.27 The Working Group noted that its advice for Subarea 48.6 (above) – i.e. regarding spatial separation of sets, by-catch move-on rules, tagging mortality estimates for trotline-caught fish, research catch limits based on expected tag returns, and fishable depths ranges to be used in area-based estimates of abundance – applies also to the plans in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2. 2.28 Regarding the research report and plan by the Republic of Korea in WG-SAM-13/10 and 13/28, the Working Group expressed appreciation for the dedication of the Korean vessel attempting to complete the planned research despite considerable operational difficulty arising from unfavourable ice, and for providing a considerable amount of biological and other data available from the small numbers of fish that were caught. It encouraged Korea to continue its research and to progress toothfish ageing from otoliths collected in these areas. It encouraged Korea to submit a revised research plan outlining methods to be used to evaluate hooking injuries and suitability for tagging from fish captured from this particular trotline configuration (as in WG-FSA-11/13 Rev. 1 and WG-FSA-12/56), and to ensure that their gear is described in the CCAMLR gear library. 2.29 Regarding the Spanish depletion experiment and ongoing research plan in WG SAM-13/12 and 13/30, the Working Group noted that this research design combines aspects of both the prospecting phase and also the tag-recapture phase, requiring that the vessel return to the locations that they fished in 2013. The Working Group encouraged Spain to continue its research, including developing a framework for which the data collected can be developed into a stock assessment. It noted that the highest priority for the at-sea research should be returning to those locations, to evaluate CPUE variability between years and to recapture tagged fish, enabling comparisons between depletion-based and tag-based estimates of abundance, but that further prospecting sets are also valuable. The Working Group recommended that prospecting sets be conducted across a range of depths to inform improved area-based estimation of biomass within fishable depths at the SSRU scale. 2.30 The Working Group noted that local biomass estimates were obtained in both locations at which depletions were conducted, and that these estimates were different despite similar initial CPUEs because the slope of the depletion was steeper in SSRU 5841G relative to SSRU 5841H. The Working Group requested that the resubmission of the research plan to WG-FSA provide more detailed diagrams of set sequence and location within the area of the depletion experiment to evaluate to what extent observed CPUE declines are likely to represent actual depletion in a single location or that the vessel has moved away from the location of highest abundance. 2.31 The Working Group noted that there were no within-season recaptures of toothfish during either of the depletion experiments despite the numbers of tagged fish released and the observed decline in CPUE. 2.32 The Working Group noted that more than one research plan is proposed and that these may occur in the same SSRUs in these divisions, such that subsequent evaluations should consider research catches combined for all research plans in the area, relative to precautionary exploitation rates at the SSRU scale. 2.33 The Working Group noted that a standardised catch rate time series in WG-SAM-13/09 showed declining catch rates in SSRU 5841G since 2005. It recalled that CPUE is a generally poor index of changing abundance over time and that the level of volatility apparent in the observed catch rates could not be expected to track an actual abundance trajectory. Nonetheless it agreed that these observations warranted further consideration in future discussions regarding stock status and trends in this area, and the likelihood that proposed research catch limits could be achieved in this SSRU. Division 58.4.3a 2.34 The Working Group noted that France and Japan had proposed research in this Division in 2012/13, and the Shinsei Maru No. 3 conducted sets that caught a total of 9 tonnes of toothfish. It further noted that France and Japan proposed to continue research in this division as described in WG-SAM-13/08 (France) and 13/09 (Japan). 2.35 The Working Group noted that the management advice for Division 58.4.3a was in some respects more advanced than in other data-poor areas – for example the research catch limit has been set based on an analysis that incorporates the intent of the CCAMLR decision rules. It therefore encouraged the continued development of an integrated assessment for this area, and noted that inclusion of data from fish aged by France and Japan was a priority. 2.36 The Working Group noted that no French scientists attended the Working Group and recalled that this situation was the same at WG-SAM-12. It also noted that this research proposal did not contain sufficient detail so that it could not be evaluated without reference to other documents such as working group reports or previous research plans, and recalled that the previous research proposal to which WG-SAM-13/08 makes repeated cross-reference (WG-FSA-12/29) was itself judged by WG-FSA to require considerable changes and additional information (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, Annex 7, Table 12). 2.37 WG-SAM-13/41 provided a characterisation of catch and effort in Divisions 58.4.3a, 58.4.3b, 58.4.4a and 58.4.4b. The Working Group noted that some of the patterns in catch and effort in the region analysed overlapped a period of known IUU fishing as well as changes in management measures, and that these need to be considered when interpreting patterns in catch and effort. The Working Group noted the high standard of graphics presented in the paper and requested that the Secretariat work with the authors to learn some of the data visualisation methods used in WG-SAM-13/41 for inclusion in Fishery Reports. REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROPOSALS FOR Subarea 48.5 3.1 The results of the first year of a multi-year research survey of Antarctic toothfish (D. mawsoni) carried out by Russia in Subarea 48.5 (Weddell Sea) were presented in WG SAM-13/23. Due to the prevailing ice conditions experienced in late February/March, the survey was restricted to one region in the east of the Weddell Sea and therefore followed option 1 of the research plan. A total catch of 59.5 tonnes (from a survey catch limit of 60.6 tonnes) was taken on eight longline sets. A high CPUE meant that it was not possible to achieve the planned number of research sets (50) as the catch limit was reached very quickly, which therefore constrained the spatial coverage of the survey. 3.2 A tagging rate of 5 tags per tonne was achieved with 314 D. mawsoni released with a tag-overlap statistic of 64%. Information on fish maturity, diet and size composition of target species was presented with additional details on by-catch and VME. It was noted that otoliths had been collected for subsequent ageing studies. Further details of the survey will be presented to WG-FSA. 3.3 The Working Group thanked Russia for the report and noted the considerable amount of information presented. 3.4 Recalling WG-FSA-12/18, the Working Group noted that, whilst the minimum 60% tag overlap required in CM 41-01 had been achieved, it would be desirable to increase the overlap to ensure that large fish were tagged in proportion to their abundance in the catch. It was also noted that there was an apparent decrease in mean length with depth, which differs from the situation observed in most other fisheries where fish tend to be larger at greater depths. 3.5 A proposal for the second year of the survey series during the 2013/14 season was presented (WG-SAM-13/07). The proposal was essentially the same as that presented to WG SAM and WG-FSA in 2012 and again provided three options to cover different regions of the Weddell Sea depending on accessibility due to ice conditions. The major difference between the proposals was the increase in catch for the 2013/14 survey for all three of the research proposal options. The increase in catch was proposed in order that the survey would not be truncated (in terms of number of proposed sets) based on the experience of 2012/13 when the existing catch limits were achieved in considerably fewer line sets due to the high CPUEs achieved during the survey. 3.6 The Working Group noted that any proposed increase in catch in 2014 should be spatially constrained to the area surveyed last year in which tagged fish were released. The application of catches based on the high CPUE data outside the area surveyed in 2012/13 may not be appropriate. Calculation of a catch to be taken from within the area (box) surveyed during 2012/13 could be undertaken using the approach outlined in the roadmap for developing research plans in data-poor fisheries (paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6) based on the application of ‘ChartMaster’ to generate a preliminary local biomass estimate inside the research block and applying an appropriate precautionary exploitation rate. 3.7 Outside the previously surveyed block, the research was still in the prospecting phase as limited catch data were available and due to the high level of uncertainty associated with extrapolating outside the surveyed area, the Working Group considered that this would not be appropriate for areas outside the surveyed area. Outside the surveyed area, a greater spatial spread of sets is desirable in order to obtain spatial CPUE information and consequently, in order to increase spatial coverage, it was suggested that shorter longlines be deployed in the forthcoming survey, or that the distance between sets in the research areas be increased, as this would provide increased spatial and depth information on the distribution of D. mawsoni in the Weddell Sea whilst balancing the potential impact on the stock in un-surveyed areas for which no data are available. 3.8 Dr Petrov expressed concern that the deployment of shorter lines was operationally difficult and that, in order to deploy the required 50 lines, the proposed increased catch limits would be necessary. He undertook to consider the suggestions made by the Working Group and resubmit the proposal to WG-FSA. |
| 2013 | SC-CAMLR-XXXII | Annex 5, 3.24 |
3.24 Dr Trathan indicated that the intention of WG-EMM-13/10 was to initiate a dialogue to develop the management plan, the research and monitoring plan and the MPA Report for the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA so that it was consistent with planning work for Domain 1 and CM 91-04. On the specific points raised, he noted that studies related to the recovery of finfish stocks would be of considerable interest, whilst variability in krill abundance and distribution was of evident importance. |
| 2013 | SC-CAMLR-XXXII | Annex 6, 6.1 to 6.28 |
6.1 The Working Group considered general progress on research in data-poor exploratory fisheries reported by WG-SAM (Annex 4, paragraphs 2.1 to 2.8). The Working Group agreed with the recommendation that research plans currently submitted as a part of a notification to fish in a data-poor exploratory fishery should be submitted as stand-alone papers to WG SAM. It also recognised that research plans were subject to a number of changes during the course of discussions at WG-SAM, WG-FSA, the Scientific Committee and the Commission, as well as bilateral arrangements between Members fishing in the research area and agreed that a mechanism needed to be developed so that the final research plans were fully documented. The Working Group requested the Scientific Committee develop such a mechanism. 6.2 The Working Group also agreed that it was important to document the development of research in the various data-poor fisheries over time. It considered that a report of the research conducted in each research block of a data-poor fishery could be included as an annex to the fishery report for that area. A summary of research carried out in each research block for each year to date, including details such as seabed area, CPUE, catch, tags released, tags recaptured and available tags, is given in the appendices to the data-poor Fishery Reports. 6.3 The Working Group also advised the Scientific Committee that the research plans being evaluated under CMs 21-02 and 24-01 represent a wide range of fisheries and statistical areas within the Convention Area, including open and closed SSRUs, new and exploratory fisheries, closed areas, and depleted and recovering fisheries. It noted that all research plans for Dissostichus spp. have benefited from the process identified in the data-poor exploratory fisheries. It also noted that although the standard of research plans had been substantially improved since last year, that there were still a minority of Members submitting proposals which did not include a fully developed research plan, or were not in the correct format and lacked the details necessary for evaluation. In addition, there were several instances where the advice of WG-SAM had not been included in the revised research proposal submitted to WG FSA. 6.4 Through discussion among research plan proponents, the Working Group developed an annotated flowchart to show the different stages of research leading to an assessment following the recommendations from WG-SAM (Annex 4, paragraphs 2.1 to 2.8) for research on Dissostichus spp. The flowchart outlined the framework for research plan development and process for progress towards an integrated stock assessment. The flowchart is comprised of three phases: a prospecting phase, biomass estimation phase and an assessment development phase (Figure 10). A summary of the research proposals, Members, and research blocks and the current phase of research in each area are indicated in Table 11 and location of research blocks in Figure 11. 6.5 The Working Group supported the advice of WG-SAM-13 (Annex 4, paragraph 2.7) regarding the framework for research plans in data-poor fisheries. Detailed descriptions of the phases of the framework and advice concerning analytical approaches for research plan development can be found in working group reports (e.g. WG-SAM-13 (Annex 4, paragraph 2.7) and WG-SAM-11) and the important characteristics of each phase of the plan are provided in Figure 10. The main decision criteria for a research block to advance between phases are listed as questions, but the flowchart recognises that as information accumulates for each research block, information on local biomass may be available and should be considered simultaneously from several sources, including a preliminary stock assessment. Therefore, the phase of the research can, for example, be considered as intermediate between the biomass estimation phase and the assessment development phase. 6.6 The flowchart also makes explicit the annual review process within each phase, indicating that individual research blocks may remain in a single phase for more than one year. 6.7 Several Members requested a relaxation of by-catch rules in their research plans. The Working Group noted that this had been discussed by WG-SAM in 2013 in the context of research fishing in Subarea 48.6 (Annex 4, paragraph 2.17). The Working Group agreed that by-catch issues should not unduly affect the research plans, but that vessels should still be encouraged to avoid areas of high by-catch by the use of a move-on rule. Therefore, the Working Group recommended that paragraph 6 of CM 33-03 should not apply to research in the data-poor fisheries. 6.8 The Working Group also recommended that paragraph 5 of CM 33-03 should continue to apply to all the data-poor fisheries with a 1 tonne threshold – except for research plans where another threshold had already been agreed (e.g. France in Division 58.4.3a). The Working Group also requested the Secretariat examine the distribution of by-catch rates for rajids, macrourids and other species, for each of the research blocks and research proposals so that appropriate thresholds for the trigger rule can be determined for presentation at the next meeting of WG-SAM. 6.9 Several Members requested a relaxation of the minimum separation distance between lines in their research plans. The Working Group noted that this had been discussed by WG SAM in 2013 in the context of research fishing in Subarea 48.6 (Annex 4, paragraph 2.13). The Working Group agreed that some spreading mechanism was desirable in the biomass estimation phase to ensure that the research covered the spatial extent of tags that had previously been released in the research area. The Working Group recalled that the minimum separation rule had been reduced over time from a separation of 5 n miles to 3 n miles, to the current rule which was for a separation of 3 n miles for only 50% of the lines. The Working Group recommended that the current rule remain in place and that the skippers of the vessels denote the research lines which meet the 3 n mile separation rule in the C2 logbook by the code R1 and the remaining lines by the code R2. 6.10 The Working Group also agreed that the current rule should be vessel specific (i.e. vessels do not have to keep track of where other vessels have set their lines in a particular season) but not trip specific (i.e. if a vessel returns to a research block in a subsequent trip within the same season, the sets from the earlier trip apply with respect to the line-spacing requirements specified in CM 41-01). The Working Group considered that the current rule would help reduce the likelihood of within-season recaptures, which are not currently used in the stock assessment models. The Working Group also agreed that in the initial prospecting phase a wider separation between lines (e.g. 5 n miles) was generally more desirable to provide survey-relative density. The Working Group agreed with the advice of WG-SAM that research proponents could propose an alternative method of ensuring spatial coverage of the research blocks in their research plans. 6.11 The Working Group noted that seabed area calculations used by research proponents are currently based on a planimetric projection (i.e. assume the world is flat). The Working Group discussed the extent to which estimating biomass using the CPUE analogy method would more appropriately utilise a projection which incorporates the seabed topography. The Working Group noted that estimates based on seabed topography would vary depending on the spatial scale at which topographic variability is represented, and that the effect on fish abundance of increased seabed area arising from topographic variability is not known. The Working Group further noted that in the few instances examined, the difference between planimetric versus seabed area measurements was very small (less than 1%) and that biomass estimates using the CPUE analogy method are subject to much higher levels of uncertainty. The Working Group agreed that using planimetric estimates is likely to be adequate. The Working Group requested the Secretariat recalculate seabed areas for the 600–1 800 m depth zone for all subareas, divisions, SSRUs and research blocks for the next meeting of WG SAM. 6.12 The Working Group agreed that the estimates of biomass provided in research proposals submitted to WG-FSA-13 appeared to be excessively high for some SSRUs and research blocks from the Petersen estimator and the CPUE analogy method. For example, the vulnerable toothfish biomass in four research blocks in Subarea 48.6 was calculated to be 75 000 tonnes (WG-FSA-13/37), which is higher than the total vulnerable biomass of D. mawsoni in the Ross Sea region. 6.13 The Working Group recalled the discussion of tags available for recapture at WG SAM (Annex 4, paragraph 2.7iv) and agreed that many tags which had been released in the years when the tag-overlap statistic was low were unlikely to be available for recapture. It also noted that there could be other reasons why tags from some vessels have never been recaptured, such as inexperienced taggers and fish in poor condition for tagging etc. It agreed that, as a minimum threshold to data selection, only tags from vessels from which at least one of their tags had subsequently been recaptured (effective tag releases) should be used for the estimation of local abundance using the Petersen estimator and for subsequent calculations on expected recaptures under different catch limits, and in stock assessments. This method was used for the purposes of estimation of research catch limits for 2013/14 pending development of alternative methods. 6.14 The Working Group noted the development of the data select method by New Zealand for the Ross Sea region (WG-FSA-13/50) and agreed that alternative methods for identifying which tags should be used for biomass estimation in the data-poor fisheries be evaluated. It requested that the Secretariat carry out a meta-analysis of tag-recapture data to determine a more appropriate method for selecting tags available for recapture in the data-poor fisheries. This could include a meta-analysis of all tag-recapture data across the exploratory fisheries using the data select method. 6.15 The Working Group also discussed the very high biomass estimates which had been obtained using the CPUE analogy method. Several Members had used SSRU 882H as the reference area as advised at a previous WG-SAM meeting (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 5, Table 2). However, the Working Group noted that this was a seamount fishery based on large adult D. mawsoni, and that biomass estimates for this fishery had changed considerably in the 2013 update of the Subarea 88.2 stock assessment (WG-FSA-13/52). The Working Group agreed that estimates of biomass and CPUE from this fishery were unsuitable as a reference for other D. mawsoni fisheries on the Antarctic continental slope but may be appropriate as a reference area for D. mawsoni in SSRUs or research blocks comprising only seamounts. 6.16 The Working Group agreed that the Ross Sea region comprised a more appropriate reference area for any research blocks on the slope of the Antarctic continent and recommended that it be used for research proposals for D. mawsoni in slope fisheries in Subarea 48.6S, in Subarea 48.5 and in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2. The Working Group agreed that research survey proponents should use D. mawsoni in Subarea 48.4S and/or D. mawsoni in SSRU 882H as a reference area for analogy with the seamount fisheries for D. mawsoni in Subarea 48.6. The Working Group also agreed that research survey proponents should continue to use D. eleginoides in Subarea 48.4N as a reference area for analogy with other D. eleginoides fisheries in Subarea 48.6N and Divisions 58.4.3a and 58.4.4. 6.17 For the current calculations, the Working Group agreed to use the median CPUE (kg/km) from all vessels and gear methods from the past three years in the reference and research areas. It also noted that there were problems in standardising the measure of effort between trotlines and other gear types. It also agreed to use estimates of seabed area from WG-SAM-11 (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 5, Table 2) and 2012 estimates of vulnerable biomass from the reference areas. A summary of these values for each of the reference areas is given in Table 12. 6.18 The Working Group reiterated its advice from previous years that estimates of biomass arising from the use of this method were highly uncertain. However, it is currently unable to provide estimates of variance associated with this approach. Instead, the Working Group recommended that research catches should be evaluated in the context of multiple median biomass estimates arising from different methods (e.g. Petersen estimator or using alternate plausible reference areas for the CPUE analogy method), and that precautionary exploitation rates at the scale of the stock or SSRU should use the most plausible biomass estimate, or reflect uncertainty by considering multiple alternate biomass estimates. The Working Group recommended Members review the methodology and endeavour to provide estimates of variance which could be used in future years. In developing such estimates of biomass and variance, the Members should consider the advice of WG-SAM-11 (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 5, paragraphs 2.1 to 2.44). 6.19 Several Members requested some flexibility in their research for situations when ice restricted access to research blocks. The Working Group noted that this had been discussed by the Commission in 2012 (CCAMLR-XXXI, paragraph 5.35). The Working Group agreed that research in Antarctic waters was always challenging and that contingencies for bad ice years are a necessary part of any research plan. However, it also noted that ice charts included in the research proposals indicated that the research blocks were ice free in most years, and that there were several research blocks in each of the areas where research was being proposed which should allow for some variation in ice conditions between years. 6.20 Some Members requested that flexibility in the research due to bad ice conditions should be discussed from a point of view of operation at the Commission. 6.21 The Working Group noted that research fishing conducted outside the research blocks would provide little useful additional information on stock abundance. However, it also noted that if ice covered part of the research block, then research fishing could be extended to include those fine-scale rectangles immediately adjacent to the existing research block. 6.22 The Working Group noted that the numbers of research blocks spread across the Convention Area, and the overall increase in research catch limits, meant there was a high likelihood that Members’ vessels would be unable to access all research blocks in 2013/14. It agreed that the development of multi-Member research plans would increase the likelihood that data would be collected and provided in time for consideration by the Working Group in 2014 and requested that the Scientific Committee consider mechanisms for facilitating multi-Member multi-vessel research plans. Development of advice on catch limits 6.23 The Working Group discussed appropriate catch limits for research proposals confined to research blocks, i.e. in phase 2 of the data-poor fisheries research planning framework (biomass estimation phase) as illustrated in Figure 10. Consistent with the advice of WG SAM-13 (Annex 4, paragraph 2.7), catch limits are intended to provide sufficient tag recaptures to achieve a stock assessment within a reasonable time period (3–5 years) while providing reasonable certainty that exploitation rates at the scale of the stock or SSRU will not exceed appropriate levels as estimated in areas with assessed fisheries (e.g. 3–4%) (Welsford, 2011; WG-SAM-13/37). 6.24 To provide catch limit advice, the Working Group first estimated local biomass within each research block using all available methods, including the CPUE analogy method, Petersen estimates arising from tag recaptures and stock assessment outputs where these were available (Tables 13 and 14). For Petersen estimates, those derived from higher numbers of recaptures and from more recent tag recaptures were judged to be more reliable than those derived from older and fewer recaptures. Estimates arising from stock assessment outputs were used in areas where stock assessments are under development, recognising that these are still data-poor fisheries and that utilising a stock assessment for interim advice does not imply that the assessment has been approved as robust to provide precautionary yields consistent with CCAMLR decision rules. 6.25 The Working Group then estimated the number of tags available for recapture within each research block in 2013 (using only ‘effective tag releases’ as defined above (paragraph 6.13)) and compared the number of observed recaptures in 2013 with the number that would be expected under different assumptions of local biomass estimated using alternate methods. The Working Group agreed that where alternate methods yielded conflicting estimates of local biomass, comparing expected versus observed recaptures may inform selection of the more plausible biomass estimate. 6.27 The Working Group recalled the advice of WG-SAM that precautionary exploitation rates should be evaluated at the scale of the stock or SSRU (Annex 4, paragraph 2.7vii), such that where research blocks contain only a small proportion of the total fishable area in the SSRU (as shown in Table 13) this provides higher levels of precaution. 6.28 The Working Group agreed that the catch limits in Table 13 are appropriate to achieve the aims of this research and recommended that these be considered as management advice by the Scientific Committee for catch limits for the 2014 season. |
| 2014 | CCAMLR-XXXIII | 3.2 to 3.21 |
Compliance Evaluation Procedure 3.2 The Commission noted that SCIC considered Members’ Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports that summarised issues identified by the Secretariat in relation to the implementation of conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXXIII/08 Rev. 1). The Commission noted that Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports were considered for Australia, Chile, China, France, the Republic of Korea, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, the UK and Uruguay. 3.3 The Commission noted that in accordance with CM 10-10, Annex 10-10/B, the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report developed by SCIC includes an assessment of Members’ compliance status, recommendations on remedial action and amendments to conservation measures, obligations and any responsive action required. Following its deliberations, the Commission noted that SCIC had adopted by consensus a Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report for approval by the Commission (Annex 6, Appendix I). 3.4 The Commission endorsed SCIC’s recommendations and approved the CCAMLR Compliance Report for 2014. 3.5 The EU thanked SCIC for its work in adopting the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report for submission to the Commission. It regarded the process supported by SCIC as a constructive means to improve compliance with conservation measures and to identify and rectify unclear provisions. The EU noted that it did not consider the CCAMLR Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCEP) process as an opportunity to accuse or direct blame at Members but rather an opportunity to strengthen conservation measures and improve general compliance. The EU expressed appreciation for the first two years of implementation and looked forward to future work and improvement. 3.6 Australia considered that the CCEP supports a clear and fair process that provides Members with the opportunity to respond to instances of non-compliance as well as for the Commission to adopt a range of responses in order to address issues with conservation measures and to resolve technical inoperability. 3.7 The Commission noted that this year, SCIC successfully addressed a number of shortcomings with conservation measures. 3.8 The Commission considered the recommendation by SCIC to revise Conservation Measures (CMs) 10-01, 10 03, 10-10, 26-01 and 41-01. The Commission also recognised that SCIC had deliberated on possible revisions to CMs 10-02, 10-04 and 10-09, but that further consideration was needed in the intersessional period to progress these for consideration by SCIC and the Commission in 2015. 3.9 South Africa acknowledged the concerns that arose at SCIC in the case of non-compliance in relation to its implementation of CM 10-03. South Africa advised the Commission that it is implementing measures to improve compliance with CM 10-03. The Commission noted that South Africa had conducted four port inspections in full compliance with CM 10-03 subsequent to the issues identified in its Draft CCAMLR Compliance Report and that further efforts were being undertaken to improve inspecting capacity. 3.10 Argentina noted that, in relation to the possible revision to CM 10-04, not enough time was available to consider the substantial changes proposed. Argentina advised that any proposed substantive change to CM 10-04, particularly in relation to Members’ obligations, had to be considered with caution. 3.11 Some Members noted that they supported the changes proposed to CM 10-04 at this meeting. They looked forward to working through the vessel monitoring system Technical Working Group (VMS TWG) in the intersessional period to consider these matters. 3.12 The Commission noted that SCIC had considered the advice of the Scientific Committee in relation to the research fishing undertaken by the Russian-flagged vessel Yantar 35 in the Weddell Sea in 2013/14 (Annex 6, paragraphs 97 to 104). The Commission noted that the quarantining of data and the subsequent inability of the Scientific Committee to evaluate the research was a matter of serious concern for SCIC. 3.13 Some Members noted that, given the Scientific Committee had been unable to complete a review of the research plan, it was inappropriate for research fishing to be undertaken under this plan in the coming season. 3.14 The Commission noted that Russia considers this to be a serious incident and that it is committed to investigating the data relating to the issue. The Commission noted the advice of Russia that the investigation will be conducted in an open and objective manner with the results presented at the conclusion of the investigation, including to the Working Group on Statistics, Assessments and Modelling (WG-SAM), the Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment (WG-FSA), the Scientific Committee, SCIC and the Commission. The Commission suggested that the investigation could consider incorporating international expertise. 3.15 Russia advised the Commission that it did not intend to permit the Yantar 35 to continue research in the Weddell Sea in 2014/15 but that it remained interested in continuing research within the Weddell Sea by other vessels if the opportunity arises (see also paragraphs 5.63 to 5.68). 3.16 The Commission noted that SCIC considered CCAMLR-XXXIII/BG/02, summarising all notifications submitted by Members proposing to participate in exploratory or krill fisheries for 2014/15, as well as highlighting the new online system to support submission of fishery notifications by Members (Annex 6, paragraphs 105 to 109). 3.17 The Commission noted that following the late submission of krill fishery notifications, the EU withdrew the notification for the vessels Saga and Alina, notified to participate in krill fisheries in 2014/15 (Annex 6, paragraph 110). 3.18 The Commission noted that SCIC had considered CCAMLR-XXXIII/BG/27, which provided an account of the investigation and subsequent outcomes relating to the documented anomalous catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) by the Korean-flagged fishing vessels Insung No. 2, Insung No. 7 and Insung No. 22, and concluded that the three vessels undertook illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities in the Convention Area. 3.19 Many Members thanked Korea for its efforts during the past year to conduct a transparent inquiry into the activities of the Insung No. 2, Insung No. 7 and Insung No. 22 and its actions to address those activities, as well as for the Korean Delegation’s positive engagement at this meeting. Many Members congratulated Korea on its positive initiatives to engage not only nationally, including through amendments to domestic legislation, but also multilaterally in the fight against IUU fishing. 3.20 The USA noted its appreciation of the efforts that Korea and South Africa have been taking to cooperate in the scrapping of the Insung No. 7 in South Africa. In addition, the USA noted its interest in the updates and enhancements to the Distant Water Fisheries Development Act that will enhance Korea’s ability to address compliance issues, such as those related to the Insung vessels, should they arise in the future. 3.21 The Commission also thanked Russia for agreeing to undertake an investigation under CM 10 08 of Russian observers who reported data consistent with the anomalous vessel data while observing the fishing operations of the Insung No. 2, Insung No. 7 and Insung No. 22 |
| 2014 | CCAMLR-XXXIII | 5.71 to 5.88 and 7.47 to 7.76 |
Marine protected areas 5.71 The Commission welcomed the update on the preparatory work for the spatial planning of marine protected areas (MPAs) in: (i) Domain 1 (Western Antarctic Peninsula–South Scotia Arc) and endorsed the proposal and terms of reference for a Second CCAMLR Technical Workshop on the Development of MPAs in Domain 1, to be held in Argentina during 2015 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 5.14) 5.72 The Commission noted the discussion of the Scientific Committee on aspects of the research and monitoring plan for a representative system of MPAs in the East Antarctica Planning Domain (EARSMPA). Concerns were expressed by some Members about the implementation of research and monitoring plans (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraphs 5.35 to 5.42). The Commission noted the points regarding research and monitoring plans which were set out by the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 5.43). 5.73 The Commission encouraged all Members to undertake research and monitoring, including associated with the CCAMLR MPAs. Many Members also noted that the responsibility for research and monitoring is not restricted to the proponents of MPAs. 5.74 Some Members expressed concerns on the certainty regarding the implementation of research and monitoring plans associated with CCAMLR MPAs. Other Members noted the difficulty of committing budgetary resources to undertake the research and monitoring associated with a CCAMLR MPA prior to that MPA being formally established. 5.75 The Commission noted the expectation of the Scientific Committee that review processes would enable regular updating of MPAs and their management on the basis of new data arising from the research and monitoring work (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 5.44). 5.76 The Commission noted background papers on the Ross Sea Region MPA in relation to Domain 8, which included description of the chronology of previously submitted scientific documents, updated maps and analyses supporting MPA planning in the Ross Sea region and new research consistent with a proposed draft research and monitoring plan for a Ross Sea Region MPA (RSRMPA) (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 5.45). 5.77 The Commission supported the proposal by the Scientific Committee that MPA planning reference documents (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 5.46) should be assembled on a regional or MPA planning domain basis, accessible to all Members (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraphs 5.47 and 5.48), and agreed that the development of the content of MPA Reports would best be undertaken by WG-EMM. The Commission noted that the MPA Reports represent an executive summary for discussion at, and subsequent agreement by, the Scientific Committee and that they will be used to support the MPA once established (SC CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraphs 5.47 to 5.49). 5.78 Japan made the following statement:
5.79 The Commission welcomed the proposed MPA checklist presented by Japan (CCAMLR-XXXIII/27) and agreed that it could provide a useful clarification that could contribute to a better understanding of the issues associated with CCAMLR’s work in designating MPAs. Japan requested to place the draft checklist on the CCAMLR website for review by Members to support ongoing intersessional discussion on the checklist and undertook to present an updated version for consideration next year. The Executive Secretary suggested to establish an e-group for this purpose which was endorsed by the Commission. 5.80 The Commission noted the deliberation of the Scientific Committee in respect of the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA (SOISS MPA) (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraphs 5.51 to 5.76), including the agreement of the Scientific Committee that the MPA Report for the SOISS MPA (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/19) and the research and monitoring plan (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/01) provided a good format for describing research and monitoring activities. 5.81 The EU made the following statement
5.82 Russia welcomed the report from the EU and noted that, while the report provides useful background on the research conducted in the last five years, it is not possible to determine the relevance of this research to the objectives of the MPA, as CM 91-03 does not include any objective criteria with which to make such an evaluation. Russia also concluded that in the absence of any clear implementation criteria and reporting mechanisms for review, its assessment of the first five years of CM 91-03 was rather negative. 5.83 China and Russia thanked the EU for presenting the report and noted that, although the report was structurally appropriate from a scientific perspective, it is problematic from a legal point of view. The report contains specific and regional objectives for the MPA and Subarea 48.2 that are not included in CM 91-03 establishing the MPA. These Members noted that, as the research and monitoring plan is not in place, then the scientific research that has been conducted, as indicated in the report, was not conducted according to any research and monitoring plan and therefore the data derived from such scientific research could only be viewed as reference, rather than a scientific basis, for the review by the Commission. Therefore the Commission, in the point of view of these Members, was not in a position to undertake a review based on this report. China and Russia also noted that the EU report indicates that certain human activities may impact on the values of the MPA. However, as no reasons were given for this assumption, China and Russia considered it is a dangerous precedent to conclude that any human activity poses a threat in the Antarctic in the absence of a scientific basis for such an assertion. 5.84 China recalled that the SOISS MPA is the first MPA designated by CCAMLR and, given the concerns raised above, it was important that lessons are learned to guide future MPA proposals. 5.85 The UK thanked all Members for their constructive and helpful advice in the review of the SOISS MPA and welcomed interest in further research and collaboration associated with the SOISS MPA. Recalling that CM 91-03 was adopted prior to CM 91-04, there is an ongoing process to harmonise these measures. The review of CM 91-03 was five years after its adoption, whereas a longer time period better reflects the expense and lag time associated with planning, conducting and analysing the results of research and monitoring activities. 5.86 New Zealand and Australia agreed with the EU and UK, noting that the broad conservation objectives for the SOISS MPA remain as they were at the time of its designation in 2009, and encouraged further work on the harmonisation of CM 91-03 with CM 91-04. 5.87 The EU thanked Members for their engagement and constructive comments and the support for the suggested line of action; furthermore, the EU looked forward to further work on the harmonisation of CM 91-03 with CM 91-04 in the intersessional period. 5.88 The Commission noted the EU’s intention to continue work on the harmonisation of CM 91-03 with CM 91-04 in advance of the next scheduled review in 2019. Proposals for new conservation measures Marine protected areas 7.47 New Zealand and the USA introduced a revised proposal for the establishment of an RSRMPA (CCAMLR-XXXIII/21). First submitted to the Commission in 2012 (at CCAMLR-XXXI) and subsequently revised for further consideration in 2013 (at CCAMLR-SM-II and CCAMLR-XXXII), the proposal seeks to establish an RSRMPA to conserve marine living resources, maintain ecosystem structure and function, protect vital ecosystem processes and areas of ecological significance and promote scientific research, including through the establishment of reference areas. The proponents thanked Members for the many constructive discussions and comments regarding this proposal and made revisions which took careful consideration of all discussions and comments. Key revisions included, inter alia, amendments to the preamble, the addition of MPA zone descriptions including a listing of the specific protection and scientific objectives associated with each zone, reorganisation and technical changes to components on reporting, review and period of designation and other technical clarifications. The proponents recognised that additional key issues related to the proposal were discussed by the Scientific Committee and the Commission in 2013 and that these issues will require further discussion and negotiation by the Commission. The proponents looked forward to working together with Members at CCAMLR-XXXIII on those issues and the amendments proposed in CCAMLR-XXXIII/21 to establish the RSRMPA. 7.48 Australia, France and the EU introduced a revised proposal to establish an EARSMPA (CCAMLR-XXXIII/23). This proposal was first presented to the Scientific Committee in 2011 following consideration of the science at WG-EMM-10, and the Scientific Committee has agreed that the proposal contained the best scientific evidence available. This advice was subsequently confirmed at SC-CAMLR-IM-I and SC-CAMLR-XXXII. The EARSMPA is designed as a multiple-use proposal, where fishing and research activities would be permitted so long as they do not impact on the objectives of the EARSMPA. The proponents have given careful consideration to the issues that Members raised in 2013 (at CCAMLR-XXXII) and have consulted further during the intersessional period, and the revised proposal seeks to address Members’ concerns. The proposed EARSMPA offers an effective mechanism for protecting regional biodiversity while allowing for the sustainable use of Antarctic marine living resources. Further, the proposed EARSMPA will enhance the ability of the Commission to meet its objectives for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources and key ecological features and processes in East Antarctica. 7.49 The Commission re-established an MPA Working Group (CCAMLR-XXXII, paragraph 7.1), chaired by Mr C. Bentancour Fernandez (Uruguay). The MPA Working Group discussed the two proposals for the establishment of MPAs (CCAMLR-XXXIII/21 and XXXIII/23). For clarity in this report, the discussions have been grouped under topics where appropriate. The Commission expressed its appreciation to Mr Bentancour Fernandez for chairing the MPA Working Group. 7.50 Russia outlined its position on MPAs in Antarctica (CCAMLR-XXXIII/26 and XXXIII/BG/09). This position was also presented at ATCM XXXVII in May 2014. Russia welcomed the revisions which had been developed by the proponents of MPAs during the intersessional period. However, Russia could not currently agree to either proposal, and it identified the following general issues concerning the proposals: (i) the proposals included areas that have been previously fished and, as such, cannot be considered as pristine 7.51 Russia proposed that all currently closed areas in the Convention Area be assigned a status of high scientific interest as provided for in the Convention, and that a program of research and monitoring be developed using research fishing. Russia noted its active engagement in research fishing in the Weddell Sea as an example of its commitment. 7.52 China shared Russia’s views regarding the potential impact of the MPAs on fishing areas. In addition, China recalled:
7.53 The USA made the following statement:
7.54 France considered that proposed MPAs need to encompass the entire ecosystem in order to provide adequate conservation. France also noted that data collected by fishing vessels are generally confined to data on species targeted by fishing and that alternative platforms, including research vessels, also need to be considered. France, which is a responsible Member of the Antarctic Treaty and which fully respects its Article IV, reiterated that there is no basis for the assertion that the EARSMPA proposal is related to any attempt of geopolitical control. 7.55 Australia and the EU aligned themselves with the interventions by the USA and France, underscoring the enormous amount of work and consultation that had been undertaken since CCAMLR-XXXII and that, on three previous occasions, the Commission had accepted that the best scientific information was used to support the establishment of the EARSMPA. 7.56 The EU also noted the conundrum raised in CCAMLR-XXXIII/26 and SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/27 and XXXIII/BG/28, where Russia argued that it is only possible to establish MPAs in pristine areas and the only way to acquire sufficient data in support of MPA proposals was to conduct research fishing. This means that any area that was previously pristine would no longer qualify as a pristine area suitable for the establishment of an MPA if research fishing was conducted to acquire data. 7.57 The EU questioned whether Russia would refrain from proposing MPAs until a formal legal definition of MPAs was adopted. The EU noted that CM 91-04 provides the definition for an MPA in the context of CCAMLR. France noted that there is currently no internationally agreed definition of an MPA, although Article VI of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) provides useful guidance. 7.58 Norway emphasised that MPAs could only be established on the basis of sound scientific justification and that each MPA must be supported by a research and monitoring plan to ensure objectives are being met. The UK shared this view. 7.59 Norway made the following statement:
7.60 Belgium, Germany, Italy and Sweden considered that an enormous amount of work had been invested in the two proposals by the proponents and others, and that both proposals had received extensive consideration in the Scientific Committee. They urged the Commission to proceed with these proposals. Belgium added that there is no obligation in CCAMLR to define threats. 7.61 Germany made the following statement:
7.62 Belgium made the following statement:
7.63 Chile made the following statement:
7.64 The Commission reviewed progress and discussions on the proposed MPAs during the second week of its meeting. 7.65 New Zealand made the following statement: ‘As noted last week, the vast majority of countries are ready to move through to drafting group on the Ross Sea region MPA, but as we have understood there are currently a very small minority of countries are not yet ready. We agree with the comments made by the USA last week. 7.66 Australia made the following statement:
7.67 The EU and France fully supported the position of Australia, and France made the following statement:
7.68 Russia reiterated its position, which is stated in paragraphs 7.50 and 7.51. 7.69 China made the following statement:
7.70 Norway and other Members thanked the proponents of the MPA proposals and urged all Members to work together in order to achieve consensus on MPAs. 7.71 Australia, France and the EU made the following joint statement:
7.72 The EU made the following statement:
7.73 Norway made the following statement:
7.74 Russia thanked the proponents of the EARSMPA proposal for the constructive discussions and willingness to cooperate and revise their proposal. Russia will carefully study the revised proposal and is ready to work together during the intersessional period. 7.75 Germany made the following statement: ‘Germany thanks Australia, the European Union and France for this further work on the East Antarctica MPA proposal. We also thank Norway for its clear signal of support for the proposal to go to drafting, which we very much welcome. We highly appreciate the constructive and fruitful engagement of all members in the last 10 days to help identify their remaining concerns and possible ways to accommodate those. Germany hopes that this fruitful work will continue and will help us all to finalise the setup of Marine Protected Areas in East Antarctica and the Ross Sea in 2015.’ 7.76 ASOC introduced CCAMLR-XXXIII/BG/20 and made the following statement:
|
| 2014 | CCAMLR-XXXIII | Annex 6, 1 to 74 |
Compliance Evaluation Procedure 1. SCIC considered CCAMLR-XXXIII/08 Rev. 1, which reported on the second year of implementation of the CCAMLR Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCEP) Conservation Measure (CM) 10-10 and includes the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report for 2013/14. 2. SCIC noted that Members’ Draft Compliance Reports cover the period from 1 August 2013 to 31 July 2014 and reported on the implementation of nine conservation measures: 10-01, 10-02, 10-03, 10-04, 10-09, 23-06, 25-02, 26-01 and 41-02. SCIC noted that, in compiling information for the Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports for Members, the Secretariat used data submitted under compliance- and data-related conservation measures, the Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp. (CDS), Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and the System of Inspection and the Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO). 3. SCIC recalled that in accordance with CM 10-10, paragraph 3(ii), it will adopt, by consensus, a Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. The provisional report shall include an assessment of compliance status, in accordance with CM 10-10, Annex 10-10/B, as well as recommendations on remedial action, amendments to conservation measures, priority obligations and any other responsive action. 4. SCIC reviewed Draft Compliance Reports from Members, who were provided with the opportunity to present supporting information for each issue reported in relation to the implementation of conservation measures. 5. SCIC agreed that issues may be linked to multiple status categories (e.g. compliant, additional information required), noting that other information required may include a review of a conservation measure to address any technical impediments to implementation. SCIC also agreed to include comments where required and to note issues where a particular status could not be agreed by all Members. 6. Australia was invited to comment on its Draft Compliance Report, which included a single issue relating to the implementation of CM 10-03, when a vessel was not inspected in the port of Albany within the required 48 hours (CM 10-03, paragraph 5). Australia commented that the inspection was not conducted within the specified time frame due to logistical reasons and the need to adhere to occupational health and safety regulations. In response, Australia has conducted a review of the instance, recognising the importance of complying with this measure. 7. The EU thanked Australia for its explanation and highlighted the need to make endeavours for the timely inspection of vessels in this and other similar cases reported in the Draft Compliance Reports. 8. SCIC agreed that this single reported instance relating to the implementation of CM 10-03 by Australia should be categorised as partially compliant with no further action required. 9. Chile was invited to comment on its Draft Compliance Report, which included issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-02, where licence notifications were not submitted within seven days of licence issuance for the Diego Ramirez and Cabo de Hornos (CM 10-02, paragraph 3). Chile regretted the breach of the measure and advised SCIC that it has established internal controls to prevent future occurrences. 10. Chile was invited to comment on the Draft Compliance Report, which included issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-03, where port inspection reports were not received by the Secretariat within the required time frame for three vessels, Antarctic Bay, Globalpesca II and Globalpesca III, that reported landings in Chilean ports. Chile has revised internal procedures in order to improve interactions with the Secretariat. 11. Chile also discussed issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-03, where vessels were not inspected within 48 hours of entry into the port of Punta Arenas. Chile indicated that in both cases the lateness of the inspections were recorded in the respective inspection reports and were due to circumstances beyond the enforcement agency’s control. 12. SCIC agreed that Chile’s issues related to the implementation of CM 10-02 and CM 10-03 should be categorised as partially compliant with no further action required. 13. Chile was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 25-02, which was linked to a high seabird mortality event for the vessel Antarctic Bay. Chile advised SCIC that this was a clear case of non-compliance and compromised the conservation measures adopted by CCAMLR, further referencing the discussion of this event at the Working Group for Fish Stock Assessment (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, Annex 7, paragraphs 8.22 to 8.23). Chile reported that although another Member had already imposed the fine for this incident, Chilean authorities had launched their own investigation. 14. Several Members thanked Chile for its comments and expressed concern over the high seabird mortality related to this incident. Members encouraged Chile to finalise the investigation and impose sanctions in a timely manner, reporting back to the Commission during the intersessional period in preparation for further discussion at CCAMLR-XXXIV. 15. Chile noted that the issue detailed in its Draft Compliance Report in relation to the implementation of CM 25-02 for streamer line deployment was linked to the previous issue with the Antarctic Bay and that both issues were under investigation. 16. SCIC agreed that the two events reported relating to Chile’s implementation of CM 25-02 should be categorised as non-compliant and that further information was required from Chile, in the form of the outcome of Chile’s investigation. 17. China was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-04, concerning delayed submission of VMS data by the Fu Rong Hai on two occasions. China advised SCIC of the following:
18. Many Members noted that the meaning of ‘departure’ as contained in CM 10-04 was clear and that the significant delay of seven months for one instance was cause for concern. 19. China noted that in its interpretation of departure as the end of a fishing campaign, the VMS data was only submitted six days late. 20. Some Members suggested that insufficient information had been provided by China to satisfactorily explain the incident. The USA noted that given that the vessel had reported its exits from the Convention Area it seems unclear as to why VMS data was submitted seven months late. 21. SCIC agreed that both instances reported relating to China’s implementation of CM 10-04 should be classified as partially compliant with no further action required. 22. China was invited to comment on three issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-09, in which transhipment notifications were reported late for the Kai Yu and Kai Li due to conditions at sea, similar to partially compliant events reported at CCAMLR-XXXII (CCAMLR-XXXII, Annex 6, paragraph 107). China reported that the company responsible received information regarding strict implementation of CM 10-09 and China further advised that annual training exercises had been organised to improve compliance by Chinese fishing vessels operating in the Convention Area. 23. SCIC supported a proposal by the UK to review CM 10-09 to consider improving requirements for tracking and monitoring transhipments. 24. SCIC agreed that for the three instances reported relating to China’s implementation CM 10-09, a status of partially compliant was appropriate with no further action required. 25. France was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-02, in which there was a delayed issuance of a fishing licence by France for the Saint André. France regretted the late issue due to an administrative error and expressed its commitment to remain compliant and vigilant with notification dates. 26. SCIC thanked France and noted that it had taken appropriate steps to address the incident. SCIC agreed that for the single issue reported relating to France’s implementation of CM 10-02, a status of partially compliant was appropriate with no further action required. 27. Korea was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-09, in which a transhipment notification was submitted late by the Sejong due to a schedule change that was beyond the control of the vessel. 28. SCIC agreed that for the single instance reported relating to Korea’s implementation of CM 10-09, a status of partially compliant was appropriate with no further action required. 29. Korea was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 23-06, when the submission of haul-by-haul data by the Kwang Ja Ho was delayed due to administrative errors. Korea explained that errors were made on the part of the vessel and that Korea had taken remedial action to minimise the possible reoccurrence of events of this nature in the future. 30. SCIC agreed that for the single instance reported relating to Korea’s implementation of CM 23-06, a status of partially compliant was appropriate with no further action required. 31. Norway was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10 01. It was noted by SCIC that there was no issue in relation to this conservation measure as the buoys that were identified by inspectors as not being marked in the correct way were not in fact used to mark fishing gear. 32. SCIC agreed that the issue regarding Norway’s implementation of CM 10-01 should not be included in the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. 33. Norway was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10 04, where an inspection of the Seljevaer found that the seal on the VMS unit was broken. Norway advised SCIC that its authorities had issued a warning and considers this a case of non-compliance. 34. SCIC agreed that for the single instance reported relating to Norway’s implementation of CM 10-04, a status of non-compliant was appropriate with no further action required. 35. Norway was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10 04, where an inspection found that the antenna of the VMS was not sealed on the Juvel. Norway advised SCIC that it received confirmation from the vessel that the original seal on the system was intact. Norway explained that its regulations do not require the VMS antennae to be sealed, and that up until this point in time, Norwegian authorities understood Norwegian regulations were consistent with the requirements of CM 10-04. 36. Chile noted that after similar cases were discussed at CCAMLR-XXXII its enforcement agency had resorted to taking photographs during inspections, considering they provide a useful means to illustrate findings recorded in the inspector’s report. 37. Chile expressed its concern that some Members consistently seek to undermine the credibility of the inspectors’ findings and their reports. Chile also indicated that these attempts have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the System of Inspection. 38. Chile, as the inspectorate nation, provided photographic evidence to SCIC of what Chile stated was the non-sealed VMS antenna on the Juvel. Chile explained that because the VMS antenna is the mechanism that emits a signal, it is of the utmost importance that it is sealed. 39. Chile also encouraged cooperation between Flag States and Port States to increase communication regarding inspections. 40. SCIC agreed that the issue reported relating to Norway’s implementation of CM 10-04 was a case of ambiguity in the CM and considered that a compliance status of additional information required was appropriate, and that further action was required to clarify CM 10 04, through the intersessional work of the VMS Technical Working Group (TWG). 41. SCIC also agreed that CM 10-03 should be revised to encourage inspectors to include photographs, where possible, and forwarded CM 10-03 to the Commission. 42. Many Members noted that at CCAMLR-XXXII, the Members’ Draft Compliance Reports had been considered by conservation measure and this provided a greater opportunity to identify issues relating to the implementation of conservation measures. SCIC agreed that in subsequent years, this approach be taken. 43. New Zealand asserted that as an inspecting authority, there is no way to amend or even comment on an inspection form if a mistake is made and that the final verdict of an inspection report is solely up to the inspector. New Zealand was concerned because in many cases inspectors are forced to decide if a VMS unit is compliant when many inspectors are not adequately trained in regard to all technology contained on modern fishing vessels. New Zealand suggested that inspecting parties should be afforded an opportunity to comment on their own inspection forms. 44. Russia was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-01, where the markings of the vessel Sparta did not comply as they were 0.22 metres high and not the required 1.0 metre. Russia reported that the owner of the vessel had been advised that the markings were not adequate and that remedial action had been taken to ensure the vessel markings were compliant. Russia noted that all other markings did conform to required standards and that all corresponding information has been in accordance with the ship register. Russia noted that the criteria for marking, related to the height of the vessel, meant that crew can make errors regarding the correct proportion for the size of vessel markings. 45. Several Members considered this was not a minor issue since a lack of markings could make vessel identification difficult. 46. SCIC agreed that this single instance relating to the implementation of CM 10-01 by Russia should be categorised as partially compliant and that CM 10-01 required review. 47. SCIC agreed that CM 10-01 should be revised to reflect the text of the FAO Standard Specifications and Guidelines for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels and forwarded CM 10-01 to the Commission. 48. Russia was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-04, where an inspection found the seal on the VMS unit to be broken on the vessel Ugulan. Russia advised SCIC that the seal was only required on the dome-shaped antennae and, as there is not a requirement for the junction box to be sealed, this case should be considered fully compliant. 49. New Zealand reiterated the lack of clarity in CM 10-04 regarding the specifications for VMS seals. However, New Zealand also noted that the ability to tamper with the power supply allows for tampering with the device itself and suggested this issue be discussed together with other matters to be addressed by the VMS TWG. 50. SCIC agreed that this issue was again a result of ambiguity in CM 10-04 and agreed that for this instance, a compliance status of additional information is required, and that further action was required to clarify CM 10-04, through the intersessional work of the VMS TWG. 51. Russia was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-09, in relation to the late submission of a transhipment notification by the Yantar 31. Russia advised SCIC that an investigation was undertaken and a fine was imposed on the vessel owner. 52. SCIC agreed that for the single instance reported relating to Russia’s implementation of CM 10-09, a status of partially compliant was appropriate with no further action required. 53. South Africa was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-03, when the Koryo Maru No. 11 was not inspected within 48 hours of port entry. South Africa notified SCIC that the state inspectorate had limited capacity at that time due to the termination of the inspecting agency’s contract. South Africa further advised that a request for tender has been advertised and, in conjunction with other capacity-building initiatives, anticipates that there will not be a reoccurrence of this event. 54. New Zealand recommended that, as per CM 10-03, paragraph 4, South Africa consider designating vessels to other ports while the inspectorate shortage issue in Cape Town is addressed. 55. SCIC agreed that the single instance reported relating to South Africa’s implementation of CM 10-03 should be categorised as partially compliant and looked forward to an update from South Africa on the status of steps undertaken to address the staff shortage. 56. South Africa was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-03, where CDS data indicated that a landing of toothfish occurred for the Shinsei Maru No. 3 but no port inspection of the vessel had been undertaken. 57. Some Members expressed serious concern regarding this issue, highlighted the importance of port inspections as a key tool in combating IUU fishing and encouraged South Africa to take immediate actions to ensure a lack of inspection does not occur in the future. 58. SCIC agreed that this instance relating to South Africa’s implementation of CM 10-03 was non-compliant and further action was required. South Africa was invited to provide a report to be submitted intersessionally to explain the actions taken to remedy this case in the short term. 59. South Africa stressed to SCIC that it does not take this situation lightly and will provide a detailed report to CCAMLR within 90 days. South Africa further advised SCIC that four toothfish landings had occurred subsequent to the incident referred to in paragraph 56 and all landings had been inspected as required by CM 10-03. 60. South Africa was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 26-01, regarding bait packaging bands reported on board the El Shaddai. South Africa explained that the observer reported the finding to the vessel master and the bait packaging bands were subsequently cut up. South Africa stated that the company had been given a warning in relation to this issue and it expects full compliance from the company in the future. 61. SCIC agreed that the issue reported relating to South Africa’s implementation of CM 26-01 was non-compliant and noted the measures taken by South Africa in response. SCIC agreed that no further action was required. 62. Ukraine was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10 01, where the markings of the vessel Simeiz were 0.4 metres high and not the required 1.0 metre. Ukraine advised SCIC that the vessel changed its markings as soon as it entered lower latitudes where it was logistically possible to change them. Ukraine mentioned it had photo evidence of this that has been emailed to the inspector Member, New Zealand, and the CCAMLR Secretariat. 63. SCIC agreed that this single instance relating to the implementation of CM 10-01 by Ukraine should be categorised as partially compliant with no further action required. 64. Ukraine was invited to comment on issues relating to the implementation of CM 10 04, where the seal on the VMS unit was found to be broken on the Poseydon I. Ukraine had requested additional information and received clarification from Flag State authorities that the VMS seal was not an official seal and requested the cooperation of Chilean authorities in re-sealing the VMS unit via written correspondence. Ukraine reported that no response was received and considered that correspondence was lost in transmission. Ukraine further reported that until this investigation is resolved, the licence for this vessel will not be extended. 65. Chile expressed its commitment to working with Flag States to ensure compliance and agreed to work with Ukraine to resolve this investigation. 66. SCIC agreed that this single instance relating to the implementation of CM 10-04 by Ukraine was non-compliant and requested Ukraine submit a report to the Secretariat within 90 days. 67. Uruguay was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 10-03 when the reefer vessel Aquamarine and the fishing vessel Juvel were not inspected in the port of Montevideo within 48 hours of port entry. Uruguay explained the delay was due to administrative errors and operational difficulties. 68. Uruguay stressed this incident was due to operational difficulties and informed SCIC of difficulties associated with inspection of reefer vessels. Uruguay stressed it has a higher workload in Montevideo than other ports, which makes for a higher margin of error. 69. Uruguay made the following statement in regard to the System of Inspection:
70. Chile expressed its full support for the declaration made by Uruguay, in particular regarding the burden that a large number of inspections can present to Port States. 71. SCIC agreed, because neither vessel was carrying Dissostichus spp., both cases were given the status of compliant as Uruguay had complied with its obligations in relation to CM 10-03, paragraph 2. SCIC agreed that no further action was required. 72. Uruguay also discussed the instance relating to CM 10-03, where no inspection report was received for the landing of the Hong Jin No. 701. Uruguay notified SCIC that the event is currently under investigation. 73. SCIC agreed that, while understanding the reasons expressed by Uruguay, that this reported instance relating to Uruguay’s implementation of CM 10-03 was non-compliant, with further information required. Uruguay agreed to provide a detailed report to the Secretariat within 90 days. 74. SCIC adopted by consensus the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report (Appendix I) and forwarded the report to the Commission for adoption. |
| 2014 | SC-CAMLR-XXXIII | 3.175 to 3.209 |
Research to inform current or future assessments 3.175 The Scientific Committee considered general progress on research in data-poor exploratory and other fisheries reported by WG-SAM (Annex 5, paragraphs 3.1 to 3.5) and WG-FSA (Annex 7, paragraphs 5.121 to 5.130). The Scientific Committee noted the criteria that WG-FSA had used to formulate development of advice on catch limits for research fishing in the new and exploratory and other data-poor fisheries as outlined in Annex 7, paragraph 5.123, as well as the protocols used to select which tagged fish should be used and definition and renaming of research blocks. It also noted that Annex 7, Table 5, provides an update of local biomass where appropriate and indicates numbers of tag recaptures and likely tag availability in 2014/15. The Scientific Committee agreed that this advice describes an excellent process to guide research to achieve stock assessments in data-poor areas. 3.176 The Scientific Committee agreed that the catch limits in Annex 7, Table 5, are appropriate to achieve the aims of the research programs proposed in exploratory and other fisheries and recommended that these be considered as management advice by the Commission for catch limits for 2014/15. It also clarified that those limits are expected to remain for the duration of the proposed research programs, provided that they are reviewed by the working groups in light of information derived from research activities. 3.177 The Scientific Committee agreed that a map illustrating the location of all the research fishing plans approved for 2014/15 be included to assist the Commission in its deliberations (Figure 2). 3.178 The Scientific Committee also discussed the feasibility of research programs which include a large number of research blocks that are unlikely to be able to be surveyed in a single year by the proposed number of vessels due to the limited time window of access due to sea-ice. The Scientific Committee noted that the inclusion of multiple blocks as proposed increases the feasibility of the research in at least a subset of the proposed research blocks. The Scientific Committee agreed that, with the exception of the proposed research areas in SSRUs 5842A and C, where no research blocks are currently identified, Japan and the Republic of Korea could conduct research fishing in the research blocks designated by the Commission in 2013. In order to advance the research in an efficient manner, the Scientific Committee further agreed that the two programs focus on priority areas and recommended that Japan focus its research in Subarea 48.6 while Korea focus in Division 58.4.1, and schedule research at a time when sea-ice is likely to be at a minimum in the research blocks. 3.179 The Scientific Committee noted SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/09, discussing a general approach to assigning research catch limits for effort-limited surveys to address differences between expected and actual research catches. This approach involves carryover of uncaught catch limits, and the Scientific Committee noted that similar carryover provisions have been considered in situations where sea-ice affects access to fishing grounds. Carryover provisions for research fishing would need to be consistent with the Scientific Committee’s advice on CCAMLR-sponsored research (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraphs 8.9 to 8.11). The Scientific Committee recommended that this issue be further considered by the Commission. 3.180 The exploratory fishery for Dissostichus spp. in Subarea 48.6 operated in accordance with CM 41-04 and associated measures. In 2013/14, the catch limit for Dissostichus spp. was 538 tonnes. Research fishing was conducted in two research blocks by two vessels using longlines and the total reported catch up to 20 September 2014 was 153 tonnes. SSRU D was closed on 10 February 2014 following completion of research fishing and the total catch of Dissostichus spp. in that SSRU was 50 tonnes (100% of the catch limit). 3.181 The Scientific Committee noted that the research jointly undertaken by Japan and South Africa to date appears to be producing encouraging results, with 42 tagged fish recaptured in 19 months of research, and could lead to an assessment in the northern part of Subarea 48.6 in 2015. However, it also expressed concern with respect to the possible increase in IUU activity in the area, which could have negative impacts on the stocks in the region and the operation of the research being undertaken. 3.182 Research proposals to fish in Subarea 48.6 in 2014/15 had been submitted by Japan (to be conducted with South Africa) and the Republic of Korea. The Scientific Committee noted that the proponents had requested several variations to the previous research plan, including increased flexibility under adverse ice conditions, whether catch limits not taken in one year could be rolled over to the following year and an increase in catch limit from 50 to 100 tonnes in research block 486_3, and that these issues had already been discussed by WG-SAM (Annex 5, paragraphs 3.11 to 3.20) and by WG-FSA (Annex 7, paragraphs 5.54 to 5.59). 3.183 The Scientific Committee noted that the ice analysis undertaken at WG-FSA had greatly assisted in understanding the dynamics of sea-ice conditions in the southern research blocks (Annex 7, Figure 12). The Scientific Committee acknowledged that sea-ice analysis in some of the southern research blocks of Subarea 48.6 indicated that research activities in consecutive years may be difficult and that there was a need to allow for some flexibility. It recommended that the results of the ice analyses be included in its report to the Commission (Figure 1) and also tasked the Secretariat with providing a compilation of previous discussions on the need for flexibility due to ice conditions for the Commission. 3.184 Mr S. Nakatsuka (Japan) noted that Japan had requested some additional flexibility in vessel activities in the southern research blocks because of the sometimes heavy and variable sea-ice conditions as indicated by the sea-ice analysis (Figure 1). He noted that having additional, but limited, flexibility on the shelf area might provide data on tag recaptures, although noting that this is less likely outside of the research blocks. He was not seeking endorsement of this flexibility at the Scientific Committee and was prepared to present Japan’s case further to the Commission. 3.185 The Scientific Committee noted the advice from WG-SAM (Annex 5, paragraph 3.15), that rolling over catch limits would be associated with a high degree of uncertainty and associated risks, as there is an absence of knowledge relative to biomass and productivity in these areas and thus a risk for the stock to be negatively impacted. In the absence of an analysis characterising the potential risk that carrying over research catch limits will not overly impact the stock, the Scientific Committee was unable to provide further advice on the issue at this stage. 3.186 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-FSA had discussed a proposal to increase the research catch in research block 486_3 from 50 to 100 tonnes (Annex 7, paragraph 5.58) However, it agreed with the advice from WG-FSA that it was important to remain consistent when undertaking a planned multiyear research activity. Consistency across survey seasons will ensure that the signals coming from the research will not be compromised by alterations of the research design during the course of the planned activity. At the end of the planned research, changes to the attributes of the design, or recommendations that other approaches should be explored, can be advised. 3.187 The Scientific Committee therefore recommended that the research catch limits from last year be retained for 2014/15. The recommended catch limits are as follows: SSRUs A and G Dissostichus eleginoides 28 tonnes Dissostichus spp. Division 58.4.3a (Elan Bank) 3.189 The exploratory fishery for Dissostichus spp. in Division 58.4.3a operated in accordance with CM 41-06 and associated measures. In 2013/14, the catch limit for Dissostichus spp. was 32 tonnes. Research fishing was conducted in the research block by two vessels using longlines. The fishery was closed on 31 August 2014 following completion of research fishing and the total catch of Dissostichus spp. was 32 tonnes (100% of the catch limit). 3.190 The Scientific Committee noted that France and Japan proposed to continue this research in 2014/15 and that WG-SAM had provided advice to refine these proposals (Annex 5, paragraphs 3.32 to 3.38). 3.191 The Scientific Committee noted that there had been further developments of CASAL integrated stock assessment models for this division but that they were not yet sufficiently robust to provide management advice. It encouraged further development of these models in the intersessional period, taking into account the points identified by WG-FSA in Annex 7, paragraph 5.86, and be further reviewed by WG-SAM-15. 3.192 The Scientific Committee endorsed the advice of WG-FSA and recommended: (i) retaining the catch limit of 32 tonnes for research conducted in this division in 2014/15, based on an updated Petersen biomass estimate (Annex 7, paragraph 5.92) 3.193 The Scientific Committee also welcomed the proposal by France to tag and release skates during research fishing in this division. 3.194 The Scientific Committee noted that substantial number of tags were now being recaptured in this fishery and there was an expectation that a robust assessment was likely for this division in the near future. It therefore requested that WG-SAM-15 consider how the data collection plan for this fishery may be modified once an assessment is available for the toothfish fishery in this division. Dissostichus spp. Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 3.195 The exploratory fishery for Dissostichus spp. in Division 58.4.1 operated in accordance with CM 41-11 and associated measures. In 2013/14, the catch limit for Dissostichus spp. was 724 tonnes. Research fishing was conducted in the research block by one vessel using longlines and the total catch was 101 tonnes. No research fishing was carried out in Division 58.4.2. 3.196 The Scientific Committee noted that Japan, the Republic of Korea and Spain proposed to conduct research in these Divisions in 2014/15. It further noted that WG-SAM had provided advice to refine these proposals (Annex 5, paragraphs 3.25 to 3.31). 3.197 The Scientific Committee noted that Spain had been unable to complete depletion experiments in SSRU 5841C within the 42 tonnes allocated. It noted that Spain had continued the research after discussion with the Secretariat and Japan, and the research had concluded after 54 tonnes were taken, within the catch limit for this SSRU. 3.198 The Scientific Committee requested the Commission consider a mechanism that would provide the flexibility necessary if more than 42 tonnes are required to complete the experiment in 2014/15. 3.199 It also endorsed the advice in Annex 7, paragraph 5.99, that the priority for this research is to return to the areas where depletions have been observed, that lines should be set close together to ensure that variability in CPUE observed can be attributed to local depletion rather than variation in toothfish density across an area. It also encouraged the development of an ageing program to further the development of stock assessments in this region. 3.200 The Scientific Committee endorsed the recommendation by WG-FSA to conduct a review of the Spanish depletion experiment at WG-SAM-15, with the review taking account of the issues identified in Annex 7, paragraph 5.100. 3.201 The Scientific Committee noted the discussion of the Korean proposal to release satellite pop-up tags and endorsed the recommendation to release all three tags in a single location. It also welcomed the collaboration between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea to establish an ageing program for toothfish in Korea. 3.202 The Scientific Committee noted that all proposals for research in this region included blocks periodically affected by sea-ice. It noted the analyses conducted by WG-FSA that indicated that research blocks are most likely to be ice-free in February (e.g. Annex 7, Figure 12). It consequently endorsed the advice of WG-FSA-14 that research by Japan and the Republic of Korea in 2014/15 be focussed on those block(s) designated in 2013 that have a high number of tags available for recapture and that are likely to be accessible. Given that no further information on stock status or productivity was available, the Scientific Committee recommended that the same catch limits apply to these research blocks in 2014/15 as were recommended in 2013/14. 3.203 The Scientific Committee acknowledged that sea-ice posed a significant obstacle to progressing stock assessments based on tag recaptures in many exploratory fisheries. It therefore requested that WG-SAM-15 review research methods to develop stock assessments in these areas, taking into account the experience and data collected from research activities conducted in exploratory toothfish fisheries in areas affected by sea-ice, habitat modelling of toothfish, sea-ice maps and the operational capabilities of fishing vessels. 3.204 The Scientific Committee encouraged the inclusion of sea-ice data in the further development of circumpolar toothfish habitat models, such as those usefully presented in WG-FSA-14/65, noting that such models would assist the Scientific Committee in advising on future research on toothfish. Dissostichus spp. Subarea 48.2 3.205 The Scientific Committee noted the proposal by Ukraine to conduct research fishing in Subarea 48.2 under CM 24-01 and the review of this proposal by WG-SAM-14 (Annex 5, paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5) and WG-FSA-14 (Annex 7, paragraphs 5.45 to 5.46). 3.206 The Scientific Committee welcomed the revised proposal by Ukraine and noted the undertaking that results for the first year of research to develop an assessment will be reviewed by WG-SAM-15. It endorsed the advice of WG-FSA (Annex 7, paragraph 5.48) that the research plan in Subarea 48.2 proceed with an effort limit of 30 lines and catch limit of 75 tonnes of Dissostichus spp., tagging 5 toothfish per tonne, with a minimum tag overlap of 80%. Dissostichus spp. Division 58.4.4a and 58.4.4b (Ob and Lena Banks) 3.207 The Scientific Committee noted that Japan had conducted research fishing in Divisions 58.4.4a and 58.4.4b in 2013/14 and that France and Japan proposed to conduct research in this division in 2014/15. It further welcomed the substantial progress made in developing a stock assessment using CASAL for this division and endorsed the advice of WG-FSA for further development of this model (Annex 7, paragraph 5.86). 3.208 The Scientific Committee endorsed the management advice provided by WG-FSA that the research fishing proposed by France and Japan proceed in this division with a catch limit of 25 tonnes in research block C and 35 tonnes in block D. It further requested that research activities be coordinated between France and Japan so that selectivity and catch rates can be standardised across the vessels and impacts of depredation minimised. Dissostichus spp. in Subarea 88.1 and SSRUs 882A–B Multiyear research plan for the Ross Sea 3.209 The Scientific Committee noted that a 3–5 year research plan had been developed for the Ross Sea toothfish fishery by New Zealand, Norway and the UK (Annex 7, paragraph 5.120). The research plan aims to address information needs for management of the Ross Sea region D. mawsoni population focusing on improved biological parameters for stock assessment and improved understanding of ecosystem effects of fishing. The Scientific Committee welcomed the plan noting that the plan was consistent with the principles of a data collection plan as described in CM 21-02. The Scientific Committee encouraged other Members to review and operationally support the plan and looked forward to progress on the topics identified. |
| 2014 | SC-CAMLR-XXXIII | 5.11 to 5.76 |
Marine Protected Areas Domain 1 – Western Antarctic Peninsula and South Scotia Sea 5.11 The Scientific Committee noted recent progress on the development of MPAs in Domain 1 (Annex 6, paragraph 3.19), including progress achieved during a recent bilateral Chilean–Argentine meeting for identifying candidate MPAs. Twenty-nine conservation objectives were identified, with data and shapefiles (spatial distribution layers) available for 20 of these. 5.12 The Scientific Committee welcomed the progress made by Chile and Argentina and acknowledged the leading role played by Dr Arata in the project. It agreed that the project provided a clear demonstration of the MPA development process, including the iterative process between scientists and policy-makers in defining MPA objectives, a process consistent with the approach previously recommended by the Scientific Committee (SC CAMLR-XXIX, paragraph 5.16). 5.13 The Scientific Committee noted the deliberations by WG-EMM that recognised that Domain 1 was defined to cover the krill-centric ecosystem as well as important links between the South Orkney Islands and the Antarctic Peninsula, and, consequently, that it was important to consider how spatial protection and harvesting might interact across the region. The Scientific Committee endorsed the conclusion by WG-EMM (Annex 6, paragraph 3.23) that Domain 1 should be maintained as a single planning domain. 5.14 The Scientific Committee endorsed the proposal (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/20 and Annex 6, paragraph 3.25) to hold a Second CCAMLR Technical Workshop on the Development of MPAs in Domain 1 during 2015, to address policy considerations and the evaluation of different MPA scenarios. It also endorsed the proposed terms of reference for the Workshop, which were: (i) review the available data that support the existing specific conservation objectives: (a) perform a critical analysis of existing data (ii) consider different candidate MPA scenarios submitted by Members: (a) Members participating in the technical workshop should develop candidate MPA proposals using their preferred protection targets and costs selected from the conservation objectives already defined for Domain 1 (WG EMM-14/40, Table 1), or other conservation requirements, e.g. reference areas (iii) undertake a sensitivity analysis of different scenarios: (a) explore the sensitivities associated with using different scenarios in order to identify those targets and costs driving the variability between scenarios. 5.15 SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/20 provides further details about the proposed Second CCAMLR Technical Workshop on the Development of MPAs in Domain 1. The Scientific Committee endorsed the proposal to hold the workshop in Buenos Aires, Argentina, potentially in late May or early June 2015, co-convened by Drs Arata and E. Marschoff (Argentina). The Scientific Committee recognised that there would be considerable benefit in considering Domain 3 and 4 (the Weddell Sea MPA Planning Region) at the same workshop and asked Drs Arata and Marschoff to liaise with Prof. T. Brey (Germany) accordingly (paragraphs 5.21 and 5.23). 5.16 The Scientific Committee recognised that the outputs from the workshop will help facilitate a roadmap for preparing future candidate MPA proposals for Domain 1. 5.17 The Scientific Committee noted progress on the development of a network of MPAs in the vicinity of Akademik Vernadsky Station. Previous work led to outline proposals for MPAs in the Stella Creek and Skua Creek areas. Subsequently, additional scuba dive surveys have been carried out to enhance available information on biodiversity and community composition. The Scientific Committee noted the change of name from ‘Network of marine protected areas’ to ‘Network of special investigation/research areas’ (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraph 5.28). Domains 3 and 4 – Weddell Sea 5.18 The Scientific Committee noted the outcome of WG-EMM discussions on the development of a proposal for MPA(s) in the Weddell Sea (MPA Planning Domains 3 and 4) (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.1 to 3.18). It also noted the summary of information provided by Germany on the state of data processing, the scientific analyses undertaken and a report on the international workshop held in Germany in April 2014 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/08). This workshop was attended by 41 participants from 13 CCAMLR Member States. It greatly fostered the involvement of international expertise in the identification of further information and data, and in the development of objectives for the Weddell Sea MPA(s). 5.19 As part of further work on the scientific basis in support of the development of a Weddell Sea MPA(s), pelagic regionalisation based on environmental data has been completed, compilation and analysis of a substantial amount of relevant data has been undertaken and an extensive draft background document has also been developed (SC CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/02). 5.20 The Scientific Committee congratulated Germany for the comprehensive and clear compilation of information and data in the draft background document. 5.21 The Scientific Committee welcomed and endorsed the progress made by Germany and the workshop participants. It agreed that the draft scientific background document (SC CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/02) should be regarded as a foundation reference document for the Weddell Sea MPA planning; it should be posted on the CCAMLR website at an appropriate location. The Scientific Committee encouraged the proponents to continue the project with the engagement of interested Members. A further international workshop could be useful to address some of the next steps (paragraph 5.15). 5.22 The Scientific Committee also noted WG-EMM discussions on the incorporation of additional datasets in the Weddell Sea MPA planning process, including toothfish longline surveys, exploratory toothfish fishery data, Adélie penguin habitat use, and the possible inclusion of cetacean sightings data (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5). 5.23 The Scientific Committee endorsed the Weddell Sea pelagic regionalisation as a useful characterisation of the pelagic environment (WG-EMM-14/19, Figure 7). It further noted the importance of considering the boundaries of the Weddell Sea planning domain with the neighbouring Planning Domain 1 at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula and agreed that work on the development of MPAs in this area should be undertaken collaboratively with the Domain 1 planning process (paragraph 5.15). 5.24 The Scientific Committee also endorsed advice from WG-EMM-14 that the process of developing the datasets would be facilitated by considering these in relation to a list of specific protection objectives consistent with those indicated in CM 91-04, paragraph 2. It agreed that there may be a hierarchy of objectives for this region and endorsement of any relative levels of protection associated with different protection objectives is a decision for the Commission. 5.25 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-EMM-14 had also examined proposals for possible joint research by Russian and German scientists in the eastern part of the Weddell Sea to enhance the collation and utilisation of data required for MPA development, focussing specifically on ichthyoplankton, Antarctic krill in the northwest Weddell Sea and the toothfish life-cycle, including a proposed survey on the shelf for smaller fish. 5.26 It was further noted that WG-EMM-14 had discussed a systematic conservation planning process, where protection objectives include the protection of particular life-history stages of the target species, and had suggested the usefulness of an exercise to examine historical data in the context of the hydrodynamic model framework for the northern Weddell Sea and Scotia Sea. 5.27 Prof. Brey gave a presentation to the Scientific Committee on the next steps in the process of finalising the scientific background document and the establishment of a first draft MPA proposal for consideration at next year’s meetings of WG-EMM, the Scientific Committee and the Commission respectively. In order to continue the productive cooperation with all Members in the further development of these products and to ensure an open and transparent process, a CCAMLR e-group (Weddell Sea MPA) has recently been established on the CCAMLR website. 5.28 On behalf of the Weddell Sea MPA project team, Dr Hain and Prof. Brey thanked all Members and experts for their efforts to contribute to the Weddell Sea MPA project so far and hoped for their further dedicated involvement and contributions. 5.29 Russia informed the Scientific Committee that it is closely collaborating with Germany in the research and analyses to develop the necessary documentation for a Weddell Sea MPA proposal in accordance with CM 91-04. The Weddell Sea is an interesting and challenging area for science. Just last year, spawning sites of icefish (Chaenodraco wilsoni) were discovered on the shelf of the southern Weddell Sea with a density of more than two nests per square metre. The Russian Federation further noted the importance of cooperation between CCAMLR Members in the implementation and operationalisation of a Weddell Sea MPA(s), and looked forward to continuing engagement. 5.30 The Scientific Committee noted that a set of specific conservation objectives for a Weddell Sea MPA will be developed, inter alia, on the basis of the input received at the international expert workshop, the results of the still ongoing scientific data analyses and the deliberations on the CCAMLR e-group. Domain 7 – East Antarctica 5.31 The Scientific Committee noted the discussions at WG-EMM-14 on the development of a representative system of MPAs in Planning Domain 7, East Antarctica (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.30 to 3.36). The Working Group had considered a report bringing together the information provided to the Scientific Committee and its working groups on the East Antarctic Planning Domain since 2010. This report was structured according to the MPA Report sections originally proposed in 2012, with an additional section on threats. A section on the identification of planning locations identified seven possible areas for inclusion in the East Antarctica representative system of MPAs (RSMPA). Four of these seven areas were highlighted as contributing to the RSMPA; these have been revised with updated boundaries that have been negotiated intersessionally among Members. 5.32 The Scientific Committee reviewed the three MPA planning reference documents that were submitted by Australia, France and the EU as an update to the MPA Report originally submitted to WG EMM (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/38, XXXIII/BG/39 and XXXIII/BG/40). Updates were based on advice received from the working group, including recommendations to incorporate further data and to more clearly highlight the methods and data used to develop each scenario. 5.33 SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/38 provided background information on the planning domain, and on the seven areas initially proposed, with the rationale behind that work. SC CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/39 described the proposed representative system, which includes four areas for protection. SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/40 described the research and monitoring work that has been completed and that is currently underway to support the establishment of these MPAs. 5.34 The Scientific Committee welcomed the three reference documents, noting that the very large amount of information consolidated therein has been previously reviewed by WG EMM and the Scientific Committee, and that the suggestions from WG-EMM-14 have been taken into account. It endorsed the advice that the MPA planning reference document format is a good way to synthesise information for ease of reference and agreed that it would be useful to place such documents on the CCAMLR website (see paragraph 5.48) as living documents. 5.35 Dr Ichii noted that the inclusion of recent information on the dynamic nature of the ecosystem, and especially on whales and penguins, is a useful update to the document. However, it is not clear whether the activities outlined in the research and monitoring plan can contribute to the understanding of ecosystem dynamics and climate change in the region. While predator data are more readily available through current monitoring programs, it may be difficult to obtain data on prey since no time-series data exist for this region. Dr Ichii also expressed concern about the resources available for future research and suggested that it will be necessary to secure further funds for research and monitoring to support the MPA. 5.36 Dr Constable expressed his thanks for the feedback provided on these reference documents and appreciation for the cooperation of other Members. He reaffirmed the commitment of Australia to research and monitoring in the East Antarctic region, noting that two surveys have been undertaken in support of krill conservation measures in the region, and two further proposals to undertake research and long-term monitoring in the proposed MPAs are currently under consideration for approval. Dr Constable invited all Members to contribute to research and monitoring in this region, noting that Australia would be pleased to help coordinate and collaborate in such activities. 5.37 Dr Bizikov noted that the objectives of each area are now more clearly defined, but he expressed concern about how monitoring and management will be carried out with regard to the conservation objectives for benthic communities, given the expensive nature of benthic research. He noted that from the perspective of toothfish research this area is data poor and suggested that closing large marine areas would exacerbate this situation. While accepting that the MPA needs to be established in order to stimulate scientific research, he noted that there should be a clear understanding on how the research and monitoring plan will be realised in practice. 5.38 Dr Bizikov also introduced SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/02, which reflects general concerns regarding the establishment of an MPA in East Antarctica. This paper notes that although the number of proposed areas in East Antarctica is now smaller than in the original proposal, the total area is still very large. It also notes that the current proposal is based on data that are 8 to 9 years old, and that no new data have been incorporated. Benthic communities proposed for protection are not currently subject to any threat, since bottom fishing is not permitted in areas shallower than 500 m. The rectangular boundaries of the proposed areas are poorly justified, and the variability of the environment and biogeography are not sufficiently taken into account. The paper expresses concern that the MPA will have an adverse effect on activities in East Antarctica and could lead to increased IUU fishing in the region if there are no legally operating vessels there. It also suggests that it will be difficult to understand the region in the absence of scientific information from fisheries and that a proper study of this very large area is impossible without fishing vessels as a platform for scientific research. 5.39 In response, Dr Constable noted that the points in this paper and those on research and monitoring plans are matters for consideration by the Commission. Regarding the potential consequences for fisheries, he drew the attention of the Scientific Committee to the summary of an analysis on the effects on fisheries in SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/38 (pp. 88–90) and XXXIII/BG/39 (p. 61), which indicates that catch rates and yield for toothfish and krill would not be affected by the proposed MPAs. Dr Constable expressed support for research to be 5.40 Dr Zhao suggested that the analysis of potential effects of the MPA on catch rates is not valid because it does not consider the cost of displacing fishing activities. 5.41 Drs Watters and V. Siegel (EU) expressed support for the scientific justification of the proposed MPA boundaries. They also disputed the assertion that biogeography has not been sufficiently considered, noting that the East Antarctica RSMPA concept was founded on the notion of biogeographic provinces, and that the supporting documents clearly state how the MPAs are designed to represent these different provinces. 5.42 The Scientific Committee agreed that every Member is encouraged to participate in MPA research and monitoring. 5.43 The Scientific Committee drew the attention of the Commission to the following points regarding research and monitoring plans: (i) research and monitoring plans need to include elements related to reviewing MPAs and their management, and may include research relating to key knowledge gaps 5.44 The Scientific Committee noted that review processes would be expected to enable regular updating of the MPAs and their management on the basis of new data arising from the research and monitoring work. Domain 8 – Ross Sea 5.45 The Scientific Committee noted the papers by New Zealand and the USA describing the chronology of previously submitted scientific documents, updated maps and analyses supporting MPA planning in the Ross Sea region (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/23 Rev. 1) and new research consistent with a proposed draft research and monitoring plan for a Ross Sea region MPA (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/24). 5.46 Noting the discussions at WG-EMM-14 (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.64 to 3.69), the Scientific Committee agreed that there was a distinction between an MPA Report and documents supporting MPA planning and proposals (‘MPA planning reference documents’) in different planning domains or regions. It agreed that the latter could include: (i) documents providing background information, (ii) descriptions of spatial data used in the planning process, (iii) methodological descriptions of approaches, and (iv) documents containing or describing the MPA proposals. Information contained in all of these reference documents would then form the basis of future MPA Reports, which were expected to be developed in support of MPAs after adoption of those MPAs. 5.47 The Scientific Committee recommended that MPA planning reference documents should be assembled on a regional or MPA planning domain basis. In this context, it would be helpful for the information presented for the Weddell Sea and MPA Planning Domain 1 to be assembled as such MPA planning reference documents. However, there should be flexibility for proponents to decide on the extent to which they may also wish to develop synthesis or summary documents, as the requirement for such documents may vary between planning domains. 5.48 In order to make MPA planning reference documents accessible to all Members, the Scientific Committee agreed that they could be placed on the CCAMLR website under a separate ‘Conservation’ tab, with an area for Member access only. This area could then also be used by Members to post documents related to, or commenting on, the MPA planning and proposals in a certain planning domain or region. 5.49 The Scientific Committee agreed that the development of the content of MPA Reports would best be undertaken by WG-EMM. However, it acknowledged the high existing workload of WG-EMM, and the need to prioritise tasks accordingly (paragraph 13.2). It was noted that the MPA Report represents an executive summary for discussion at, and subsequently agreed to by, the Scientific Committee and used to support the MPA once established. 5.50 Japan introduced its MPA checklist proposal (CCAMLR-XXXIII/27) and welcomed any feedback comments from Members. The Scientific Committee noted CCAMLR-XXXIII/BG/20 and XXXIII/BG/24 Rev. 2 submitted by ASOC. 5.51 The Scientific Committee noted recent discussions at WG-EMM related to the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA (SOISS MPA) (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.39 to 3.62) and considered revised versions of the MPA Report (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/19) and the research and monitoring plan (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/11). 5.52 The Scientific Committee noted that the MPA Report and the research and monitoring plan had both been revised following recommendations from WG-EMM in 2013 and 2014. These recommendations included clarification of the protection objectives, information about how monitoring activities could compare the status of features inside the MPA with those outside and the elaboration of research activities that could also contribute to the wider planning process for Domain 1 (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.46 and 3.55). 5.53 The MPA Report is structured according to the sections initially proposed by WG EMM (SC-CAMLR-XXXI, Annex 6, paragraphs 3.73 to 3.76), modified to take into account comments from the e-group requested by the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraph 5.18). The report contained sections on (i) description of the region, (ii) regional and specific objectives (as defined in previous proposal papers), (iii) a summary of historical and recent activities, and (iv) a summary of research and monitoring activities and results available since 2009. Finally, it included an assessment of the MPA and effects of human activities, including the extent to which the MPA objectives have been achieved, as well as an analysis of current and potential threats. 5.54 The MPA Report demonstrates the range of research activities that have been undertaken since 2009, related to the specific objectives of the MPA, and monitoring activities to evaluate the extent to which these objectives are being met. These are cross-referenced to the research and monitoring plan and to other papers submitted to WG-EMM describing the results of recent research. It also describes the requirements for new research and monitoring (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.42). 5.55 The final section of the MPA Report provides an assessment of the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA and the effect of activities; it concludes that the scientific basis supporting the protection of the features within the MPA remains the same as at the time of its adoption. However, the report also noted that five years is a short time frame in which to assess regional ecological characteristics and that fully analysed results from some of the research and monitoring activities carried out during recent years will only start to become available during the next reporting period. 5.56 The Scientific Committee welcomed the research and monitoring plan and the MPA Report, and agreed that these documents provided a good format for describing research and monitoring activities. In particular, they provided information on research activities that are completed or ongoing by cross-referencing to other published papers or CCAMLR working group documents. 5.57 Dr Bizikov thanked the authors of the MPA Report and the research and monitoring plan for their careful work and suggested that these documents allowed the Scientific Committee to see what had been successful or not – and what CCAMLR ought to be doing with the SOISS MPA. 5.58 Dr Bizikov presented document SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/01 with the analysis of the first five-year reference period of the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA. He noted that the MPA in Subarea 48.2 exists for five years but still, it has no research and monitoring plan approved by the Scientific Committee. He expressed his delegation’s view regarding documents (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/11 and XXXIII/BG/19) and focused in particular on the following concerns: (i) according to the MPA Report (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/19) few researches have been accomplished within or around the South Orkney MPA between 2009 and 2014 5.59 The Scientific Committee agreed with the general approach for the review of CM 91 03, as outlined in WG-EMM-14/26, noting that information relevant to the review can be found in the MPA Report and research and monitoring plan (Annex 6, paragraph 3.60). 5.60 Mr W. Yang (China) also welcomed the research and monitoring plan and recalled that China had originally proposed before the adoption of the MPA in 2009 that such a plan should be developed. Some Members said such a plan should be made in the Commission but during the 2009–2013 the plan has not been developed. He added that the MPA Report indicated that data related to research activities were not derived from new field data, but from reanalyses of existing research. He noted that activities such as the results from acoustic surveys and from mooring activities were not presented. He drew the attention of Members to the conclusions in the MPA report that there is no evidence that characteristics in MPAs have changed and he questioned how conclusions can be drawn with such limited scientific information. 5.61 Dr Trathan noted that CM 91-03 was agreed before CM 91-04 and that at the time of adoption of CM 91-03 there was no requirement for a research and monitoring plan. However, the EU had indicated that it was seeking to harmonise CM 91-03 with CM 91-04 and hence the research and monitoring plan (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/11) was developed in accordance with CM 91-04. 5.62 Dr Siegel reported that the MPA Report provided details of ongoing research, including reference to Norwegian acoustic surveys (e.g. WG-EMM-14/16), Argentine research surveys (e.g. WG-EMM-14/06 Rev. 1), UK/Argentine penguin tracking research (Dunn et al., 2011; WG-EMM-14/25), UK/Norwegian oceanographic modelling (WG-EMM-14/08), UK analyses of sea-ice (WG-EMM-14/11), UK geomorphic classification work (WG EMM-14/P01) and Australian pelagic bioregionalisation work (WS-MPA-11/6). In addition, he noted that other relevant work is ongoing and has been notified to WG-EMM; this includes: (i) UK/USA oceanographic moorings inside and outside the MPA (WG-EMM-14/25) 5.63 Dr Siegel noted that the results from these projects are not yet complete and will only emerge over time; however, he noted that it was important to recognise the amount of work that has been initiated directly because of the MPA. 5.64 Prof. K. Kovacs (Norway) reported that the Norwegian penguin tracking work at the South Orkney Islands was also directly related to the SOISS MPA. 5.65 Dr Hain reported on research from the German research vessel Polarstern in the context of the International Austral Late Winter Expedition ANTXXIX/7 which took place in the northern Weddell Sea from south of the South Orkney Islands to the southwest and east of the South Sandwich Islands. This cruise focussed on locating spawning and nursery areas for Antarctic krill. The preliminary findings confirmed the importance of sea-ice for the life cycle of krill, while further results will become available over the coming year. The results have important implications for the SOISS MPA and will contribute to the achievement of its objectives. 5.66 Dr Bizikov noted that not all research activity was related to the MPA and expressed doubt as to whether activities that have always taken place can be related to some objectives. He suggested that some work is not related to the objectives of the SOISS MPA. He recalled that research and monitoring plans were not required when the SOISS MPA was designated, and that CM 91-04 had not been agreed. However, he needed to understand what had been done in the current reporting period. Dr Bizikov noted that the Norwegian acoustic surveys were originally intended for Bouvet Island, while analyses of geomorphology and sea-ice distribution were hard to link to the protection objectives. He recognised that research on penguins was valuable, but that this was more appropriate to marine areas close to the South Orkney Islands. 5.67 Dr Trathan indicated that Table 4 in SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/19 provided details of each specific MPA objective, the relevant research activities, the specific activities undertaken between 2009 and 2014 and the status of current research. 5.68 Dr Bizikov questioned how the research and monitoring plan would be implemented. 5.69 Dr Trathan responded that the Commission had already agreed that research and monitoring plans are the responsibility of all Members. However, he pointed out that the EU and collaborators had made considerable efforts to put together a research plan which had been supported by WG-EMM (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.54 and 3.60). He noted that the development of a research plan takes time to fund, and results take time to accumulate. Dr Trathan assured Dr Bizikov that there is an ongoing impetus to fulfil the plan. 5.70 Mr Yang expressed concerns regarding the differences of protection objectives described in the MPA Report and research and monitoring plan from CM 91-03, but recognised that these were issues for the Commission. He agreed that the format of the MPA report is appropriate but the content of the MPA report and the research and monitoring plan need to be discussed in detail. 5.71 Dr Bizikov introduced SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/01 and highlighted that the research and monitoring plan did not address the MPA protection objectives. He questioned how reference areas or work in Antarctic Specially Managed Areas close to the islands was relevant to the SOISS MPA. 5.72 Dr Trathan noted that the specific protection objectives contained in SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/01 differed from those described in the research and monitoring plan, which comprised: (i) to protect representative examples of pelagic marine ecosystems, biodiversity and habitats in the Southern Scotia Arc region 5.73 Dr D. Freeman (New Zealand) highlighted that both the MPA Report and the research and monitoring plan had been favourably reviewed by WG-EMM (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.39 to 3.62). She noted that WG-EMM had recommended a number of changes and that these had been incorporated. Dr Freeman noted that significant amounts of monitoring had been undertaken and further research was planned. 5.74 Dr Trathan noted that the Commission has not provided specific guidelines about how it would undertake its review of the SOISS MPA. He suggested that the Scientific Committee would therefore need to inform the Commission that: (i) a research and monitoring plan has been developed and that it had been reviewed and welcomed by WG-EMM 5.75 Dr Constable suggested that much of this discussion should be remitted to the Commission, where the review of CM 91-03 will be undertaken. He recalled that CM 91-03 was established prior to CM 91-04. He suggested that the EU had provided a research and monitoring plan consistent with the needs of CM 91-04, but the degree to which they need to be the same is a matter for the Commission. Dr Constable noted that the Commission will need to decide how the research and monitoring plan should be prioritised. 5.76 Following substantive discussion, the Scientific Committee endorsed the advice from WG-EMM (Annex 6, paragraph 3.69) that SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/19 provides an appropriate MPA Report for the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA. |
| 2014 | SC-CAMLR-XXXIII | Annex 5, 3.1 to 3.5 |
3.1 The Working Group commended the high standard of the research plans, which has improved substantially over the last few years. It acknowledged the improvement in the research proposals, the analysis and presentation of the results and the effort of Members to start ageing otoliths. The Working Group followed the established process to review the design and methodology in research proposals and noted that WG-FSA would review the catch limits. This process is described in SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraphs 3.170, 3.171 and 3.183. 3.2 The Working Group noted that the reviews of progress in developing assessments based on research proposals did not include all the data available, as some data from the current season were not available at the time of the analysis. The Working Group recommended that the table generated at WG-FSA-13 (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, Table 3) for assessing research proposals be used as a template to be updated by the Secretariat in advance of WG-SAM and WG-FSA each year. It further recommended that three columns be added with data from the most recent season: actual catch to date, expected tags recovered given that catch, and actual tags recovered. 3.3 The Working Group recommended that available data in the CCAMLR database could be used by the Secretariat to start developing circumpolar habitat modelling of toothfish. It further noted that an in-depth review of all research should be undertaken at the end of the initial three years and would be useful to evaluate how Members had addressed their planned objectives. However, it also noted that in many areas the approved research plans have not yet been implemented. 3.4 The Working Group noted that in most cases two or more Members were carrying out research fishing under CMs 21-02 or 24-01 in the same parts of the Convention Area. The Working Group discussed approaches for harmonising this research, including operational aspects of the fishing by vessels, data analysis and otolith age determination, as well as the development of stock assessments. 3.5 The Working Group recognised that there were practical difficulties in collaboration and coordination and encouraged the Scientific Committee to consider mechanisms that could be put in place to help Members to work together more effectively to deliver multi-Member research proposals to meet the needs of CCAMLR. |
| 2014 | SC-CAMLR-XXXIII | Annex 7, 5.121 to 5.130 |
Summary of advice on the catch limits of exploratory and other fisheries 5.121 The Working Group discussed the results of research fishing in 2013/14 and reviewed the number of recaptures of tagged fish predicted at its 2013 meeting (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, Annex 6, paragraphs 6.26 to 6.28 and Table 13). 5.122 In 2013, the Working Group defined research catch limits that would achieve 10 or more recaptures in 2013/14 without exceeding local exploitation rates of approximately 0.04. Where multiple plausible local biomass estimates were available, the more precautionary option was selected, unless other evidence supported a higher local biomass (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, Annex 6, paragraph 6.26 and Table 13). 5.123 The Working Group recalled that the following criteria had been used in formulating the information and advice contained in SC-CAMLR-XXXII, Annex 6, Table 13: (i) Local biomass was estimated using available data (Petersen, CPUE seabed analogy) and the lowest estimate (B) was selected. 5.124 The Working Group also recalled that the number of tagged fish available for recapture within each research block was based on a subset of data representing ‘effective tag releases’. Only tagged fish from vessels from which at least one of their tagged fish had subsequently been recaptured (from effective tag releases, and excluding tagged fish which had been released and recaptured in the same season) are used for the estimation of local abundance using the Petersen estimator and for subsequent calculations on expected recaptures under different catch limits and in stock assessments (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, Annex 6, paragraph 6.13). This method has been applied to vessels in each subarea where research fishing occurs, pending development of alternative methods. 5.125 The Working Group noted the following points in relation to SC-CAMLR-XXXII, Annex 6, Table 13: (i) the boundaries of research blocks in Subarea 48.6 and Divisions 58.4.1, 58.4.2 and 58.4.3a are defined in CMs 41-04, 41-11, 41-05 and 41-06 respectively 5.126 The Working Group also noted that the research blocks used at WG-FSA-13 were renamed by the Commission in 2013 to avoid confusion with SSRU nomenclature (CCAMLR-XXXII, paragraph 7.88) and the mapping of current names to the names used at WG-FSA-13 is as follows: Current name Name used at WG-FSA-13 5.127 The Working Group estimated the number of tags available for recapture in each research block in 2014 (using only ‘effective tag releases’) and compared the number of observed recaptures in 2014 with the number that would be expected under different assumptions of local biomass estimated using alternate methods (Table 5). The number of tagged fish available in a given season (n) was calculated taking into account the number of available tagged fish in the previous season (n – 1), tag induced mortality, natural mortality, the number of tagged fish recaptured in season n – 1 and the number of tagged fish released in season n – 1. 5.128 The Working Group noted that the estimates of local biomass used in the calculations in Table 5 were those estimated by WG-FSA-13, except for the estimates for D. mawsoni in research block 486_2 and D. eleginoides in blocks 5843a_1 and 5844b_1, which were revised in 2014 (see paragraphs 5.55, 5.86 and 5.90). 5.129 The Working Group agreed that the catch limits in Table 5 are appropriate to achieve the aims of the research programs proposed in exploratory and other fisheries and recommended that these be considered as management advice by the Scientific Committee for catch limits for 2014/15. It is also clarified that those limits are expected to remain for the duration of the proposed research programs, provided that they are reviewed by the Working Groups in light of information derived from research activities and no significant sign of adverse impact on the stock is detected. 5.130 The Working Group also discussed the feasibility of research programs which include a large number of research blocks that are unlikely to be able to be surveyed in a single year by the proposed number of vessels due to the limited time window of access due to sea-ice. The Working Group noted that the inclusion of multiple blocks as proposed increases the feasibility of the research in at least a subset of the proposed research blocks. The Working Group agreed that, with the exception of the proposed research areas in SSRUs A and C in Division 58.4.2, where no research blocks are currently identified, Japan and the Republic of Korea could conduct research fishing in the research blocks designated by the Commission in 2013. In order to advance the research in an efficient manner, the Working Group further agreed that the two programs focus on priority areas and recommended that Japan focus its research in Subarea 48.6 while Korea focus in Division 58.4.1, and schedule research at a time when sea-ice is likely to be at a minimum in the research blocks. |
| 2015 | CCAMLR-XXXIV | 3.2 to 3.4 |
CCAMLR’s Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCEP) 3.2 The Commission noted that SCIC had considered CCAMLR’s Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCEP) and had adopted the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report for the Commission’s endorsement (Annex 6, paragraphs 1 to 73). 3.3 The Commission endorsed the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report for 2015 (Annex 6, Appendix I). 3.4 The Commission endorsed SCIC’s recommendation that Conservation Measure (CM) 10-10 be revised to provide for a self-assessment of compliance status and a new status of no compliance status assigned for cases of emergency (Annex 6, paragraphs 67 to 72). |
| 2015 | CCAMLR-XXXIV | 5.71 to 5.90 and 8.41 to 8.122 |
Marine protected areas 5.71 The Commission noted the progress made by the Scientific Committee towards a representative system of MPAs within the Convention Area as set out in SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraphs 5.5 to 5.30. In particular, the Commission noted the preparatory work, including both national and international workshops, for the spatial planning of MPAs in Domain 1 (Western Antarctic Peninsula–South Scotia Arc) to further progress the MPA development process. 5.72 The Commission noted that Argentina and Chile hope to prepare further MPA planning documents for Domain 1 for consideration at WG-EMM-16 and an MPA proposal in 2017 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 5.7). 5.73 The EU introduced CCAMLR-XXXIV/BG/37 by recalling that a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area was an important priority for the EU and invited Germany to present the project and next steps. 5.74 Germany expressed its gratitude for the very positive reception by CCAMLR Members of the scientific background documents submitted in support of the development of a Weddell Sea MPA. This reception provides the basis for Germany to extend efforts to present a proposal for a Weddell Sea MPA to CCAMLR in 2016. 5.75 Germany advised the Commission that its motivation for presenting the reflection paper CCAMLR-XXXIV/BG/37 is to summarise for the Commission the analyses carried out so far and its first thoughts on likely MPA structures. In conjunction with the data analysis, draft conservation objectives on the basis of CM 91-04 have been jointly developed with experts from CCAMLR Members. These draft objectives were discussed in detail during the second international workshop in Berlin, Germany, in April 2015 and are provided in CCAMLR-XXXIV/BG/37, Annex 1. 5.76 Germany reiterated that the scientific analyses carried out so far had identified several distinct priority areas that could directly contribute to achieving the conservation objectives of an MPA: • the southeastern and southern continental shelf and slope where particular features such as sponge communities and fish nest sites are situated 5.77 Furthermore, Germany has developed first concepts for MPA management and given first thoughts to research and monitoring provisions, noting that it was important that these should be as specific and applicable as possible. Germany emphasised that it would very much appreciate feedback from all Members on its reflection paper in order that the development of the Weddell Sea MPA can be a common CCAMLR endeavour. In that regard Germany looked forward to receiving such input by the end of January 2016, either via the Weddell Sea MPA e-group, or by any other line of communication. 5.78 Russia noted the improvements in the proposal for an MPA in the Weddell Sea. However, some issues remain. It expressed the following concerns: (i) MPA boundaries should be established in compliance with sea-ice conditions for vessel navigation being a fundamental factor for the successful completion of assigned research tasks in designated areas. Analyses undertaken on seasonal and interannual dynamics of ice conditions in the Weddell Sea from 2003 to 2014 give some grounds for doubt in relation to an MPA in the Weddell Sea (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/08) 5.79 The Commission welcomed the progress that has been made on MPA planning work within the Weddell Sea planning region and noted the endorsement of the Scientific Committee that the work that had been undertaken constituted reference material for the Weddell Sea planning domain and could be placed on the CCAMLR website following the procedure set out in SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/01 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraphs 5.28 to 5.30). The Commission encouraged the development of a full MPA proposal in accordance with CM 91-04. 5.80 The Commission also noted the discussion of the Scientific Committee on approaches to: (i) MPA planning in the boundary region between Domains 1 and 3 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraphs 5.24 and 5.25) 5.81 The Commission endorsed the approach to archiving of background information and data layers used in MPA planning processes on the CCAMLR website (SC CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraphs 5.28 to 5.30). This endorsement does not include publishing information on the status of MPAs and general background in the public domain, as proposed in SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 5.28(i). 5.82 China considered that properly communicating the status of MPAs and general background information is of importance and requested that, where information was to be published in the public domain on the CCAMLR website, this should properly reflect the discussions of the Scientific Committee and Commission and that this be circulated to all Members to ensure that all views are appropriately reflected prior to posting on the website. The USA, however, noted that any process of review of website material by Members would need to be discussed by the Commission. 5.83 The Commission recognised that the content of the CCAMLR website should be clear and impartial and that, should any Member feel that website content on issues such as MPAs does not reflect a balanced view, then such concerns should be communicated to the Secretariat in order that those issues can be addressed. The Executive Secretary reiterated that the Secretariat strives to ensure that information on the website is balanced and that there has only been a single occasion when a Member has requested content to be modified. 5.84 In response to a question by China in respect of a statement on the website on the proportion of the high seas that are currently in MPAs, the Commission recalled the preambular paragraph in CM 91-04 ‘Recalling the Scientific Committee’s advice that the whole Convention Area is equivalent to an IUCN Category IV MPA, but there are areas within the Convention Area that require further special consideration in a representative system of MPAs’. 5.85 China noted that the size of the Convention Area is more than 30 million km2 and equivalent to almost 10% of the global ocean size. It also noted that the advice of the Scientific Committee on the Convention Area was recalled and adopted in the preamble of CM 91-04 by the Commission and should be a reference for the implementation and interpretation of that conservation measure. 5.86 Many Members noted that, while the Convention Area may have certain characteristics of IUCN’s category IV, it is not managed as such and is not recognised by the IUCN as an MPA. It is therefore not appropriate to classify the area as an MPA with IUCN classification. 5.87 The IUCN made the following statement:
5.88 The Commission noted that CM 91-04 provides the framework for the Commission’s consideration of MPAs, not IUCN’s classification or the regulation or categorisation by other bodies. 5.89 Argentina noted in respect of data submissions from SCAR referred to in SC CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 5.30(vii), that it had corresponded twice with SCAR to advise of the need to use appropriate nomenclature when referring to areas that were the subject of sovereignty disputes. Despite continued requests by Argentina for all scientific information and inputs to be objective and impartial on this issue, as have also been reiterated to SCAR at ATCM and COMNAP, Argentina continues to have serious concerns. Argentina cannot accept that the data referred to in SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 5.30(vii) be considered until its concern is addressed. 5.90 The UK stated that it did not consider it appropriate for CCAMLR to change the way it handles matters of nomenclature and indicated that it would respond in more detail in a later statement. Proposals for new conservation measures Marine protected areas 8.41 New Zealand and the USA introduced a revised proposal to establish an RSRMPA (CCAMLR-XXXIV/29 Rev. 1). First submitted to the Commission in 2012 and subsequently revised in 2013 and 2014, the proposal seeks to establish an RSRMPA to conserve marine living resources, maintain ecosystem structure and function, protect vital ecosystem processes and areas of ecological significance and promote scientific research including through the establishment of reference areas. Taking careful consideration of discussions by the Scientific Committee and the Commission and feedback from Members, the proposal’s key revisions included a reduction in the size of the general protection zone (GPZ) in the northwestern area, and an expansion of the SRZ into SSRU 882A. 8.42 Australia, EU and France introduced a revised proposal to establish a representative system of MPAs in the East Antarctica Planning Domain (EARSMPA) (CCAMLR-XXXIV/30). The revised proposal represents three years of work by the Commission, and reflects changes made as a result of input from all Members, and the proponents extended their appreciation for the ongoing engagement of Members throughout this development. The specific changes to the proposal, as submitted to this year’s meeting, reflect the paper on current thinking submitted in 2014 (CCAMLR-XXXIII/BG/40) as well as other helpful suggestions Members have made during the intersessional period. In particular, the revised proposal has: (i) strengthened adaptive management provisions 8.43 The proponents stated that the proposed EARSMPA provides a responsive and innovative approach to the conservation of the unique and diverse marine ecosystems of the region and CCAMLR’s unique management arrangements. Each MPA is designed to achieve objectives for the unique conservation and scientific features of the biogeographic provinces they represent. Each MPA is positioned to provide valuable information on the effects of climate change, and reference areas to better manage the region consistent with Article II. Each MPA is designed to achieve conservation outcomes while allowing for fishing and research activities. Further, this is, and always has been, an ecosystem-based multiple-use proposal where it is possible to conduct fishing and research activities which would not impact on the objectives of the EARSMPA. The proponents had worked over the past three years to refine the proposal to take account of Members’ views, and significant concessions have been made. The proponents recognised that there are some key elements of the proposal which some Members may wish to discuss further, and invited all Members to work with them to refine the proposal. They considered that the best way to do this is to work together on the proposal in the conservation measures drafting group in order to make progress on this important proposal. 8.44 The Commission discussed the MPA proposals during the first week of the meeting in order to receive substantiative reactions and feedback from Members and determine the work plan at the meeting. During this discussion, the proponents of the EARSMPA proposal and the RSRMPA proposal reiterated the steps undertaken to complete the revised proposals, including extensive consultation with all Members. The proponents reaffirmed their collective view that both proposals were ready to be sent to the conservation measures drafting group for detailed technical consideration and final improvements. 8.45 The Commission thanked the proponents for the vast amount of work that had gone into the development of each MPA proposal. 8.46 Most Members agreed that the revised proposals had addressed the concerns expressed by Members at previous meetings, and that each proposal was consistent with the framework established in CM 91-04. They also noted that MPAs provided an important conservation and management tool, and both proposals included multiple-use areas where fishing was permitted. These Members agreed that both proposals were ready to be sent to the drafting group for detailed consideration and development. 8.47 Russia thanked the proponents of both MPA proposals for their continued dialogue and development of these proposals. In relation to the RSRMPA proposal, Russia reiterated its main areas of concerns in relation to: (i) the boundaries that correspond to the objectives of the MPA 8.48 Russia thanked the proponents for addressing the boundary issue in their revised proposal. However, Russia stated that the period of designation (paragraph 8.47ii) had not been adequately addressed, and the fixed allocation (13%; refer to CCAMLR-XXXIV/29 Rev. 1, paragraph 9) for the catch limit in SRZ (paragraph 8.47iii) may lead to overcrowding on the fishing ground and increased navigation risks during periods of heavy sea-ice. 8.49 Russia also stated that it held similar concerns with the boundaries and period of designation for the proposed EARSMPA (paragraph 8.70). 8.50 China thanked the proponents of both MPA proposals for their continuous efforts in taking into account Members’ comments and suggestions. Communications and discussions were helpful to better understand and consider both MPA proposals further. China reiterated its support for establishing MPAs in accordance with international law and on the basis of scientific evidence, with the aim of enhancing the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. It noted that there were some general and substantial issues raised by Members from both the legal and scientific perspectives, which included, but were not limited to: (i) the identification of objectives of each MPA 8.51 China had studied the revised proposals on the establishment of an RSRMPA and an EARSMPA, and was pleased to see positive revisions. However, China stated that its major concerns have not been addressed by the proponents. In view of this and other Members’ views on the two MPA proposals, China considered that it was not appropriate to move the two proposals to the conservation measures drafting group during this meeting. China advised that more discussions and further revisions on the proposals were needed, and stated that it would continue to join discussions of the two MPA proposals with the spirit of cooperation, and wished to work with other Members to achieve the objectives of the Convention. 8.52 ASOC recalled the Commission’s decision in 2009 to establish a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area by 2012. ASOC stated that the two MPA proposals have been discussed in detail since 2011, and the science supporting these proposals has been well established after many successive years of consideration by the Scientific Committee. Both proposals are consistent with the conservation objectives of the Convention and both allow for some level of fishing. ASOC was disappointed that the revised proposed areas have been reduced significantly in size after four consecutive meetings of this Commission, and each proposal included fixed term limits as a further compromise, when most MPAs worldwide are permanently established. Designating MPAs would reaffirm CCAMLR as a precautionary conservation convention based on the ecosystem approach. It would also enhance the status of Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science that is fundamental to the Antarctic Treaty System to which CCAMLR belongs. ASOC urged all Members to continue working towards establishing a representative system of MPAs, and to commit to moving both MPA proposals forward. 8.53 The Commission also considered an updated proposal for a voluntary standardised procedure to establish MPAs in accordance with CM 91-04 (Japanese MPA checklist) (CCAMLR-XXXIV/19). In 2014, the Commission agreed that such guidelines could contribute to a better understanding of the issues associated with its work in designating MPAs (CCAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 5.79). 8.54 Japan introduced the updated MPA checklist (CCAMLR-XXXIV/19) and thanked Members for contributing to its development during the intersessional period. The checklist was intended to provide voluntary guidelines to streamline and facilitate the Commission’s discussion of future proposals for MPAs. Japan stated that the main purpose of the checklist was to assist proponents in developing MPA proposals which were consistent with CM 91-04, and to assist Members to review and discuss each proposal, including detailed scientific aspects, in a consistent manner. Japan reiterated that it had no intention of applying the checklist to the standing MPA proposals. 8.55 The Commission thanked Japan for this initiative, and agreed that this checklist could be a non-binding working document and could provide voluntary guidelines consistent with the Convention and CM 91-04 for an MPA proponent. The Commission encouraged Members to provide final comments to Japan by 30 April 2016 with a view to post the checklist as an informal document on the password-protected section of the CCAMLR website, together with MPA reference material, in mid-2016. 8.56 The Commission also considered progress in the development of a proposal for a Weddell Sea MPA (WSMPA) (CCAMLR-XXXIV/BG/37). The reflection paper was introduced by the EU which thanked Germany for leading this development. 8.57 Germany outlined the work carried out since 2013 in order to prepare the scientific basis for the development of a WSMPA. This work had included international expert workshops in 2014 and 2015, and consideration of significant contributions by Members, as well as the advice from the Scientific Committee and WG-EMM. The Weddell Sea planning area includes MPA Planning Domain 3 and part of Domain 4, and six priority areas have been identified to achieve the conservation objectives and provide targeted, practical and feasible protection. 8.58 Germany stated that the reflection paper (CCAMLR-XXXIV/BG/37) incorporated the recommendations made by WG-EMM-15, such as the visualisation of the spatial inter-correlation of conservation objectives and the addition of an initial cost layer in the analysis. Other recommendations, such as the addition of data layers on seabirds and integration of the boundary region between Planning Domains 1 and 3, would be further developed and reported to WG-EMM-16 (see paragraphs 5.73 to 5.79). The proponents reiterated their desire for feedback on CCAMLR-XXXIV/BG/37 in order that the range of views may be taken into account in the preparation of a proposal in 2016. 8.59 The Commission thanked the proponents for continuing to develop the WSMPA proposal, and looked forward to considering the final proposal for the establishment of a WSMPA in 2016. 8.60 Members agreed that this proposal represented another important step in developing a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area. The proponents were encouraged to continue developing the proposal, including further work on the overlap with Planning Domain 1 along the Antarctic Peninsula, and to further consider the potential role of fishing vessels as platforms for conducting research in the Weddell Sea. 8.61 Chile, referring to the planning of a future MPA in Domain 1, outlined the significant efforts required to develop the scientific work required to support the development of a representative system of MPAs. The lack of progress in the adoption of the MPA proposals currently tabled for consideration by the Commission negatively impacts on the new proposals that are in the planning stage. 8.62 Russia thanked the proponents of the WSMPA proposal and recalled previous discussion at SC-CAMLR-XXXIII (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraphs 5.18 to 5.30). Russia was closely collaborating with Germany in the research and analyses to develop the necessary documentation for a WSMPA proposal in accordance with CM 91-04. Russia further noted the importance of cooperation between Members in the implementation and operationalisation of a WSMPA and looked forward to continuing engagement. 8.63 The proponents thanked all Members for their contributions to this work and agreed to continue developing the proposal during the intersessional period. 8.64 The Commission noted four background papers (CCAMLR-XXXIV/BG/22, BG/31, BG/32 and BG/33) which had been submitted by Russia. Russia advised that these papers had been discussed previously, and were submitted to this meeting for information. 8.65 The Commission returned to the EARSMPA proposal and the RSRMPA proposal and discussed substantive issues which, in the view of some Members, had not been adequately developed in these proposals. 8.66 The proponents of the EARSMPA proposal invited substantive comments on five key components of their proposal, and indicated that they would provide a response once all comments from Members had been received and considered. 8.67 The first component of the proposal is management of activities (CCAMLR-XXXIV/30, Attachment A, paragraphs 2bis, 6 and Annex A). The proponents noted that the proposal allows for fishing and research activities to occur, consistent with other conservation measures. Any further restrictions on activities can only be put in place with the agreement of the Commission. The Management Plan provides, in full, the processes for managing activities. It can be amended at any time. 8.68 No comments were made by Members on management of activities. 8.69 The second component of the proposal is the objectives (CCAMLR-XXXIV/30, paragraphs 3 and 4). The proponents noted that the general objectives in the measure come from CM 91-04. The specific objectives flow from the general objectives. The three MPAs in the proposal are special areas for conservation and science. They represent the unique provinces in the region. They are also important reference areas from which comparisons can be made with areas adjacent to the MPAs. Their sizes relate to the scale of ecological processes in the region. The following comments were made with respect to objectives. 8.70 Russia reiterated its view that individual objectives can only be achieved through specific activities and specific timelines, and the achievement of the overall objective will require a clear understanding of the interrelationship of individual objectives and the activities required for their implementation. In addition, Russia stated that the achievement of conservation objectives across a representative system of MPAs will require approaches which were specific to each planning domain, and which would depend on the identification, or absence thereof, of fishery impacts and conservation threats. 8.71 China reiterated its concerns in relation to scientific and legal aspects of the proposals, and agreed with Russia’s concerns about achieving the stated conservation objectives, and further requested the proponents to provide specific description of the objectives and criteria used to measure whether certain activities are contrary to the objectives in the light of the principles set out in the Convention. China stated that the research and monitoring plans should develop scientifically interpretable and measureable criteria that can be used to evaluate whether, and to what extent, the objectives of the MPA will be achieved. 8.72 Japan stated that the adaptive approach highlighted in the preamble of the EARSMPA proposal required further strengthening and emphasis in the research and monitoring plan. The adaptive approach is essential in order to maintain MPAs in a state that enables the optimal achievement of their objectives over time. This approach should form the backbone of research and monitoring plans. Japan also stated that each plan should have arrangements to ensure research and monitoring activities to be conducted and be open to all Members. 8.73 The third component of the proposal is the research and monitoring plan (CCAMLR-XXXIV/30, Attachment A, paragraph 9 and Annex B). The proponents indicated that the proposal now has firm commitments to the scientific questions that need to be addressed in a research and monitoring plan, and a commitment for the plan to be submitted to the Commission within three years. The proponents also noted that research and monitoring is open to all Members and that data from the plan will be available to all Members. The following comments were made on the research and monitoring plan. 8.74 China shared Japan’s view that research and monitoring plans must be open to all Members, and must elaborate structured, quantitative approaches which covered all stated objectives. Such plans and priority elements must include description of (i) the types of data required for collection and subsequent submission to the Secretariat, (ii) standard, quantitative methods for analysis, and (iii) the baseline data used in reference areas. Biodiversity and other objectives of the MPA should be further specified to allow the quantifiable analysis. 8.75 Russia supported the views of Japan and China (paragraph 8.74) and requested further information on the consequences of not conducting, or not completing, aspects of the research and monitoring plans. Russia was also concerned about the cost of conducting research in support of the EARSMPA, and the feasibility of Members being able to conduct coordinated long-term research. 8.76 The fourth and fifth components of the proposal are review and duration (CCAMLR-XXXIV/30, paragraphs 11 and 12). The proponents noted that the review process provides for updating the MPAs at any time new information becomes available. They also noted that a minimum period of designation needs to be consistent with Article II and proportionate to the requirements of the objectives. A process is needed to enable the Commission to have a discussion about reasons why an MPA should cease. The following comments were made with respect to review and duration. 8.77 China recalled the Commission’s principles of conservation described in Article II which aimed to prevent changes or minimise the risk of changes in the marine ecosystem which are not potentially reversible over two or three decades. China stated that the period of designation of an MPA must be commensurate with conservation objectives and be of a duration of no longer than 20 years. Further, when the period of designation of a MPA expired, the designation may only be extended by consensus and the MPA would cease in the absence of such consensus. 8.78 Japan reiterated the importance of a definite period of designation in view of climate change and associated dynamic changes which are occurring in the Antarctic marine ecosystem. The impact of these changes on conservation objectives and MPAs must be monitored and reviewed, and a specified termination date for a period of designation would provide an incentive to update and revitalise the effectiveness of MPA measures. 8.79 The UK stated that the period of designation of MPAs must be consistent with the conservation objectives. While Article II considered reversibility over two or three decades, a longer term of designation may be required to achieve specific conservation objectives. Consideration of appropriate periods of designation may only be finalised at the point of agreeing each conservation measure. 8.80 Sweden supported the view of the UK and emphasised the need for period of designations commensurate with conservation objectives. 8.81 China and Russia agreed that management plans may only be used to manage human activities in MPAs, and cannot be used to manage natural processes and changes. Further, the Commission is already managing such risks through the development and implementation of relevant conservation measures. 8.82 The proponents of the RSRMPA proposal (CCAMLR-XXXIV/29 Rev. 1) recalled the history of this proposal, referred to key supporting papers that explain the proposal and its scientific basis, and further responded to four main issues which had been raised earlier in the meeting as summarised below: (i) Conservation objectives – The proponents explained that the MPA had been designed to achieve a suite of objectives. Information on the objectives and how they apply to the various zones of the MPA was detailed in CCAMLR-XXXII/BG/40 Rev. 1. These objectives have been revised over time based on specific advice from the Scientific Committee and Members. For the proposal tabled to the meeting, objectives were revised to reflect specific advice from Members. The specific objective that relates to reference areas now clarified that the expanded SRZ aims to contribute to D. mawsoni science and the related stock assessment, and that MPA areas other than the SRZ may also serve as reference areas. The specific objective relating to representative protection had been updated to further highlight that representative protection is generally intended for data-poor areas. The proponents noted that to achieve some objectives, some areas of the MPA would need to be no-take. 8.83 Russia reiterated its concern in relation to the RSRMPA proposal (paragraphs 8.47 to 8.49), including the proposed SRZ. These concerns included the catch limits placed on the SRZ which, in combination with extensive seasonal sea-ice, may lead to congestion on the fishing grounds, increased risk of overfishing and greater navigation hazards. In addition, restricting research fishing to the SRZ would limit the acquisition of information on the life cycle of toothfish and the recapture of tagged individuals in the no-take GPZ. 8.84 The proponents referred Members to SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/BG/31, presented to the Scientific Committee, which provides a characterisation of sea-ice in the SRZ of the proposed MPA. This paper assessed historical fishing activity within this area, noting that while some fishing in the SRZ was carried out in nine of the last 10 years, it is unlikely that full access will be available every year. The paper concluded that the main influence of sea-ice on achieving the proposed objectives of the SRZ pertains to the deployment and subsequent recovery of tagged fish to examine movements and estimate exploitation rate within the SRZ. However, the paper also highlighted the potential for the use of monitoring methods that do not rely on the fishery for tag recovery, such as pop-off satellite transmitters. 8.85 The proponents acknowledged that while access to the SRZ will be challenging for fishing and research vessels, the area has been accessible in most years, and considered that the proposed structured fishing within the expanded SRZ will maintain the integrity and continuity of the toothfish tagging program; ensure contrasting local exploitation rates between lighter and more heavily fished locations to better understand the ecosystem effects of fishing and climate change; and better understand toothfish distribution and movements with potential implications for stock assessment. As currently closed SSRUs would be opened outside the MPA, this will assist with redistributing fishing effort. Additionally, spatial population modelling approaches that have been used to inform the stock assessment process for the Ross Sea fishery will be useful for ensuring adequate spatial distribution of fishing effort with the redrawing of SSRU boundaries following the MPA proposal being agreed. 8.86 In relation to the level of catch proposed within the SRZ, the proponents explained the objective was to provide for a contrasting exploitation rate between areas of the slope within the MPA and outside the MPA. The increase from 10 percent in the original SRZ to 13 percent in the expanded SRZ is consistent with the proportional increase in seabed area at depths between 500 and 2 500 m that is covered by the expanded SRZ. In response to the comment on uncertainty in relation to the life cycle of toothfish, the proponents agreed that there are uncertainties, and noted that these are highlighted as key components of the draft research and monitoring plan for the proposed RSRMPA. Scientific research relating to this is specifically noted in Annex C, paragraph 3, of the amended draft conservation measure (CCAMLR-XXXIV/29 Rev. 1). The evaluation mechanism for the SRZ in the management plan also provides an additional tool to respond to uncertainties. 8.87 China stated that the concerns on the EARSMPAs are also relevant to the proposed RSRMPA, and further argued that the proposed management measures are not proportionate to the perceived ecosystem threats. The fishery in Ross Sea for toothfish was very well managed by the Commission and subject to extensive research and conservation measures. As a result, China stated that the risk of overfishing is an elusive threat, and the use of large no take GPZ was not warranted. China also questioned the rationale and feasibility for the reference area, in that the fishing data on the widely distributed and highly migratory species like toothfish obtained in the areas of different oceanographic, chemical or ecological environment is not comparable. 8.88 China reiterated its concerns about research and monitoring plans (paragraphs 8.71 and 8.74), and emphasised the need to clearly define the questions being addressed by the plans, and the quantitative analyses required to evaluate each plan. Further, the plans should not restrict scientific research activities, and should facilitate the regular collection of data and reporting of analyses. China stated that the MPA checklist (paragraph 8.54) would assist with developing a better understanding of the issues associated with each MPA proposal. 8.89 Russia supported China and stated that the research and monitoring plans must clearly define the criteria used in evaluating each conservation objective and the associated quantitative analyses. 8.90 Russia also reiterated its view, first presented in 2013 (SC-CAMLR-IM-I), that the fishery for toothfish is limited to a short season each year, and approximately 70% of the Ross Sea area is already closed to fishing. The fishery is also limited to a narrow depth range and a large area of the Ross Sea is not suitable to fishing for toothfish. The proposed limits in the SRZ and GPZ will impose further restrictions on fishing, and the proposed opening of SSRUs currently closed to fishing will require detailed consideration by the Scientific Committee. Such consideration would need to include evaluating the impact of the RSRMPA proposal on the fishery’s stock assessment and management. 8.91 The proponents agreed that the opening of currently closed SSRUs is a complex issue and that there will be considerable work required by the Scientific Committee and WG-FSA to redesign the SSRUs and to consider the redistribution of catch across the Ross Sea Region outside the boundaries of the MPA. It had already been agreed at this meeting that the boundary of Subarea 88.1 and the opening of closed areas will be discussed intersessionally, and this will provide useful information to assist the process referred to in the preamble of the draft conservation measure for the RRSMPA. Considerable scientific research and development has taken place that will also assist with this process, including the development of spatial population modelling approaches, spatial ice summaries, data from the toothfish tagging program and from other research undertaken in the region. The proponents agreed that aspects such as the risks associated with spatial change in the SSRU boundaries and the catch limit will need to be carefully considered during this process. They also recalled the advice from the 2013 Scientific Committee meeting (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraph 5.45). 8.92 Belgium thanked the proponents of the RSRMPA proposal for all the hard work they have put into developing a proposal which was based on the best available science and was fully in line with both CM 91-04 and the objectives of the Convention. This proposal has also been positively assessed by the Scientific Committee. Belgium thanked Members for their broad support for the current proposal, as well as for the discussion during the meeting. Belgium also expressed its hope to resolve the outstanding issues in the near future. The Ross Sea is one of the last pristine marine areas in the world. Belgium stated that the establishment of a large GPZ with a no-take management was the correct approach to conserve this unique marine ecosystem in the future. 8.93 ASOC expressed its appreciation for the efforts of MPA proponents in all domains as well as the Members that have expressed support for the MPA proposals tabled at this meeting. After four years of discussing these proposals, ASOC was encouraged that some reasonably concrete concerns were shared in relation to the proposed EARSMPA and the RSRMPA. ASOC encouraged Members to continue to bring their positions and proposed solutions to discussions in order to achieve consensus. Reflecting on two specific issues brought up by Members, ASOC recalled that set expiration dates or ‘sunset clauses’ are not included in international agreements regarding MPAs as they prevent meeting long-term conservation objectives. ASOC also recalled that no-take areas provide essential reference areas where the effects of climate change can be differentiated from the effects of natural variability and human activities. 8.94 Following further consultation amongst Members, the Commission returned to the EARSMPA proposal and the RSRMPA proposal to consider possible further progress at the meeting. 8.95 The proponents of the EARSMPA made the following statement:
8.96 Russia stated that it would continue substantive discussion in order to reach resolution of the remaining differences in opinion, and stated that agreement on the EARSMPA could only be reached by resolving these differences. 8.97 China identified three remaining and substantive concerns: (i) The objectives of proposed MPAs must be in line with the objective of the Convention, as set out in Article II, and should focus on Antarctic marine living resources. 8.98 With respect to the objectives of the proposed RSRMPA, the proponents also stated that the size of the GPZ was not a conservation objective per se. Rather, the size of the GPZ was the outcome of the planning process and was in proportion to the identified conservation threats (see SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/23 Rev. 1). The proponents also clarified that while directed fishing would be prohibited in the GPZ, research fishing pursuant to CM 24-01 and consistent with the specific objectives of the MPA would be permitted. The SRZ would be established in order to compare lightly fished areas in the SRZ with the main fishing ground of the Ross Sea toothfish fishery to the northwest of the SRZ (see SC-CAMLR-IM-I/08 and SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/23 Rev. 1). The objectives for the SRZ had also been expanded to accommodate Members’ interests in understanding toothfish movement and distribution throughout the Ross Sea region. 8.99 With respect to the development of a research and monitoring plan for the RSRMPA, the proponents noted their intention to build on the draft plan that has already been developed (SC-CAMLR-IM-I/BG/03 Rev. 1). The proponents intend that all Members would be involved in the development of a final research and monitoring plan and expect to revise the draft accordingly, including by considering points within the MPA checklist. 8.100 Russia made the following statement:
8.101 China reiterated its concern that proposals must not prejudice the freedom on scientific research as set out by international law and the Antarctic Treaty, where research includes scientific activities other than research fishing. 8.102 The proponents of the RSRMPA proposal stated that the intention of the proposal was not to restrict scientific research, and that the concerns expressed by China and Russia on this issue may be accommodated with further revision. 8.103 Norway made the following statement:
8.104 The UK made the following statement:
8.105 Germany made the following statement:
8.106 ASOC made the following statement:
8.107 The proponents of the RSRMPA proposal made the following statement:
8.108 China made the following statement:
8.109 Russia thanked the proponents of the RSRMPA proposal for the revision and for accommodating many of the issues raised during the meeting. Russia reiterated the need for further consultations in order to reach consensus on the remaining issues related to boundaries, period of designation and the research and monitoring plan. Russia looked forward to further discussion during the intersessional period. 8.110 Members thanked the proponents of the RSRMPA proposal and China for the revised proposal. CCAMLR-XXXIV/29 Rev. 1 had addressed many of the issues discussed at the meeting, and the revision was a significant step forward in the development of a representative system of MPAs. Members expressed hope that further intersessional consultations would lead to the establishment of the RSRMPA. 8.111 Australia made the following statement:
8.112 Norway made the following statement:
8.113 The USA made the following statement:
8.114 The EU made the following statement:
8.115 France made the following statement:
8.116 Germany made the following statement:
8.117 The UK echoed the statement from Germany. 8.118 Belgium made the following statement:
8.119 Sweden made the following statement:
8.120 South Africa made the following statement:
8.121 New Zealand made the following statement:
8.122 ASOC made the following statement:
|
| 2015 | CCAMLR-XXXIV | 9.11 to 9.21 |
Regulatory framework 9.11 The Commission welcomed CCAMLR-XXXIV/17 Rev. 1 by the Chair of the Scientific Committee in response to a request from CCAMLR-XXXIII (CCAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 5.37). The paper reviewed the CCAMLR regulatory framework as it is currently applied and: (i) noted that the nomenclature and working ‘status’ of individual fisheries and the regulatory framework have become somewhat disconnected 9.12 The UK thanked the Chair of the Scientific Committee for his thorough review and suggested that research plans could be appended to the relevant conservation measures for those areas where a conservation measure already exists. Where there is no current conservation measure, a new approach may be required. The UK also suggested that a more structured approach would assist in broader discussions concerning management approaches in particular areas, in addition to providing an opportunity to ensure that requirements, including in respect to data reporting, by-catch mitigation and observers, are linked to research proposals. 9.13 Australia noted the discussion on this matter in the Scientific Committee (SC CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraphs 3.223 and 3.228) and agreed that all research plans for toothfish in exploratory fisheries, data-poor fisheries and closed fisheries have the same objectives – to develop exploratory fisheries and that this was the conclusion in the original discussion in the Commission on this matter in 1998. Australia also supported the proposal from the UK that research proposals be incorporated in the respective conservation measures for these fisheries and requested that the Secretariat work with Members to clarify the current status and nomenclature of exploratory and closed fisheries. 9.14 China suggested that a glossary of terms that describes the nomenclature and terminology would be beneficial in establishing a common understanding among Members. China also suggested that a mechanism or procedure, utilising the agreed terminology, be established to support the revision and adoption of conservation measures, noting that this would be particularly useful for Members for which English is not their first language. 9.15 The USA thanked the Chair of the Scientific Committee for completing this review, which clearly demonstrates that the categorisation of fisheries is complex and confusing and requires further discussion. Regarding the recommendation to move Annex A from CM 24-01 to CM 41-01, the USA indicated that in order not to leave a gap in CM 24-01, something similar to Annex A should remain in CM 24-01. Regarding the recommendation to adopt a catch threshold that would trigger the change of status of a fishery from closed to exploratory, the USA did not think this would be appropriate unless the Scientific Committee advises that: (i) the status of the stock in the closed area has actually changed in a way that that an exploratory fishery is sustainable, or 9.16 With respect to the recommendation to review current status and nomenclature of exploratory and closed fisheries, the USA recommended improved accounting and a clear description that provides easy reference to the reasons that some fisheries were closed and an explanation for the catch limits that have been agreed by the Commission for research fishing in these areas. In the view of the USA, it would be useful to establish a conservation measure, or measures, for research fishing not already included within other conservation measures rather than including research fishing only in report text. The USA also noted that the Commission may want to re-evaluate the application of exemptions from conservation measures relating to by-catch, incidental mortality, scientific observation, etc. to research fishing in which the catch limits are similar to those in exploratory fisheries. 9.17 Russia expressed appreciation for the detailed analysis presented in the paper and the options that had been offered for the consideration of the Commission. Russia recommended that the position of delegations suggesting further work be taken into account, including with respect to proposed changes to CM 24-01 regarding research in closed areas. Russia suggested that it is time to convene a workshop to provide an opportunity for more detailed consideration with focus on (i) how the status of some fisheries should be changed and which of new/revised conservation measure(s) would be required; (ii) which of ensuing consequences for CCAMLR fisheries would be provided by streamlining fishery status. The report of this workshop should be presented for consideration by WG-EMM and WG-FSA. 9.18 In supporting the views of other Members that the issues raised in the paper warranted detailed consideration by the Commission, Ukraine suggested that there is a need to take into account the nuances that distinguish research fishing and exploratory fishing. Ukraine advised that research fishing aims to collect data and that, once an understanding of the status of resources has been achieved, a strategy for managing harvest and levels of removals can be implemented. 9.19 Sweden noted that CCAMLR-XXXIV/17 Rev. 1 concluded that only about half of the Members notifying to undertake exploratory fisheries in the Convention Area include any reference to dependent and related species, or other ecosystem considerations despite the fact that CM 21 02 requires notifying Members to provide as much of this information as possible. Sweden noted that the paper suggests that, in order to address these issues, it would be valuable to undertake a review of notifications from Members intending to participate in exploratory fisheries to determine the extent the requirements set out in CM 21-02, paragraphs 1(ii)(b) and 6(d), are met and how analysis from this data has been brought forward. Sweden recommended increased involvement of ecologists in the development of notifications. 9.20 At the invitation of the Chair, the Chair of the Scientific Committee suggested that, with respect to the current exploratory fishery in Subarea 88.1 in which the catch limit is based on a fully integrated assessment, it would be possible for interested Members to draft a proposal for a new conservation measure to more appropriately reflect the status of this fishery while incorporating elements from existing measures such as the notification process. He also noted that the suggestion of a workshop, possibly in the margins of Scientific Committee working group meetings in 2016, would provide an opportunity to advance discussions on matters raised, including the suggestion for the preparation of a glossary of terms. 9.21 The Commission requested the Secretariat work with Members in the intersessional period to table proposals for how new conservation measures may be developed or existing measures revised for all activities targeting toothfish, to ensure they are consistent with CCAMLR’s regulatory framework. The review should include revisions to Tables 1 and 2 in the context of the revised formats for catch limits used by the Scientific Committee. |
| 2015 | CCAMLR-XXXIV | Annex 6, 1 to 73 |
Compliance Evaluation Procedure 1. SCIC recalled that at CCAMLR-XXXI, the Commission adopted Conservation Measure (CM) 10-10 for the implementation of CCAMLR’s Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCEP). It was agreed that CCEP would use information provided to the Secretariat, as required under the Convention, conservation measures and other available information, such as from the Scheme of Scientific Observation (SISO) and the System of Inspection. It was noted that CCEP would provide an opportunity for Members to comment on implementation and compliance with CCAMLR conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXXI, paragraph 7.26). 2. SCIC considered the Secretariat’s report on the third year of implementation of CCEP, including the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report for 2015 (CCAMLR-XXXIV/36). SCIC noted that the CCAMLR Compliance Reports for 2013 and 2014 were available on the CCAMLR website. 3. SCIC noted that the CCEP covered the period from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2015 and summarised, where applicable, data relating to issues identified by the Secretariat in relation to Members’ implementation of the conservation measures included in CM 10-10, Annex 10 10/A. 4. In accordance with CM 10-10, paragraph 1(i), the Secretariat prepared Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports for Australia, Chile, China, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, South Africa and Uruguay. 5. SCIC noted with concern that China, Russia and South Africa did not provide additional information in response to their Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports as required by CM 10 10, paragraphs 1(iii) and (iv). SCIC recalled that it is essential that replies are provided within the deadlines in order to assist with the deliberations of SCIC. 6. SCIC considered the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report and other information in developing the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. SCIC recalled that in accordance with CM 10-10, paragraph 3(ii), it will adopt by consensus a Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. This report shall include an assessment of compliance status, in accordance with CM 10-10, Annex 10-10/B, as well as recommendations on remedial action, the amendment to conservation measures, priority obligations and other responsive action. Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report 7. Russia was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 10-01 in regard to the fishing vessel Yantar 31 which was reported to have vessel markings on the side of the vessel not at a minimum of 1 m in height as required by Annex 10-01/A, paragraph 1(iii). Russia noted that the measure had not yet entered into force at the time of the reported incident. Russia further explained that adverse weather conditions had prevented the master of the vessel altering the markings to be in compliance with the measure. 8. SCIC agreed that this reported instance relating to Russia’s implementation of CM 10 01 should be categorised as partially compliant. 9. Chile was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 10-03, relating to three incidences of vessels not being inspected within 48 hours of entry to port. Chile reported that in two of those cases the inspections occurred in compliance with CM 10-03. Chile informed SCIC that in the case of the third incident, the fishing vessel Kostar, the inspection was not done within the required time frame because of the shortage of inspection staff during a particularly busy period. 10. SCIC noted that in relation to the implementation of CM 10-03, the first two incidences should be categorised as compliant because the inspections had been conducted within 48 hours of when authorities had access to the vessels. SCIC agreed that the third case, involving the fishing vessel Kostar, should be categorised as partially compliant. 11. Uruguay was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 10-03, relating to one incident of a vessel not being inspected within 48 hours of entry to port. Uruguay informed SCIC that, in the case of the fishing vessel Yantar 35, the inspection was not done within 48 hours of entry to port due to operational reasons relating to the Port Authority. Uruguay raised issues of interpretation of ‘entry to port’ and operational difficulties arising from the high workload in the Montevideo port. 12. SCIC agreed that, while understanding the reasons expressed by Uruguay, the incident warranted a classification of partial compliance with CM 10-03. Subsequent discussion related to the interpretation of ‘entry to port’, with some Members raising operational impediments to the implementation of CM 10-03 faced in several Port States that experience high volumes of ship traffic. 13. South Africa was invited to explain the lack of inspection reports relating to CM 10 03. South Africa informed SCIC that, in the case of the fishing vessel Shinsei Maru No. 3, the inspection reports were not submitted to the Secretariat due to administrative oversights. South Africa explained that operational issues in Cape Town port due to construction work and staffing problems were reasons for the oversight in both cases. South Africa informed SCIC that they had recently employed extra inspection officers to manage the workload and to avoid non-compliance with CM 10-03. The Secretariat noted that South Africa submitted the reports on 21 October 2015. 14. SCIC, while understanding the operational and administrative problems expressed by South Africa, classified both incidents as partially compliant. 15. Chile, South Africa and Uruguay expressed concern that adhering to the 48-hour time deadline for inspections may be unrealistic during busy periods in Port States. 16. The Republic of Korea was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 10-03 in relation to one incident of not providing the outcome of the inspection conducted on the Yantar 31 within 30 days of the inspection. Korea reported that an administrative oversight in regards to the fishing vessel Yantar 31 has resulted in delayed submission of the inspection report to the CCAMLR Secretariat. It was noted that the inspection had occurred within 48 hours of entry to port and that Korea had strengthened its commitment to CM 10-03, assuring SCIC that this oversight will not recur. 17. SCIC agreed that the Republic of Korea’s implementation of CM 10-03 in relation to this incident be classified as partially compliant. 18. New Zealand was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 10-03 concerning one incident of a vessel which was not inspected within 48 hours of entry to port. New Zealand reported that a breakdown in communication had occurred between coordinating departments and the inspection had therefore not taken place within the 48-hour time frame. New Zealand apologised for the oversight. 19. SCIC classified New Zealand’s implementation of CM 10-03 in relation to this incident as partially compliant. 20. Uruguay was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 10-03 relating to one incident of a vessel not being inspected within 48 hours of entry to port. Uruguay reported that, according to the records of the port authority, the inspection of the fishing vessel Tronio was carried out within 48 hours, with the inspection reports and documentation lodged with the Secretariat. 21. SCIC classified Uruguay’s implementation of CM 10-03 as compliant. 22. Uruguay was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 10-03 relating to one incident of a vessel, La Manche, not being inspected within 48 hours of entry to port. Uruguay stressed that this incident was due to operational difficulties. The EU and the USA noted that, given all the relevant facts, there was no issue with non-compliance. 23. SCIC noted that CM 10-03 did not apply to this particular incident. 24. Russia was invited to comment on two issues relating to the implementation of CM 10-09 which concerned the transport vessel Tambov which was reported to have transhipped fuel with the fishing vessels Long Da and Fu Rong Hai without submitting a transhipment notification. Russia reported that CM 10-09 was not applicable to this situation as the Tambov was a transport vessel (CM 10-09, paragraph 2, footnote). 25. SCIC noted that CM 10-09 did not apply to this particular incident. Some Members expressed the view that the notification requirements of CM 10-09 only applied to fishing vessels. SCIC agreed that this ambiguity highlighted the need to review the measure. 26. Norway was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 23-06 relating to two incidences of a vessel not reporting any by-catch in their catch and effort data, whereas observer data reported by-catch being present in 60% of hauls sampled. CM 23-06, paragraph 6, requires that, at the end of each month, each Contracting Party shall obtain from each of its vessels the haul-by-haul data required to complete the CCAMLR fine-scale catch and effort data form (CM 23-04). CM 23-04, paragraph 3, requires that the catch of all target and by-catch species be reported by species. Norway reported that the vessel owner and the captain were of the understanding that the extensive sampling and recording procedure conducted by the observer was sufficient for the report according to CM 23-06 and that this by-catch was being reported through the observer. Norway reported that the procedures had changed and the by-catch is now reported directly by the vessel. 27. SCIC classified Norway’s implementation of CM 23-06 as non-compliant with no further action required. 28. Australia was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 25-02 relating to one incident of an observer reporting that, while most of the fishing vessel Isla Eden’s branched streamers did reach the sea surface, some had broken off due to general wear and tear. Australia reported that an inquiry had determined that between the two streamer lines, most of the branched streamers reached the sea surface. Australia noted that the deployment of the two streamer lines exceeded the requirement of CM 25-02 that one streamer line be deployed. Australia noted that the word ‘should’ in the third sentence of paragraph 4 of Annex 25-02/A suggested that the requirement that branched streamers reach the sea surface was not mandatory. 29. SCIC noted that Australia’s implementation of CM 25-02 was partially compliant. SCIC also noted that the translations between the English and other languages of CM 25-02, Annex 25-02/A, paragraph 4, could result in different interpretations of the requirements. SCIC agreed to discuss the matter further under ‘Proposals for new and revised measures’. 30. Norway was invited to comment on the implementation CM 25-03 relating to one incident involving the fishing vessel Saga Sea, which was reported to rarely conduct the required net cleaning prior to shooting its net. Norway reported that the vessel has technology that automatically cleans the net continuously and that the experience of the crew was that there is nil or very little residue of krill inside the net after haul back. The vessel owner and the captain were of the understanding that this was adequate to fulfil the intention of CM 25 03. On the basis of the comments from the observer, the vessel owner will now review the procedures in dialogue with the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries. Norway noted that, in the past, such technologies have been acknowledged in the Scientific Committee as sufficiently self-cleaning. 31. SCIC noted that Norway’s implementation of CM 25-03 was compliant. 32. Australia was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 26-01 relating to an observer report that sewage was discharged from the vessel Antarctic Chieftain, while the vessel was stuck in ice between 5 and 14 February 2015. Australia reported that the safety of the crew and the observers were of paramount importance. All efforts focused on ensuring the vessel could be freed of the ice. Australia understood that a decision was taken by the vessel operator to discharge sewage in response to concerns about the capacity of sewage tanks and possible health risks for those on board. All efforts were taken to minimise the volume of the discharge and to minimise any potential environmental and health impacts. 33. SCIC noted that, due to safety of life at sea priorities, Australia’s implementation of CM 26-01, in this particular instance, should be reported as being compliant. 34. Chile was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 26-01, concerning two incidences where an observer reported that the fishing vessel Betanzos had discharged organic waste without any maceration or screening in Subareas 48.1 and 48.2. Chile noted that action had been taken in relation to this incident, and was working to prevent further incidents in the future. 35. SCIC classified Chile’s implementation of CM 26-01 as non-compliant. SCIC noted action already taken. 36. China was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 26-01 relating to one occasion involving the fishing vessel Long Teng which was observed from another vessel discarding substantial quantities of krill while retrieving its net. China reported that the net had torn and leaked the krill upon retrieval. China submitted a report on the incident to the Secretariat during the meeting. 37. SCIC noted that the incident was an accident which was classified as compliant with no further action required. Some Members raised the issue of distinguishing between intentional acts in the CCAMLR Compliance Report with those that could reasonably be described as accidents. 38. The Republic of Korea was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 26-01 relating to five incidences on four different vessels where observers reported that vessels had discharged organic matter, but there was no place in the report for the observer to note whether the organic matter had been macerated through screens. Korea reported that in the case of the fishing vessels Sejong, Kostar, Sunstar and Hong Jin No. 701, the information contained in the observer reports was incomplete and inconsistent with other observations, and the compliance was confirmed by the relevant observers. Therefore, Korea asked SCIC to consider these matters as compliant. 39. SCIC noted that in the case of the fishing vessels Sejong, Kostar, Sunstar and Hong Jin No. 701, due to subsequent information received from the Republic of Korea and verified by the observer, Korea’s implementation of CM 26-01 was classified as compliant with no further action required. 40. The Republic of Korea reported that in the case of the fishing vessel Sejong discarding krill, the implementation of CM 26-01 was a possible case of non-compliance. Korea affirmed its full commitment to full compliance with all binding measures and recommendations by regional fishery management organisations (RFMOs) and CCAMLR. Korea stated it is now poised to become one of the leading countries in the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. In the case of the Sejong, Korea stated that it had conducted a thorough investigation and initiated criminal proceedings against the operator of the vessel. This investigation is ongoing. 41. SCIC noted that in the case of the fishing vessel Sejong regarding discards of krill, the implementation of CM 26-01 was a case of non-compliance and no further action was required. 42. Norway was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 26-01 concerning one occasion of an observer reporting that the fishing vessel Antarctic Sea had spilled 50 litres of oil from a broken hydraulic pipe. Norway reported that the hydraulic pipe had broken during harvesting operations. Norway noted that despite the best efforts of the crew, the spill was unable to be contained. The vessel owner is reviewing the incident to prevent similar incidents in the future. 43. SCIC classified Norway’s implementation of CM 26-01 in regard to the Antarctic Sea as non-compliant with no further action required. 44. Russia was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 26-01, concerning two incidences of discharge of organic waste in Subareas 88.1 and 88.2 from the fishing vessel Yantar 35. Russia reported that the investigation was under way and that there was nothing further to report at the time of the meeting. SCIC agreed that this was a case in which ‘additional information’ was required. Russia agreed to provide a report to the Secretariat once the investigation is complete. 45. South Africa was invited to comment on the implementation of CM 41-01 concerning a report by an on-board observer regarding poor tagging behaviour by the crew, including incorrect recording of tagging positions, and that there was a lack of instruction provided in relation to sampling VMEs and errors in the sampling buckets used to record VME benthos. South Africa reported that the main issue was one of non-cooperation between the second mate of the vessel and the observer, the result of which was the removal of the second mate of the vessel. 46. SCIC requested more information in relation to this incident. SCIC noted the seriousness of any possible interruption to the work of the observers on board fishing vessels. South Africa clarified that the issue was not one of intimidation or harassment as understood by some Members, but one of non-cooperation. South Africa emphasised its commitment to upholding domestic and international labour laws. South Africa committed to providing a report to the Secretariat within 30 days of 30 October 2015. 47. The annual Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report is in Appendix I. Conservation Measure 10-01 48. SCIC noted that one Member had an issue reported in the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report in relation to the implementation of CM 10-01. The detail of this issue is included in the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. Conservation Measure 10-03 49. SCIC noted that five Members had issues reported in the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report in relation to the implementation of CM 10-03. The details of these issues are included in the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. Conservation Measure 10-09 50. SCIC considered the issues reported in the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report in relation to the implementation of CM 10-09 for one Member. The details of these issues are included in the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. Conservation Measure 23-06 51. SCIC considered the issues reported in the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report in relation to the implementation of CM 23-06 for one Member. The details of these issues are included in the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. Conservation Measure 25-02 52. SCIC considered the issues reported in the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report in relation to the implementation of CM 25-02 for one Member. The details of these issues are included in the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. Conservation Measure 26-01 53. SCIC noted that four Members had issues reported in the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report in relation to the implementation of CM 26-01. The details of these issues are included in the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report. Issues outstanding from CCAMLR-XXXIII 54. SCIC considered a number of outstanding matters identified during the consideration of the Compliance Evaluation Procedure in 2014 (CCAMLR-XXXIV/36 Rev. 2). 55. At CCAMLR-XXXIII, SCIC agreed that two events reported relating to Chile’s implementation of CM 25-02 should be categorised as non-compliant, and that further information was required from Chile in the form of the outcome of Chile’s investigation (CCAMLR-XXXIII, Annex 6, paragraphs 13 to 16). Chile provided this information in COMM CIRCs 15/88 and 15/99. 56. Argentina thanked Chile for both of its notes that were circulated to Members regarding the situation of the vessel Antarctic Bay. Argentina recalled its well-known position regarding the alleged adoption of unilateral measures in Subarea 48.3, where only the CCAMLR multilateral regime is applicable according to the Statement by the Chairman of the Conference of 1980. Argentina further stated that it would refer to the matter at a later point during the Commission plenary meeting. 57. The UK thanked Chile for its actions in relation to the fishing vessel Antarctic Bay and for the comprehensive information provided. The UK also stated that it rejected the intervention from Argentina in relation to the regulatory regimes in Subarea 48.3 and confirmed that it would also respond substantively during the Commission meeting. 58. At CCAMLR-XXXIII, SCIC agreed that an instance relating to South Africa’s implementation of CM 10-03 was non-compliant and that further action was required. South Africa was invited to provide a report to be submitted intersessionally to explain the actions taken to remedy this case in the short term (CCAMLR-XXXIII, Annex 6, paragraphs 56 to 58). 59. South Africa submitted a report regarding its implementation of CM 10-03 on 21 October 2015. South Africa noted that 150 contract workers had been appointed to assist specifically with commercial data monitoring in their ports, with additional personnel to be appointed in April 2016. South Africa affirmed their commitment to comply with all applicable conservation measures. 60. At CCAMLR-XXXIII, SCIC agreed that an instance relating to the implementation of CM 10-04 by Ukraine was non-compliant and requested Ukraine to submit a report to the Secretariat within 90 days (CCAMLR-XXXIII, Annex 6, paragraphs 64 to 66). 61. Ukraine reported that it was having difficulty with this investigation due to losing contact with the operator and owner of the vessel due to the licence not being renewed. Ukraine committed to supplying the Secretariat with a report regarding this matter within 30 days of 30 October 2015. 62. At CCAMLR-XXXIII, SCIC agreed that an instance relating to Uruguay’s implementation of CM 10-03 was non-compliant, with further information required. Uruguay agreed to provide a detailed report to the Secretariat within 90 days (CCAMLR-XXXIII, Annex 6, paragraphs 72 and 73). Uruguay provided this information in COMM CIRC 14/113. 63. SCIC considered Uruguay’s paper (CCAMLR-XXXIV/01) that reported on the port inspection of the Hong Jin No. 701. 64. SCIC considered the summary of port inspections provided by the Secretariat (CCAMLR-XXXIV/36 Rev. 2, paragraph 37) as requested by Uruguay (CCAMLR-XXXIII, Annex 6, paragraph 69). Uruguay noted that the concept of the summary of port inspections was a useful method for reviewing the administrative requirements of the implementation of conservation measures, particularly in the context of serious contraventions. Issues with measures 65. In compiling information for Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports, the Secretariat identified a range of issues relating to the implementation of the conservation measures included in CM 10-10 that may benefit from further review by SCIC (CM 10-10, paragraph 5). 66. SCIC noted that there is currently no mechanism in place for the Secretariat to determine if a Member has inspection obligations for vessels carrying other marine species caught inside the Convention Area and entering its ports (CCAMLR-XXXIV/36 Rev. 2, paragraph 39). 67. SCIC noted that some issues identified by the Secretariat in relation to Members’ implementation of conservation measures are not contained in Annex 10-10/A and, therefore, cannot be reported and considered under CCAMLR’s Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCAMLR-XXXIV/36 Rev. 2, paragraph 40). 68. Chile noted that the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report did not appear to be providing a general overview of compliance issues, nor did the current report give an indication whether the system was functioning effectively. 69. The UK suggested that SCIC consider modifying CM 10-10 to encourage Members to self-assess the compliance status for each compliance issue, in completing the Additional information column in the Draft Compliance Report. SCIC agreed that such an approach may expedite SCIC’s preparation of the Provisional Compliance Report, and agreed to consider amending CM 10-10. 70. SCIC also agreed that the interpretation of CM 10-10, Annex10-10/B, as applied to all cases of possible non-compliance, should be that of objective responsibility. Extraordinary circumstances, including force majeure, should be taken into account in exceptional and appropriate cases. 71. Some Members noted that CM 10-10, Annex 10-10/B ‘Compliance status categories’, should be further refined to ensure proper application of the categories. The USA noted the difficulties in applying categories in response to incidences of force majeure. SCIC agreed that timely responses by the Flag State to compliance issues identified in the Draft Compliance Report were essential for SCIC to consider matters in an effective manner. 72. The USA suggested that revisions to CM 10-10, Annex 10-10/B, should be considered, noting that for cases deemed force majeure, that a ‘no compliance status assigned’ category could be added. Japan stated that the terms and explanations used should be kept as much as possible in order to prevent confusion in developing the process. Chile suggested that administrative errors leading to compliance issues should be distinguished from more substantive and serious non-compliance incidents. The EU agreed with this suggestion. 73. SCIC adopted the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report for the Commission’s consideration (Appendix I), and also recommended the Commission consider amending CM 10-10 in light of the above discussion. |
| 2015 | SC-CAMLR-XXXIV | 3.39 |
3.39 The Scientific Committee noted that although some species may be increasing, others are declining; it noted that given ongoing changes in the environment related to climate, the varying rates of recovery of previously depleted stocks of marine mammals and fish, and changes in other components of the Antarctic food web, precautionary measures may be needed to ensure that Article II of the Convention was met. |
| 2015 | SC-CAMLR-XXXIV | 3.44 |
3.44 The Scientific Committee agreed that work to address the approaches and evaluate candidate decision rules could be advanced by holding a workshop in 2016, perhaps associated with WG-EMM (Annex 6, paragraph 2.128). |
| 2015 | SC-CAMLR-XXXIV | 3.222 to 3.231 |
Fishery nomenclature and the regulatory framework 3.222 The Scientific Committee welcomed the paper prepared by Dr Jones, in response to a request from the Commission last year (CCAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 5.37), reviewing the CCAMLR regulatory framework and providing recommendations for streamlining the assignment of fishery status (CCAMLR-XXXIV/17 Rev. 1). 3.223 The Scientific Committee noted that there was potential to harmonise the nomenclature of Dissostichus spp. fisheries by including all research fishing activities targeting Dissostichus spp. in exploratory fisheries, closed areas and areas with no catch limits under CM 41-01. It noted that the review of all research plans and objectives for Dissostichus spp. research in Subareas 48.2, 48.5, 48.6, 88.3 and Divisions 58.4.1, 58.4.2, 58.4.3a and 58.4.4 indicated that they shared all the characteristics of exploratory fisheries. It also noted that the history of fishing and research activities needs to be considered, and requested that the Secretariat develop documents analogous to the existing Fishery Reports to assemble this information. 3.224 The Scientific Committee agreed that the state of knowledge about stock and the ecosystem in the Ross Sea fishery meant that it had more in common with the established fisheries than the other exploratory and research fisheries, and hence a specific conservation measure could be developed for this fishery, based on CM 41-01, to reflect this. 3.225 Dr Kasatkina expressed concern that the recommendations in CCAMLR-XXXIV/17 Rev. 1 had the potential to have significant impacts on CCAMLR fisheries. She noted that the proposed recommendations for streamlining fishery status require special consideration with a particular focus on: (i) how the status of some fisheries should be changed and which new/revised conservation measure(s) would be required; (ii) which of the ensuing consequences for CCAMLR fisheries would be provided by streamlining fishery status. 3.226 Dr Kasatkina proposed discussing CCAMLR-XXXIV/17 Rev. 1 during the intersessional period by organising a workshop and presenting a report for consideration by WG EMM and WG-FSA. 3.227 Dr Zhao noted that a dedicated workshop to harmonise the conservation measures may be desirable, particularly where research plans related to FBM of the krill fishery are concerned. He further noted that it is also desirable that a mechanism be established to ensure consistency in nomenclature across conservation measures and resolutions as they are reviewed and/or modified. 3.228 The Scientific Committee also requested that the Commission consider mechanisms for developing long-term research plans in closed fisheries such as Subarea 48.2 and to progress research fishing in individual research plans towards an exploratory fishery. Streamlining the review of research plans 3.229 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-SAM and WG-FSA had spent a considerable amount of time reviewing research plans submitted by Members notifying to conduct research fishing in 2015/16 and considered methods to streamline the review process (Annex 7, paragraphs 5.6 to 5.14). The Scientific Committee noted that keeping track of research proposals and their progress in addressing CCAMLR’s objectives was essential and endorsed the proposal by WG-FSA that Fishery Reports should be appended with information on the fishery research in the area. It also agreed that research plans should include clear descriptions of milestones towards the objectives of research plans, to enable a straightforward assessment of whether a research plan is proceeding as planned, or if any revisions are required. It also agreed that plans and milestones should emphasise analysis of samples and data and development of stock assessments and management advice, as well as at-sea sampling. 3.230 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-FSA had requested that the criteria be established whereby the likelihood of research plans achieving their objectives could be assessed. It noted that factors such as the success of previous research could be considered, noting that learning from the past was a key component of the scientific process. 3.231 It further noted that guidelines for developing research plans and evaluating them against their individual objectives has been successful in WG-SAM and WG-FSA, and that it was the role of the Scientific Committee to review and prioritise across all research plans submitted by Members, in particular where the catch limits exceed those shown in CM 24-01, Annex 24-01/B. It recalled its advice in 2008 on CCAMLR-sponsored research and reiterated its advice that the guidelines in SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraphs 8.9 to 8.11, be followed when establishing research programs. It also noted that these guidelines should also be considered when prioritising or integrating research plans where multiple proposals may occur with similar objectives. |
| 2015 | SC-CAMLR-XXXIV | 5.5 to 5.30 |
Marine protected areas Domain 1 the Western Antarctic Peninsula and South Scotia Arc 5.5 The Scientific Committee noted that a number of national and international planning workshops had taken place during the intersessional period. In particular, these included a domestic workshop to identify US stakeholders’ objectives and protection priorities for one or more MPAs within Domain 1 and the Second International Workshop for identifying MPAs in Planning Domain 1 held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and attended by representatives from Argentina, Chile, EU, Germany, Norway, UK, USA, non-governmental organisations and the fishery industry (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.1 to 3.15). New and updated data are now available for Domain 1 and have been shared through a CCAMLR e-group following national activities and analyses by Argentina, Chile, USA and UK which aimed to (i) compile new data, (ii) discuss different conservation objectives, (iii) analyse penguins’ habitat modelling, and (iv) identify high-priority areas for conservation within Domain 1 (Annex 6, paragraph 3.10). 5.6 The Scientific Committee noted suggestions during WG-EMM-15 concerning the consideration of CEMP sites as part of the MPA planning process in relation to future work towards refining stage 2 or moving to stage 2 of FBM, through potentially closing or limiting krill fishing near selected CEMP sites (Annex 6, paragraph 3.19). 5.7 Dr M. Santos (Argentina) reported that ongoing work was under way to further update data layers, using the e-group for Members’ consideration. She indicated that Argentina and Chile hope to prepare further MPA planning documents (background papers) for Domain 1 for consideration at WG-EMM-16 and an MPA proposal for WG-EMM-17. Domains 3 and 4 the Weddell Sea 5.8 The Scientific Committee noted the discussions during WG-EMM-15 relating to the ongoing MPA planning work within the Weddell Sea Planning Region (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.24 to 3.54). It noted that revised versions of the documents describing the ongoing work (WG-EMM-15/38 Rev. 1, 15/39 and 15/46) had also been submitted to the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/BG/15, BG/16 and BG/17) and that these documents described how scientific issues raised during WG-EMM-15 were being addressed. The Scientific Committee also noted SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/13 which provides an introduction to the other three documents and describes the history of Weddell Sea planning documents previously submitted to SC-CAMLR and WG-EMM. 5.9 SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/BG/15 provided background information on the Weddell Sea MPA Planning Region and the general context for the establishment of MPAs in the region; it was developed by 50 authors from 10 Members. The paper provided a comprehensive description of the Weddell Sea ecosystem with suggestions for future work to fill current knowledge gaps. The document included new chapters on fish, biogeography and climate change scenarios. SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/BG/16 provided a description of the spatial data available and how they have been used, including newly available data from the UK and the USA on Adélie penguin movements during the non-breeding season. SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/BG/17 included a series of general and specific conservation objectives based on CM 91-04; it also described MPA scenario development and data analysis methods. SC CAMLR-XXXIV/BG/17 also presented a preliminary cost layer based on potential toothfish fishery areas and identified a number of priority candidate areas for protection. 5.10 Prof. T. Brey (Germany) outlined a number of topics where additional work is still needed, including further work on: flying seabirds, Adélie penguins, development of a toothfish habitat model and demersal and pelagic fish community analyses. He also reported on Germany’s intention to include a cost layer based on potential krill fishery areas. Prof. Brey highlighted the need to analyse the boundary region on the border between CCAMLR Domains 1 and 3 (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.55 to 3.59). 5.11 The Scientific Committee thanked Prof. Brey and his co-workers for their comprehensive summary of the ecosystem components that comprise the Weddell Sea. It recognised that the body of work described in the four documents (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/13, BG/15, BG/16 and BG/17) constituted a very considerable resource that would facilitate MPA planning within the region. It endorsed plans to further develop both the data and the analysis methods, recognising that the body of science in the documents provided the necessary foundation for developing future proposals for candidate MPAs. 5.12 The Scientific Committee agreed that the work described in SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/13, BG/15, BG/16 and BG/17 constituted reference material for the Weddell Sea planning domain and could be placed on the CCAMLR website following the procedure set out in SC CAMLR-XXXIV/01 and endorsed by the Scientific Committee (paragraphs 16.1 to 16.4). 5.13 The Scientific Committee congratulated Prof. Brey and his co-workers for the clear and transparent communication of their work, noting that the body of research would be valuable for other aspects of CCAMLR’s work, in addition to MPA planning. 5.14 The Scientific Committee noted that the description of the MARXAN analyses and the strategy used would help in the identification of which objectives determined the selection of candidate protection areas. It also noted that the strategy used for assessing the suite of conservation objectives could help in building a common standard that could facilitate progress in identifying MPAs in other areas of the Antarctic. 5.15 The Scientific Committee encouraged Prof. Brey and his co-workers to develop a full MPA proposal, in accordance with CM 91-04, focusing on its objectives, management plan and research and monitoring plan, recognising that a large amount of data had now been collated. 5.16 Mr L. Yang (China) congratulated Prof. Brey and his co-workers for providing a comprehensive analysis and encouraged Prof. Brey to develop criteria to assess the conservation objectives under Article XV.2(a) of the Convention. 5.17 Dr Kasatkina introduced SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/08. She noted that analysis of ice conditions in the Weddell Sea undertaken for 2003–2014 revealed that navigating conditions in the Weddell Sea are entirely determined by the location and dynamics of the Atlantic ice massif, and by the development of recurring polynyas. Sites identified in the analysis where, under specific conditions, a protection regime could be introduced, are located at the coordinates given in Table 2 of SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/08. Areas in the eastern part of the Weddell Sea could be considered as areas of high scientific interest. Near the continental coast, there are areas that become free of ice much earlier than does the entire massif, and close much later, which means that these areas could be considered as candidate sites for protection. These areas have depths of up to 500 m. 5.18 In consideration of ice dynamics in the Weddell Sea, Prof. K. Kovacs (Norway) and Dr Trathan emphasised that other potentially ice-covered areas were also worthy of protection, as sea-ice provides important habitat for many species and helps structure ecological communities across many trophic levels. 5.19 Dr Belyaev introduced SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/09. He highlighted that there are populations of dominant fish species in the Weddell Sea that are of commercial importance or potential commercial importance: D. mawsoni; spiny icefish (Chaenodraco wilsoni); P. antarctica; Antarctic rockcod (Trematomus eulepidotus). Potentially commercial species, after further study, could be fish from the family Myctophidae (Gymnoscopelus spp.). Long-term surveys and research are needed in order to further determine the commercial potential of these fish species, as well as to assess their stocks and future rational use. Dr Belyaev noted that data on the state of toothfish as an important component of the ecosystem were currently not available. Such data firstly can be obtained through research fishing, which Russia considers should be undertaken in the Weddell Sea and results included in the MPA planning analysis. 5.20 In response, Prof. Brey invited all Members that hold data related to fish, including on commercial species, to help develop integrated analyses of these taxa so that they could be used in MPA development. Prof. Brey noted that Germany holds data on fish collected over 20 years and invited Dr Belyaev to contribute any relevant data held in Russian archives. 5.21 Drs Kasatkina and Belyaev noted the improvements in the proposal for an MPA in the Weddell Sea. However, they considered that some issues remain, in particular in relation to the research and monitoring plan. They expressed the following concerns: (i) MPA boundaries should be established in compliance with sea-ice conditions for vessel navigation being a fundamental factor for the successful completion of assigned research tasks in designated areas. Analyses undertaken on seasonal and interannual dynamics of ice conditions in the Weddell Sea give some grounds for doubt in relation to an MPA in the Weddell Sea (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/08). 5.22 Drs Kasatkina and Belyaev noted that Germany’s proposal for the establishment of an MPA in the Weddell Sea will be complemented by the materials analysed and the suggestions made here relating to the unanswered questions of biodiversity and the MPAs in terms of annual navigational access to the areas identified for possible protection. They further stated that at this time Russia was therefore not able to support Germany’s draft proposal to establish a Weddell Sea MPA. 5.23 Ms J. Hepp, on behalf of ASOC, thanked the proponents of MPA plans in Domains 1 and 3 and encouraged their further work. In particular, she expressed her thanks to the organisers of those planning workshops where non-governmental organisation representatives had been invited, noting the value of such open and transparent engagement. She further noted that in ASOC’s view this work constituted a significant step forward in the development of the representative system of MPAs through the best available science. Approaches to MPA planning in the boundary region 5.24 The Scientific Committee noted the discussion at WG-EMM-15 related to the boundary region between Domains 1 and 3 (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.55 to 3.59). It noted that the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula was an area of considerable ecological importance. The Scientific Committee encouraged independent analyses for this boundary region, with reports tabled to the next meeting of WG-EMM-16 (Annex 6, paragraph 3.58). 5.25 The Scientific Committee noted that similar issues may arise for other planning domains, particularly if the boundary region includes a high concentration of features likely to be prioritised as important for achieving conservation objectives. Future MPA planning analyses could consider including a buffer across appropriate boundary areas, if required (Annex 6, paragraph 3.59). 5.26 SC-CAMLR-XXXIV/BG/31 presented an analysis of sea-ice over the past 16 years within and surrounding the boundaries of the proposed Ross Sea SRZ. This analysis highlighted the potential effect of sea-ice on achieving the objectives of the proposed SRZ. The paper included links to animations that represent good, marginal and poor access to the SRZ in years with different ice conditions. 5.27 The influence of sea-ice on achieving the proposed objectives of the SRZ pertains to the deployment and subsequent recovery of tagged fish to examine movements and estimate exploitation rates within the SRZ. Over the past 16 seasons, the SRZ was accessible to fishing in January in eight seasons, open later in four seasons, and remained severely constrained by sea-ice in the remaining four seasons. Even in years where access was poor, some catch was able to be taken. 5.28 The Scientific Committee noted discussions at WG-EMM-15 concerning the archiving of background information and data layers used in MPA planning processes (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.60 to 3.70). In particular, it noted the importance of making information and data available to all Members through the CCAMLR website; for example, information could be made available in a hierarchical structure where access to some pages would be restricted to Members only: (i) information on the status of MPAs and general background (public) 5.29 The Scientific Committee noted that finding this information from the CCAMLR home page needed to be straightforward and intuitive (Annex 6, paragraph 3.63). 5.30 The Scientific Committee therefore endorsed the following general recommendations (Annex 6, paragraph 3.68) for archiving data related to MPA planning: (i) data layers used in MPA analyses should be made available for review and use by all Members as far as possible |
| 2015 | SC-CAMLR-XXXIV | Annex 7, 5.29 and 8.15 and 8.16 |
5.29 The Working Group recalled previous simulation work carried out to examine the effect of research catches on the recovery of depleted stocks by Welsford (2011). This analysis showed that even small research catches could delay the recovery of stocks which had been severely depleted. It also recalled previous discussions on this topic based on WG SAM-13/37 at the 2013 WG-SAM meeting (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, Annex 4, paragraph 2.7viii) stating ‘Combined catch limits for all research blocks in a stock or SSRU should be evaluated to ensure that the combined catch is lower than a precautionary exploitation rate. The Working Group recognised that exploitation rates of 3–4% of Bcurrent (at the scale of the stock or SSRU) are appropriate for stocks with current status ranging from 20% to 100% B0, consistent with previously utilised methods (SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 7, paragraphs 5.22 and 5.34) to ensure that research catches do not delay recovery for depleted stocks (Welsford, 2011).’ However, it was also noted that this advice was based on research fishing only being for five years with no fishing thereafter. 8.15 WG-FSA-15/51 presented an update on the biological parameters of the grey rockcod (Lepidonotothen squamifrons) in Division 58.5.2. The improved ageing estimates indicated an increase in the maximum age to 24 years. Three populations with distinct geographical distribution were found in the division. 8.16 The Working Group welcomed the paper and the updated biological parameters of this formerly exploited species. The results from this initial work indicated slow but steady stock recovery, although at different rates within the three identified geographical populations. This apparent heterogeneity of the subpopulations is consistent with previous observations in this species such as highlighted in Gregory et al. (2014) for Subarea 48.3. |
| 2016 | CCAMLR-XXXV | 5.71 to 5.85 |
Marine protected areas 5.71 The Commission noted the Scientific Committee’s discussions at WG-EMM on marine protected area (MPA) planning in Domain 1, preliminary results of research voyages to the South Orkney MPA, and the latest information on the development of the Weddell Sea MPA (WSMPA) (Domains 3 and 4) (SC CAMLR-XXXV, paragraphs 5.5 to 5.18). 5.72 The Commission noted the significant amount of work undertaken in respect of the WSMPA, particularly to address the recommendations from WG-EMM-16 (CCAMLR-XXXV/18; SC CAMLR-XXXV/01 Rev. 1, BG/11, BG/12 and BG/13). It further noted that the Scientific Committee had agreed that the extensive information presented in the four documents is the best science currently available and that it provides the necessary foundation for MPA planning in this region, as well being useful for many other purposes. It also noted that further work was required to develop these analyses and to identify how they are used in the development of a WSMPA proposal, and encouraged the continuation of this work. 5.73 The Commission considered the following issues related to separating scientific questions on the data and analyses relating to the development of the WSMPA proposal from those relating to management issues: (i) future management of research fisheries within the proposed WSMPA, in relation to the target levels for protection of toothfish habitat 5.74 Germany thanked all Members for their suggestions made at the meetings of WG EMM and WG-SAM in 2016 and in subsequent discussions; in respect of the three issues raised in paragraph 5.73 Germany noted that: (i) For each of the more than 70 ecological and environmental parameters established in the WSMPA planning process, a target range was discussed and agreed at the second international expert workshop. For most of the targets, a medium level was considered to be the most balanced approach. However, for some targets, such as the protection of D. mawsoni in Subarea 48.6, Germany is preparing further analyses, which will be presented at the next meeting of WG EMM and/or WG-FSA so that experts from all interested parties can assist in finding the best solution. 5.75 Japan noted that the use of fishing vessels to conduct research on toothfish had been demonstrated and, as such, there was a need to ensure that any new conservation measures that are introduced should be consistent with the existing conservation measure framework. Furthermore, Japan considered that, given the ongoing effects of climate change, there is a need to have a fixed period of designation for the WSMPA such that the MPA would lapse unless it is proven that the MPA is still achieving its objectives. Japan stressed that an automatic renewal system reduces the incentive for serious and comprehensive review for judging whether the MPA should be maintained as it stands, amended or abolished.
5.76 Norway reiterated its view that any MPA proposal that is submitted to the Commission should be agreed by the Scientific Committee and should be based on the best available science. In this case, Norway was not convinced that the WSMPA did in fact reflect the best available science and, as such, it required further review by the Scientific Committee and its working groups. 5.77 New Zealand congratulated the EU and Germany on the extensive compilation of data associated with the WSMPA proposal but noted that WG-FSA had not had an opportunity to review the fishery research zones and that there were additional analyses related to toothfish and demersal fish that had been requested by WG-EMM. While the underlying data does represent the best available science, the way in which these data layers were used in the analysis to define, inter alia, boundaries and the research and monitoring plan required clarification. New Zealand encouraged the proponents to undertake this further analysis and clarification. 5.78 Russia noted that its position had been reflected in SC-CAMLR-XXXV/10 and recalled the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes an effective MPA. Therefore, the discussion of the details of the specific issues of the WSMPA may not be sensible in the absence of consideration of other substantive issues. Russia also stated that clarity was required on the definition of what constitutes nature conservation objectives, key ecosystem processes, areas or objects vulnerable to impact by human activities and the criteria provided to evaluate the achievement of each objective. 5.79 The Commission noted that there was a need for clarity in relation to the question posed in SC-CAMLR-XXXV, paragraph 5.18. 5.80 The Observer from the IUCN noted that during the recent IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawaii, USA, there had been many positive developments for marine protection, including a proposed increase in the percentage of marine areas in highly protected MPAs to 30% by 2030. This was supported by the vast majority of IUCN’s members, including governments, for example, Russia. He also recalled the Commission’s discussion from last year in regard to IUCN management categories that, while the Convention Area may have certain characteristics of IUCN’s category IV, it is not managed as such and is not recognised by the IUCN as an MPA category IV or any other IUCN marine protected area category. 5.81 Russia presented CCAMLR-XXXV/20 that provided comments on the MPA on the South Orkney Islands southern shelf (SOISS MPA). This paper suggested the need to look at the lessons learnt from the establishment of this MPA. Russia noted several outstanding issues with this MPA that required further clarification, including: (i) the geographical boundary being poorly founded, (ii) no clear objectives being stated, (iii) criteria for assessing objectives, (iv) monitoring of those criteria, and (v) further details on the duration and realisation of the MPA. Russia also noted that the existence of the SOISS MPA for more than seven years had not facilitated scientific research in the area. Russia noted that the experience of the SOISS MPA showed failure of proper implementation of the monitoring program and assigned research tasks in the vast designated area. The MPA research and monitoring plan should be detailed in terms of ‘When, how and by whom’ will this plan be implemented. 5.82 Russia also commented on legal aspects of the MPA because it is still regulated under CM 91-03 despite CM 91-04 being adopted in 2011, this duality in the existence of the MPA conservation measure means there is no approved research and monitoring plan. Russia believed it necessary to transfer the MPA to the framework of CM 91-04 with the presentation of all the necessary documents with boundaries, duration, monitoring and research, taking into account the comments made in the Scientific Committee meeting in 2014 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 5.58). Russia also stated that the transfer of the SOISS MPA should be implemented in the near future on the basis of consensus reached by the Scientific Committee and the Commission. Additionally, Russia noted the crucial importance of the Japanese checklist for MPA proposals (CCAMLR-XXXIV/19), which was an important document for standardising and rationalising the establishment of MPAs. 5.83 China shared the views expressed by Russia on this issue. China hoped the Commission could continue its work on harmonising the SOISS MPA with CM 91-04. China also believed that CCAMLR needed to learn lessons from the review of this MPA and to encourage Members to conduct more research in order to provide better scientific basis for analysing the effectiveness of the MPA. 5.84 The UK recalled that the SOISS is a CCAMLR MPA and not a UK or EU MPA. It highlighted that the boundaries of the MPA were modified during the Commission meeting in 2009, taking into account the concerns of all Members at that time, and that it was then agreed by all Members. The UK recalled that CM 91-03 was agreed before CM 91-04, also that the EU had brought forward plans to align CM 91-03 with CM 91-04 at the first review of the MPA in 2014. The UK highlighted that it had undertaken four seasons of land-based predator research since 2009, as well as undertaking two research cruises in 2016. In COMM CIRC 15/33–SC CIRC 15/21, the UK had invited the participation of all CCAMLR Members to join the benthic cruise; and nine Members had then participated. The results from the land-based fieldwork and from both cruises will contribute to the development of FBM, as well as to marine spatial planning within the SOISS MPA and within the surrounding areas. The UK highlighted that the benthic cruise also provided an important connection with the SCAR State of the Antarctic Ecosystem (AntEco) program. 5.85 The EU noted that the results from the research undertaken by the UK and its collaborators will contribute to the MPA Report, to the further development of the research and monitoring plan and to the next review of CM 91-03 in 2019. At that time the EU will provide further suggestions to bring CM 91-03 into line with CM 91-04. |
| 2016 | CCAMLR-XXXV | 5.71 to 5.85 and 8.35 to 8.94 |
Marine protected areas 5.71 The Commission noted the Scientific Committee’s discussions at WG-EMM on marine protected area (MPA) planning in Domain 1, preliminary results of research voyages to the South Orkney MPA, and the latest information on the development of the Weddell Sea MPA (WSMPA) (Domains 3 and 4) (SC CAMLR-XXXV, paragraphs 5.5 to 5.18). 5.72 The Commission noted the significant amount of work undertaken in respect of the WSMPA, particularly to address the recommendations from WG-EMM-16 (CCAMLR-XXXV/18; SC CAMLR-XXXV/01 Rev. 1, BG/11, BG/12 and BG/13). It further noted that the Scientific Committee had agreed that the extensive information presented in the four documents is the best science currently available and that it provides the necessary foundation for MPA planning in this region, as well being useful for many other purposes. It also noted that further work was required to develop these analyses and to identify how they are used in the development of a WSMPA proposal, and encouraged the continuation of this work. 5.73 The Commission considered the following issues related to separating scientific questions on the data and analyses relating to the development of the WSMPA proposal from those relating to management issues: (i) future management of research fisheries within the proposed WSMPA, in relation to the target levels for protection of toothfish habitat 5.74 Germany thanked all Members for their suggestions made at the meetings of WG EMM and WG-SAM in 2016 and in subsequent discussions; in respect of the three issues raised in paragraph 5.73 Germany noted that: (i) For each of the more than 70 ecological and environmental parameters established in the WSMPA planning process, a target range was discussed and agreed at the second international expert workshop. For most of the targets, a medium level was considered to be the most balanced approach. However, for some targets, such as the protection of D. mawsoni in Subarea 48.6, Germany is preparing further analyses, which will be presented at the next meeting of WG EMM and/or WG-FSA so that experts from all interested parties can assist in finding the best solution. 5.75 Japan noted that the use of fishing vessels to conduct research on toothfish had been demonstrated and, as such, there was a need to ensure that any new conservation measures that are introduced should be consistent with the existing conservation measure framework. Furthermore, Japan considered that, given the ongoing effects of climate change, there is a need to have a fixed period of designation for the WSMPA such that the MPA would lapse unless it is proven that the MPA is still achieving its objectives. Japan stressed that an automatic renewal system reduces the incentive for serious and comprehensive review for judging whether the MPA should be maintained as it stands, amended or abolished.
5.76 Norway reiterated its view that any MPA proposal that is submitted to the Commission should be agreed by the Scientific Committee and should be based on the best available science. In this case, Norway was not convinced that the WSMPA did in fact reflect the best available science and, as such, it required further review by the Scientific Committee and its working groups. 5.77 New Zealand congratulated the EU and Germany on the extensive compilation of data associated with the WSMPA proposal but noted that WG-FSA had not had an opportunity to review the fishery research zones and that there were additional analyses related to toothfish and demersal fish that had been requested by WG-EMM. While the underlying data does represent the best available science, the way in which these data layers were used in the analysis to define, inter alia, boundaries and the research and monitoring plan required clarification. New Zealand encouraged the proponents to undertake this further analysis and clarification. 5.78 Russia noted that its position had been reflected in SC-CAMLR-XXXV/10 and recalled the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes an effective MPA. Therefore, the discussion of the details of the specific issues of the WSMPA may not be sensible in the absence of consideration of other substantive issues. Russia also stated that clarity was required on the definition of what constitutes nature conservation objectives, key ecosystem processes, areas or objects vulnerable to impact by human activities and the criteria provided to evaluate the achievement of each objective. 5.79 The Commission noted that there was a need for clarity in relation to the question posed in SC-CAMLR-XXXV, paragraph 5.18. 5.80 The Observer from the IUCN noted that during the recent IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawaii, USA, there had been many positive developments for marine protection, including a proposed increase in the percentage of marine areas in highly protected MPAs to 30% by 2030. This was supported by the vast majority of IUCN’s members, including governments, for example, Russia. He also recalled the Commission’s discussion from last year in regard to IUCN management categories that, while the Convention Area may have certain characteristics of IUCN’s category IV, it is not managed as such and is not recognised by the IUCN as an MPA category IV or any other IUCN marine protected area category. 5.81 Russia presented CCAMLR-XXXV/20 that provided comments on the MPA on the South Orkney Islands southern shelf (SOISS MPA). This paper suggested the need to look at the lessons learnt from the establishment of this MPA. Russia noted several outstanding issues with this MPA that required further clarification, including: (i) the geographical boundary being poorly founded, (ii) no clear objectives being stated, (iii) criteria for assessing objectives, (iv) monitoring of those criteria, and (v) further details on the duration and realisation of the MPA. Russia also noted that the existence of the SOISS MPA for more than seven years had not facilitated scientific research in the area. Russia noted that the experience of the SOISS MPA showed failure of proper implementation of the monitoring program and assigned research tasks in the vast designated area. The MPA research and monitoring plan should be detailed in terms of ‘When, how and by whom’ will this plan be implemented. 5.82 Russia also commented on legal aspects of the MPA because it is still regulated under CM 91-03 despite CM 91-04 being adopted in 2011, this duality in the existence of the MPA conservation measure means there is no approved research and monitoring plan. Russia believed it necessary to transfer the MPA to the framework of CM 91-04 with the presentation of all the necessary documents with boundaries, duration, monitoring and research, taking into account the comments made in the Scientific Committee meeting in 2014 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 5.58). Russia also stated that the transfer of the SOISS MPA should be implemented in the near future on the basis of consensus reached by the Scientific Committee and the Commission. Additionally, Russia noted the crucial importance of the Japanese checklist for MPA proposals (CCAMLR-XXXIV/19), which was an important document for standardising and rationalising the establishment of MPAs. 5.83 China shared the views expressed by Russia on this issue. China hoped the Commission could continue its work on harmonising the SOISS MPA with CM 91-04. China also believed that CCAMLR needed to learn lessons from the review of this MPA and to encourage Members to conduct more research in order to provide better scientific basis for analysing the effectiveness of the MPA. 5.84 The UK recalled that the SOISS is a CCAMLR MPA and not a UK or EU MPA. It highlighted that the boundaries of the MPA were modified during the Commission meeting in 2009, taking into account the concerns of all Members at that time, and that it was then agreed by all Members. The UK recalled that CM 91-03 was agreed before CM 91-04, also that the EU had brought forward plans to align CM 91-03 with CM 91-04 at the first review of the MPA in 2014. The UK highlighted that it had undertaken four seasons of land-based predator research since 2009, as well as undertaking two research cruises in 2016. In COMM CIRC 15/33–SC CIRC 15/21, the UK had invited the participation of all CCAMLR Members to join the benthic cruise; and nine Members had then participated. The results from the land-based fieldwork and from both cruises will contribute to the development of FBM, as well as to marine spatial planning within the SOISS MPA and within the surrounding areas. The UK highlighted that the benthic cruise also provided an important connection with the SCAR State of the Antarctic Ecosystem (AntEco) program. 5.85 The EU noted that the results from the research undertaken by the UK and its collaborators will contribute to the MPA Report, to the further development of the research and monitoring plan and to the next review of CM 91-03 in 2019. At that time the EU will provide further suggestions to bring CM 91-03 into line with CM 91-04. Time-limited Special Areas for Scientific Study 8.35 The Commission adopted CM 24-04 (2016) which facilitates the establishment of time-limited Special Areas for Scientific Study in newly exposed marine areas following ice-shelf retreat or collapse in Subareas 48.1, 48.5 and 88.3 (see paragraphs 5.86 to 5.90). 8.36 The UK made the following statement:
8.37 New Zealand and the USA introduced a revised proposal to establish a Ross Sea region MPA (CCAMLR-XXXV/25 Rev. 1). First submitted to the Commission in 2012 and subsequently revised in 2013, 2014 and 2015, the proposal seeks to establish an MPA to conserve marine living resources, maintain ecosystem structure and function, protect vital ecosystem processes and areas of ecological significance, and promote scientific research, including through the establishment of reference areas. Taking careful consideration of discussions by the Scientific Committee and Commission and feedback from Members, the key revisions in the proposal are: (i) addition of a new krill research zone (KRZ) 8.38 Following further discussion during the meeting, the proponents of the Ross Sea region MPA were pleased to report that substantial progress had been made and a revised proposal (CCAMLR-XXXV/25 Rev. 1) was submitted to meet the remaining concerns of Russia. The proponents thanked Russia for its constructive approach and cooperative engagement in developing this revision. The key revisions involved the review and period of designation of the management regime for the special research zone (SRZ), the catch limit for the SRZ, the issue of research collaboration and the opening of closed areas outside the MPA upon its entry into force. 8.39 The proponents of the Ross Sea region MPA made the following statement:
8.40 Russia made the following statement:
8.41 Members thanked the delegations of New Zealand, Russia and the USA for their work on bringing the Ross Sea region MPA to this advanced stage. Members also agreed that the approval of this MPA by the Commission would be a timely and welcome message to be delivered by CCAMLR. It was also a significant incentive for all Members currently working on establishing MPAs within the Convention Area, such as the current proposal being developed in Planning Domain 1, East Antarctica and the Weddell Sea. 8.42 The EU noted that the proposal had been discussed for several years and that it would represent an important element in creating a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area, a priority that the Commission has adopted. The EU expressed its gratitude for the comments and discussions that the proponents had with interested Members before and during the meeting. The EU considered the proposal was sufficiently advanced and hoped to proceed with the proposal. 8.43 The Republic of Korea made the following statement:
8.44 Japan sought further information on the basis for allocating catch limits in the areas open to fishing north and south of 70°S. In addition, Japan reiterated the importance of a shorter period of designation in view of climate change and associated dynamic changes which are occurring in the Antarctic marine ecosystem. In Japan’s view, the period of designation should be based on Article II of the Convention and in the order of two or three decades. 8.45 Argentina recalled that Article II of the Convention established two or three decades for ecosystem recovery for species which were first impacted by commercial fishing activities in the Antarctic region. In this respect, Argentina recalled that the Convention was signed in the 1980, when knowledge regarding species recovery timeframes was scarce. It further called attention to the fact that, since then, there are still some species that have not recovered, hence the proposed 50-year period appeared to be more in line with CCAMLR’s fundamental value: the precautionary principle. 8.46 The Commission congratulated New Zealand, Russia and the USA for this breakthrough and Members expressed their appreciation at the efforts made in developing the proposal. The Commission thanked Members for the overwhelming support for this revised proposal. 8.47 The Commission referred the proposal on the Ross Sea region MPA to the conservation measures drafting group for further discussion and drafting. 8.48 The Commission adopted CM 91-05 (2016) which establishes the Ross Sea region MPA (CM 91-05, Figure 1), commencing 1 December 2017. The MPA is designated to contribute to the following specific objectives, in line with Article II of the Convention: (i) to conserve natural ecological structure, dynamics and function throughout the Ross Sea region at all levels of biological organisation, by protecting habitats that are important to native mammals, birds, fishes and invertebrates 8.49 In addition, CM 91-05 describes: (i) restricted, prohibited and managed activities 8.50 On the establishment of the Ross Sea region MPA, the USA stated:
8.51 New Zealand made the following statement:
8.52 Argentina made the following statement:
8.53 The EU made the following statement:
8.54 Belgium made the following statement:
8.55 Chile made the following statement:
8.56 China made the following statement:
8.57 France made the following statement:
8.58 Germany made the following statement:
8.59 Italy made the following statement:
8.60 Japan made the following statement:
8.61 The Republic of Korea made the following statement:
8.62 Namibia made the following statement:
8.63 Norway made the following statement:
8.64 South Africa made the following statement:
8.65 Spain made the following statement:
8.66 Sweden made the following statement:
8.67 The UK made the following statement:
8.68 Uruguay made the following statement:
8.69 Australia made the following statement:
8.70 ASOC made the following statement:
8.71 ARK made the following statement:
8.72 COLTO made the following statement:
8.73 Oceanites made the following statement: ‘Oceanites adds its congratulations to the Commission on the establishment of the Ross Sea MPA. This is a wonderful achievement and a most notable, excellent day in CCAMLR’s history.’ Marine protected areas East Antarctica 8.74 Australia and the EU and its member states introduced a revised proposal to establish a representative system of MPAs in the East Antarctica planning domain (EARSMPA) (CCAMLR-XXXV/15 Rev. 2). The proponents noted that they had improved and refined the proposal since 2012 to take account of Members’ views, and most recently had sought to consult with Members on the issues raised at CCAMLR-XXXIV (2015). The proponents noted that, while the fundamental principles remain, significant concessions have been incorporated into the proposal, including: • changing the proposal from a closed system with multiple-use activities requiring approval, to an open system where activities are allowed until a decision by the Commission is made to modify them 8.75 Australia, the EU and its member states noted that, at CCAMLR-XXXIV, most Members agreed that the proposal had addressed their concerns, and that the EARSMPA provides an important conservation and management tool. The proponents recalled the commitment by the Commission in 2009 to achieve a representative system of MPAs within the CCAMLR area by 2012 (CCAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 7.19). The proponents thanked Members for their continued open and constructive contributions to the proposal. 8.76 Norway expressed its support for this proposal, and noted that the approach taken by the proponents differed to that taken by the proponents of the Ross Sea region MPA. The necessarily different approach taken in the proposed EARSMPA reflected the limited scientific information available, and such an approach should be considered by CCAMLR as an approach for similar data-deficient areas around Antarctica. 8.77 Russia presented CCAMLR-XXXV/21 that provided comments on the proposed EARSMPA. Russia requested further clarification of the MPA objectives, monitoring and research plan, and criteria for assessing whether the MPA’s specific objectives may be achieved. Russia also believed each of the proposed MPAs in the East Antarctic System (MacRobertson, Drygalski and D’Urville) should be the subject of separate measures, each with a monitoring plan and reporting period. 8.78 Russia noted that the approach used in developing this MPA proposal was different to that taken in developing the Ross Sea region MPA and also different to that taken to establish the SOISS MPA. Russia advised that a single approach is required to develop MPAs in the Convention Area. 8.79 China requested that further consideration be given to the research and management plan, the period of designation and a clear description of the objectives and restricted or prohibited activities in each proposed MPA. 8.80 Japan requested that further consideration be given to the period of designation. 8.81 The Commission thanked the proponents of the proposed EARSMPA for the extensive work undertaken so far and encouraged all Members to engage in further cooperative discussions so that this proposal may be considered by the Commission in 2017. 8.82 The EU noted that the proposal had been discussed for several years and that it would represent an important element in creating a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area, a priority that the Commission has adopted. 8.83 The EU expressed its gratitude for the comments and discussions that the proponents had with interested Members before and during the meeting. The EU considered the proposal was sufficiently advanced and hoped to proceed with the proposal. 8.84 Australia noted that while, regrettably, the Commission was unable to agree to the establishment of the EARSMPA, the adoption of the Ross Sea region MPA is clearly a step in the right direction towards achieving a representative system of MPAs. Australia thanked Members for their continued support for the EARSMPA, and noted its aspiration to achieving a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area, and, in particular, to achieving the objectives for the EARSMPA. Weddell Sea 8.85 Germany and the EU introduced a proposal by the EU and its member states to establish a WSMPA (CCAMLR-XXXV/18). The EU noted that a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area was a priority for the Commission. The EU also highlighted that the Weddell Sea MPA proposal would be one important chain in such a system. The scientific background to support the development of a WSMPA has been developed continuously during the last four years and the WSMPA scenario development followed the systematic conservation planning approach. Extensive environmental and ecological datasets were compiled and analysed and conservation objectives and targets for protection were defined and prioritised with input from two international expert workshops. 8.86 Germany made the following introductory statement:
8.87 The proposed WSMPA was discussed during the first week of the Commission’s meeting and many Members agreed that this proposal was an important component in the development of CCAMLR’s representative system of MPAs. 8.88 Germany made the following statement:
8.89 Argentina thanked the EU and Germany for the work presented and the way in which they had approached other Members to constructively involve them in the development of the proposal. In this regard, Argentina stated it would gladly continue providing input towards improving the proposal. 8.90 Many Members also expressed their support for the proposal and their interest in working with the proponents. 8.91 Russia advised the Commission that it had provided comments and suggestion on this proposal (SC-CAMLR-XXXV/10), and that the Scientific Committee had noted that some issues required further discussion. 8.92 Norway noted that the procedural issues and lack of data raised in the Scientific Committee had been discussed with the proponents and a constructive way forward had been identified. 8.93 Norway noted from the discussion that there were still uncertainties about the scientific basis of the MPA and asked further advice from the Chair, assuming that this proposal would have to go back to the Scientific Committee for further evaluation. 8.94 The Commission thanked the proponents of the proposed WSMPA for the extensive work undertaken so far and encouraged all Members to engage in further cooperative discussions so that this proposal may be considered by the Commission in 2017. |
| 2016 | CCAMLR-XXXV | 8.10 to 8.13 |
Schemes to promote compliance 8.10 The Commission endorsed the advice of SCIC to revise CMs 10-06 and 10-07 to permit more time for the submission of information relating to IUU activities, and expand the time frame to consider IUU activity. It included obligations to notify owners of IUU-listed vessels, and for the Flag State and vessel owners to notify the Secretariat of any changes to the name, flag or ownership of vessels included in the lists (Annex 6, paragraphs 158 to 161). CM 10-06 (2016) and CM 10-07 (2016) were revised and adopted. Compliance Evaluation Procedure 8.11 The Commission endorsed the advice of SCIC to include all conservation measures in CM 10-10 for evaluation (Annex 6, paragraphs 58 to 64). The Commission also endorsed the advice of SCIC that the status of partially compliant be removed from CM 10-10, Annex 10 10/B and the statuses of minor non-compliant and seriously, frequently or persistently non-compliant be included (Annex 6, paragraphs 167 and 168). 8.12 The Commission also endorsed the advice of SCIC to include a reference to Part D of SISO in CM 10-10 to provide consideration of compliance issues relating to those obligations (Annex 6, paragraphs 65 to 67). 8.13 The Commission agreed to revise CM 10-10 to include a process for SCIC to follow when a Contracting Party requests additional time for submitting information in relation to a specific case included in a Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report. The Commission agreed that in these cases, SCIC shall record a provisional compliance status based on the information available, but may review the status at the next annual meeting if additional information is provided. CM 10-10 (2016) was revised and adopted. |
| 2016 | CCAMLR-XXXV | 9.5 to 9.11 |
Performance review 9.5 The EU introduced its revised proposal, originally presented at CCAMLR-XXXIV, for CCAMLR to undertake a second performance review (CCAMLR-XXXV/19). Consistent with the advice from CCAMLR-XXXIV (paragraphs 9.22 to 9.26), the EU had engaged with Members throughout the intersessional period to draft proposed terms of reference for the consideration of the Commission. The EU noted that the timing and membership of a review panel is similar to that of the first performance review completed in 2008. 9.6 Australia thanked the EU for bringing this proposal forward and indicated strong support for the conduct of the second performance review. 9.7 The USA thanked the EU for its intersessional work and expressed its strong support for this initiative. It also thanked the EU for offering to research possibilities for providing financial support to the review. 9.8 Russia was pleased to offer its support for a second performance review and recommended that the terms of reference draw on relevant recommendations from the Scientific Committee and the Commission. 9.9 Chile thanked the EU for its revised proposal and indicated that these reviews constitute best-practice within bodies that deal with the management of fisheries. Chile also indicated that sufficient time had elapsed since the first performance review in 2008 and it supported the EU proposal. 9.10 The Commission agreed to the terms of reference and supporting processes for a second performance review (Annex 8). 9.11 The EU advised that it could contribute €50 000 to the review. Additional contributions were offered by the Republic of Korea (A$40 000) and the USA noted its voluntary contribution last year of US$20 000 for the review. Korea advised the contribution would be made available from the Korean Contribution Fund entrusted to the Secretariat following the submission of a formal request by the Executive Secretary. The Commission expressed appreciation for these voluntary contributions to support the review. In the event of a shortfall in budget requirements for the review, the Executive Secretary was authorised to commit funding from the General Fund budget. A full financial report for the review will be presented to SCAF in 2017 for review. |
| 2016 | CCAMLR-XXXV | 9.10 |
9.10 The Commission agreed to the terms of reference and supporting processes for a second performance review (Annex 8). |
| 2016 | CCAMLR-XXXV | 9.20 |
9.20 Argentina thanked Australia and the USA for their useful contribution regarding Article II of the Convention which addressed the crucial issue of achieving a balance between preservation and rational use. Argentina recalled that, as that article states, the Convention was agreed to with the understanding, at the time the Convention was negotiated, that an eventual ecosystem recovery period could require 20 or 30 years. This was done at a time following significant overexploitation of some fishery resources in the Convention Area and that adequate time was required to enable resources to rebuild. Argentina further noted that, while conservation goes beyond sustainability, rational use cannot be limited to socio-economic considerations. While it is impossible to agree on a definition of rational use, Argentina noted there are clear examples of irrational use, such as shark finning and Olympic fishery management practices, that need to be addressed. |
| 2016 | CCAMLR-XXXV | 9.22 to 9.27 |
CCAMLR’s regulatory framework and activities targeting toothfish 9.22 Russia sought clarification on the status of CCAMLR-XXXV/14 and BG/09. The Chair clarified that the proposals relating to CCAMLR’s regulatory framework had received consideration under Agenda Items 3, 5 and 8. 9.23 Russia, while expressing its full support to the necessity to have a better understanding of the CCAMLR regulatory system, also assumed at CCAMLR-XXXIV that the proposed changes to the regulatory framework, and any associated changes relating to the notification procedures, should be discussed at a workshop at which relevant conservation measures would be formulated. It noted that a workshop had not been held and recommended that the Commission postpone consideration of changes to the regulatory framework until a workshop had been conducted. 9.24 The Chair noted that the proposal for such a workshop had been suggested at CCAMLR-XXXIV but that it was not endorsed by the Commission and that no follow-up had occurred (CCAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 9.17). In the absence of consensus, the Chair advised that further discussion was required among Members before the proposal could be considered for conservation measure drafting. 9.25 Russia noted that, due to many editorial changes, it was not in a position to consider the document at this meeting. However, Russia expressed its desire to continue the work before CCAMLR-XXXVI to pave the way for its earliest adoption. 9.26 Australia noted that, while Russia has articulated that it has substantive concerns, it had not actually heard what these substantive concerns were and it would, therefore, be difficult to address them. In this regard, Australia expressed its disappointment that Russia did not feel it was able to provide these during the time available at this meeting. Australia noted Russia’s commitment to working intersessionally to progress these issues and looked forward to reaching agreement on these proposals at next year’s meeting. Australia reiterated that all proposals that relate to toothfish fishing should be considered in a consistent and transparent manner in accordance with the advice contained in SC-CAMLR-XXXV, paragraph 3.172. The UK shared the views of Australia. 9.27 The Commission established an e-group with the aim of progressing the work presented in CCAMLR-XXXV/14 and BG/09 with the objective of providing clear advice to the Commission in 2017. |
| 2016 | CCAMLR-XXXV | Annex 6, 2 to 89 |
CCAMLR Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCEP) 2. At CCAMLR-XXXI, the Commission adopted Conservation Measure (CM) 10-10 for the implementation of CCAMLR’s Compliance Evaluation Procedure (CCEP). It was agreed that CCEP would use information provided to the Secretariat, as required under the Convention, conservation measures and other rules and procedures such as the Scheme of Scientific Observation (SISO) and the System of Inspection. It was noted that CCEP would provide an opportunity for Members to comment on compliance with CCAMLR conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXXI, paragraph 7.26). 3. SCIC considered the Secretariat’s report on the fourth year of implementation of CCEP, including the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report for 2016 (CCAMLR-XXXV/32 Rev. 1). 4. SCIC noted that the CCEP covered the period from 1 August 2015 to 31 July 2016 and summarised, where applicable, data relating to issues identified by the Secretariat in relation to Members’ implementation of the conservation measures included in CM 10-10, Annex 10 10/A. 5. SCIC noted that the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report for 2016 included a Draft CCAMLR Compliance Report for Chile, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine and Uruguay. 6. SCIC noted that South Africa did not provide additional information in response to their Draft CCAMLR Compliance Reports as required by CM 10-10, paragraphs 1(iii) and (iv). SCIC recalled that it is essential that replies are provided in time for the deliberations of SCIC. 7. SCIC considered the Summary CCAMLR Compliance Report that included Members’ responses and suggested compliance status in developing the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report to be adopted by consensus. 8. In accordance with CM 10-10, Annex 10-10/B, the Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report for 2016 included an assessment of compliance status, recommendations for remedial action and recommendations for amendment to conservation measures. 9. The Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report for 2016 is provided in Appendix I for consideration and possible adoption by the Commission. 10. SCIC noted that South Africa was not able to provide additional information regarding the implementation of CM 10-02 by the Koryo Maru No. 11 and CMs 22-07, 26-01 and 41-01 by the El Shaddai. South Africa noted that it had experienced operational and administrative problems. SCIC thanked South Africa for its commitment to supply a report to the Secretariat within 60 days of CCAMLR-XXXV. Provisional CCAMLR Compliance Report Conservation Measure 10-01 11. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 10-01 with regard to the Korean-flagged vessel Kingstar that had buoys marked with the incorrect vessel’s markings. The Republic of Korea reported that the Kingstar had collected fishing gear from its sister vessel, Greenstar, when the vessel’s engine broke down. Korea reported that there was full compliance with CM 10-01, paragraph 5, in a subsequent inspection by Chilean authorities. 12. SCIC agreed that since the Kingstar had had to retrieve the Greenstar’s gear due to an emergency, no compliance status would be assigned. 13. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 10-01 with regard to the Russian-flagged vessel Oladon 1 which did not have its international radio call sign (IRCS) marked on the vessel as required by CM 10-01. Russia reported that the IRCS marked on the superstructure was not of the size required by CM 10-01 but that the IRCS was on the hull. 14. SCIC noted that in images of the vessel Oladon 1, there was no IRCS marked on the hull and that the vessel had not complied with CM 10-01. SCIC requested that Russia undertake further action to ensure full compliance with CM 10-01 by the vessel. Conservation Measure 23-01 15. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 23-01 by the Uruguayan-flagged vessel Rambla. Observers reported that by-catch was overlooked or not recorded by the crew and that the officer-on-watch did not keep records of landed, dropped or discarded by-catch. Uruguay stated that an adequate system to account for the catch landed was set up at the time. It was stated that when multiple lines with abundant catch were being hauled at the same time, data could not be recorded in real time. Uruguay reported that all rays were counted and obligations regarding declaration of all species caught, including by-catch, were met. 16. SCIC further noted that the by-catch data reported by the vessel and that reported by the observer differed with higher by-catch reported by the observer. Uruguay thanked the Secretariat for the information and committed to undertaking a full investigation of the vessel. SCIC agreed that the vessel did not comply with its obligations in respect of CM 23-01 and looked forward to the outcomes of Uruguay’s investigation. Conservation Measure 24-01 17. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 24-01 by the Chilean-flagged vessel Puerto Williams which did not achieve the required minimum tagging rate agreed at CCAMLR-XXXIV (CCAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 5.52; SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraphs 3.252 to 3.264). 18. SCIC noted that no further research fishing would be undertaken by the vessel in the coming season, and that Chile had taken remedial action to prevent future non-compliance, including training for crew and the requirement for a compliance plan for the vessel. Conservation Measure 25-02 19. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 25-02 by the Uruguayan-flagged vessel Rambla where the observer on board reported issues with the operation of the vessel’s streamer lines, bird exclusion devices and navigation lights. 20. SCIC noted that CM 25-02, Annex 25-02/A provides some operational flexibility for how the requirements of this conservation measure are met and that the Rambla had clearly demonstrated efforts to minimise bird mortality. 21. SCIC agreed that CM 25-02 may benefit from clarification and that CM 25-02 may be revised by the Commission to specify the speed at which line setting should occur, specify the length of the streamer line and the number or weight of towed objects. 22. The Scientific Committee Chair, Dr M. Belchier (UK), advised that streamer lines should be deployed in such a manner that is necessary to avoid bird by-catch. The Scientific Committee Chair suggested that CM 25-02 may be revised to convey the measures needed to deploy streamers more effectively and that, if SCIC wanted further advice, the issue on setting speed and weight could be referred to the Scientific Committee for consideration. Conservation Measure 25-03 23. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 25-03 by the Korean-flagged vessel Sejong that discharged offal on 13 occasions. SCIC noted that the matter had been investigated by Korea and that the discharge was the result of structural problems. The vessel was required to make structural changes to prevent offal discharge occurring again and completed the changes as of January 2016. 24. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 25-03 by the Norwegian-flagged vessel Antarctic Sea. Norway indicated that the vessel discarded small amounts of krill due to problems with the continuous pumping system. SCIC noted that the vessel owner was committed to resolving the technical issue. Conservation Measure 26-01 25. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 26-01 by the Korean-flagged vessel Sejong that dumped krill catch at sea. SCIC noted that while an investigation by the police into the matter was ongoing, Korea had taken a series of measures to prevent further compliance issues, including issuing a two-month suspension of the vessel’s operation, requiring the vessel to have an additional non-Korean observer on board, further training of the crew and the master and structural changes to the vessel’s processing facilities. 26. SCIC welcomed the efforts made by Korea, and Korea indicated that additional action may be taken in accordance with its domestic law depending on the result of the ongoing police investigation. 27. Some Members expressed concerns about the number of compliance issues involving the Sejong that had been considered this year and in previous years. China highlighted the obligation of Members to both prevent, and accurately report, the quantity of discharge of discards of krill, so that the trigger level was not exceeded. 28. SCIC requested Korea provide intersessional updates of the police investigation into the Sejong. 29. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 26-01 by the Korean-flagged vessel Sejong that was reported to have dumped oil sludge in Subareas 48.1 and 48.3. SCIC noted that the observer incorrectly assumed that oil sludge had been dumped at sea when it had been disposed of appropriately by the vessel at the port of Lima in Peru. SCIC noted that Korea had provided the disposal certificates issued by Peruvian authorities in respect of the oil on board the vessel. 30. SCIC noted with some concern that a number of inconsistencies were evident in the information reported by observers on vessels and that provided by Members in response to CCEP. 31. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 26-01 by the New Zealand-flagged vessel San Aotea II. SCIC welcomed New Zealand’s investigation and the changes made to New Zealand’s pre-trip inspections. 32. In considering the various compliance issues regarding disposal of waste, offal and discards during operations in all Antarctic marine living resources fisheries, SCIC noted that the issue required further consideration. 33. SCIC noted several specific examples and acknowledged there were various structural issues, such as absence of grates, grills and filters, that had the potential to increase the incidence of waste, offal and discard discharges into the sea and that CM 26-01 did not have specific requirements for grates, grills or filters. 34. New Zealand stated that inspectors are instructed to find areas on board where discharge could occur. It was noted that inspections often did not occur during processing of fish, when the origins of waste discharge would be most evident. 35. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 26-01 by the Russian-flagged vessel Oladon 1. Several Members noted that the conditions on board the vessel, as described in inspection reports, would have made discharges inevitable when processing was underway. 36. The EU expressed its concern about the high incidences of discards from fishing vessels and asked SCIC to consider extending the ban of discards to the whole Convention Area as it is a wasteful practice. 37. SCIC encouraged Members to take part in the intersessional e-group on offal management to develop standards on offal management in the Convention Area. Conservation Measure 31-02 38. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 31-02 by the Russian-flagged vessel Palmer that set three lines within 24 hours of a notified closure date and time and retrieved a line two hours after a notified closure date and time. SCIC noted that this was an instance of non-compliance. 39. SCIC noted with concern the report that the master of the vessel had set the lines within 24 hours of the notified closure date and time ‘in error’. Several Members highlighted the seriousness of the non-compliance in this case. SCIC emphasised the importance of regular training of crews to avoid future non-compliance with conservation measures. 40. SCIC requested that Russia undertake further action to ensure full compliance with CM 31-02 by the vessel, including training of crews. Conservation Measure 41-01 41. SCIC considered the implementation of CM 41-01 by the Japanese-flagged vessel Shinsei Maru No. 3 where the observer on board reported poor handling of fish during tagging operations. It was further noted that the observer reported that in attempting to verify the vessel’s conversion factor, it was impossible to keep track of individual fish and the crew were uncooperative in the process. 42. SCIC noted that Japan did not consider that the vessel had poor tagging practices nor had been uncooperative with the observer on board based on the result of its internal investigation. 43. SCIC noted again that a number of inconsistencies and gaps were evident in the information reported by observers on vessels and that provided by Members in response to CCEP. 44. SCIC noted that the practice of gaffing fish intended for tagging did not comply with the CCAMLR tagging protocol and that this practice greatly reduced the likelihood of tagged fish surviving and undermined that tagging program. 45. SCIC noted the advice of Scientific Committee that the CCAMLR tagging protocol provides clear advice that fish that have been gaffed should not be tagged as gaffing impacted their mortality rate significantly and created uncertainty in biomass estimations. SCIC noted the importance of correct tagging protocols to ensure that robust data is available for stock assessment purposes. 46. The USA recalled that the observer report indicates there was a practice of improper handling of fish aboard the Shinsei Maru No. 3 and that the interventions of the observer were instrumental in ensuring that gaffed and bleeding fish were not tagged and released. Further, given the statement from the observer that they were only able to monitor 50% of tagging operations, it seems likely that improper handling of tagged fish occurred when the observer was not present. The USA hoped that Japan would take steps to ensure that the vessel owner and operator are aware of the tagging protocol and that they commit to implementing better fish handling practices in the future. 47. Japan reiterated that the matter was one of a misunderstanding between the vessel’s crew and the observer, and committed to ensuring full and proper training of crew in respect of the CCAMLR tagging protocol. Issues outstanding from CCAMLR-XXXIV 48. SCIC considered a number of issues outstanding from the consideration of the CCEP in 2014 and 2015 (CCAMLR-XXXV/32 Rev. 1, paragraphs 12 to 15). 49. SCIC noted that Russia had failed to provide a report requested at CCAMLR-XXXIV regarding the implementation of CM 26-01, concerning two incidences of discharge of organic waste in Subareas 88.1 and 88.2 from the fishing vessel Yantar 35 (CCAMLR-XXXIV, Annex 6, paragraph 44). Russia reported that the observer in the case of the Yantar 35 was unable to provide further information in an official capacity. SCIC thanked Russia for its commitment to provide the Secretariat with further information regarding this matter within 90 days of CCAMLR-XXXV. 50. SCIC noted that South Africa had failed to provide a report requested at CCAMLR-XXXIV regarding the implementation of CM 41-01 in respect of poor tagging behaviour by the crew, lack of instruction provided in relation to sampling vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) and errors in the sampling buckets used to record VME benthos (CCAMLR-XXXIV, Annex 6, paragraph 46). SCIC noted that South Africa had investigated the incident but that the report prepared had not been forwarded to the Commission. 51. SCIC considered South Africa’s report submitted during CCAMLR-XXXV (COMM CIRC 16/79). South Africa reported that the crew had received a thorough briefing prior to the trip, which had included information on the tagging objectives in CM 41-01, Annex 41 01/C, and the CCAMLR tagging protocol. South Africa also reported that the briefing included VME requirements and that a copy of the protocol was provided to the vessel master. South Africa affirmed its commitment to comply with all applicable conservation measures. 52. SCIC noted that Ukraine had failed to provide a report requested at CCAMLR-XXXIII and CCAMLR-XXXIV regarding the implementation of CM 10-04 by the vessel Poseydon 1 (CCAMLR-XXXIII, Annex 6, paragraphs 64 to 66; CCAMLR-XXXIV, Annex 6, paragraph 60). 53. SCIC considered Ukraine’s report submitted during CCAMLR-XXXV (COMM CIRC 16/80). Ukraine reported that the vessel Poseydon 1 had been renamed Marigolds. Ukraine stated that the new vessel charterers had provided the Ukrainian authorities with a report on the vessel’s port inspection conducted by Chile on 30 September 2016. The report provided evidence of the sealing of the vessel’s ARGOS terminal antennae. SCIC was informed that the Marigolds was now in compliance with the requirements of CM 10-04. 54. Some Members noted with concern that a number of CCEP issues remained outstanding for significant periods of time when Members had failed to provide information. It was further noted that CCEP must not provide a mechanism for Members to delay consideration of a compliance issue by not providing information. It was suggested that a provisional compliance status be assigned in these cases and that, if the information is not forthcoming in the required period of time, the compliance status stands. It was also noted that all Members should be prepared to discuss SCIC compliance issues at any point during the meeting. Issues with conservation measures Conservation Measure 10-02 55. SCIC noted that CMs 21-02 and 21-03 require Members to provide the specification and full description of the types of fishing gear to be used by a notified vessel. It was agreed that to ensure vessels only use the type of fishing gear specified in their fishery notification, CM 10-02 should be revised to require the description of the types of fishing gear to be provided in a vessel’s licence notification. SCIC noted that this would also support the evaluation of the implementation of CM 22-06, paragraphs 7(ix)(a) and (b). Conservation Measure 10-03 56. SCIC noted that it is currently not possible to determine if a Member has inspection obligations for vessels carrying Antarctic marine living resources species and entering its ports and that this was another example where the krill fishery was regulated differently to the toothfish fishery. 57. SCIC noted that of 70 transhipments by seven vessels in the Convention Area, only three port inspection reports had been received by the Secretariat. Conservation Measure 10-10 58. SCIC considered the proposal by Chile (CCAMLR-XXXV/27) for the revision of compliance status categories in CM 10-10. Chile highlighted the need for greater clarity in categories for the more efficient consideration of the issues by SCIC. It was agreed that the status of partially compliant be removed and that compliant, non-compliant (minor infringement), non-compliant (serious, frequent or persistent infringement) be included. 59. SCIC thanked Chile for its work on the compliance status categories and noted that proposed changes would greatly assist in the consideration of CCEP. SCIC recommended that CM 10-10 be revised in this regard. 60. SCIC considered the interpretation of the words ‘frequent or persistent’ in the categories contained in CM 10-10. Members discussed how these two terms could apply to the designation of categories in compliance incidents. It was noted that further clarification of the two terms would assist in the consistent application of this status. 61. China suggested that any vessel that was repeatedly considered in CCEP and found non-compliant was a clear case of serious non-compliance, and indicated that in this context Article 21(11) of the UN Fish Stock Agreement is relevant. Some Members considered that a vessel could not be frequently non-compliant over a single year; rather it would apply to cases across multiple years. 62. The UK highlighted that patterns of behaviour over time can be indicative of persistent and frequent incidents and that may represent a greater level of intent to not comply. SCIC agreed that the Secretariat be requested to provide a summary table for CCAMLR-XXXVI showing CCEP outcomes since the CCEP process commenced. 63. SCIC noted that during the compliance evaluation period, issues may be identified by the Secretariat in relation to Members’ implementation of conservation measures that are not contained in CM 10-10, Annex 10-10/A. These issues, therefore, must be raised at SCIC outside CCEP and not considered in the same way. SCIC was invited to consider expanding the conservation measures included for evaluation in CM 10-10 to provide for an equal process for the consideration of these issues. 64. SCIC thanked the Secretariat for raising this issue and agreed that all conservation measures should be included in the CCEP and SCIC recommended that CM 10-10 be revised in this regard. 65. In relation to the implementation of CM 10-10 and the importance of the role of observers, Australia noted CCAMLR’s ecosystem-based approach to fisheries and that collecting data on the interactions between fishing activities and the ecosystem is a specialised job, which requires people to have the skills to collect robust datasets on the biology and ecology of the target and by-catch species, and observe interactions with other wildlife such as seabirds. Australia further noted that CCAMLR needs and uses the data collected by observers to ensure its decisions are consistent with the objective of the Convention, which is why they are so important to CCAMLR. In this regard, Australia noted that any accusations of harassment, interference or intimidation with scientific observers on board fishing vessels in the CCAMLR area is extremely concerning and that SISO is clear with regard to the obligations of owners, masters, agents and crews of a vessel. 66. SCIC noted several incidences of possible or perceived harassment and obstruction of the observers’ work. Members reiterated the grave seriousness of any interruption to the work, intimidation, or obstruction, of observers on board fishing vessels. 67. In noting the seriousness of any possible interruption to the work of the observers on board fishing vessels, it was agreed that relevant paragraphs of Part D of SISO be included in CCEP to enable greater oversight of the treatment of observers on fishing vessels in the Convention Area. SCIC recommended that CM 10-10 be revised in this regard. Conservation Measure 25-03 68. SCIC considered the differences in the translation of CM 25-03, paragraph 4. It was noted that in the English version net cleaning is advised, while in the French and Spanish versions, net cleaning is mandatory and the Russian version states nets shall be cleaned. 69. Norway recalled that at CCAMLR-XXXIV, the incident involving the fishing vessel Saga Sea and its implementation of CM 25-03 was discussed. In that instance, the implementation of the conservation measure was compliant, despite the observer reporting that crew members rarely conducted the ‘required’ net cleaning prior to shooting its net (CCAMLR-XXXIV, Annex 6, paragraph 30). It was noted that the Saga Sea had an automated net cleaning system, which the Scientific Committee acknowledged was sufficiently self-cleaning (CCAMLR-XXXIV, Annex 6, paragraph 30). 70. SCIC noted the importance of having consistent language in conservation measures. SCIC noted the advice of the Scientific Committee that the provision in CM 25-03 should be mandatory and it was important to recall that the objective of CM 25-03 was to reduce the risk of bird mortality. SCIC recommended that CM 25-03 be revised so that all language versions are consistent. 71. Members recognised the efforts that Chilean and Ukrainian authorities had made in ensuring they complied with the stricter interpretation of CM 25-03, paragraph 4, including the additional training and guidance they provided to crews of vessels flagged to them. Compliance with conservation measures in force Fishery notifications 72. SCIC considered CCAMLR-XXXV/BG/05 Rev. 1 summarising fishery notifications submitted by Members in accordance with CMs 21-02 and 21-03 for exploratory toothfish fisheries and established krill fisheries for 2016/17. SCIC noted that all fishery notifications were submitted by the deadline of 1 June 2016. 73. SCIC noted that all exploratory toothfish fishery notifications submitted by Members included the information required by CM 21-02, paragraph 6(i), including a fisheries operation plan as required by CM 21-02, paragraph 6(ii). Where required, research plans were submitted by Members to WG-SAM (CM 21-02, paragraph 6iii) and preliminary assessments were submitted to the Secretariat (CM 22-06, paragraph 7i). 74. SCIC noted that all established krill fishery notifications submitted by Members included the information required by CM 21-03, paragraph 2, and Annex 21-03/A and that vessel gear descriptions and specifications, including net diagrams and mammal exclusion devices, were submitted by Members with their online notification. 75. SCIC considered the late payment of fishery notification fees in respect of the Chinese-flagged vessels Ming Kai and Ming Xing. SCIC noted China’s advice that the payment of fishery notification fees for krill fisheries was a new process and that the consequences of late payment were not clear. China further noted that the fishery notifications had been considered by WG-EMM and requested that SCIC consider accepting the vessels to participate in the 2016/17 season. 76. Some Members noted that the two Chinese notifications were not complete. 77. All notifications were referred to the Commission. 78. SCIC agreed to include a paragraph specifying that the obligations of the payment of notification fees include the deadline for fishery notification fees in CMs 21-01, 21-02 and 21-03 and that these measures be revised in this regard. 79. SCIC considered the exploratory fishery notification submitted by the Republic of Korea for the Hong Jin No. 707. Many Members expressed their concern about the notification. 80. Korea explained the background on which it had submitted the fishery notification for the vessel in the following statement:
81. Many Members expressed concern regarding the notification of the Hong Jin No. 707, noting its alleged misreporting of catch, and also noting that the matter was still under consideration through Korea’s domestic legal processes. SCIC also sought further clarification from Korea regarding its investigation, including further information on the interviews conducted with the observers and crew. SCIC noted with concern the inconsistent information arising from those interviews. SCIC also expressed its concern that the evidence obtained during Korea’s investigation indicates that the discards of illegal catch never actually occurred. 82. The USA recalled that when CCAMLR considered this issue in 2014, Members had understood that these discards ensured the vessel did not profit from its illegal activities. In the view of the USA, that was a critical component of the sanctions that Korea took with respect to the Hong Jin No. 707 and was part of the reason that Members did not seek to have the vessel included on the CP-IUU Vessel List. 83. SCIC recalled the obligations under CM 10-02, paragraph 2, which provide that a Contracting Party may only licence a vessel to fish in the Convention Area if it is satisfied of the vessel’s ability to exercise its responsibilities under the Convention and its conservation measures. Based on the information provided by Korea on the results of the investigation, SCIC agreed that it would not be possible for Korea to issue a licence to the Hong Jin No. 707 while the question of this vessel’s ability to exercise its responsibilities remained unresolved. 84. Many Members expressed the view that they could not support approving the Hong Jin No. 707’s notification to fish until the operator can provide clear evidence that they did not accrue financial gains from the catches taken during illegal fishing undertaken in 2013 in the waters of Area 41. 85. Korea noted that while it would respect the decision of SCIC regarding its vessel for the 2016/17 season, and it recognises its responsibility under paragraph 2 of CM 10-02, it may have to notify the vessel for subsequent seasons, depending on the court’s final decision. 86. SCIC considered the Ukrainian-flagged vessel Marigolds that was notified as a replacement vessel to the originally notified Korchev-Yug (COMM CIRC 16/59). Following the reservation of its position (COMM CIRC 16/63), the UK made the following statement:
87. Ukraine thanked the UK for its efforts in this regards and welcomed the opportunity to examine the issue further. Ukraine advised that the results of their investigation revealed no infringements in the actions of the Ukrainian chartering company, which had applied for the provisional flag of Ukraine for the vessel Marigolds, and duly received it in terms of domestic law. Ukraine expressed its willingness to communicate and cooperate with the UK in support of their efforts to combat criminal activities. 88. SCIC considered the Russian-flagged vessel Oladon 1 that was notified as a replacement vessel to the originally notified Yantar 33 (COMM CIRC 15/112). SCIC noted that a number of Members had requested additional information regarding the replacement vessel (COMM CIRCs 15/114, 15/116, 15/117, 15/119 and 15/122). Some Members noted that at the time the Yantar 33 was notified by Russia, it was reported as scrapped on IHS Sea-web. 89. Some Members noted with concern that the provisions of CM 21-02 were clear and that a Member could only notify a vessel that was flagged to it at the time of the notification. These Members noted that a notification for a vessel that did not exist could not, and did not, comply with this requirement. It was further noted that the Oladon 1 was previously the Yantar 35, a vessel subject to numerous discussions regarding its activities in the Weddell Sea. Had this vessel been notified to fish, many Members felt that there would not have been agreement to permit the vessel to fish. |
| 2016 | SC-CAMLR-XXXV | 4.14 to 4.17 |
Marine debris 4.14 The Scientific Committee noted SC-CAMLR-XXXV/BG/21 and Annex 7, paragraphs 8.35 to 8.37, which report on the CCAMLR marine debris monitoring program (WG-FSA-16/18) indicating that overall, the occurrence of plastic debris on beaches and in seabird colonies remains an issue in the CAMLR Convention Area. 4.15 The Scientific Committee noted that the CCAMLR program of marine debris monitoring is land-based, and that fishing vessels and scientific observers also record fishing gear lost at sea. However, there was no at-sea monitoring of marine debris in the Convention Area and that this was a far-reaching issue. 4.16 The Scientific Committee also noted that the Southern Ocean Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) program from SCAR is part of the Global Alliance of Continuous Plankton Recorder Surveys (GACS) where discussions on the use of CPR for micro-plastics is carried out in a working group and this could provide a particularly important source of data for this work. 4.17 The Scientific Committee recommended that Members further develop collaborative programs for monitoring plastics in the marine environment, including collaboration with other groups (e.g. Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), SCAR or International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO)), in order to collect data which may be used to evaluate the likely impact of plastics on the growth and reproductive success of marine living resources in the Convention Area. |
| 2016 | SC-CAMLR-XXXV | 3.160 |
3.160 Dr Barrera-Oro thanked the Scientific Committee for considering this work. He noted that Argentina had previously used a tagging program on juvenile specimens of N. rossii, a stock going through recovery, but not using electronic tags. This work primarily contributed to the validation of ageing of N. rossii. He thanked WG-FSA for the suggestion on how to develop this research further, but highlighted that, as the South Shetland Islands (Subarea 48.1) are currently closed to finfish fisheries, tag recaptures would be entirely reliant on research cruise vessels. |
| 2016 | SC-CAMLR-XXXV | 3.169 to 3.267 |
Making activities targeting toothfish consistent 3.169 CCAMLR-XXXV/14 and BG/09 presented a proposal to make research fishing activities that target toothfish consistent within CCAMLR’s regulatory framework. This work followed a paper presented by the Chair of the Scientific Committee last year (CCAMLR-XXXIV/17 Rev. 1), and an agreement by the Commission that there were analogous research activities targeting toothfish that have the same review process but are either conducted under conservation measures, or under an agreement by the Commission, which is only captured in its report text. Given the confusion and lack of transparency this can cause, the Commission had requested that the Secretariat work with Members in the intersessional period to resolve this inconsistency through the revision of existing conservation measures and the creation of new conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 9.21). 3.170 The proposals in CCAMLR-XXXV/14 and BG/09 indicated that, in general, all necessary components for resolving inconsistencies already exist within the current conservation measures. Some small changes would be required, e.g. to the preliminary paragraphs of CM 21-02 such that this conservation measure applies to all research activities targeting toothfish, along with the establishment of a clear hierarchical structure between conservation measures. In addition, the annex in CM 24-01 would be moved into CM 41-01. 3.171 The Scientific Committee agreed that the proposed changes would: (i) increase the transparency in the scientific advice provided by the Scientific Committee and its working groups 3.172 The Scientific Committee agreed that a common approach to reviewing and managing research oriented to the following points (CM 21-02, paragraph 1ii) would assist the Scientific Committee in giving consistent and transparent advice on the research that will contribute to: (i) evaluation of the distribution, abundance and demography of the target species, leading to an estimate of the fishery’s potential yield 3.173 Dr Kasatkina noted that the CCAMLR regulatory framework was the subject of discussion during the Commission last year (CCAMLR-XXXIV, paragraphs 9.11 to 9.21) and focused on the following proposals that were taken: (i) It was suggested that a glossary of terms that describes the nomenclature and terminology would be beneficial in establishing a common understanding among Members. It also was suggested that a mechanism or procedure, utilising the agreed terminology, be established to support the revision and adoption of conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 9.14). 3.174 Dr Kasatkina noted that the above mentioned proposals were not taken. 3.175 The Scientific Committee noted that the proposal had been circulated to all Members participating in exploratory fisheries intersessionally for comments and referred the issue to the Commission. 3.176 The Scientific Committee noted that the proposed changes may also require the re categorisation of some areas in which directed fishing on taxa is currently prohibited (CM 32 02, Annex 32-02/A). 3.177 The Scientific Committee recommended that the species being targeted be specified (i.e. D. mawsoni or D. eleginoides) in the title and text of conservation measures, rather than Dissostichus spp. that is currently present in all relevant conservation measures. This change will provide clarity to the Commission and any external parties on which species was being targeted and managed in particular areas. For example, in CM 41-09, which specifies the limits for the exploratory toothfish fishery in Subarea 88.1, ‘Dissostichus spp.’ would be replaced with ‘D. mawsoni’. In this case, for the purpose of CMs 23-07 and 23-04, any D. eleginoides caught would count towards the overall catch limit for D. mawsoni, and ‘by catch species’ would be defined as any species other than Dissostichus spp. Long-distance movements of toothfish 3.178 The Scientific Committee noted that the report on long-distance movements of tagged D. eleginoides and D. mawsoni (WG-FSA-16/25 Rev. 1) was a useful summary to inform stock hypotheses, and that the Secretariat should present such a summary biennially to WG-FSA. Local biomass estimates of D. mawsoni and D. eleginoides 3.179 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-SAM and WG-FSA had developed a common approach to estimate local biomass in research blocks in Subareas 48.6 and 58.4. This approach included estimating biomass using a CPUE by seabed area analogy method and a Chapman tag-recapture estimator (Annex 5, paragraph 2.28). These two methods were used in WG-FSA-16/27 to estimate biomass in each research block. Based on these biomass estimates, catch limits were calculated by multiplying each estimate by the 4% exploitation rate. The resulting catch limits were presented in Annex 7, Table 1. The Scientific Committee recalled that in the past the lower of the two values had been used in formulating advice (SC CAMLR-XXXIII, Annex 7, paragraph 5.123iv). 3.180 The Scientific Committee noted that during WG-FSA-16, biomass was estimated for the new proposed research block in Division 58.4.1 (research block 5841_6) as well as for the survey areas in Subareas 48.2 and 48.4. The Scientific Committee noted that after the WG FSA-16 meeting, checks of the calculations established that the total seabed area, instead of the fishable seabed area, had been used in the calculation of toothfish biomass. The revised estimates were presented to the Scientific Committee in SC-CAMLR-XXXV/BG/38 Rev. 1. 3.181 The Scientific Committee thanked the Secretariat for the considerable amount of work done on developing the biomass estimates for WG-FSA and also for the timely correction of the estimates produced during WG-FSA-16. 3.182 The Scientific Committee noted that: (i) biomass estimates using a CPUE by seabed area analogy method and a Chapman tag-recapture estimator were point estimates with likely bias and no measure of precision 3.183 The Scientific Committee noted that, for the reasons listed above, WG-FSA-16 had been unable to reach consensus on most research catch limits in Subareas 48.6 and 58.4 (Annex 7, paragraphs 4.31 to 4.33). 3.184 Given the uncertainties associated with the current biomass estimates and the disparity between the results of the two methods, the Scientific Committee recommended that research catch limits from the 2015/16 season be brought forward to the 2016/17 season. 3.185 The Scientific Committee agreed that this ‘roll-over’ of current catch limits should apply to the forthcoming season only, and not constitute a precedent for future situations where there is disagreement between methods for calculating catch limits. 3.186 The Scientific Committee also agreed that where WG-FSA provides alternative advice regarding research catch limits, these alternatives be supported with scientific rationale to allow the Scientific Committee to evaluate each option. 3.187 The Scientific Committee requested that WG-SAM and WG-FSA: (i) evaluate how species- or area-specific factors may influence biomass estimates by the CPUE by seabed area analogy method and a Chapman tag-recapture estimator 3.188 The Scientific Committee noted the need to consider whether catches may impact on fish stocks over the entire period of a research program. The Scientific Committee noted that it is important that the catch limit for a research plan is sufficient so that the agreed research objectives can be fulfilled. 3.189 The Scientific Committee recalled that research plans shall be reported in accordance with the standardised guidelines and formats provided in CM 24-01, Annex 24-01/A. The Scientific Committee noted that clear statements addressing the following points in format 2 of CM 24-01/A are required in order for the Scientific Committee and its working groups to evaluate the need for, and appropriateness of, research plans: (i) a timeline and milestones for how and when the data will meet the objectives of the research (e.g. lead to a robust estimate of stock status and precautionary catch limits) (CM 24-01/A, paragraph 3d) (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 3.229) 3.190 The Scientific Committee noted that this process would facilitate the assessment of the suitability of new proposals, and the progress of existing research programs. Subarea 88.1 3.191 The exploratory fishery for D. mawsoni in Subarea 88.1 operated in accordance with CM 41-09 and associated measures. In 2015/16, the catch limit for Dissostichus spp. was 2 870 tonnes, including 40 tonnes set aside for the Ross Sea shelf survey, and 100 tonnes set aside for the Ross Sea winter survey. Fishing was conducted by 13 vessels using longlines, and the total reported catch was 2 684 tonnes. A total of 19 vessels have notified to fish in 2016/17. 3.192 The Scientific Committee noted the continued monitoring of CCAMLR fisheries for overcapacity and agreed that although there was no indication of an excess in capacity at the current time, the Secretariat should continue to monitor the number of vessels notifying and then subsequently fishing in a subarea in each year, in order to detect any increasing trend (Annex 7, paragraph 3.37). 3.193 The Scientific Committee noted the successful completion of the 2016 Ross Sea shelf longline survey, and noted that the Commission had already approved the 2017 survey with a catch limit of 40 tonnes (CCAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 5.34). It also welcomed the successful completion of the first winter survey which had caught spawning D. mawsoni for the first time in this area and the probable capture of fertilised D. mawsoni eggs using a plankton net. 3.194 The Scientific Committee noted progress by WG-FSA to describe metrics of various fishing activities in order to evaluate patterns in the data recorded by fishing vessels and observers (Annex 7, paragraphs 3.58 to 3.68, and 3.90 to 3.94). The Scientific Committee agreed that to develop statistical models describing the fishing process, information would be needed on vessel freezing capacity and fish processing rates and requested that the Commission consider this matter. 3.195 The Scientific Committee considered that the purpose of the analyses of fishing activity data was to identify potential errors in the data or inconsistencies among the different variables recorded. It noted that fishing activities may be influenced by the areas fished, the size of the fish caught and ice conditions, as well as effects of individual vessel characteristics and metrics of vessel performance. It agreed that all these factors should be accounted for in analyses of patterns in fishing activities so that conclusions can be made about how well the data fit with expectations. 3.196 The Scientific Committee welcomed the development of methods to use archival satellite tags to understand toothfish movement and behaviour patterns. Management advice 3.197 The Scientific Committee recommended that the current catch limit for D. mawsoni in Subarea 88.1 and SSRUs 882A–B of 2 870 tonnes be carried forward for the 2016/17 season, including 40 tonnes set aside for the Ross Sea shelf survey, with the survey catch taken from the catch limit for SSRUs 881J and L. Subarea 88.2 3.198 The exploratory fishery for D. mawsoni in Subarea 88.2 operated in accordance with CM 41-10 and associated measures. In 2015/16, the catch limit for Dissostichus spp. was 619 tonnes. Fishing was conducted by nine vessels using longlines, and the total reported catch was 618 tonnes. A total of 17 vessels have notified to fish in 2016/17. SSRUs 882A–B 3.199 A second multi-Member survey in the northern region of SSRUs 882A–B was proposed by Australia, New Zealand, Norway and the UK, and discussed and considered to be an appropriate design by WG-SAM and WG-FSA (WG-SAM-16/15; Annex 5, paragraphs 4.21 to 4.29; Annex 7, paragraphs 3.101 to 3.106). 3.200 Dr Kasatkina recalled that the results of the first year of the two-year longline survey for toothfish in the northern Ross Sea region (SSRUs 882A–B north) showed anomaly high CPUE values, reaching to 5 280 kg/1 000 hooks (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, Annex 6, paragraph 4.102). At the same time, the high catches were obtained from greater depths (1 900 m or more) outside the main area of D. mawsoni distribution. 3.201 Dr Kasatkina emphasised that it was not provided satisfactory analysis to clarify the sources of this high questionable CPUE and correspondent catches. Analysis of the VMS data with reported haul locations was not conducted also. 3.202 Dr Kasatkina stated that analysis of survey SSRUs 882A–? was uncompleted and this analysis does not meet the recommendations of the Scientific Committee and Commission (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 3.201; SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, Annex 5, paragraph 4.29; CCAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 5.41). 3.203 Dr Kasatkina made the following statement on surveys in SSRUs 882A–?:
3.204 The Scientific Committee noted that the considerable discussion concerning the proposal did not result in consensus advice. The proposal was not supported by Dr Kasatkina because the analyses of data from the first survey provided were considered by Dr Kasatkina to be inadequate, and Dr Kasatkina proposed that the data from this survey should be quarantined. 3.205 The Scientific Committee recalled that this issue had been discussed at length by both WG-SAM and WG-FSA, and specifically Annex 7, paragraphs 3.104 to 3.106, where WG FSA, apart from Dr Kasatkina, agreed that the analyses submitted to, and reviewed by, WG SAM (Annex 5, paragraphs 4.5 to 4.20) and WG-FSA (Annex 7, paragraphs 3.58 to 3.106), had not indicated any unusual patterns in the data from the survey conducted in the north of SSRUs 882A–B independently by New Zealand, Norway and the UK with observers from South Africa and Spain. Consequently, there was no case for the quarantining of data collected by the five Members. 3.206 Dr Kasatkina noted that the reports of WG-FSA and WG-SAM did not contain sufficient information to convey to Members the results of the reviews. She requested that more detail be made available to her and other interested Members. She noted that the approach in working groups for discussing and reporting different views on these analyses needs improvement. 3.207 The Scientific Committee noted the future work of WG-SAM, recommended by WG FSA, to develop analytical approaches for quality-checking of fishery data (Annex 7, paragraphs 3.90 to 3.94) may help resolve differences of view on this matter. It agreed that WG-SAM be requested to progress this work (Annex 7, paragraph 3.92) and encouraged Members to work collaboratively and make contributions on this work to WG-SAM (Annex 7, paragraph 3.94). 3.208 The Scientific Committee considered this issue further in ‘Future work’. 3.209 The Scientific Committee noted that the design of the proposal for a survey in the southern region of SSRU 882A by Russia was considered appropriate for the stated objectives, but that the requested list of milestones for the proposal and the time in which they were expected to be delivered (Annex 5, paragraph 4.34) were not made available to WG FSA until late in the meeting and were therefore not reviewed. Further, the Scientific Committee requested the status of proposed partner proponents of the research, and how the information collected would be used to provide management advice. 3.210 Dr Jones underscored that the special research zone (SRZ) in the proposed Ross Sea Region MPA specifically includes objectives with respect to the understanding of toothfish distribution and movement and largely overlaps with Russia’s proposed study area. The management approach envisioned within the SRZ is an alternative to the Russian proposal for research fishing in SSRU 882A south. Just as last year, Dr Jones believed that the choice between the approach envisioned within the Ross Sea region MPA proposal and the approach envisioned by Russia is ultimately a choice for the Commission. 3.211 Dr Kasatkina noted that previous research and tagging of toothfish in the area was conducted by Russia and was reported to the Scientific Committee and the data were available to be used. She also noted that its proposed survey in the southern region of SSRU 882A includes sampling requirements that exceed the observer sampling requirements specified in CM 41-01 and is consistent with the Ross Sea region fisheries data collection plan (WG-FSA-15/40). 3.212 Dr Kasatkina highlighted there is only the Russian research program for investigation in the SSRU 882A for the 2016/17 season. Monitoring and research plan in the proposed Ross Sea region MPA was not submitted for the season 2016/17 as well as for future years. Comparison analysis between Russian program and the above said program is not possible. At the same time Russian program will provide important information for understanding toothfish distribution and for the spatial population model (SPM) in the Ross Sea region. 3.213 The Scientific Committee reiterated its request for Members to contribute to providing ages for the developing stock assessment in SSRUs 882C–H (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraph 3.169) (see also paragraphs 3.241 and 3.242). 3.214 The Scientific Committee also considered increasing the tagging rate in SSRUs 882C-H and noted that in contrast to most research plans, fishing in the area was Olympic, and that increasing the rate above three tags per tonne may result in poor tagging performance. The Scientific Committee also considered that in the future, removing the time pressures caused by an Olympic fishery may be achieved by setting aside catch for individual vessels. Management advice 3.215 The Scientific Committee considered that the results from the previous two-year research approach to constrain fishing to four areas in SSRUs 882C–G was providing information necessary to develop the stock assessment and that the current catch limits in SSRUs 882C–H were consistent with CCAMLR’s precautionary approach. The Scientific Committee recommended that the research program in SSRUs 882C–H be extended by a further two years. Specifically: (i) SSRUs C, D, E, F and G: 419 tonnes total only in the research blocks (as defined in CM 41-10, Annex 41-10/A) with no more than 200 tonnes taken in any one research block 3.216 The Scientific Committee recommended that the tagging rate in the north (SSRU 882H) should be increased to 3 fish per tonne of catch to provide a consistent rate throughout the area, and to increase the numbers of tags recovered annually. 3.217 Dr Kasatkina presented SC-CAMLR-XXXV/09 on assigning appropriate research catch limits to vessels undertaking research fishing in SSRUs of Subareas 88.1 and 88.2 that are closed to fishing. She recalled that the Scientific Committee requested that Members develop and submit new proposals under CM 24-01 to deliver effort-limited surveys in the Ross Sea region (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, paragraph 3.76iv). The Russian paper (SC-CAMLR-XXXV/09) proposed that research catch limits be set for all closed SSRUs in the Ross Sea. According to CCAMLR regulations, an overall assessment is carried out for the stock in the Ross Sea once every two years. The stock in closed SSRUs is also assessed. It proposed that a standing research catch limit be set for closed SSRUs that can be assigned to a vessel notifying to conduct research in a particular SSRU. Therefore, the overall catch limit for Subarea 88.1 would not be taken and will be used only by fishing vessels operating under the Olympic system. 3.218 The Scientific Committee thanked Russia for their proposal and noted that the closed SSRUs are considered part of the Ross Sea stock. It recalled its advice that research catches must be included within the catch limit derived from the stock assessment for the Ross Sea area to be consistent with Article II of the Convention (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 3.220). 3.219 The Scientific Committee also noted that structured scientific research in the area would improve understanding of the life history of toothfish. A process for the development of research proposals in closed areas has been agreed and implemented by the Scientific Committee and its working groups. The process establishes a methodology for the establishment of initial research catch limits during the initial exploratory phase and later during the research block stage. There is no requirement for a fixed catch limit based on historic catch. Research to inform current or future assessments in ‘data-poor’ fisheries Subarea 48.2 Chilean proposal 3.220 The Scientific Committee noted the discussion at WG-FSA on a plan by Chile to continue the longline research survey for Dissostichus spp. in Subarea 48.2 (WG-FSA-16/34), and that the vessel proposed for research activities in 2016/17 was the same vessel that failed to meet tagging requirements and did not include the species composition of Macrourus spp. by-catch in 2015/16. 3.221 The Scientific Committee agreed that the advice from WG-SAM-16 regarding this proposal was clear and that the proponents of this research had not followed this advice in full and, therefore, was unable to support the proposed extension of the Chilean survey in 2016/17. The Scientific Committee requested that Chile prepare another proposal for this research and present this to WG-SAM-17. Ukrainian proposal 3.222 The Scientific Committee noted the results from the first two years of a three-year longline survey undertaken by Ukraine (WG-FSA-16/50) that aimed to estimate the status of Dissostichus spp. in Subarea 48.2, and considered a revised plan for a third year of Ukrainian research in this subarea (WG-FSA-16/49). It was noted that 534 toothfish have been tagged during the previous two years in this subarea. 3.223 The Scientific Committee noted the deliberations relative to revising precautionary research catch limits from the CPUE by seabed area method for this effort-limited survey (Annex 7, paragraphs 4.53 and 4.54), including new calculations made during the course of the meeting (SC-CAMLR-XXXV/BG/38 Rev. 1, Table 2), and that WG-FSA could not adequately evaluate all methods of calculating research catch limits. It recalled that new information based on seabed area calculations for Subareas 48.6 and 58.4 requires further work to be undertaken at WG-SAM-17 prior to use for providing advice (Annex 7, paragraph 4.65). 3.224 In line with this recommendation, the Scientific Committee recommended that the research catch limit of 75 tonnes in Subarea 48.2 from the 2015/16 season be brought forward to the 2016/17 season to allow Ukraine to finish this research. 3.225 In recalling the flowchart describing key aspects of prospecting, biomass estimation and assessment (SC-CAMLR-XXXII, Annex 6, Figure 10), the Scientific Committee recommended that WG-SAM-17 consider the methodology and assumptions underlying this figure and update it as necessary to provide a reference paper that can be used by future research proponents. UK survey 3.226 The Scientific Committee noted a proposal by the UK for a three-year longline survey to develop Dissostichus spp. stock hypotheses and connectivity between Subareas 48.2 and 48.4, and improve the available data on bathymetry and associated distributions of benthic by-catch species. 3.227 Dr Kasatkina recalled the discussion during WG-FSA (Annex 7, paragraphs 4.57 to 4.62) that toothfish catch and its length compositions may depend on gear type. She noted that multiple surveys provided by vessels of Chile, Ukraine and UK in Subarea 48.2 aimed at population structure of D. eleginoides and D. mawsoni will be conducted using two gear-types with significant differences in hook numbers for individual vessels. 3.228 Dr Kasatkina proposed to investigate impact of different longline gears on catch and their length and species composition in toothfish fishery. She noted that such investigations may be conducted by using CCAMLR data as well as by in situ observations. 3.229 The Scientific Committee noted that the main objectives in the UK proposal are different to those in the proposals by Chile and Ukraine, the objectives in the research proposed by the UK are not related to catch rates or by-catch rates, and that there is no spatial overlap with the research being undertaken by Ukraine. The Scientific Committee recalled research undertaken by Australia and Japan on BANZARE Bank that compared species compositions of catches obtained using trotline and autoline gear types and found them to be very similar. 3.230 The Scientific Committee recalled the first evidence of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activity (retrieval of gillnets by Ukraine in 2015/16) in Subarea 48.2, and underlined the need to develop methods that can incorporate uncertainty arising from the unknown IUU catches into the stock assessment models. 3.231 The Scientific Committee recommended that the survey commence in 2016/17. Noting that the catch limits proposed by the survey proponents were lower than the catch limit suggested by the seabed analogy method, the Scientific Committee recommended research catch limits of 23 tonnes in the eastern area of Subarea 48.2 and 18 tonnes in the southern area of Subarea 48.4, and that these limits were sufficiently precautionary to allow the survey to proceed in 2016/17. 3.232 Based on the stock hypothesis that the established fishery in Subarea 48.4 is likely to be the northern component of a larger stock of D. mawsoni distributed across Subareas 48.2 and 48.4, the Scientific Committee recommended that the catch limit for this survey area should be considered separate from the catch limit in the established fishery for D. mawsoni in Subarea 48.4. Subarea 48.5 3.233 The Scientific Committee noted a Russian proposal for a three-year longline survey in the eastern region of the Weddell Sea (WG-FSA-16/15 Rev. 1). The survey proposed to collect biological data and undertake tagging to estimate the stock status of D. mawsoni in Subarea 48.5. 3.234 The Scientific Committee recalled Annex 5, paragraph 4.71, and noted that it had yet to have the opportunity to review an analysis it had previously requested (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraph 3.232; SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraphs 3.271 and 3.272) on the catch rates in Subarea 48.5 observed in the surveys undertaken by Russia in 2013 and 2014. 3.235 The Scientific Committee further recalled that the situation with the Subarea 48.5 survey proposal has not changed since 2014 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paragraphs 3.230 to 3.233), and that WG-FSA was still unable to evaluate this research proposal in its current or previous formats. The Scientific Committee referred to the discussions at WG-SAM-15 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, Annex 5, paragraph 4.10) recommending that the data concerned remain quarantined until such time that a complete analysis has been undertaken and submitted for consideration by WG-SAM, WG-FSA and the Scientific Committee. 3.236 Dr Kasatkina drew the attention of the Scientific Committee to a Commission background paper (CCAMLR-XXXV/BG/29 Rev. 1) on the matter of previous Russian survey activities undertaken in Subarea 48.5. 3.237 The Scientific Committee noted that this report (CCAMLR-XXXV/BG/29 Rev. 1) had not been presented to the Scientific Committee for consideration. Dissostichus spp. in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 3.238 The exploratory fisheries for Dissostichus spp. in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 operated in accordance with CMs 41-11 and 41-05 respectively, along with associated conservation measures, in 2015/16. In 2015/16, the catch limit for Dissostichus spp. was 660 tonnes in Division 58.4.1 and 35 tonnes in Division 58.4.2. Fishing in Division 58.4.1 was conducted by three vessels using longlines, with the total reported catch up to 14 September 2016 of 402 tonnes. No fishing had been conducted in Division 58.4.2 to 14 September 2016. Details of these fisheries are contained in the Fishery Reports. 3.239 The Scientific Committee noted that five vessels, one each from Australia, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Spain, have notified their intention to participate in the exploratory fishery for Dissostichus spp. in Divisions 58.4.1 and/or 58.4.2 in 2016/17, and that WG-FSA-16 reviewed a joint research plan prepared by these Members (Annex 7, paragraphs 4.111 to 4.120). 3.240 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-FSA-16 had also reviewed papers on: (i) the recent history of exploratory fishing in these divisions (WG-FSA-16/30) 3.241 The Scientific Committee discussed the merit in having a coordinated and/or centralised ageing program for D. mawsoni in the CCAMLR area, and considered potential mechanisms to facilitate the funding and implementation of such a program. 3.242 The Scientific Committee agreed that such a program is likely to facilitate the accumulation of D. mawsoni age data, and improve otolith reading consistency and precision across the CCAMLR area. The Scientific Committee suggested that the Secretariat work with interested Members in the intersessional period to develop a proposal for consideration by WG-FSA, the Scientific Committee and SCAF in 2017, to develop a centralised and/or coordinated ageing program for otoliths collected, particularly by Members without ageing capability. Such a proposal should include information about: (i) the number of otoliths that would need to be processed and aged to meet the objectives of dependent research programs 3.243 The Scientific Committee also recalled a previous CCAMLR exchange program of otoliths, scales and bones of four Antarctic fish species (Kock, 1989) as an example of a validation ageing process. Management advice 3.244 The Scientific Committee agreed that the research plan in WG-FSA-16/29 is appropriate to achieve the research objectives (listed in Annex 7, paragraph 4.116). 3.245 The Scientific Committee endorsed the recommendation from WG-FSA-16 (Annex 7, paragraph 4.118) that the new proposed research block 5841_6 be opened on an interim basis, with results to be reviewed by WG-SAM and WG-FSA in 2017. 3.246 The Scientific Committee recommended that the catch limits for these divisions remain unchanged for 2016/17 (Table 6), and supported the initial catch allocation scheme developed by the research proponents (Table 7). The Scientific Committee further recommended that the combined catch limit that was set for the Spanish depletion experiment and the Australian research in an overlayed grid survey in SSRU 5841G for 2015/16 (SC CAMLR-XXXIV, Table 2) be applied to the proposed research block 5841_6, which has been designed around the previous research grid. 3.247 The Scientific Committee agreed that Members shall confirm whether they intend to pursue research by SC CIRC by 1 January 2017. If any Members are not able to confirm that they will pursue research, their allocation will be evenly redistributed amongst the other notifying Members that have confirmed they will pursue research. If any Members have not commenced research fishing by 28 February 2017, their allocation will also be evenly redistributed amongst the other Members that have commenced research fishing, or in another way agreed by all of these other Members. D. eleginoides in Division 58.4.3a 3.248 The exploratory fishery for D. eleginoides in Division 58.4.3a operated in accordance with CM 41-06 and associated measures. In 2015/16, the catch limit for D. eleginoides was 32 tonnes and no fishing had been conducted to 14 September 2016. Details of this fishery and the stock assessment are contained in the Fishery Report. 3.249 The Scientific Committee noted that the variable timing of fishing in Division 58.4.3a towards the end of the fishing season can create a situation where the vessels can fish the catch limits for two fishing seasons back-to back within the same voyage. The Scientific Committee noted that: (i) such a seasonal fishing pattern could cause a high fishing mortality on the fish stock within a short period 3.250 The Scientific Committee recommended intersessional consideration of a monthly time step in tag-recapture models to estimate biomass that can account for variable timing of fishing and that a minimum period of time at liberty between tagging and recapture of fish should be introduced (such as the six months currently used in the toothfish assessment in Division 58.5.1). The Scientific Committee also recommended that further investigations on the implications of double fishing mortality in fish stocks during a short time be undertaken in the intersessional period, such that the potential for spatial and temporal concentration of fishing mortality can be considered when setting catch limits. Management advice 3.251 The Scientific Committee supported the continuation of the proposed research in Division 58.4.3a and recommended that the catch limit for this division remain unchanged at 32 tonnes for 2016/17. 3.252 The Scientific Committee noted that one French- and one Japanese-flagged longline vessel had notified to conduct research fishing in Division 58.4.4b in 2015/16 under CM 24 01, with a research catch limit for D. eleginoides of 25 tonnes in research block 5844b_1 and 35 tonnes in research block 5844b_2 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraphs 3.265 and 3.267). Fishing was conducted by both vessels, with the total reported catch up to 14 September 2016 of 35 tonnes. 3.253 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-FSA-16 had reviewed WG-FSA-16/33 Rev. 1 which presented the revised research plan for the 2016/17 toothfish fishery in Division 58.4.4b by Japan and France. Management advice 3.254 The Scientific Committee supported the continuation of this research program and recommended that the catch limit for this division remain unchanged at 25 tonnes in research block 5844b_1 and 35 tonnes in research block 5844b_2 for 2016/17. D. mawsoni in Subarea 88.3 3.255 The Scientific Committee agreed to one Korean-flagged vessel conducting research fishing in Subarea 88.3 in 2015/16 under CM 24-01, with a total research catch limit for D. mawsoni of 171 tonnes across five research blocks in 2015/16 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 3.288). Research fishing took place in February and March 2016 with a catch of 106 tonnes of D. mawsoni (WG-SAM-16/29). 3.256 The Scientific Committee noted that WG-SAM-16 reviewed the results from research activities undertaken by the Republic of Korea (WG-SAM-16/29) and the proposal for continuation of this research (WG-SAM-16/11). No issues were identified with these submissions at WG-SAM-16. Management advice 3.257 The Scientific Committee supported the proposal presented by Korea, and recommended its advice from 2015 (SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, paragraph 3.290) on this research proposal would remain in place such that the priority for research should be research blocks 883_3 (with a catch limit of 31 tonnes) and 883_4 (52 tonnes) given the previous tagging in those areas. Research block 883_5 (38 tonnes) would be a secondary priority, with research blocks 883_1 (21 tonnes) and 883_2 (29 tonnes) a tertiary priority, should ice conditions allow. 3.258 The exploratory fishery for Dissostichus spp. in Subarea 48.6 operated in accordance with CM 41-04 and associated measures. In 2015/16, the catch limit for Dissostichus spp. was 538 tonnes. Fishing was conducted by two vessels using longlines, and the total reported catch up to 14 September 2016 was 240 tonnes. Fishing was carried out in research blocks 486_1 to 486_4, with the catch limit reached in research blocks 486_3 and 486_4. A total of 40 tagged D. mawsoni and four tagged D. eleginoides were recaptured, including eight between-season tag recaptures from research block 486_3 and 11 between-season tag recaptures from research block 486_4. 3.259 Japan, South Africa and Uruguay have proposed to conduct research fishing in Subarea 48.6 in 2016/17. The research proposals were reviewed by WG-SAM-16 (Annex 5, paragraphs 3.23 to 3.41) and WG-FSA-16 (Annex 7, paragraphs 4.79 to 4.86). The Scientific Committee noted that the research proponents had dropped research block 486_1 as requested by WG-SAM and would now focus on research blocks 486_2, _3 and _4 during 2016/17. Research fishing would now focus primarily on D. mawsoni which should be reflected in the target species of the conservation measure for this area. 3.260 The Scientific Committee welcomed the progress made on the development of a hypothetical life cycle for D. mawsoni in Subarea 48.6 and also on the development of a preliminary integrated assessment for research block 486_2 (Annex 5, paragraph 3.24 and Annex 7, paragraphs 4.87 to 4.89). However, it noted that it was difficult to forecast the time required to achieve a full stock assessment of the subarea and that the Commission should have a realistic expectation about how long this might take. It further noted that this needs to be taken into account when considering uncertainty and setting precautionary catch limits in these areas. 3.261 The Scientific Committee noted the prevalence of IUU fishing in this subarea in recent years and that WG-FSA-16 had discussed how to incorporate the uncertainty arising from the unknown IUU catches into the stock assessment model for research block 486_2 (Annex 7, paragraphs 4.88 to 4.91). It noted that the lack of knowledge about IUU catches had also limited the development of CASAL stock assessments in Divisions 58.4.3a and 58.4.4 (e.g. SC-CAMLR-XXXIV, Annex 7, paragraphs 5.25 to 5.30). 3.262 The Scientific Committee considered that this was a matter which needed to be addressed with some urgency and agreed that this would be a useful focus topic for WG SAM-17. It requested WG-SAM consider the following questions: (i) Can the likely estimates of IUU catches in these locations be bounded? 3.263 The Scientific Committee noted that the research proponents had indicated that a proposal to extend research block 486_2 and to develop a new research block on the continental shelf region would be submitted to WG-SAM-17 (Annex 7, paragraph 4.96). 3.264 The Scientific Committee recalled discussions held during the Scientific Committee Symposium concerning the desire to reduce the frequency of reviews of research plans (SC CAMLR-XXXV/12) and recommended to have a stable research design throughout the entire period of a research program. It also recommended that WG-SAM-17 develop performance metrics for research plans against which the progress of a research plan is reported each year. 3.265 The research proponents informed the Scientific Committee that they will collaborate on their offshore and onshore activities. They also noted that their scientists would work collaboratively during the intersessional period and bring forward a coordinated multi-Member plan to WG-SAM-17. They noted that the 12 PSATs would be deployed across all four research blocks and would be programmed to pop up after one year. Management advice 3.266 The Scientific Committee agreed that research in this subarea should focus on D. mawsoni in research blocks 486_2 to 486_5 and that the catch limits for 2016/17 for this subarea be brought forward from 2015/16. Specifically: • research block 486_2 170 tonnes 3.267 The location of research blocks to be used in exploratory and research fishing in 2016/17 are shown in Figure 4. |
| 2016 | SC-CAMLR-XXXV | 5.5 to 5.38 |
Marine protected areas Domain 1 – Western Antarctic Peninsula and Southern Scotia Sea 5.5 The Scientific Committee noted discussions during WG-EMM-16 on MPA planning in Domain 1 (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.15 to 3.23), including an informal workshop held on 9 July 2016. This informal workshop presented technical progress made by the planning group led by Argentina and Chile, as well as independent and complementary analyses undertaken by the UK and USA which validate the identification of priority areas for protection. WG-EMM welcomed the progress made, and encouraged all contributors to continue this work. 5.6 Dr M. Santos (Argentina) presented SC-CAMLR-XXXV/02, which noted that the Antarctic Peninsula and Southern Scotia Arc are of particular interest as one of the earth’s regions most at risk from the impact of climate change. The paper described progress in conservation planning for this region, following two international workshops, and the analysis of data collected by several Members over the past several decades. International cooperation was highlighted as contributing to progress. It further suggested the establishment of a monitoring program for MPAs using standardised methods based on the CEMP, in which all Members were encouraged to participate. It recommended Members to participate in any stage of discussions with the aim of integrating different points of view and approaches in the selection of candidate MPAs in Domain 1. Dr Santos also expressed her gratitude to ASOC for its contribution to the Domain 1 MPA process in relation to capacity building on the use of systematic conservation tools. 5.7 The Scientific Committee congratulated Argentina and Chile for progress made in Domain 1 planning, based on international datasets covering more than three decades. It particularly welcomed the collaborative efforts and the focus on the impacts of climate change. The involvement of external expert groups, such as Integrating Climate and Ecosystem Dynamics in the Southern Ocean (ICED) and SOOS, was recommended. The Scientific Committee further noted that this region was subject to a number of human activities that must be taken into account as part of the MPA planning process. 5.8 The Scientific Committee also noted that the Domain 1 spatial planning activity coincides and overlaps with other Scientific Committee activities pertinent to this region, such as work on risk analysis for the krill fishery and on FBM. Datasets made available by the Domain 1 planning group could be used to support work in these areas. It was recommended that these activities be integrated, including input from the krill fishing industry. 5.9 Dr Kasatkina congratulated Dr Santos and her co-workers with progress in the process for the designation of an MPA in Domain 1. She noted that the MPA Planning Domain 1 project includes potential fishing grounds and current fishing grounds for the krill fishery and that, as such, it requires special attention. She also noted that the MPA Planning Domain 1 project includes significant areas in the Western Antarctic Peninsula and South Scotia Arc. She proposed that the MPA Planning Domain 1 project should be subdivided into several smaller areas for the further planning process. South Orkney Islands MPA 5.10 The UK and Norway presented SC-CAMLR-XXXV/BG/28 which summarises research voyages in the South Orkney Islands region in 2015/16. It was noted that nine CCAMLR Members participated in these cruises, and that a significant amount of new data and analyses will be submitted to the Scientific Committee and its working groups as it becomes available. This information will be utilised in the next review of the South Orkney Islands MPA, which is due in 2019. 5.11 The Scientific Committee welcomed the recent research, noting that this information constitutes a progress report which will be incorporated into an MPA Report at the time of the next review. 5.12 Mr L. Yang (China) further raised the concern how to use the scientific data to assess whether the objectives of the MPA have been achieved in the review, without scientific criteria and baseline data. 5.13 Dr Trathan replied that the UK and its collaborators will ensure that the data are analysed and papers presented to WG-EMM and the Scientific Committee in advance of the next review. Domains 3 and 4 – Weddell Sea 5.14 The Scientific Committee noted discussions during WG-EMM-16 on the development of a Weddell Sea MPA (WSMPA) (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.1 to 3.14), which included recommendations on further work, including the development of a toothfish potential habitat layer, updates to the cost layer and sensitivity analyses to assess a range of protection levels. 5.15 Prof. T. Brey (Germany) presented four scientific background documents in support of the development of an MPA in the Weddell Sea, submitted by Germany (SC CAMLR-XXXV/01 Rev. 1, BG/11, BG/12 and BG/13). These papers include details of recent work to address the recommendations of WG-EMM-16. 5.16 The Scientific Committee noted that the scientific background to support the development of a WSMPA has been developed continuously during the last four years. The WSMPA scenario development followed the Systematic Conservation Planning approach (Margules and Pressey, 2000). Extensive environmental and ecological datasets (almost 50 000 data files) were compiled (SC-CAMLR-XXXV/BG/12) and analysed, covering a 4.2 million km2 planning area. More than 70 data layers were produced using diverse modelling techniques and geographic information systems to obtain a representative picture of species’ habitats or feeding grounds (SC-CAMLR-XXXV/BG/13). At the same time, general and specific conservation objectives and targets for protection were defined and prioritised with input from two international expert workshops. Finally, the identification of the most important areas for protection in the WSMPA planning area was accomplished using the conservation planning decision-support software Marxan, including a cost layer analysis. Sensitivity analyses have demonstrated that the core areas identified for protection remain stable under a range of conservation target scenarios. The scientific output, including significant contributions by several Members and Acceding States, is represented by 19 CCAMLR documents submitted to WG-EMM or Scientific Committee meetings (e.g. SC CAMLR-XXXV/BG/11). 5.17 The Scientific Committee congratulated the authors of the four documents on the significant amount of work undertaken, particularly to address the recommendations from WG-EMM-16. The Scientific Committee agreed that the extensive information presented in the four documents (SC-CAMLR-XXXV/01 Rev. 1, BG/11, BG/12 and BG/13) is the best science currently available. It agreed that it provides the necessary foundation for MPA planning in this region, as well being useful for many other purposes. It noted that further work was required to develop these analyses and to identify how they are used in the development of a WSMPA proposal, and encouraged the continuation of this work. 5.18 The Scientific Committee noted the importance of separating scientific questions on the data and analyses relating to the development of the WSMPA proposal, from those relating to management issues. It therefore noted the following additional points for consideration by the Commission: (i) future management of research fisheries within the proposed WSMPA, in relation to the target levels for protection of toothfish habitat 5.19 Dr Kasatkina introduced SC-CAMLR-XXXV/10. She noted that the proposal for the establishment of an MPA in the Weddell Sea described the species composition of fish fauna but there is no mention of the commercial potential of these fish species and future rational use. Russian data on biodiversity clearly showed there are populations of dominant fish species in the Weddell Sea that are of commercial importance or potential commercial importance: D. mawsoni, spiny icefish (Chaenodraco wilsoni), P. antarctica and Antarctic rockcod (Trematomus eulepidotus). Potentially commercial species, after further study, could be fished from the family Myctophidae (Gymnoscopelus spp.). Long-term surveys and research are needed in order to further determine the commercial potential of these fish species, as well as to assess their stocks and future rational use. She noted that a proposal for the establishment of an MPA in the Weddell Sea should be complemented by these materials. Dr Kasatkina further noted that data on the state of toothfish as an important component of the ecosystem were currently not available, and that habitat suitability model predictions for D. mawsoni and modelling the target level of protection for toothfish habitat requires the materials from research programs which should be undertaken in the Weddell Sea. 5.20 Dr Kasatkina noted that the Russian and Soviet research cruises showed that the area of the Antarctic continental slope and shelf inside the Weddell Sea (between 200°W and 300°E) that is proposed to be included in the MPA and may be a potential area for krill fishery in Area 48. Investigations of the krill resources in the Weddell Sea can be conducted by exploratory fisheries. 5.21 Dr Kasatkina noted that the proposed WSMPA boundaries include an area of 1.3 million km², but that this did not consider ice conditions and dynamics. She noted that MPA boundaries should be established in compliance with sea-ice conditions for vessel navigation being a fundamental factor for the successful completion of assigned research tasks in designated areas. 5.22 Dr Kasatkina noted that the wide research program and MPA boundaries require clarification of the research and monitoring plan with detailed descriptions in relation to the responsibilities for, and participation, in the research and monitoring plan. The operationalisation of the WSMPA research and monitoring plan includes two research cruises for research and monitoring activities during 10 years. It provides some grounds for doubt in relation of a proper implementation of assigned research tasks in designated areas. Dr Kasatkina noted that any criteria for assessing of implementation of assigned research tasks in designated areas were not provided in SC-CAMLR-XXXV/BG/11, BG/12, BG/13 and CCAMLR-XXXV/18. 5.23 Mr Yang thanked his German colleagues for providing the scientific background document in support of the development of a CCAMLR MPA in the Weddell Sea, which contains many layers of scientific data, and valued those documents as a good source to understand the Weddell Sea and its ecosystem. He reminded the Scientific Committee that the Scientific Committee has advised the Commission that the whole Convention Area is equivalent to a IUCN category IV MPAs, and the Convention Area is already protected by current conservation measures. Accordingly, the global goals stated in the scientific background documents as a purpose of the proposed MPA have already been met in the CAMLR Convention Area. He further suggested that, in accordance with Article XV of CAMLR Convention, the establishment of criteria and methods to be used to conserve the biodiversity, and to assess whether the objectives of the proposed MPA have been achieved, as well as to assess the effects of proposed changes in the method, under the Convention with the objective to conserve the marine living resource, where conservation includes rational use, before the establishment of MPAs with such objectives by specific conservation measures. Mr Yang noted from the scientific background documents that the krill data is poor in this area, and many scientific data used in the documents are from a few research conducted in the 20th century, and questioned the rationale the proposed MPA to prohibited the fishing research on krill, the source of scientific data and information on krill for the consideration of the Scientific Committee. He noted that, as a result, China maintained concern on scientific justification of the proposed Weddell Sea MPA in that the potential threat from the consequences of large-scale climate and oceanographic change is low in at least 50 years, and on-site human activities are also low and under effective regulation, according to the background documents in support of the development of Weddell Sea MPA, in particular SC CAMLR-XXXV/BG/11. 5.24 In response to the emphasis of best available scientific evidence contained in the background documents by several members, Mr Yang called to the attention of the Scientific Committee that the quality of the Scientific Committee’s advice is also an important issue to the Scientific Committee. 5.25 Dr Trathan and Prof. Brey recalled that the Commission had agreed that some areas warranted higher levels of protection and it is a Commission issue as to the level of protection that a particular area receives within the Convention Area. 5.26 Dr Godø noted during the deliberations regarding the Weddell Sea MPA that the Scientific Committee is not the forum for discussion of technical details, and asked the Chair for guidance as to whether the ongoing discussions should rather take place at WG-EMM. The Chair responded that specific scientific issues not properly covered should be revealed if this should take place. 5.27 Dr Godø made the following statement at report adoption:
5.28 Dr S. Hain (Germany) thanked Norway for its statement and clarified some issues: ‘Firstly, as already noted during the deliberations of the Scientific Committee this week, we have to distinguish between matters which should be addressed by the Commission and matters which should be addressed by the Scientific Committee. The issue raised by Norway as regards the design and objectives of the fisheries research zones is related to the actual proposal for the Weddell Sea MPA, which will be discussed by the Commission next week. Domains 5 and 6 Crozet–Del Cano and Kerguelen 5.29 Prof. P. Koubbi (France) presented an update concerning the extension of the actual natural reserves in the EEZ of Crozet and Kerguelen. The project, which has been validated by the French Minister of Environment, Energy and Seas, is currently under evaluation by the other French ministries and concerns about 250 000 km² for Crozet and 387 000 km² for Kerguelen. 5.30 The ecological analyses presented at WG-EMM indicate that two high-seas areas should be considered to cover the whole range of important bird and marine mammal areas for populations living on both islands. It was noted that climate change will be important to consider as the sub-Antarctic zone will be one of the areas of the Southern Ocean that will be the most impacted by future changes. These areas are: (i) the area of the Antarctic Polar Front in the South of the Crozet EEZ (Planning Domain 5) where most of Crozet king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) are foraging 5.31 The Scientific Committee approved the continuation of research in both sectors based on the pelagic ecoregionalisation and essential areas for top predators. South African, Australian and Indian scientists indicated their willingness to collaborate on this project. 5.32 An e-group on Indian Ocean sub-Antarctic spatial planning has been created on the CCAMLR website, and the Scientific Committee encouraged other Members to participate in the development of the scientific elements for a proposal for designating future pelagic MPAs in the Indian Ocean sub-Antarctic zone of the Southern Ocean. Domain 8 – Ross Sea 5.33 The Scientific Committee noted discussions during WG-EMM-16 on the Krill Research Zone (KRZ) proposed as part of the Ross Sea region MPA (Annex 6, paragraphs 3.38 to 3.44). It noted that the potential importance of this area to krill and krill predators presents an important opportunity for research. 5.34 The proponents of the Ross Sea region MPA noted that a workshop should be held in the year following adoption of the proposal in order to develop a research and monitoring plan, to include krill research. Progress on MPA planning 5.35 The Scientific Committee agreed that it would be helpful to compile a table summarising progress and activities being undertaken on MPA planning in each of the MPA planning domains. This information is presented in Table 9. 5.36 ASOC presented CCAMLR-XXXV/BG/26, which examines the progress made to date in the establishment of a representative system of MPAs in the CAMLR Convention Area. For over a decade CCAMLR has been discussing the adoption of MPAs in the CAMLR Convention Area. There was some progress on the adoption of a representative system of MPAs up until 2011, and despite CCAMLR’s inability to reach consensus on the adoption of any MPA proposal under discussion since that time, work has continued in other domains. This is a welcome development. However, the proposed MPAs for East Antarctica and the Ross Sea have been diminished in size and in other ways, reflecting a decrease in conservation ambition. In addition, the concept of what an MPA is or does and how it relates to fisheries research and fishing generally has also been compromised. MPAs are intended to be a conservation and biodiversity protection tool, not a fisheries management tool. Unfortunately, MPA discussions at CCAMLR have too often focused on protecting access to fisheries rather than on protecting biodiversity. 5.37 CCAMLR-XXXV/BG/26 made a series of recommendations to CCAMLR. The overall recommendation is that CCAMLR should not further delay in adopting a representative system of MPAs across the nine planning domains, and in doing so ensure that the protection, scientific research and climate change objectives of CM 91-04 are achieved. Responsibility for ensuring that these objectives are achieved rests with each and all of CCAMLR Members. In line with its 2009 commitment, CCAMLR Members must adopt meaningful MPAs across the nine planning domains, starting at this meeting. In line with CM 91-04, these MPAs must be robust, large, representative and ecologically significant, and without any time restrictions. In conclusion, CCAMLR should avoid a continued dilution of ambition, and a clear example of that is duration and these MPAs should be in place for an indefinite period of time. The past few months have seen significant moves globally in the designation of large fully protected MPAs and we hope CCAMLR will follow suit. 5.38 Prof. Koubbi recalled the priority of CCAMLR to create a representative system of MPAs and asked the Scientific Committee to encourage short- and medium-term regional assessments in each planning domain that need to be conducted. This assessment should summarise advances in each planning domain and give an estimation of the consequences of climate change on biodiversity and marine resources. Prof. Koubbi proposed creating an expert group which can work intersessionally with other organisations to achieve this goal. |
| 2016 | SC-CAMLR-XXXV | 8.3 to 8.7 |
8.3 Members of the CEP agreed that the Joint SC-CAMLR–CEP Workshop had been valuable in further enhancing cooperation and information sharing between the two committees on climate change, environmental monitoring and other matters of mutual interest. It welcomed the report and endorsed the recommendations arising, particularly recommendations for increased cooperation among the CEP, SC-CAMLR and SCAR and their subsidiary bodies. 8.4 WG-EMM also agreed that the workshop had been a productive and valuable opportunity to share information and consider issues of common interest. It discussed a range of topics arising from the workshop, including: (i) development of enhanced links with SCAR and related programs, including ICED and SOOS, to aid in the work of the Scientific Committee 8.5 The Co-conveners, in considering the joint workshop report and subsequent advice from WG-EMM, suggested that the Scientific Committee could focus on further discussion of: (i) recommendations 1 to 4 on interactions with SCAR and related programs, and the subsequent WG-EMM discussions on the articulation of key questions, and mechanisms for improved dialogue and collaboration 8.6 The Scientific Committee congratulated the Co-conveners for their work in preparing for, and conducting, the workshop and noted that the workshop report provided useful guidance as the Scientific Committee plans its program of work in coming years. The workshop discussions were seen to highlight the importance of collaboration among the CEP, SC-CAMLR and SCAR to advance progress in the area of climate change and associated research and monitoring. Discussions at WG-EMM and in the margins of the SCAR Open Science Meeting progressed the themes of the workshop. The Scientific Committee endorsed the recommendations from the joint workshop report. 8.7 The CEP Chair, Mr E. McIvor, expressed his thanks to the Co-conveners of the joint workshop, as well as to the Chilean hosts of the workshop, the members of the CEP and SC CAMLR, and representatives of external bodies who participated in the workshop. He noted that the CEP had earlier endorsed all workshop recommendations and has taken steps for implementation. An important aspect of the CEP’s work will be how to manage and implement the CCRWP and how to increase collaboration and communication with SCAR and SC-CAMLR. |