Since 2013 the Secretariat of the Commission has been preparing an annual compliance report in accordance with the provisions of Conservation Measure 10-10. This report has facilitated the analysis by the Standing Committee on Implementation and Compliance (SCIC) of alleged issues of non-compliance with some conservation measures. The report and its discussion have made it possible to clarify the text of some measures that could be read in ways that allowed for differing interpretations and to refine some measures that were in force, and have contributed to general diagnostics of compliance levels by the Members of the Commission. However, the current compliance status categories contained in the table attached to Conservation Measure 10-10 sometimes lead to protracted discussions over what should be considered ‘partially compliant’ or ‘non-compliant’. This proposal aims at modifying the table of compliance status categories so that this kind of discussions are avoided, thus reducing the time devoted to discussions by the Committee.

In this paper, we briefly review recent environmental information for the Antarctic Peninsula, highlighting how both natural variability in near-surface air temperatures and longer term changes in the oceanic domain add to the complexity of managing the Antarctic krill fishery, particularly at small spatial scales. We present an example during the early Austral summer of 2015/2016, when sea ice conditions were extensive and led to unusual foraging conditions for gentoo penguins. Conditions were such, that gentoo reproductive performance was lower than average, and at some locations, mortality events were observed. Fishing in close proximity to some colonies also occurred and it is plausible that removals of even small amounts of krill could have reduced foraging opportunities. We discuss three management tools that could provide conservation benefits for near-shore krill-dependent species, particularly during periods when environmental variability might mean that potential impacts of fishing are difficult to predict. These management methods include: (i) coastal buffers closed to fishing, (ii) closed areas during critical ecological time periods, and (iii) harvesting limits and move-on rules. We discuss the potential impacts upon the fishery arising from these methods. We show that designating coastal buffers closed to fishing during the penguin breeding season could reduce krill catches by approximately 30,000 tonnes, but that this catch could be recovered either offshore, or after penguin breeding is complete. We note that use of these tools would increase CCAMLR’s leadership in precautionary fisheries management and enhance its public image.

In this paper, we highlight how environmental variability has led to reduced penguin breeding performance, and increased penguin mortality following starvation, such that localised harvesting by the krill fishery at specific times or in particular areas might not be considered to be rational management. However, we also note that the current network of ecosystem monitoring sites currently makes it difficult to obtain the necessary management information at the resolution needed to facilitate precautionary reductions in catch at relevant time and space scales in all areas. Moreover, an experimental framework (such as open and closed areas to test contrasting harvesting protocols) to determine whether the fishery might have an impact upon different ecosystem components (and by how much), has never been implemented; this means that localised impacts from the fishery remain untested. Changing patterns in the operation of the krill fishery mean that either improved management information, or a precautionary spatial management approach is appropriate. Until such time that adequate information is available, and a Feed Back Management approach is implemented, the UK recommends that a precautionary approach constitutes rational spatial management. Tools that would help satisfy this requirement include seasonal coastal buffers closed to fishing. We note that application the precautionary principle using these tools would increase CCAMLR’s leadership in ecosystem based fisheries management and enhance its public image.

The Commission currently manages toothfish, icefish and krill fisheries. However, after three decades of activity the management of these fisheries by CCAMLR can be seen to be developing differently. That is to say, the monitoring of fishing activities in the krill fishery in the CCAMLR Area can be seen to differ from that implemented in other fisheries. This situation could be affecting the development of the krill fishery and giving rise to monitoring gaps which need to be addressed. We propose that the Commission consider an increase in observer coverage that would be implemented in stages over the next 4 years.

The Joint CEP/SC-CAMLR Workshop on Climate Change and Monitoring was held in Punta Arenas, Chile (19-20 May 2016). A workshop report was prepared by the conveners (Dr Susie Grant and Dr Polly Penhale), and is provided in full below.

The report was discussed at the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP XIX) in Santiago, Chile (23-27 May 2016) (CEP XIX Report, paragraphs 43 to 56), and at WG-EMM-16 in Bologna, Italy (WG-EMM-16 Report, paragraphs 6.8 to 6.28).

The CEP agreed that the joint 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 of the joint workshop, and endorsed the recommendations arising. Further information on discussions at the CEP is also provided in SC-CAMLR-XXXV/BG/09.

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:

1. developing further links with SCAR and related programmes (including ICED and SOOS)
2. data and information exchange
3. development of priority questions in relation to climate change

WG-EMM noted that it does not currently have a climate change agenda item, and therefore recommended that the SC-CAMLR Symposium consider whether and how discussions on climate change might be facilitated in future working group meetings, in order to provide appropriate advice to the Scientific Committee.

Uncertainties in Antarctic krill stock still do not allow scientists to develop comprehensive system of Feedback management of krill fishery and to provide work on forecast of the ecosystem changes that has been discussed at the Bologna 2016 Meeting of the WG-EMM. To improve that situation Ukraine suggests the changes to CCAMLR Conservation Measure 51-06(2014) in order to make the scientific observation system in the krill fishery mandatory.

This paper proposes amendments to strengthen Conservation Measure 10-09 by addressing gaps in the monitoring of transhipments. Currently, most of the transhipments in the Convention Area occur between vessels licensed to fish in the Convention Area and vessels of Non-Contracting parties (NCPs). The proposed amendments establish a CCAMLR Record of Carrier Vessels, which may include NCP vessels, and prohibit a Contracting Party vessel from transhipping inside the Convention Area with a vessel that is not authorised under Conservation Measure 10-02 or included on the CCAMLR Record of Carrier Vessels. The amendments would further prohibit a vessel authorised under Conservation Measure 10-02 from transhipping inside the Convention Area with another vessel that is not authorised under Conservation 10-02, or included on the CCAMLR Record of Carrier Vessels. As such, the proposed amendments would assist in preventing support for, and concealment of, IUU fishing through transhipments, and would also improve understanding of transhipment activities involving Antarctic marine living resources harvested inside the Convention Area. 

This text is revised version of earlier presented by Ukraine document WG-EMM-16/56. Taking into account the current state of krill fishery in Area 48 and other important factors, Ukraine proposes to upgrade the Conservation Measure 51-07 in order to redistribute the trigger level of catch in 620 000 tonnes between Subareas in Area 48 in a new percentage limits. This revision of CM 51-07 includes additional precautional measures to avoid interceptance of the krill fishery and the preadors consumption needs establishing season limitations of close to shore fishery. New revision will still enable to follow the precautional conservation principles of the Convention and in the same time will not inflict an economic damage to the krill fishery.

Conservation Measure 32-18 on the conservation of sharks prohibits “directed fishing on shark species in the Convention Area…” and calls for the live release of incidentally-caught sharks where possible.  The measure is, however, silent on the practice of shark finning should incidental catches of sharks occur. The delegations of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, European Union, Namibia, South Africa, Uruguay, and United States propose to amend CCAMLR Conservation Measure 32-18 to prohibit shark finning and require that all fins of any shark that is incidentally caught and that cannot be released alive remain naturally attached through the point of first landing. This is consistent with United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions adopted by consensus every year since 2007.  The proposal has been slightly modified from the version discussed at last year’s meeting, to address comments from Members.