Monitoring Compliance with the Landing Obligation in Pelagic Fisheries Project on Mackerel Gramme Size Analysis PELAC WORKING GROUP II 11 JULY 2017, THE HAGUE EFCA Unit 2 Programmes and Assistance
Contents • Background and Process • Initiative under the JDP for Western Waters • Data Collection • Data Analyses conducted • Evaluation by MS Data experts • Further steps • NWW and Scheveningen Control Expert Groups
Background and Process • 1 January 2015 landing obligation in force • During 2015 Regional Control Expert Groups developing recommendations on monitoring and control of LO • In EFCA Steering Group decided on project to analyse mackerel catch composition data. Preliminary scoping of possibilities in 2015 with trial implementation in 2016 within the JDP for WW. EFCA contracted data analyst. • Beginning of this year, as follow-up of a NWW CEG recommendation, new terms of reference given by HLG to further evaluate the potential use of gramme size data for monitoring purposes
Principle of Gramme size analysis in Mackerel fishery • The value of mackerel is related to the weight of the individual fish. • The overall weight range is <200gr. – 600gr. / >600gr. • 1 mackerel of 600 gr. is worth more than 2 mackerels of 300 gr. The bigger the fish the more quotum turnover. • In the past, on this basis (and other indicators) control authorities of pelagic states have assessed the risk of discarding smaller size mackerel to be substantial. • Analysis to f ocus on presence/absence of lower size ranges
Data Collection within JDP • The information on gramme sizes of the catch is not reported by operators in the regulated reporting forms (logbooks, landing declaration, sales notes). • Therefore this data needs to be collected by MS authorities on a voluntary basis and requires cooperation by industry. • The data received was of a scattered nature, giving potential issues for interpretation and comparison • It was difficult for MS to provide verified data on gramme size (obtained during inspection)
WW JDP Mackerel Campaigns
Data Collected Catches from RSW and Freezer vessels: • RSW: data from sampling at sea (by vessel) • RSW: data from sampling on landing in factory (by operator) • Freezers: data from the ‘ production log ’ of catch during full fishing trip (by factory on vessel) • This is all ‘self - reported data’ • Limited data from inspections at sea (difficult to gather) 7
Sampling on board RSW vessels • RSW vessel may pump mackerel on board at a rate of 10 T/min. • Catch sampled for gramme size … every 5 mins approx. • Approximately 20kg samples are taken at intervals and all individuals are weighed. • The individual weights are recorded automatically. • Printed copies are produced at the sampling location on the ship. • This provides a breakdown of the gramme size in real time as the vessel is taking the fish on board.
Gramme size sampling on board RSW fishing vessel Gramme size
Gramme size sampling on board RSW fishing vessel Times of sampling Gramme size
Gramme size sampling at Factory Gramme size
Gramme size sampling at Factory Individual gramme size Number of individual Sample weight fish in the sample Average Gramme size
Sampling report on Landing 13
Gramme size data 3 rd country Gramme size
RSW Sampling Summary • Vessels are completing a sample at sea approximately once every 5 minutes. • This equates to a sample of approximately 25kg/50 tonnes. • = 0.05% of the catch • Factories (processing 60 tonnes per hour) sampling approximately 50 kg/60 tonnes. • = 0.08% of the landing A limited part of samples (just a selection from samples of the haul and full fishing trip and in some cases only 1 average number) provided.
Freezer Trawler Process • When fish is pumped on board, it is not sampled • The fish goes into the tanks and is then pumped into the factory for grading • In the factory the size categories are established for which grading will take place • One category is for fish below MCRS • Fish is sampled for quality and for manual cross-check with the automatic grading • Fish into hoppers and to the plates for freezing No sampling like on RSW vessels, since the grade distribution is obtained though the grading.
Production log from freezer vessel Grade size VISG Trip EGE VOORRAADGEGEVENS VENS BEMONSTERING PAKGEGEVENS date SOR BESC Production TERI VOE HADI TOTALE NGS- DSEL GD Catch weight DAG- TIJD STUK KWA VISS BUIK IN AND BAND DA PRODUKTI M/T IN AANTAL VISTI IN S / SORTEER Vangstgebi LITEI kWAL TIJFH MOD VULL MAA ERE STUKS/ KLEU area G E RSW MERK PAKKEN JD TANK KG KLASSE ed T ITEIT EID EL ING G VIS PAK R 1 4,992 0 Hom 001 1,189 A A 2.5 28+ VIAN A A B D A A A 60-65 G Cartons 2 3,324 150 Hom 002 4,133 A A 3.4 25-28 VIAN B A B D A A A 80-90 G 3 14,092 170 Hom 003 446 A A 4.6 23-25 VIAN B A B D A A A 110-120 G 4 15,548 330 WhbMZZ 004 52 0 VIAN 0 Fish per Batch carton code 5 15,028 300 MacR 005 936 A A 1.9 500-600 VIAN A A A A A A A 40-45 R 6 15,132 350 MacG 006 5,200 A A 2.4 370-500 VIAN B A A A A A A 50-55 R 7 15,080 150 MacM 007 5,200 A A 3 250-370 VIAN B A A A A A A 60-70 R 8 15,186 320 Hom 008 624 A A 2.8 25+ VIAN B A A D A A A 60-70 G 9 15,080 250 MacK 009 780 A A 4.7 200-250 VIAN C A A A A A A 100-110 R 10 15,214 180 MacM 010 3,744 A A 2.9 250-370 VIAN B A A A A A A 60-70 R
Data Exploration on basis of Average Gramme Size No effect of time on AGS. All weeks Overall mean= around overall 371 gramme mean, 371 gr.
Data Exploration on basis of Average Gramme Size South west Spatial effect: of Ireland AGS lower in southern areas.
Average Gramme Size by vessel (all vessels)
Issues of Data Interpretation On what level is the data comparable (assumptions and uncertainties). • Vessels having fished in the same area? Statistical rectangle or ICES area? • Vessels having fished at the same time? Same day, week, season? • Sampling: does the distribution of the individuals’ weight frequency of a fishing operation correspond to a normal distribution? • Gramme size categories vary between vessels and trips • When you have 3 samples while 20 samples are taken? Reliability of data • When only one average gramme size number is reported 21
Evaluation by MS Data Experts In May 2017 workshop of data experts from MS held. Observations: • Reference data is needed for the project to succeed • More complete and consistent catch data will be needed. • Verified data at sea, (but circumstances are difficult) followed up by landing inspection • The focus should not be on average gramme size, but on gramme size distribution (catch composition) • Analysis should focus on degree of absence/presence of lower weight mackerel in the catch. 22
JDP next steps • New external Data analyst being contracted to analyse all data already collected, not yet analysed (2 campaigns) • Discuss in Steering Group in September possible options of way forward in view of conclusions data expert workshop • Autumn campaign: creation of an operational plan for the IVa fishery for collecting verified data • For MS authorities it is resource intensive 23
Regional Process: NWW Control Expert Group • Parallel to JDP Coordination, EFCA cooperates with the regional Control Expert Groups (CEG) in support of a uniform implementation of the LO • North Western Waters CEG has made a recommendation on gramme size analysis as a complementary tool to REM in April 2015 report. • 1st quarter of 2017 new terms of reference for the NWW CEG from the High Level Group focused on this topic: 24
NWW Control Expert Group ToR The CEG is asked to further develop its recommendations around the potential utility of catch conformity/variance appraisal (specifically gramme size and species mix) as an input to the assessment of risk of non-compliance with the LO. • The CEG is asked to make further recommendations on how such an appraisal would be best designed and operated at a regional level to determine when variations from normal expected catches might indicate risk of non-compliance with the LO. • The CEG is specifically asked to consider how this risk assessment might inform the risk categorisation of vessels previously proposed, with high risk vessels identified as those to which REM/CCTV systems should best be deployed. 25
CEG discussions on the way forward - Last week a CEG meeting held in Utrecht - Initial Reply to HLG is being discussed and prepared, exact contents not yet known. - Verified data to be essential , to develop view of catch composition one could expect (model of last observed haul project in demersal fisheries) - To analyse size distribution of whole catch in the reported data, need of more complete data sets - Question of commitment to share data by parties involved - Too early to say what will be the way forward 26
THANK YOU leon.bouts@efca.europa.eu http://www.efca.europa.eu
Recommend
More recommend
