CCAMLR

This paper outlines the difference in fishing patterns between regions (Subareas) and seasons by analyzing CPUE (catch per hour) patterns towards the end of their sets of operations before leaving a SSMU, as well as its timing of the day, diurnal pattern of CPUE and fishing depth. Vessels tend to move between SSMUs frequently in summer, especially in SSMUs in Subarea 48.1 mostly spending less than a day to explore the fishing grounds from multiple options for the start of the fishing season. Vessels move around less frequently in Subarea 48.2 during the summer season because of only one viable SSMU, but in autumn, there appear to be some opportunistic fishing on the way to Subarea 48.1 to 48.3. Continuous operations in a single SSMU are longer later in the fishing season, especially for winter operation in Subarea 48.3, however forced to be relatively short in Subarea 48.1 due to changing ice conditions etc. Skippers tend to allow a day to decide before leaving a SSMU after over days of continuous operations. This behaviour suggests there are two types of tactics employed within an SSMU. The first set of tactics is to optimize factory supply. When factory supply diminishes, the skipper may initiate a second set of pre-departure tactics over one day to determine if factory supply can be regained. CPUE and towing depth generally showed clear diurnal patterns. It was not possible to outline vessel patterns of pumping methods due to small amount of data accumulated so far. More detailed data is need to be obtained to improve these analyses and models in the future.

The workload of the tasks required in the CCAMLR Observer manual is assessed. The total time needed for the minimum amount of daily routine tasks was well above the capacity that an observer to undertake. The manual must be structured as its entirety so that the observer, only by following instructions in the manual, can produce the report and logbook data which is collected systematically and allows CCAMLR to achieve its objectives.

This interim protocol has been developed in cooperation with our UK and Japanese colleagues/operators/observer coordinators in response to these recent requests by the CCAMLR Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR 2006). The purpose of developing this protocol is to standardize the larval fish by-catch observation among observers and vessels so that we can later use it for quantitative analysis. The fish identification can also be verified by the CCAMLR fish experts by using systematically archived images. It is also designed so that the data can be validated later by using randomly kept samples by the flag states. This protocol will be used only for Fish and Larval fish by-catch observation, and therefore the rest of the observation must be undertaken using the usual CCAMLR observer manual. This manual was distributed to all the fishing krill fishing nations prior for use in 2006/07 fishing season.

Ecological risk management is increasingly being applied to marine fisheries worldwide as an aid to developing management strategies to avoid, mitigate, or manage adverse outcomes. Risk management encompasses four major steps: recognition of risk; assessment of risk; development of strategies to avoid, mitigate, manage or tolerate risk; and monitoring of risk. Here we begin the development of an ecological risk assessment for Antarctic Toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) longline fishery in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. We propose that, by defining risks and quantifying potential impacts, the limited research and management resources can be prioritised so as to meet the objectives of Article II of CCAMLR. Risks are considered in 4 categories: 1. Target species harvest: Risks of depletion of Antarctic Toothfish to below a level that ensures stable recruitment. 2. Bycatch species harvest: Risks of depletion of other harvested species to below a level that ensures stable recruitment. 3. Ecosystem impacts: Risks of changes to the marine ecosystem relationships due to the removal of harvested and bycatch species. 4. Exogenous effects: Risks of change in the marine ecosystem due to, or exacerbated by, exogenous effects (e.g., the introduction of alien species, effects of associated activates on the ecosystem, and effects of environmental change). The assessment of risk is based on combining the likelihood of an adverse outcome occurring and the consequence should it occur. Numerical models, such as stock or ecosystem mass-balance models can provide insights into these factors for some risks. In addition, semi-quantitative and qualitative estimates are needed because of a lack of knowledge and inability to predict the future dynamics of some parts of the system. It is also recognised that some risks (e.g., impacts of climate change) may not be able to be well predicted. The uncertainty arising from the complexity of the system and external factors acting on it means that risk management and ongoing monitoring will be required to ensure that the fishery is managed according to the conservation principles of Article II of CCAMLR.

At CCAMLR XXV Australia presented the results of the BROKE-West acoustic krill biomass survey. These were used by the Scientific Committee to recommend to the Commission a revised precautionary catch limit for krill in Statistical Division 58.4.2 of 1.49 million tonnes (up from 450 000 tonnes). During the Commission deliberations on this issue Australia noted that while the scientific data supported the large increase in the precautionary catch limit, such a large increase required the inclusion of other elements in the conservation measure to facilitate the orderly and precautionary development of the fishery. The aim of this paper, which Australia committed to present to this year’s WG-EMM, is to outline the scientific requirements related to the orderly development of the krill fishery, and to provide justification for why they are important. Not all of the requirements outlined below are required to be established immediately, however at a minimum there needs to be mechanisms developed to ensure that they are in place prior to any problems arising in the fishery. The rationale for the timing of these requirements is also provided. The paper recommends that in keeping with the precautionary approach, steps need to be taken to establish when, relative to the scale of the fishery, different arrangements need to be set in place. The following is recommended for ensuring the orderly development of the krill fishery: (i) Undertake krill stock surveys in areas with no precautionary catch limits in order to establish a catch limit before fishing is prosecuted in these areas. (ii) Establish small-scale management units to minimise localised impacts on krill predators prior to a threshold being reached, where the threshold is determined as the magnitude of catch that, if it were taken from one location, would avoid impacting on the predators dependent on that location for food, and allow for the reasonable development of the fishery. (iii) Establish a threshold capacity for the fishery relative to the catch limits (small or large scale spatial limits) such that the capacity (effort) of a fishery should not expand beyond what might be just enough to take the catch limit for a given area until the system for managing the catch limits is in place. (iv) Develop a program to monitor and observe krill catch and by-catch, with methods for minimising by-catch in krill fisheries developed early (if they are needed) so that satisfactory low-levels of by-catch are achieved from the outset.

A preliminary analysis of the 32 reports submitted under the CCAMLR Scheme of International Observation revealed that there are a number of inconsistencies in the information being reported. Few reports have been submitted each year with a maximum of eight submitted in 2005. Very little information is reported from seasons other than winter. The areas being observed are heavily biased to Sub area 48.3. Information on fishing gear suggests great differences between vessels. Aspects of operational procedures are reported sporadically and inconsistently. Similarly, because of the differences in the information reported in individual Observer’s Reports it is difficult to assess the level of by-catch of larval fish or of vertebrates. Suggestions for changes to the Observer’s Reports are made to reduce ambiguities. Consistent reporting of Observer’s information, and comprehensive observer coverage in the krill fishery, appear to be the only way to achieve the aims of the Observation Scheme.

The relationship between Adélie penguins and ice is undeniable, with ice influencing penguin populations through a variety of processes operating at different spatial and temporal scales. The Smith et al. (1999) conceptual model of Adélie penguin population growth incorporates the relationship between sea-ice and penguin populations based on data from multiple sites to predict the likely outcome of population growth in response to a reduction in the frequency of heavy sea-ice years. However, it is difficult to generalise the predictions from the model because penguin-ice interactions vary according to the form of sea-ice present, the season in which it is present and the processes that such sea-ice influences, such as primary productivity or foraging trip duration. To further explain the relationship between sea-ice and Adélie penguin reproductive performance, we investigate the relative importance of various attributes of sea-ice on breeding success at Béchervaise Island.

This paper briefly summarises deliberations of the predator survey correspondence group since 2006. In particular, some general principles for estimating predator demand are outlined, and draft terms of reference for a workshop in 2008 presented.

A joint survey of the R/V Kaiyo Maru and the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) was carried out to study the interactions between oceanographic conditions, and the distribution of krill as prey and baleen whales as predators in the Ross Sea and its adjacent waters, Antarctica, in austral summer of 2004/05. Results indicated close interactions between the thermal conditions, krill and baleen whale distributions. The oceanography of the surface layer was summarized as an oceanographic environmental index that integrated the mean temperature from 0 to 200 m in depth (ITEM-200). Distribution of ITEM-200 was used as background information for comparing with distribution patterns of each species. Antarctic krill (Euphausia superb) mainly distributed in the Antarctic Surface Water (ASW) area (ITEM-200 = 0 to -1°C) and extended in the Shelf Water (SW) area (less than ITEM-200 = -1°C). Ice krill (Euphausia crystallorophias) clearly distributed in SW but not ASW. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) mainly distributed in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) waters with high density around ITEM-200 = 0°C near the Southern Boundary of ACC and their distribution slightly extended in ASW. Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) mainly distributed in ASW and SW with a high density around ITEM-200 = -1°C in the continental shelf slope frontal zone. The interaction between distributions of krill and baleen whales with ITEM-200 could yield quantitative information to identify the boundary of distributions of Antarctic krill and ice krill for biomass estimations using acoustic data in the surveys. Finally we summarized a conceptual model of interaction between oceanography relating water mass and circulation pattern of the oceanic surface layer with ITEM-200, as well as the distribution and abundance of krill and baleen whales.

This paper summarises the notifications received from Members intending to participate in the krill fishery in Area 48 in the 2007/08 season.