Availability of Catch Data

59.

Australia:	Catch-by-area data available, or in preparation in the case of recent catches.
South Africa:	All but 15 % of catch taken from a single fishing area (Three Hills area -1999, 2000 and 2001). There were no accurate position data maintained, or at least available, of tows.
Ukraine:	Catches records broken down by at least four areas; for years 1985 - 2001 total catch has been taken from their area 01 and 02. Catch statistics data were presented at the meeting.
Namibia:	No area detail available; seven vessels in their fishery.
European Union:	Must be obtained from respective governments or national operators.
New Zealand:	Available by area (subject to confidentiality requirements) for 1999, 2001 and part of 2002.
Japan:	Only catch data are available - see Meeting Document 02/5.
France:	EEZ catch only.

Catch data as were provided at the meeting are summarized in Table 1.

60. Considerable thought was given to how catch and effort could be reported on an area basis. It was recognized that with declining fishing effort and numbers of fishing vessels active in the area, reporting areas that were too small may have only one or two vessels reporting. This could create problems of maintaining the confidentiality of operator's returns. However, if data were supplied in detail they could be aggregated at a higher level and this would enable management on an appropriate stock-scale basis, which was considered highly desirable.

Table 1

Provisional Reported and Inferred Catches (tonnes) of Demersal Species Southern Indian Ocean

Year	No. of countries reporting	No. of vessels indicated	Orange roughy	Oreo unspec.	Alfonsino	Boarfish	Cardinal-fish	Blue-nose	Misc.	Total¹
1998	1²	1			859	78			685	1622
1999	6	8	5210.518	405.94	2462	2582.723	359.77	30	3475	14525.951
2000	7	13	12218.241	2688.772	6526.014	2066.4	1771.146	15	39412.573	39412.573
2001	8	8	1568.515	357.797	3470.798	45.089	405.742	28	2089.681	7965.622

¹ Note: The weights include landings in Mauritius by non-Mauritian flagged vessels and there is a good chance that there has been double counting of the catches landed in Mauritius and those recorded by the flag state. This possiblity is being investigated. Thus these data must be taken as provisional. It is almost certain that vessels that have not yet been indentified were also fishing during these years (i.e. 1999, 2000 and 2001) and thus I believe that the “No. of vessels indicated” number given will increase with further research - Ed.

² Data only provided by one country so far for 1998 - thus total catch would have been much greater.

61. Taking these considerations into account, the meeting devised the area-reporting schedule as shown in Figure 2. In related discussions, concerns were expressed about the boundary between Broken Ridge and Ninety East Ridge; it was commercial and Ukrainian practice to separate the ridges in this area at the approximately 90-91°E meridian based on the geological origin of the seamounts. Therefore seamounts located westward from 90°E meridian in the area 29-35°S, 85-90°E were included in the 90° East Ridge Area despite the presence of a trench between northern and southern parts of the ridge complex. New Zealand opinion was that eastern (eastward from 90°E) and western areas (29-35°S, 85-90°E) represent a single underwater feature and separation at the 90°E might confound stocks. Despite this, it was agreed to follow the practice of Ukraine and the industry^[3].

62. Concern was expressed about use of the 45°S meridian as the southern boundary in the western part of the study area as it was expected that orange roughy would be found on the part of the ridge that lies to the south of this line. In this regard it was noted that this concern should be conveyed to CCAMLR for their information.

63. In reviewing the appropriateness of management areas it was recognized that much of the information needed to determine such areas does not exist; a management area appropriate for one species may be either too large, or too small, for another.

^[3] Dr Romanov, in post-meeting communications has noted the following: “The meeting in Fremantle discussed the differences in origin and structure of underwater features. Ukrainian practice is based on Soviet geological studies and descriptions of underwater features e.g. Atlas of the Oceans, 1977. Atlantic and Pacific. GUNIO MO USSR. xvii, 306 p., Suppl. 27 p. (In Russian) and several other publications and YugNIRO geological research. The Soviet publications distinguish between underwater ridges based on the differences in the geological origin of seamounts of 90°E Ridge (which are volcanic origin) and the seamounts of the Broken Ridge, which is morphologically related with Australian Continent. The seamounts in question are volcanic and of the same origin as the other seamounts of 90°E Ridge. He was of the view that the New Zealand scientists distinguished the underwater features based on bottom topography only. The Ukrainian view was that the geological past of seamounts and ridges should also be considered. Further, the seamount in question also has a prominent trench between it and the Broken Ridge.”