Review of tuna fisheries in the western Indian Ocean · Review of tuna fisheries in the western...

Framework contract MARE/2011/01

Evaluation and impact assessment activities

for DG MARE

Lot 3 – Retrospective and prospective evaluations on the international dimension of the common fisheries policy

Specific contract n° 7

Review of tuna fisheries in the western Indian Ocean

Final Report

January 2014

WIOR01D

Ref. Ares(2014)405880 - 19/02/2014

DG MARE 2011/01/Lot 3 – SC7 WIOR01D, January 2014

Page ii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON

Review of tuna fisheries in the western Indian Ocean – Final Report

This report has been prepared with the financial support of the European Commission.

The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission or of its services.

The content of this report may not be reproduced, or even part thereof, without explicit reference to the source.

This report must be cited as follows:

POSEIDON, MRAG, NFDS and COFREPECHE, 2014. Review of tuna fisheries in the western Indian Ocean (Framework contract MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 7). Brussels, 165 p.

COFREPECHE: 32 rue de Paradis, 75010 Paris, France. [email protected]

Version: Final report - Version D

Report ref.: WIOR01D

Number of pages: 165 (all included) Date issued: 24 January 2014

Action First name Surname Organisation Position

Author(s)

Graeme Macfadyen Poseidon (team leader)

Alejandro Anganuzzi Consultant to Poseidon

Peer review John Pearce MRAG

Proof reading Graeme Macfadyen POSEIDON (team leader)

Editing Anna Mees MRAG

Approval Tim Huntington POSEIDON

Validation Vincent Defaux COFREPECHE


Page iii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


Executive summary

Introduction

1. This report provides a regional analysis of the fisheries situation in the western Indian Ocean (WIO), and informs two separately published ex ante evaluations of possible Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs) and Protocols between the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Kenya (hereafter Kenya), and the EU and the United Republic of Tanzania (hereafter Tanzania). The report focuses on highly migratory species, i.e. tuna and tuna-like species.

The western Indian Ocean – environmental characteristics

2. The WIO is characterised by a seasonally reversing monsoon wind system that dominates the ocean climate north of 25º south, and results in strong northwards and southward winds and currents at different times of the year. These meso-scale processes bring increased nutrient supply to the surface and result in biological productivity that is the forage base for the stocks of tuna that occur throughout the WIO. Primary production rates in the region vary considerably, with a general increase from the south of the WIO to the north, and from the eastern offshore areas to the western coastal areas. Another characteristic of the WIO is a relatively shallow thermocline, usually at 50-100 metres (m), which favours the concentration of fish in a habitat within reach of the fishing fleets.

Management and conservation of tuna and related species in the western Indian Ocean

3. The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) is the intergovernmental regional fishery management organisation, established under the framework of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), with a mandate to manage tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean. IOTC resolutions and recommendations relate to: scientific processes (for example, data provision); monitoring, control, and surveillance (for example, authourised vessels, trade documentation, port state controls and observer programmes); implementation of an ecosystems approach to fisheries (for example, bycatch-mitigating measures, protection of vulnerable species); and conservation and management measures (for example, control of fishing capacity, time-area closures). Two recent important steps have been i) the adoption of the precautionary approach, indicative interim reference points and a process to define harvest control rules and refine those reference points, following analyses by the IOTC’s Scientific Committee, and ii) discussions over potential quota allocation criteria.

4. While IOTC has the responsibility for the management of tuna resources, other regional organisations or agreements contribute to fisheries governance such as the Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC), the South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) which a) hosts a number of fisheries projects and fisheries related activities such as the regional SmartFish programme (ongoing), and b) is implementing an intergovernmental Regional Action Plan for Fisheries Surveillance and Control (2007-2014) that should continue with the support of the SmartFish programme.

5. It is the responsibility of IOTC Members to ensure that action is taken to legislate for and implement IOTC measures at national level, and to report to the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, such as the Compliance and the Scientific Committees. Weak financial and human capacity in many countries poses significant challenges, and in particular as regards monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) activities by countries in the region. Regional and national-level fisheries management can therefore be considered as ‘work in progress’, with considerable improvements still required.


Page iv

Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


Status of tuna stocks and associated species in the western Indian Ocean

6. None of the key species, skipjack, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna or swordfish, being targeted in the WIO is either overfished or subject to overfishing1. Albacore, while assessed as not overfished, is subject to overfishing. The status of a number of species (mostly non-target species, but some that are targeted), for example sharks, marlins and sailfish, is not well researched or understood, in part because lack of reported data from the fisheries especially for species not directly under the mandate of IOTC. However, the most recent analysis has indicated that striped marlin is overfished and subject to overfishing. The contribution of most coastal States to research is limited by financial and human resource constraints in most countries in the region, meaning that biological research is often limited unless supported by donor projects.

Access to fishing zones in the region

7. Access by distant water fishing nation (DWFN) vessels for tuna and tuna-like species in the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of WIO States can be granted through a number of different mechanisms, all of which are used extensively. These include FPAs, bilateral intergovernmental agreements, reflagging, chartering, joint ventures or similar arrangements between WIO states and foreign vessels, and private commercial agreements between foreign associations or companies and governments in the region. FPAs are used by the EU to gain access for its vessels with some coastal States in the region. The EU currently has four active Protocols with Comoros, Madagascar, Mozambique and Seychelles, and a Protocol with Mauritius that is currently pending completion of EU internal procedures for its entry into force. All countries/territories in the region allow some form of DWFN vessel activity, with the exception of the Maldives and India where policy is not to allow fishing by foreign vessels; the British Indian Ocean Territory, which is a no-take Marine Protected Area; and Somalia, where the lack of a functioning government in recent years due to the civil war, the risk of piracy, and the lack of a declared EEZ, all make the licensing situation complex both legally and practically.

8. There are moves towards greater transparency of information related to the costs of access, especially in the south of the WIO region, although publicly available information is far from universally available. Investigations completed in the preparation of this report show that costs of access vary significantly, with differences explained by a number of factors including the size of the EEZ to which access is provided, the duration of time that fish are likely to spend in respective EEZs and therefore the likely catches, and the proximity to potential piracy. What is notable is that most purse seine vessels purchase access to all key fishing zones in the region in advance and on a yearly basis, because of the need to establish a regional network of fishing opportunities to cover all potential migratory movements of tuna in the region. Longline vessels tend to fish predominantly in high seas areas, and access to multiple/all EEZs in the region is less important, although access to some EEZs is nevertheless still significant. Yearly access fees are typically slightly lower for longline vessels than for purse seine vessels.

Tuna fisheries in the western Indian Ocean

9. Global catches of the main species caught by tuna fisheries in 2011 amounted to 4.6 million tonnes (t) (FAO, FishStatJ database), with catches in the WIO of around 540 000 t (IOTC, Nominal Catch Database) representing 12 % of the global total. Yellowfin and skipjack tuna represented 88 % of the catches made by vessels in the WIO in 2011, with purse seine vessels accounting around 265 000 t (50 % of total catches). Catches by longline, pole and line, gillnet, and handline vessels as recorded by IOTC each account for roughly 60-80 000 t, or 11-15 % of total catches, but catches by these fleet segments are estimated by IOTC for some countries and may be an under-estimate.

1 ‘Overfishing’ is defined as occurring when the fishing intensity is higher than the one that produces maximum sustainable yield (MSY), while a stock is defined as being ‘overfished’ when its total biomass is less that the biomass that produces MSY.


Page v



10. The purse seine fleet operating in the WIO numbers 44 vessels, with 22 from the EU, five from Mayotte (which will become EU vessels as of 1 January 2014 when Mayotte becomes part of the EU), with other important fleets from Seychelles and Iran. Vessel numbers have declined from 68 in 2005, largely as a result of piracy in the region, but there are indications that with the improving piracy situation a number of vessels may return to the WIO in the coming years (although increasing vessel numbers could itself lead to a renewal of piracy activities). Skipjack and yellowfin tuna are the two main species caught (representing 91 % of total purse seine catches in 2011), with bigeye tuna providing the balance (along with very small quantities of albacore (less than 0.5 %)). Vessels rely heavily on the use of fish aggregating devices (FADs), with around 80 % of the catches by Spanish and Seychelles vessels in 2011 (184 320 t), and 65 % of the catches by French vessels in 2011 (73 399 t), taken around such floating objects. The increasing use of FADs, developments in their technology, and the use of supply vessels to assist in the deployment of FADs and assess the amount of fish under them, have all served to increase the efficiency of the fishing effort per vessel in recent years.

11. The longline fleet operating in the Indian Ocean as a whole is comprised of 440 large-sale deep-freezing vessels, with Taiwan, Japan and China having the most vessels. Seventy-six vessels (mainly from the EU, Tanzania and South Africa) have been identified as targeting swordfish when reported to the IOTC Record of Active Vessels and are likely to operate primarily in the WIO. Other large-sale deep-freezing vessels may operate in either or both the WIO and the East Indian Ocean (EIO). In addition there are 1 653 smaller-scale, fresh-tuna longline vessels in the Indian Ocean as a whole, mostly from Indonesia, Taiwan and Sri Lanka, but the number of vessels operating in the WIO and EIO cannot be identified with the data available. A number of coastal countries (for example, Mozambique, Seychelles and Comoros) have plans to develop their longline fleets. There has been decline in overall effort since the beginning of 2000s that can be traced to a combination of factors, including declines in catch rates and the piracy threat in recent years, with a general shift in effort eastwards (a shift in effort that could be reversed in the future if improvements in the piracy situation are maintained). Different fleets display marked differences in catch composition: the Taiwan/China and Seychelles fleets (the latter beneficially owned by Taiwanese interests) target bigeye tuna; the Japanese and Omani fleet targets yellowfin tuna; the Spanish, UK and Portuguese fleet targets swordfish and shark; and the France/Réunion fleet targets swordfish and tuna.

12. The pole and line fishery is the most traditional of all fisheries in the WIO, originating in the 12th century. The main fishing country is Maldives, with vessels targeting skipjack tuna (83 % of catches, with the balance being yellowfin tuna), although there is also a pole and line fishing fleet in western India, and a South African fishery targeting albacore (principally in the Atlantic and to a lesser extent in the WIO). In all cases, vessels land fish fresh. Effort in the Maldivian fishery has declined drastically in recent years, with many pole and line vessels switching to the more profitable handline yellowfin tuna fishery.

13. Gillnet fisheries are concentrated in the northern Arabian Sea and the Somali region, with catches predominantly of yellowfin tuna (65 % of catches, the balance being mostly skipjack tuna). The environmental conditions of the northern Arabian Sea bring large yellowfin tuna close to the surface and fishermen from India, Oman, Pakistan and especially Iran (around 6 000 vessels) have taken advantage of this seasonal fishery.

14. Handline fisheries are predominantly artisanal and not well documented, but Yemen, Maldives, India and Comoros all make important contributions to total catches, with yellowfin and skipjack tuna being the main target species (80 % and 20 % of catches respectively).

15. For all these tuna fisheries/fleets, there is little or no impact on sensitive bottom habitats as they are all conducted in the upper part of the pelagic water column. The main ecosystem issues with the purse seine, longline, gillnet, and pole and line fisheries are (i) their impacts on non-target fish species, (ii) the bycatch of endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species and (iii) their potential to disrupt the functioning of marine ecosystems as a result of the removal of high trophic level species. Actions towards mitigation of such impacts have been taken by Member States in the framework of IOTC in the


Page vi Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


form of a number of conservation and management measures developed with the support, and in cooperation with, other inter-governmental and non-governmental institutions such as BirdLife International, the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), and the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Sea Turtles (IOSEA). Due to the low selectivity of gillnet fishing gear, and the potential for gear losses resulting in ‘ghost fishing’, gillnet fisheries are likely to have the highest level of ecosystem impacts.

Exportation of fisheries products from the western Indian Ocean

16. Given the migratory movement of tuna in the WIO and the pattern of catches throughout the year, and the position and size of the Seychelles EEZ, Seychelles is well placed to serve as the main regional hub for the purse seine fleet in the WIO. The vast majority of the frozen purse seine catch in the WIO (around 80 %) is either landed for processing/canning in Seychelles (around 30 % of landings in Seychelles), or transshipped through Victoria for processing elsewhere in the WIO (around 70 % of landings in Seychelles), although at some times of the year vessels land product direct to processing plants in Mauritius, Madagascar and Kenya, for canning or loining. Newly established deep frozen tuna processing plants with a capacity of 30 000 tonnes in Mauritius will also intensify the visits to Port Louis of the new generation of purse seiners vessels. Their characteristics enable the storage on board at -40 °C of dry deep frozen fish, supplied to the processing plants which export fillets, steaks and saku (frozen sashimi grade) blocks to markets in Asia and Europe. The high levels of processing of purse seine catch in the region, and the fact that more than 90 % of catches end up in EU markets, is a notable feature of the purse seine fishery.

17. Asian longline fleets rely heavily on landing product in Port Louis, Mauritius, and it is estimated that 50 % of longline catch in the WIO is transshipped in Port Louis. Asian frozen catches of yellowfin and bigeye tuna are predominantly destined for the Asian sashimi market. Albacore may be traded to canneries, or in the case of ultra-low-temperature freezing vessels, also sold to sashimi markets in Asia. Shark and swordfish caught by the Asian fleet is also typically transshipped for sale in Asia. The Spanish, UK and Portuguese longline fleet offloads catch in Durban, South Africa, although at some times of the year when vessels are fishing in more northern waters, catches may be landed in Diego Suarez, Madagascar, or in Port Louis, Mauritius. Shark fins (which for EU vessels must be landed attached to carcasses before separation from the carcasses in port) are traded to Asia (either directly from the port of landing or through Spain), shark carcasses transshipped back to Europe and sold in southern European countries, in Eastern Europe and Russia, or in South America through Brazilian buyers, and swordfish carcasses are transshipped from the WIO to reach EU for subsequent sale, predominantly in Spain, Italy, France and Greece.

18. Pole and line catches in Maldives are either consumed domestically in fresh form, frozen and exported to Thai canneries, canned in Maldivian canneries, or processed into ‘Maldive Fish’ (a boiled, smoked and sun-dried product) for domestic consumption or export (mainly to Sri Lanka). The smaller volumes of South African catches of albacore are frozen for export to canneries, mainly in the EU.

19. Gillnet tuna catches in Oman, India, Yemen, Pakistan and Iran are predominantly landed in fresh/chilled form. In Pakistan, India and Iran much of the landed product is destined for tuna canneries in Iran, for subsequent sales in the Middle East. In Pakistan some quantities are marketed locally in fresh/chilled form (much of which is consumed by the large Bangladeshi population in Karachi), some is processed to produce raw material for Korean surimi plants, and small tuna (such as kawakawa and frigate tuna) are processed in curing yards for export to Sri Lanka in salted/dried form. In Iran it is assumed that catches not destined for local canneries are consumed locally. Catches from the Yemeni gillnet fleet are destined for Yemeni canneries or domestic consumption, but with some product purchased by canneries in Iran. In Oman catches are canned locally, sold in fresh form or smoked locally for local roadside sales.

20. The three significant artisanal handline fisheries in the WIO – in the Maldives, Yemen and Oman – are all export orientated, with local processing into loins for export primarily in EU and Middle Eastern markets.


Page vii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


21. Total EU imports of tuna from countries in the WIO were 135 714 t in 2012, representing just over 20 % of total EU imports of tuna. Canned imports of tuna from the WIO were 27 % of total EU imports of canned product, while the WIO provided 18 % of the total tuna loins imported to the EU. Much of these imports originate from the tuna catches made by EU purse seine vessels (172 824 t in 2011).

22. In the WIO there are three Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) under negotiation. Whilst the thrust towards regional economic integration of the WIO African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries has progressed through the Interim EPAs (IEPAs), regional EPAs still remain outstanding, and negotiations for comprehensive EPAs with all WIO ACP countries are still in progress. By 1 October 2014, the ACP countries that have not ratified interim EPAs (or concluded full EPAs) with the EU will be delisted from the Market Access Regulation. Least developed countries (LDCs) could then use the Everything But Arms (EBA) arrangement (i.e. 0 % tariff access on tuna) but other more developed countries would lose their 0 % tariff access.

The EU tuna fleet in the Western Indian Ocean

23. The purse seine fishery in the WIO is dominated by the activities of the EU fleet, which account for 66 % of total purse seine catches when considering catches by the 22 Spanish and French vessels. While the benefits created by the longline fleet are not well documented, the economic and social benefits generated by the activities of the purse seine fleet alone are estimated to be 420+ jobs and EUR 140 million of value added in the EU, and 4 000+ jobs and EUR 22 – 40 million of value added in the WIO. Catches in different fishing zones may vary significantly between years for any specific month given the migration patterns of tuna, but typically around 50 % of total catches are made in high seas areas, 35 % in the EEZ of Seychelles, with all other fishing zones in the region from Kenya southwards representing around 1-5 % of total catches. For this reason, a network of fishing opportunities, providing potential access to fishing zones in all countries/territories, is critical for the fleet. Access to the EEZs of Kenya and Tanzania are through yearly private access arrangements resulting in a lack of security of access, while fishing zones within waters of other third countries are accessed through FPAs. Disputed maritime boundaries in the WIO pose problems for vessels; while vessels have authorisations to fish in all zones, the presence of ‘grey areas’, means that vessels have to avoid such zones altogether, declare catches to the administrations of both countries, or run the risk if they do not declare catches and entry/exit to both administrations of being accused of fishing illegally in one country or the other. All EU vessels must comply with EU legislation, and with IOTC management and conservation measures. With ongoing vessel construction, the potential return of some vessels from other oceans to the WIO with the improving piracy situation (if maintained), and the change in status of Mayotte-flagged vessels to being EU vessels as of 1 January 2014, the EU fleet could increase to around 40 vessels in the coming years.

24. The contribution of the EU longline fleet to total longline catches in the WIO (around 10 % in 2007-2011), is far lower than the contribution of the EU purse seine fleet to total purse seine catches in the region. The EU fleet can be divided into two different fleets based on their target catch: i) Spanish, UK and Portuguese fleets (20, three and three vessels respectively) targeting swordfish and sharks, and ii) 28 French/Réunion vessels targeting tuna and swordfish. Catches by Spanish, UK and Portuguese vessels are highly concentrated in high seas areas (> 75 % of total volumes), although catches are also made in both Mozambique and Madagascar. French/Réunion vessels, being smaller in size, tend to fish in, or close to, Réunion. There are no catches made in Kenya or Tanzania. Vessel numbers are not expected to increase in the coming years, and given the target catch for Spanish, UK and Portuguese vessels of shark and swordfish found in more southerly areas, a northward shift in activities might be unlikely. However, such a northward movement cannot be ruled out given historical catches in more northerly areas, and potential local depletion of swordfish stocks in current fishing grounds that might cause vessels to move fishing location. It is not thought likely that Réunion vessels, given their smaller size and operating patterns, would be interested in fishing in locations far from Réunion.

25. A regional FPA may not be practical at the current time. However, individual FPAs/Protocols could nevertheless be used to push for more regional consistency on issues such as fisheries management,


Page viii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


science and compliance, through the use of consistent legal text, and consistent approaches to sectoral support provided by different FPAs/Protocols.

Conclusions

26. Research and fisheries management capacity in the WIO, along with action at the regional level, provides the basis for sustainable fisheries management in the region, but improvements in research, fisheries management, MCS and the functioning of regional institutions are all required. Despite current weaknesses in such areas, the status of key target tuna species is assessed as generally good, with only albacore subject to overfishing. However the potential increases in vessel numbers in the coming years, due to both coastal State fleet development and an expected return by some vessels to the WIO, could threaten stock status of both target and non-target species unless carefully monitored and controlled.

27. The EU fleet will remain an important part of total fishing effort in the future, especially the purse seine fleet, which contributes a significant proportion of total catches. EU vessel activity generates important economic and social benefits in the EU and the region from the catches landed and processed in the region, and the beneficial impact of the sectoral support funding provided by the EU as part of FPAs/Protocols in the region will also continue to be important. For both the EU purse seine and longline fleets, the ability to move widely throughout the WIO following the migratory patterns of tuna, means that a regional network of fishing opportunities is critical, although such a network is less important for longline vessels, which rely more heavily on fishing in high seas areas. Given the fact that Kenya and Tanzania are the only two fishing zones in the southern part of the WIO that do not have FPAs/Protocols with the EU, and given existing private access agreements in place for the purse seine fleet in these countries, FPAs/Protocols between the EU and both Kenya and Tanzania could potentially be of interest to the EU, subject to further evaluation as presented in the two ex ante evaluation reports of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and Kenya and the EU and Tanzania.


Page ix



Résumé

Introduction

1. Ce rapport est une analyse régionale de la situation des pêches dans l’océan Indien occidental (OIO). Il sert de base pour deux évaluations ex ante, publiées séparément, d’éventuels accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche (APP) et leurs protocoles entre l’Union européenne (UE) et la République du Kenya (ci-après dénommée le Kenya), et entre l’UE et la République unie de Tanzanie (ci-après dénommée la Tanzanie). Le rapport se concentre sur les pêches d’espèces hautement migratoires, soit les thons et les espèces apparentées.

L’océan Indien occidental – caractéristiques environnementales

2. L’OIO se caractérise par une saisonnalité inverse du système de vent de mousson qui domine le climat océanique au nord de la latitude 25 ° sud, et se traduit par de forts vents et courants en direction du nord et du sud à différents moments de l’année. Ces processus de méso-échelle entraînent une accumulation de nutriments à la surface et se traduisent par une productivité biologique qui constitue la base du fourrage pour les stocks de thons présents dans l’OIO. Les taux de production primaire varient considérablement dans la région, avec une augmentation générale du sud de l’OIO vers le nord, et de l’est des zones de pleine-mer à l’ouest des zones côtières. Une autre caractéristique de l’OIO est une thermocline relativement peu profonde, habituellement située à 50-100 mètres (m), qui favorise la concentration de poissons dans un habitat à la portée des flottes de pêche.

Gestion et conservation des thons et des espèces associées dans l’océan Indien occidental

3. La Commission des thons de l’océan Indien (CTOI) est une organisation intergouvernementale régionale de gestion de la pêche, instituée dans le cadre de l’Organisation des Nations unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO), mandatée pour gérer les thons et les espèces apparentées dans l'océan Indien. Les résolutions et les recommandations de la CTOI concernent : les processus scientifiques (par exemple, la mise à disposition de données) ; l’encadrement, le contrôle et la surveillance (par exemple, les navires autorisés, la documentation commerciale, les contrôles par l'État du port et les programmes d’observation) ; la mise en œuvre d’une approche écosystémique des pêches (par exemple, les mesures d’atténuation des prises accessoires, la protection des espèces vulnérables) ; et les mesures de conservation et de gestion (par exemple, le contrôle de la capacité de pêche, les fermetures spatio-temporelles). Récemment, deux étapes importantes ont été franchies :i) l’adoption de l’approche de précaution, de points de référence indicatifs intermédiaires et d’un processus de définition des règles de contrôle pour la capture et de précision de ces points de références, basée sur les analyses du comité scientifique de la CTOI, et ii) des discussions au sujet de critères d’allocation potentielle de quota.

4. Tandis que la CTOI a la responsabilité de gérer les ressources de thons, d’autres organisations ou accords régionaux contribuent à la gouvernance des pêches tels que la Commission des pêches pour le sud-ouest de l’océan Indien (CPSOOI), l’Accord relatif aux pêches dans le sud de l'océan Indien (acronyme anglais SIOFA), la Communauté de développement d'Afrique australe (acronyme anglais SADC), le Nouveau Partenariat pour le Développement de l'Afrique (acronyme anglais NEPAD), et la Commission de l’océan Indien (COI) qui a) anime un certain nombre de projets et d’activités relatifs au domaine de la pêche tels que le programme régional SmartFish (en cours), et b) met en œuvre un Plan d’action régional intergouvernemental pour le contrôle et la surveillance des pêches (2007-2014) qui devrait continuer avec l’appui du programme SmartFish.

5. Il est de la responsabilité des membres de la CTOI de s’assurer qu’une action est menée afin de légiférer et de mettre en œuvre les mesures de la CTOI au niveau national, et de la rapporter à la Commission et à ses organes subsidiaires, tels que le Comité scientifique et le Comité d’application. Une faible capacité financière et humaine au sein de plusieurs pays pose d’importants défis, et en particulier en ce qui concerne les activités de suivi, de contrôle et de surveillance (SCS) par chaque pays dans la région. La


Page x



gestion des pêches au niveau régional et national peut donc être considérée comme un « travail en cours », avec des améliorations considérables encore requises.

État des stocks de thon et espèces apparentées dans l’océan Indien occidental

6. Aucune des espèces clés, le listao, l’albacore, le thon obèse ou l’espadon, ciblées dans l’OIO n’a été surpêchée ou fait l’objet de surpêche2. Bien qu’évalué comme non surpêché, le germon fait l’objet de surpêche. L’état d’un certain nombre d’espèces (principalement des espèces non ciblées bien que certaines le soient), par exemple des requins, marlins et voiliers indopacifiques, n’est pas bien étudié ou compris, en partie en raison de manque de données transmises sur ces pêches surtout pour les espèces non directement sous le mandat de la CTOI. Concernant le marlin rayé, l’analyse la plus récente a indiqué cependant qu’il était surpêché et faisait l’objet de surpêche. La contribution de la plupart des États côtiers à la recherche est limitée par des contraintes financière et humaine dans la plupart des pays de la région, ainsi la recherche biologique est souvent limitée, à moins qu’elle soit soutenue par des projets de donateurs.

Accès aux zones de pêches de la région

7. L’accès aux navires de pêche d’un pays pratiquant la pêche hauturière (PPPH) aux thons et aux espèces apparentées présents dans les zones économiques exclusives (ZEE) des États de l’OIO peut être accordé selon différents mécanismes, tous très largement utilisés. Ils comprennent des APP, des accords bilatéraux intergouvernementaux, le changement de pavillon, de l’affrètement, des coentreprises ou des arrangements similaires entre des États de l’OIO et des navires étrangers, et des accords commerciaux privés entre des associations étrangères ou des sociétés et des gouvernements de la région. Les APP sont utilisés par l’UE pour l’accès de ses navires auprès de certains États côtiers de la région. L’UE possède actuellement quatre protocoles actifs, avec les Comores, Madagascar, le Mozambique et les Seychelles. Un protocole avec Maurice est actuellement dans l’attente de l’achèvement des procédures internes de l’UE pour son entrée en vigueur. Tous les pays/territoires de la région autorisent l’activité de navire de PPPH sous différents arrangements, à l’exception des Maldives et de l’Inde où la politique est de ne pas autoriser la pêche par des navires étrangers, du Territoire britannique de l’océan Indien, qui est une aire marine protégée, et de la Somalie, où le manque d’un gouvernement opérationnel ces dernières années causé par la guerre civile, le risque de piraterie, et l’absence d’une ZEE déclarée, rendent complexe l’attribution de licences d’un point de vue légal comme pratique.

8. Des mesures ont été prises afin d’améliorer la transparence des informations relatives aux coûts d’accès, notamment pour le sud de la région de l’OIO, bien que les informations publiques disponibles soient loin de l’être globalement. Les enquêtes menées lors de la préparation de ce rapport montrent que les coûts d’accès varient significativement, avec des différences expliquées par un certain nombre de facteurs comprenant la superficie des ZEE pour lesquelles l’accès est pourvu, la durée probable que les poissons passent dans les ZEE respectives et par conséquent les volumes de captures probables, et la proximité avec une potentielle piraterie. Fait notable, la plupart des navires à senne coulissante achètent à l’avance un accès pour toutes les zones de pêche clés de la région et sur une base annuelle afin d’instituer un réseau régional de possibilités de pêche pour couvrir l’ensemble des mouvements migratoires des thons dans la région. Les palangriers ont tendance à pêcher principalement en haute mer, et leur accès à de multiples/toutes les ZEE de la région est moins important, bien que leur accès à certaines ZEE soit encore significatif. Les droits d’accès annuels sont typiquement légèrement plus bas pour les palangriers que pour les navires à senne coulissante.

2 On parle de « surpêche » lorsque l’effort de pêche devient supérieur à celui permettant de produire le rendement maximal durable (RMD). Un stock est défini comme « surpêché » lorsque sa biomasse totale est moins importante que la biomasse produite au RMD.


Page xi Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


Pêches thonières dans l’océan Indien occidental

9. Les captures globales des principales espèces capturées par les pêches thonières en 2011 s’élevaient à 4,6 millions de tonnes (FAO, base de données FishStatJ), avec des captures dans l’OIO aux alentours de 540 000 t (CTOI, base de données de captures nominales) représentant 12 % du total global. L’albacore et le listao représentaient 88 % des captures réalisées par les navires dans l’OIO en 2011, avec des navires à senne coulissante comptabilisant 265 000 t (50 % des captures totales). Les captures des palangriers, canneurs, bateaux de pêche à filets maillants et avec ligne à la main telles qu’enregistrées par la CTOI s’élèvent chacune environ à 60-80 000 t, ou 11-15 % des captures totales, mais les captures de ces segments de flotte sont estimées par la CTOI pour certains pays et sont peut-être une sous-estimation.

10. La flotte de senneurs opérant dans l’OIO compte 44 navires dont 22 sont de l’UE, 5 de Mayotte (qui deviendront des navires de l’UE dès le 1er janvier 2014 quand Mayotte fera partie de l’UE), avec d’autres flottilles importantes provenant des Seychelles et de l’Iran. De 68 navires en 2005, le nombre a diminué depuis, principalement en raison de la piraterie dans la région, mais des informations indiquent qu’avec l’amélioration de la situation de la piraterie un certain nombre de navires reviendrait dans l’OIO dans les années à venir (bien que l’augmentation du nombre de navires puisse elle-même mener à une reprise des activités de piraterie). Le listao et l’albacore sont les deux principales espèces capturées (représentant 91 % des captures totales des senneurs en 2011), le restant étant du thon obèse (avec de très petites quantités de germon (moins de 0,5 %)). Les navires recourent fortement à l’usage de dispositifs de concentration de poissons (DCP), pour environ 80 % des captures réalisées par les navires espagnols et seychellois en 2011 (184 320 t), et 65 % des captures réalisées par les navires français en 2011 (73 399 t) ont été effectuées à l’aide de tels objets flottants. L’usage croissant de DCP, les développements de leur technologie, et l’utilisation de navires d’appui pour aider au déploiement des DCP et évaluer la quantité de poissons en-dessous de ces-derniers, ont à eux tous contribué à accroitre l’efficacité de l’effort de pêche par navire dans les dernières années.

11. La flotte de palangriers opérant dans sa totalité dans l’océan Indien est constituée de 440 grands navires surgélateurs, appartenant pour la majorité à Taiwan, au Japon et à la Chine. Soixante-seize navires (principalement de l’UE, de la Tanzanie et de l’Afrique du sud) ont été identifiés comme ciblant l’espadon d’après les enregistrements des navires actifs de la CTOI et sont susceptibles d’opérer principalement dans l’OIO. D’autres grands navires surgélateurs peuvent opérer soit dans l’OIO soit dans l’est de l’océan Indien (EOI). En outre, il y a 1 653 petits palangriers thoniers présents dans leur totalité dans l’océan Indien, provenant majoritairement de l’Indonésie, de Taiwan et du Sri Lanka, mais la part du nombre de navires opérant dans l’OIO et dans l’EOI ne peut être identifiée avec les données disponibles. Un certain nombre de pays côtiers (par exemple, le Mozambique, les Seychelles et les Comores) programme d’accroître leur flottille de palangriers. Depuis le début des années 2000, le déclin de l’effort général peut être expliqué par une combinaison de facteurs, comprenant la baisse des taux de captures et la menace pirate de ces dernières années, avec un déplacement général de l’effort en direction de l’est (un déplacement de l’effort qui pourrait s’inverser dans le futur si les améliorations de la situation de la piraterie continuent). Différentes flottilles affichent de fortes disparités dans la composition de leur capture : les flottilles de Taiwan/Chine et des Seychelles (dont cette dernière a pour propriété véritable des intérêts taiwanais) ciblent le thon obèse, les flottilles japonaises et d’Oman ciblent l’albacore, les flottilles espagnole, britannique et portugaise ciblent l’espadon et le requin, et la flottille de la France/Réunion cible l’espadon et le thon.

12. La pêche à la canne est la plus traditionnelle de toutes les pêches de l’OIO, datant du 12e siècle. Le principal pays pratiquant ce type de pêche est les Maldives, avec des navires ciblant le listao (83 % des captures, le restant étant de l’albacore), bien qu’il y ait encore une flottille de canneurs dans l’ouest de l’Inde, et une pêcherie de germon en Afrique du sud (principalement dans l’Atlantique et dans une moindre mesure dans l’OIO). Dans tous les cas, les navires débarquent du poisson frais. L’effort de pêche des Maldives a décliné sévèrement ces dernières années, avec de nombreux canneurs passant à la pêche d’albacore à la ligne à la main, plus profitable.


Page xii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


13. Les pêches à filet maillant sont concentrées dans le nord de la mer d’Oman et dans la région somalienne, avec des captures d’albacores prédominantes (65 % des captures, le restant étant principalement du listao). Les conditions environnementales du nord de la mer d’Oman apportent de grands albacores à la surface et les pêcheurs d’Inde, d’Oman, du Pakistan et plus particulièrement de l’Iran (environ 6 000 navires) ont tiré parti de la saisonnalité de cette pêcherie.

14. Les pêches à la ligne à la main sont principalement artisanales et peu documentées, mais le Yémen, les Maldives, l’Inde et les Comores contribuent tous fortement aux captures totales, l’albacore et le listao étant les principales espèces ciblées (représentant respectivement 80 % et 20 % des captures).

15. Pour toutes ces pêches thonières/flottilles, il existe un faible impact voire aucun sur les habitats vulnérables des fonds marins puisqu’elles sont toutes conduites dans la partie supérieure de la colonne d’eau pélagique. Les principaux enjeux écosystémiques des pêches à la senne coulissante, à la palangre, au filet maillant et à la ligne à la main sont (i) leurs impacts sur les espèces non-ciblées, (ii) la prise accessoire d’espèces en voie de disparition, menacées ou protégées et (iii) leur potentiel de perturbation du fonctionnement des écosystèmes marins avec pour conséquence la disparition d’espèces du niveau trophique supérieur. Des actions ont été menées par des États membres de la CTOI afin d’atténuer de tels impacts sous la forme d’un certain nombre de mesures de gestion et de conservation développées avec le soutien, et en coopération avec, d’autres institutions non-gouvernementales et inter-gouvernementales telles que BirdLife International, the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), et the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Sea Turtles (IOSEA).Du fait de la faible sélectivité des engins de pêche avec filet maillant, et du potentiel pour les engins perdus de réaliser une « pêche fantôme », les pêches au filet maillant sont susceptibles d’avoir un fort impact sur les écosystèmes.

Exportation des produits des pêches réalisées dans l’ouest de l’océan Indien

16. Étant donné le mouvement migratoire des thons dans l’OIO et la tendance des captures sur l’année, ainsi que la position et la taille de la ZEE des Seychelles, l’archipel est bien placé pour servir de principal centre régional pour la flottille de senneurs dans l’OIO. La vaste majorité des captures congelées réalisées par les senneurs dans l’OIO (aux alentours de 80 %) est débarquée aux Seychelles aussi bien pour être transformée que mise en conserves (aux alentours de 30 % des débarquements aux Seychelles), ou transbordée à Victoria pour être transformée ailleurs dans l’OIO (aux alentours de 70 % des débarquements effectués aux Seychelles), bien qu’à certains moments de l’année, des navires débarquent du produit directement dans des usines de transformation à Maurice, à Madagascar et au Kenya pour être mis en conserve ou couper en longes. Les nouvelles usines de transformation de thon surgelé, construites à Maurice et d’une capacité de 30 000 tonnes, intensifieront les visites de la nouvelle génération de senneurs à Port Louis. Les caractéristiques de ses navires permettent le stockage à bord de thon par congélation rapide à sec à 40 °C, fournis par la suite aux usines de transformation qui exportent des longes, steaks et blocs saku (pour du sashimi congelé) vers les marchés d’Asie et d’Europe. Le haut niveau de transformation des captures réalisées par les senneurs dans la région, et le fait que plus de 90 % des captures se retrouve sur des marchés de l’UE, est une caractéristique notable des pêches à la senne coulissante.

17. Les flottes asiatiques de palangriers ont massivement recours au débarquement à Port-Louis, à Maurice, et il est estimé que 50 % des captures des palangriers dans l’OIO est transbordé à Port-Louis. Les captures asiatiques surgelées d’albacore et de thon obèse sont principalement destinées au marché asiatique de sashimi. Le germon est probablement commercialisé auprès de conserveries, ou dans le cas de navires congélateurs à ultra basse température, également vendu sur des marchés de sashimi en Asie. Le requin et l’espadon capturés par la flotte asiatique sont aussi typiquement transbordés pour être vendus en Asie. Les flottilles espagnole, britannique et portugaise de palangriers déchargent leurs captures à Durban, en Afrique du sud, bien qu’à certains moments de l’année lorsque les navires pêchent dans des eaux plus au nord, des captures puissent être débarquées à Diego Suarez, à Madagascar, ou à Port-Louis, à Maurice. Les ailerons de requins (qui, pour les navires de l’UE, doivent être débarqués encore liés aux carcasses avant leur séparation de la carcasse une fois au port) sont commercialisées en Asie (soit


Page xiii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


directement du port de débarquement soit en transitant par l’Espagne). Les carcasses de requins sont transbordées pour retourner en Europe et sont vendus dans les pays du sud de l’Europe, de l’est de l’Europe et en Russie, ou en Afrique du sud par des acheteurs brésiliens, et les carcasses d’espadons sont transbordées dans l’OIO et destinées aux marchés de l’UE pour une vente principalement en Espagne, en Italie, en France et en Grèce.

18. Les captures des canneurs aux Maldives sont soit consommées fraîches localement, soit surgelées et exportées vers des conserveries thaïlandaises, soit mises en conserve dans des conserveries maldiviennes, soit transformées en Maldive Fish (un produit séché, fumé et bouilli) pour la consommation domestique ou l’export (principalement vers le Sri Lanka). Les captures sud-africaines de germon sont moins volumineuses et surgelées pour être exportées vers des conserveries, principalement de l’UE.

19. Les captures des thoniers à filet maillant de l’Oman, de l’Inde, du Yémen, du Pakistan et de l’Iran sont principalement débarquées sous forme fraîche ou réfrigérée. Au Pakistan, en Inde et en Iran la plupart des produits débarqués est destinée aux conserveries de thon en Iran, pour des ventes ultérieures dans le Moyen-Orient. Au Pakistan certaines quantités sont commercialisées localement sous forme fraîche ou réfrigérée (beaucoup sont consommées par l’importante population bangladaise de Karachi), une partie est transformée afin de produire de la matière première pour les usines coréennes de surimi, et les petits thons (tels que la thonine orientale et l’auxide) sont transformés dans des fumoirs pour être exportés au Sri Lanka sous forme salée/séchée. En Iran il est admis que les captures non destinées aux conserveries locales sont consommées localement. Les captures de la flottille à filets maillants du Yémen sont destinées aux conserveries du Yémen ou à la consommation domestique, mais avec une partie du produit acheté par des conserveries en Iran. À Oman, les captures sont mises en conserves localement, vendues fraiches ou fumées localement pour les ventes locales en bord de route.

20. Les trois plus importantes pêches artisanales à la ligne à la main dans l’OIO – aux Maldives, au Yémen et à Oman – sont toutes tournées vers l’export, avec une transformation locale en longes pour l’export prioritairement vers les marchés de l’UE et du Moyen-Orient.

21. Les importations totales de thons de l’UE provenant de pays de l’OIO s’élevaient à 135 714 t en 2012, représentant un peu plus de 20 % du total des importations de thons de l’UE. Les importations de conserves de thon de l’OIO représentaient 27 % du total des importations de conserves de l’UE, tandis que l’OIO fournissait 18 % du total des importations de longes de thon à l’UE. Beaucoup de ces importations proviennent des captures de thons réalisées par les senneurs de l’UE (172 824 t en 2011).

22. Trois accords de partenariat économique (APE) sont en négociation dans l’OIO. Bien que l’évolution vers une intégration économique régionale des pays d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique (ACP) de l’OIO ait progressé grâce aux APE intermédiaires (APEI), les APE régionaux restent encore en suspens, et des négociations pour des APE complets avec tous les pays ACP de l’OIO sont encore en cours. A partir du 1er octobre 2014, les pays ACP qui n’auront pas ratifié d’APE intermédiaires (ou conclu les APE complets) avec l’UE seront retirés de la liste du règlement sur l’accès au marché. Les pays les moins développés (PMD) pourront ensuite utiliser l’initiative « Tous sauf les armes » (TSA) (c’est-à-dire l’accès au thon au tarif de 0 %) mais d’autres pays plus développés pourraient perdre leur accès au tarif 0 %.

La flotte thonière de l’UE dans l’océan Indien occidental

23. La pêche à la senne coulissante dans l’OIO est dominée par les activités de la flotte de l’UE, qui représente 66 % du total des captures réalisées par les senneurs en considérant les captures des 22 navires espagnols et français. Alors que les bénéfices créés par la flotte de palangriers sont peu connus, les bénéfices économiques et sociaux générés par les activités de la flotte de senneurs seule sont estimés à 420 emplois et 140 millions d’euros de valeur ajoutée dans l’UE, et à 4 000 emplois et 22 – 40 millions d’euros de valeur ajoutée dans l’OIO. Les captures dans les différentes zones de pêche peuvent varier significativement d’une année sur l’autre par mois étant donné les tendances de migration des thons, mais généralement environ 50 % des captures totales sont réalisées en haute mer, 35 % dans la ZEE des Seychelles, avec toutes les autres zones de pêche de la région du Kenya vers le sud représentant environ


Page xiv



1-5 % des captures totales. Pour cette raison, un réseau de possibilités de pêche, permettant un accès potentiel à des zones de pêche dans tous les pays/territoires, est indispensable pour la flotte. Les accès aux ZEE du Kenya et de la Tanzanie sont accordés au travers d’accords privés annuels et entraînent un manque de sécurité, contrairement aux zones de pêche au sein d’autres pays tiers accessibles au moyen d’APP. La contestation des frontières maritimes dans l’OIO représente un problème pour les navires, alors qu’ils possèdent des licences pour pêcher dans toutes les zones, la présence de zones d’ombre, signifie que les navires doivent éviter de pêcher dans de telles zones, déclarer leurs captures aux administrations des deux pays ou prendre le risque s’ils ne déclarent pas leurs captures ou leur entrée/sortie aux deux administrations d’être accusés de pêcher illégalement dans l’un des deux pays. Tous les navires de l’UE doivent se conformer à la législation de l’UE, ainsi qu’aux mesures de gestion et de conservation de la CTOI. Avec la construction de navires en cours, le retour potentiel de certains navires dans les eaux de l’OIO où la situation de la piraterie s’améliore (si elle se maintient), et le changement de statut des navires battant pavillon de Mayotte en navires battant pavillon de l’UE à partir du 1er janvier 2014, la flotte de l’UE pourrait s’accroître d’environ 40 navires dans les années à venir.

24. La contribution de la flottille de palangriers de l’UE aux captures de la totalité des palangriers de l’OIO (aux alentours de 10 % entre 2007 et 2011), est beaucoup plus faible que celle de la flottille de senneurs de l’UE aux captures de la totalité des senneurs de la région. La flotte de l’UE peut être divisée en deux flottilles distinctes selon leurs captures cibles : i) les flottilles espagnole, britannique et portugaise (comprenant respectivement 20, trois et trois navires) ciblant l’espadon et le requin, et ii) les 28 navires français/réunionnais ciblant le thon et l’espadon. Les captures réalisées par les navires espagnols, du Royaume-Uni et portugais sont fortement concentrées dans les zones en haute mer (pour plus de 75 % des volumes totaux), bien que des captures soient également réalisées dans le Mozambique et à Madagascar. Les navires français/réunionnais, de taille plus faible, ont tendance à pêcher à, ou près de, la Réunion. Aucune capture n’est réalisée au Kenya ou en Tanzanie. Un accroissement du nombre de navires n’est pas attendu dans les années à venir, et étant donné les captures cibles de requins et d’espadons trouvées par les navires espagnols, du Royaume-Uni et portugais dans des zones plus au sud, un déplacement des activités vers le nord est peu probable. Cependant, un tel mouvement vers le nord ne peut pas être exclu étant donné l’historique des captures réalisées dans des zones plus au nord, et le potentiel épuisement local des stocks d’espadon dans les zones de pêche actuelles qui pourrait engendrer le déplacement des navires vers un autre lieu de pêche. Il semble peu probable que les navires réunionnais, en raison de leur petite taille et de leurs modes de fonctionnement, soient intéressés à pêcher dans des lieux éloignés de la Réunion.

25. À l’heure actuelle, un APP régional s’avère difficile à mettre en pratique. Néanmoins, des APP/protocoles individuels pourraient être utilisés afin de promouvoir une plus grande cohérence régionale pour les questions relatives à la gestion, à la science et au respect des mesures des pêches, à travers l’utilisation d’un texte légal standard, et d’approches similaires au sein de l’appui sectoriel fournie par les différents APP/ Protocoles.

Conclusions

26. La recherche et les capacités de gestion des pêches dans l’OIO, en parallèle d’une action au niveau régional, fournissent la base pour une gestion durable des pêches dans la région, mais des améliorations dans la recherche, la gestion des pêches, le SCS et le fonctionnement régional des institutions sont exigées. En dépit des faiblesses actuelles dans ces domaines, le statut des principales espèces de thons ciblées a été évalué comme globalement bon, le germon étant la seule espèce faisant l’objet d’une surpêche. Cependant, les potentielles augmentations du nombre de navires dans les années à venir, en raison du développement de la flottille des États côtiers et du retour attendu de certains navires dans l’OIO, pourraient menacer le statut des stocks des espèces cibles comme non-cibles à moins de soigneusement les encadrer et les contrôler.


Page xv



27. Dans le futur, la flotte de l’UE participera encore à un niveau important à l’effort de pêche global, particulièrement la flottille de senneurs, qui contribue pour une part conséquente aux captures totales. L’activité des navires de l’UE génère des bénéfices économiques et sociaux substantiels dans l’UE et la région où sont débarquées et transformées les captures, l’impact bénéfique de l’appui sectoriel financé par le budget de l’UE au travers des APP/Protocoles de la région restera également significatif. Pour les flottes de senneurs et de palangriers de l’UE, la capacité à se déplacer librement dans tout l’OIO afin de suivre les mouvements migratoires des thons, signifie qu’un réseau régional de possibilités de pêche est crucial, bien qu’un tel réseau ait moins d’importance pour les palangriers, qui dépendent beaucoup de la pêche en haute mer. Le Kenya et la Tanzanie étant les deux seules zones de pêche du sud de l’OIO qui ne possèdent pas d’APP/Protocoles avec l’UE, et étant donné l’existence d’accords privés pour l’accès des flottilles de senneurs dans ces pays, des APP/Protocoles entre l’UE et le Kenya et la Tanzanie pourraient être potentiellement intéressants pour l’UE, s’ils sont soumis à une évaluation plus poussée telle que présentée dans les deux rapports d’évaluation ex ante pour de possibles APP/Protocoles entre l’UE et le Kenya et entre l’UE et la Tanzanie.


Page xvi Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


Resumen

Introducción

1. Este informe presenta un análisis regional de la situación de la pesca en el océano Índico occidental (OIO) y sirve de base a dos evaluaciones ex ante de posibles acuerdos de asociación en el sector pesquero (AAP) y protocolos celebrados entre la Unión Europea (UE) y la República de Kenia (a continuación, Kenia), y entre la UE y la República Unida de Tanzania (a continuación, Tanzania). El informe se centra en las especies altamente migratorias, es decir, el atún y las especies afines.

El océano Índico occidental (OIO) – características medioambientales

2. El OIO se caracteriza por un sistema de vientos estacionales y cambiantes ligados al monzón que domina el clima oceánico al norte de la latitud 25° sur. Este sistema crea fuertes vientos y corrientes hacia el norte y hacia el sur en diferentes épocas del año. Estos procesos de meso-escala provocan un aumento de nutrientes disponibles a la superficie y una productividad biológica que es la base de la alimentación para las poblaciones de atunes que se encuentran en el OIO. Las tasas de producción primaria en la zona varían considerablemente, con un aumento general desde el sur del OIO hacia el norte, y desde las áreas de alta mar del este hacia las zonas costeras del oeste. Otra característica del OIO es una termoclina relativamente poco profunda, por lo general 50-100 metros (m), lo cual favorece la concentración de peces en un hábitat al alcance de las flotas pesqueras.

Gestión y conservación de los túnidos y especies afines en el océano Índico occidental

3. La Comisión del Atún para el Océano Índico (CAOI) es la organización intergubernamental regional de gestión pesquera, establecida en el marco de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO) con el mandato de gestionar los túnidos y las especies afines en el océano Índico. Las resoluciones y recomendaciones de la CAOI son relativas a: procesos científicos (por ejemplo, el suministro de datos); el seguimiento, control y vigilancia (por ejemplo, buques autorizados, documentación comercial, controles del Estado del puerto y programas de los observadores); la aplicación de un enfoque ecosistémico de la pesca (por ejemplo, medidas de reducción de las capturas accesorias, protección de especies vulnerables); y las medidas de conservación y gestión (por ejemplo, el control de la capacidad de pesca, vedas espacio-temporales). Dos medidas importantes decididas recientemente han sido i) la adopción del criterio de precaución, de unos puntos provisorios indicativos de referencia y de un proceso de definición de las reglas de control de capturas y de ajuste de los puntos de referencia tras el análisis por el Comité científico de la CAOI, y ii) las discusiones sobre posibles criterios de asignación de las cuotas.

4. Mientras la CAOI tiene la responsabilidad de gestionar los recursos de túnidos, otras organizaciones regionales o acuerdos contribuyen a la gobernanza de la pesca tales como la Comisión de Pesca para el Océano Índico Sudoccidental (SWIOFC en inglés), el Acuerdo de Pesca para el Océano Índico Meridional (SIOFA en inglés), la Comunidad para el Desarrollo del África Meridional (SADC en inglés), la Nueva Alianza para el Desarrollo de África (NEPAD en inglés). La Comisión del Océano Índico (COI) organiza una serie de proyectos y actividades relacionadas a la pesca como el programa regional Smartfish (en curso). También está encargada de aplicar el plan regional para la vigilancia de la pesca (2007-2014) que debería continuar con el apoyo del programa Smartfish.

5. Es responsabilidad de los miembros de la CAOI asegurarse de que se adopten medidas para legislar e implementar las decisiones de la CAOI a nivel nacional e informar a la Comisión y a sus órganos subsidiarios tales como los Comités de cumplimiento y científico. Los escasos recursos financieros y humanos en muchos países plantea retos importantes, en particular en lo relativo a las actividades de supervisión, control y vigilancia por parte de los países de la zona. Por lo tanto, la gestión de las pesquerías a nivel nacional y regional puede considerarse como una « operación en curso », con considerables mejoras necesarias.


Page xvii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


Estado de las poblaciones de atunes y especies asociadas en el océano Índico occidental

6. Ninguna de las especies principales de atún, listado, rabil, patudo, o pez espada objetivo en el OIO está sobreexplotada o está en peligro de sobrepesca3. El atún rabil, pese a una evaluación que afirma que no está sobreexplotado, está sujeto a la sobrepesca. El estado de ciertas especies (en su mayoría especies no objetivo, aunque algunas sí lo sean) como por ejemplo tiburones, marlines y peces vela, no se investiga o entiende correctamente, en parte por la falta de datos comunicados acerca de las pesquerías, en particular especies que no recaen directamente bajo el mandato de la CAOI. Sin embargo, los análisis más recientes han indicado que el marlín rayado está sobreexplotado y está sujeto a la sobrepesca. La contribución de la mayoría de los Estados ribereños a la investigación es limitada por su escasez de recursos financieros y humanos, lo que significa que la investigación biológica a menudo es limitada, a menos que esté financiada por proyectos de donantes.

Acceso a las zonas de pesca en la región

7. El acceso de buques provenientes de países de pesca a larga distancia (PPLD) para la captura de túnidos y especies afines en las zonas económicas exclusivas (ZEE) de los Estados del OIO puede ser concedido a través de una serie de diferentes mecanismos que se utilizan ampliamente. Estos mecanismos incluyen los AAP, los acuerdos intergubernamentales bilaterales, el cambio de pabellón, el alquiler, las empresas conjuntas o acuerdos similares entre los Estados del OIO y buques extranjeros, y los acuerdos comerciales privados entre asociaciones o empresas extranjeras y los gobiernos de la zona. Los AAP son utilizados por la UE para obtener acceso para sus buques en las aguas de algunos Estados ribereños de la zona. La UE cuenta con cuatro protocolos activos con Comoras, Madagascar, Mozambique y Seychelles. Un protocolo con Mauricio está actualmente en espera de finalización de los procedimientos internos de la UE para su entrada en vigor. Todos los países/territorios de la zona permiten algún tipo de actividad barcos de PPLD, a excepción de Maldivas y de la India, donde la política es no permitir la pesca de buques extranjeros; del Territorio Británico del Océano Índico, que es un Área Marina Protegida de veda total ; y Somalia, donde la falta de un gobierno en funcionamiento en los últimos años debido a la guerra civil, al riesgo de la piratería y a la falta de una ZEE declarada hacen que la obtención de licencias sea complicada tanto a nivel práctico como legal.

8. Hay avances hacia una mayor transparencia de la información relativa a los costes de acceso, especialmente en el sur de la región del OIO, aunque la información pública está lejos de estar universalmente disponible. Las investigaciones realizadas durante la preparación de este informe muestran que los costes de acceso varían significativamente, con diferencias que se explican a través de una serie de factores que incluyen el tamaño de la ZEE a la que se concede el acceso, la duración del período de tiempo durante el que se prevé que los peces pasen en las respectivas zonas económicas exclusivas y, por tanto, las posibles capturas y la proximidad a zonas con riesgos de piratería. Es notable que la mayoría de los cerqueros compra el acceso a todas las zonas de pesca clave en este área de antemano y anualmente, debido a la necesidad de establecer una red regional de posibilidades de pesca para cubrir todos los movimientos migratorios potenciales del atún en la región. Los palangreros tienden a pescar sobre todo en zonas de alta mar, el acceso a múltiples/todas las ZEE de la región es menos importante, aunque sigue siendo significativo. Las tarifas de acceso anuales para los palangreros son por lo general ligeramente inferiores a las de los cerqueros.

La pesca de túnidos en el océano Índico occidental

9. Las capturas mundiales de las principales especies por las pesquerías de túnidos en 2011 ascendieron a 4,6 millones de toneladas (t) (FAO, base de datos FishStatJ), con capturas en el OIO de alrededor de

3 La sobreexplotación se define como una situación en la que la intensidad de la pesca es más alta que el nivel que produce el rendimiento máximo sostenible (RMS). Se dice que una población de peces es objeto de sobrepesca cuando su biomasa total es inferior a la biomasa que produce el RMS.


Page xviii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


540 000 t (CAOI, base de datos de capturas nominales) que representan el 12 % del total mundial. El rabil y el listado representaron el 88 % de las capturas realizadas por buques en el OIO en 2011, con 265 000 t capturadas por cerqueros (el 50 % de las capturas totales). Las capturas realizadas por palangreros, cañeros, buques con redes de enmalle y embarcaciones menores según lo registrado por la CAOI alcanzan aproximadamente 60-80 000 t o 11 a 15 % del total de las capturas, aunque sólo sea una estimación de la CAOI y puede que estas capturas sean subestimadas.

10. La flota de cerco que opera en el OIO cuenta 44 buques, 22 provenientes de la UE, cinco de Mayotte (que se convertirán en buques de la UE el 1 de enero de 2014, cuando Mayotte venga a ser parte de la UE), y otras flotas importantes de Seychelles e Irán. El número de buques ha disminuido, ya que eran 68 en 2005. Esta situación se debe en gran parte a la piratería en la región, aunque haya indicios que muestran que un cierto número de buques podrían volver al OIO en los próximos años gracias a la mejora en la situación de la piratería (sin embargo, un mayor número de buques podría a su vez regenerar las actividades de piratería). El listado y el rabil son las dos principales especies de atún capturadas (representan el 91 % del total de las capturas de cerco en 2011), el patudo constituye el resto de las capturas (junto a muy pequeñas cantidades de atún blanco (menos de 0,5 %)). Los buques dependen en gran medida del uso de dispositivos de concentración de peces (DCP), con alrededor del 80 % de las capturas de los buques españoles y seychellenses en 2011 (184 320 t), y el 65 % de las capturas de los buques franceses en 2011 (73 399 t) atrapadas alrededor de tales objetos flotantes. El aumento del uso de DCP la evolución de su tecnología y la utilización de buques de suministro para ayudar en el despliegue de los DCP y evaluar la cantidad de peces que se encuentran debajo de estos dispositivos, han servido para aumentar la eficiencia de los esfuerzos de pesca por buque en los últimos años.

11. La flota palangrera que opera en el océano Índico en su conjunto está compuesta por 440 grandes buques de ultra-congelación. Taiwán, Japón y China poseen el mayor número de buques. 76 buques (principalmente de la UE, Tanzania y Sudáfrica) han sido identificados como buques cuyo objetivo de pesca es el pez espada cuando mandaron su información al registro de buques activos de la CAOI, y es probable que operen principalmente en el OIO. Otros grandes buques de ultra-congelación pueden operar en el OIO y/o en el océano Índico oriental. Además, hay 1 653 de menor escala, buques de palangre de atún fresco que operan en el océano Índico en su conjunto, sobre todo provenientes de Indonesia, Taiwán y Sri Lanka. Sin embargo, el número de buques que faenan en el OIO y en el océano Índico oriental no se puede definir con los datos disponibles. Un número de países costeros (por ejemplo, Mozambique, Seychelles y Comoras) tiene planes para desarrollar sus flotas de palangre. Ha habido una disminución del esfuerzo global desde el comienzo de la década de los 2000 que puede ser imputada a una combinación de factores, entre ellos la disminución de las tasas de captura y la amenaza de piratería en los últimos años. El esfuerzo de pesca se ha desplazado globalmente hacia el este (el esfuerzo de pesca podría volver a desplazarse en el futuro si se mantienen las mejoras en la situación de la piratería). Las diferentes flotas muestran marcadas diferencias en la composición de las capturas: las flotas de Taiwán/China y Seychelles (estas últimas siendo explotadas por intereses taiwaneses) enfocan su pesca al atún patudo; el objetivo de la flota japonesa y de Omán es el rabil; las flotas de España, Reino Unido y Portugal tienen como meta capturar pez espada y tiburón; y la francesa/la Reunión se centra en el pez espada y el atún.

12. La pesca de atuneros cañeros es la más tradicional de todas las pesquerías del OIO, sus orígenes se encuentran en el siglo XII. El principal país de pesca es Maldivas, cuyos buques capturan atún listado (83 % de las capturas, el resto siendo atún rabil), aunque también haya una flota de cañeros al oeste de la India y una pesquería sudafricana que dirige sus esfuerzos a la captura de atún blanco (principalmente en el Atlántico y, en menor medida, en el OIO). En todos estos casos, los buques desembarcan pescado fresco. El esfuerzo en la flota de Maldivas ha disminuido drásticamente en los últimos años, donde muchos cañeros se han pasado a la pesca de rabil con línea de mano, más rentable.

13. La pesca con redes de enmalle se concentra en el norte del mar Arábigo y en la región de Somalia, con capturas predominantemente de atún rabil (65 % de las capturas, siendo el resto principalmente de atún


Page xix



listado). Las condiciones ambientales del norte del mar Arábigo atraen a los grandes ejemplares de atún rabil cerca de la superficie y los pescadores de la India, Omán, Pakistán y especialmente de Irán (alrededor de 6 000 buques) explotan esta pesca estacional.

14. La pesca con línea de mano es esencialmente artesanal y no está bien documentada, pero Yemen, Maldivas, India y Comoras contribuyen de forma importante a las capturas totales, el atún rabil y el listado siendo la principal especie objetivo (80 % y 20 % de las capturas respectivamente).

15. Todas estas pesquerías/flotas atuneras tienen poco o ningún impacto en los hábitats sensibles de fondo de mar ya que las capturas se realizan en la parte superior de la columna de agua pelágica. Los principales incidentes en el ecosistema de las redes de cerco, palangre, redes de enmalle, de los cañeros son (i) sus impactos sobre las especies no objetivo, (ii) la captura incidental de especies en peligro, amenazadas, o protegidas (PAP) y (iii) su potencial para perturbar el funcionamiento de los ecosistemas marinos, ya que eliminan a las especies de un alto nivel trófico. Los Estados miembros han tomado acciones destinadas a la mitigación de estos impactos en el marco de la CAOI. Éstas constituyen una serie de medidas de conservación y de gestión desarrolladas con el apoyo y en cooperación con otras instituciones intergubernamentales e instituciones no gubernamentales tales como BirdLife Internacional, el Acuerdo para la conservación de los albatros y petreles (ACAP), y el Memorando de entendimiento para las tortugas marinas del océano Índico (IOSEA). Debido a su baja selectividad y a la posibilidad de pérdidas de las redes, que resulta en « pesca fantasma », es posible que la pesca con redes de enmalle sea la que tenga el mayor impacto en el ecosistema.

Exportación de productos pesqueros del océano Índico occidental

16. Dado el movimiento migratorio del atún en el OIO, el patrón de las capturas a lo largo del año y la posición y tamaño de la ZEE de Seychelles, este país está bien situado para servir como principal núcleo regional para la flota de cerco en el OIO. La gran mayoría de las capturas congeladas de los cerqueros en el OIO (alrededor del 80 %) es o bien desembarcada para el procesamiento/conservería en Seychelles (en torno al 30 % de los desembarques en Seychelles) o bien transbordada en Victoria para el procesamiento en otra parte del OIO (en torno al 70 % de los desembarques en Seychelles), aunque en algunas épocas del año los buques desembarquen productos directamente en las plantas de procesamiento en Mauricio, Madagascar y Kenia para el enlatado o lomos. Las nuevas plantas de procesamiento de atún ultracongelado, construidas en Mauricio y con una capacidad de unas 30 000 toneladas, intensificaran las visitas de su nueva generación de cerqueros en Port Louis. Las características de estos navíos permiten el almacenamiento a bordo del atún ultracongelado en seco a 40 °C, suministrado a las plantas de procesamiento que exportan lomos, filetes y bloques saku (para sashimi congelado) a los mercados de Asia y de Europea. Los altos niveles de procesamiento en la región de las capturas de los cerqueros y el hecho de que más del 90 % de las capturas acaben en los mercados de la UE es una característica notable de la pesquería de cerco.

17. Las flotas asiáticas de palangre dependen en gran medida del desembarque del producto en Port Louis, Mauricio y se estima que el 50 % de las capturas de palangre en el OIO se transborda en Port Louis. Las capturas asiáticas congeladas de rabil y de patudo están destinadas principalmente al mercado de sashimi asiático. El atún blanco puede ser vendido a las fábricas de conservas o, en el caso de los buques de temperaturas ultra bajas, también se vende a los mercados de sashimi en Asia. El tiburón y el pez espada capturados por la flota asiática también son normalmente transbordados para su venta en Asia. Las flotas palangreras españolas, británicas y portuguesas descargan sus capturas en Durban, Sudáfrica, aunque en algunas épocas del año cuando los barcos están pescando en aguas más septentrionales las capturas puedan ser desembarcadas en Diego Suárez, Madagascar o en Port Louis, Mauricio. Las aletas de tiburón (que para los buques de la UE deben ser desembarcadas pegadas a los cuerpos antes de ser separadas en el puerto) se negocian con Asia (ya sea directamente desde el puerto de desembarque o a través de España). Los cuerpos de tiburones sin aletas son transbordados de vuelta a Europa y vendidos en los países del sur de Europa, en Europa del Este y Rusia o en América del Sur a través de compradores


Page xx



brasileños. Los cuerpos de pez espada sin aletas son transbordados desde el OIO de regreso a Europa para su posterior venta, sobre todo en España, Italia, Francia y Grecia.

18. Las capturas de los cañeros de Maldivas son consumidas en el país en fresco, o bien son congeladas y exportadas a fábricas de conservas tailandesas, o enlatadas en las fábricas de conservas de Maldivas, o transformadas en « pescado de Maldivas » (un producto hervido, ahumado y secado al sol) para el consumo interno o la exportación (principalmente a Sri Lanka). Los volúmenes más pequeños de las capturas sudafricanas de atún blanco son congelados para la exportación a fábricas de conservas, principalmente en la UE.

19. Las capturas de atún con redes de enmalle en Omán, India, Yemen, Pakistán e Irán se desembarcan principalmente en forma fresca/refrigerada. En Pakistán, India e Irán, la mayor parte del producto desembarcado es destinado a las fábricas de conservas de atún en Irán, para su posterior venta en Oriente Medio. En Pakistán, algunas cantidades se comercializan a nivel local en forma fresca/refrigerada (mucha de la cual es consumida por la gran población de Bangladesh en Karachi), otras se procesan para producir materia prima para las plantas coreanas de surimi, y el atún pequeño (como la bacoreta oriental y la melva) se procesa para ser exportado salado/seco a Sri Lanka. En Irán, se supone que las capturas no destinadas a las fábricas de conservas locales se consume localmente. Las capturas de la flota de redes de enmalle de Yemen se destinan a las fábricas de conservas de Yemen o al consumo interno, parte del producto siendo adquirido por las fábricas de conservas en Irán. En Omán, las capturas se procesan localmente para conservas, que se venden en forma fresca o ahumada localmente en ventas ambulantes.

20. Las tres pesquerías artesanales con línea de mano importantes en el OIO - en Maldivas, Yemen y Omán - están todas orientadas a la exportación, con un procesamiento local en lomos, principalmente a la UE y a los mercados de Oriente Medio.

21. El total de las importaciones de atún de la UE provenientes de los países en el OIO fue de 135 714 t en 2012, algo más del 20 % de las importaciones totales de atún en la UE. Las importaciones de atún en conserva del OIO representaron el 27 % de las importaciones totales de la UE de productos enlatados, mientras que el OIO proporcionó el 18 % del total de los lomos de atún importados en la UE. Gran parte de estas importaciones provienen de las capturas de atún efectuadas por los buques cerqueros de la UE (172 824 t en 2011).

22. En el OIO se están negociando tres Acuerdos de Asociación Económica (AAE). Mientras el impulso hacia una integración económica regional de los países africanos del OIO, del Caribe y del Pacífico (países ACP) ha progresado a través de los Acuerdos de Asociación Económica interinos (AAEI), los AAE regionales todavía siguen pendientes y las negociaciones de AAE globales con todos los países ACP del OIO están todavía en curso. El 1 de octubre de 2014, los países ACP que no han ratificado los AAE provisionales (o concluido AAE completos) con la UE serán excluidos del reglamento sobre el acceso al mercado. Los países menos adelantados (PMA) podrían entonces utilizar el Acuerdo « Todo Salvo Armas » (TSA) - que permite importar atún sin derechos de aduana, pero otros países más desarrollados perderían su derecho de acceso al 0 %.

La flota atunera de la UE en el océano Índico occidental

23. La pesquería de cerco en el OIO está dominada por las actividades de la flota de la UE, que representan el 66 % del total de las capturas de cerco, realizadas por 22 buques españoles y franceses. Mientras los beneficios creados por la flota de palangre no están bien documentados, los beneficios económicos y sociales generados únicamente por las actividades de la flota de cerco se estiman en 420+ puestos de trabajo y 140 millones de EUR de valor añadido en la UE, y 4 000+ puestos de trabajo y 22 – 40 millones de EUR de valor añadido en el OIO. Las capturas en diferentes zonas pueden variar significativamente de año en año para un mes específico dado los patrones de migración de atún, pero por lo general cerca del 50 % del total de las capturas se realizan en zonas de alta mar y el 35 % en la ZEE de Seychelles. El resto de zonas de pesca en la región del sur de Kenia representa en torno al 1-5 % de las capturas totales. Por esta razón, una red de posibilidades de pesca que abra posibilidades de acceso a las


Page xxi Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


zonas de pesca en todos los países/territorios es fundamental para la flota. El acceso a las ZEE de Kenia y Tanzania se concierta a través de acuerdos privados anuales de acceso, lo cual crea una falta de seguridad en el acceso. El resto de zonas de pesca son accesibles a través de AAP. Las disputas a propósito de ciertas fronteras marítimas en el OIO plantean problemas para los buques. Mientras obtienen autorizaciones para pescar en todas las zonas, la presencia de « zonas grises » implican que los buques tienen que evitar este tipo de zonas, declarar las capturas a las administraciones de dos países o correr el riesgo de ser acusados de pescar ilegalmente en un país u otro si no se declaran las capturas y la entrada/salida a las dos administraciones. Todos los buques de la UE deben cumplir con la legislación de la UE y con las medidas de gestión y conservación de la CAOI. Teniendo en cuenta la construcción en curso de nuevos buques, el posible retorno de algunos buques de otros océanos al OIO con la mejora de la situación de la piratería (si se mantiene), y el cambio de estado de los buques con pabellón de Mayotte, que pasarán a ser buques de la UE a partir del 1 de enero de 2014, la flota de la UE podría aumentar de cerca de 40 buques en los próximos años.

24. La contribución de la flota palangrera de la UE a las capturas palangreras totales en el OIO (alrededor del 10 % en 2007-2011), es muy inferior a la contribución de la flota de cerco de la UE a las capturas totales de cerco en la región. La flota de la UE se puede dividir en dos flotas diferentes en función de su especie objetivo: i) las flotas españolas, británicas y portuguesas (20, tres y tres buques respectivamente) se centran en el pez espada y los tiburones, y ii) 28 buques franceses/la Reunión pescan atún y pez espada. Las capturas por los buques españoles, británicos y portugueses se concentran sobre todo en las zonas de alta mar (> 75 % del volumen total), aunque también se realizan capturas en Mozambique y Madagascar. Los buques franceses/de la Reunión, más pequeños, tienden a pescar en la isla de la Reunión o cerca de allí. No se realizan capturas en Kenia o Tanzania. No se espera que el número de buques aumente en los próximos años. Puesto que el objetivo de capturas para los buques españoles, británicos y portugueses es el pez espada y los tiburones que se encuentran en las zonas más al sur, un desplazamiento hacia el norte de las actividades sería poco probable. Sin embargo, este movimiento hacia el norte no se puede descartar, dadas las capturas históricas en las zonas más septentrionales y el potencial de agotamiento local de las poblaciones de pez espada en las zonas de pesca actuales que podrían causar que los buques cambien de terreno de pesca. No se considera probable que los buques de la Reunión, dado su menor tamaño y los patrones de funcionamiento, estén interesados en la pesca en lugares alejados de la isla de la Reunión.

25. Un AAP regional podría no ser práctico actualmente. Sin embargo, AAP/Protocolos individuales, podrían utilizarse para presionar por una mayor coherencia regional en temas como la gestión de la pesca, la ciencia y el cumplimiento de las reglas, a través del uso de textos legales coherentes y un apoyo sectorial consistente que sería proporcionado por los distintos AAP/Protocolos.

Conclusiones

26. Las capacidades de gestión de la investigación y de la pesca en el OIO, junto con la acción a nivel regional, proporcionan la base para la gestión sostenible de la pesca en la región, pero las mejoras en la investigación, la gestión de la pesca, el seguimiento, control y vigilancia y el funcionamiento de las instituciones regionales son necesarias. A pesar de las actuales limitaciones en dichas áreas, en general el estatus de las principales poblaciones de atún capturadas se valora como bueno, con sólo el atún blanco siendo sujeto a la sobrepesca. Sin embargo, el posible aumento del número de buques en los próximos años debido al desarrollo de la flota de los Estado ribereños y al retorno de ciertos buques al OIO podría poner en peligro el estado de las especies objetivo y no objetivo, a menos que se supervisen y controlen cuidadosamente.

27. La flota de la UE seguirá representando una parte importante del esfuerzo total de pesca en el futuro, sobre todo la flota de cerco, que constituye una parte significativa de las capturas totales. Las actividades de los barcos de la UE generan importantes beneficios económicos y sociales en la UE y en la región, gracias al desembarque y al procesamiento de las capturas. El impacto beneficioso de los fondos de apoyo sectorial proporcionados por la UE como parte de los AAP/Protocolos en la región también


Page xxii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


continuará siendo importante. Tanto para la flota de cerco como para los palangreros de la UE, la capacidad de moverse ampliamente en todo el OIO siguiendo las pautas migratorias del atún, implica que una red regional de posibilidades de pesca sea fundamental, aunque sea algo menos importante para los buques palangreros, que dependen en mayor medida de la pesca en las zonas de alta mar. Como Kenia y Tanzania son las dos únicas zonas de pesca en el sur del OIO que no tienen AAP/Protocolos con la UE y que existen acuerdos de acceso privado en su lugar para los cerqueros, AAP/Protocolos entre la UE y Kenia y Tanzania podrían potencialmente ser de interés para la Unión Europea. Esto queda sujeto a una evaluación específica que se presenta en los dos informes de evaluación ex-ante de posibles AAP/Protocolos entre la UE y Kenia y la UE y Tanzania.


Page xxiii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


Table of contents

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................ iii

Résumé ............................................................................................................................................................ ix

Resumen .........................................................................................................................................................xvi

Table of contents ......................................................................................................................................... xxiii

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

1 The western Indian Ocean – coastal and marine environment, aquatic ecosystems and fisheries resources ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Coastal and marine environment ...................................................................................................... 5

1.1.1 Main characteristics of the WIO waters ........................................................................................ 5

1.1.2 Marine and coastal environmental conditions in the WIO, and likely climatic changes – impacts on the migration of tuna and tuna-like fisheries ......................................................................................... 7

1.2 Research into marine issues, tuna and related species, and tuna fisheries ...................................... 8

1.2.1 Research mechanisms and capacity ............................................................................................ 8

1.2.2 Overview of current and recent research in the region ................................................................. 8

2 Management and conservation of tuna and related species in the western Indian Ocean .........12

2.1 Fisheries management organisations and related management measures .....................................12

2.1.1 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) .....................................................................................12

2.1.2 Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC) ........................................................13

2.1.3 The South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA) ..............................................................14

2.1.4 Southern African Development Community (SADC) ...................................................................14

2.1.5 Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organisation (WIOTO) ...................................................................15

2.1.6 International Whaling Commission (IWC). ...................................................................................15

2.1.7 Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) .................................................................................................15

2.1.8 New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) ..................................................................15

2.1.9 Other recent developments .........................................................................................................16

2.1.10 National tuna fisheries management frameworks ...................................................................16

2.2 Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) in the western Indian Ocean ........................................17

2.2.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................................17

2.2.2 Compliance with regional conservation and management measures ..........................................17

2.2.3 Inspection in port and Port State Measures .................................................................................17

2.2.4 Observer programmes .................................................................................................................18

2.2.5 National MCS capacities in the region .........................................................................................18

2.2.6 EU IUU Regulation ......................................................................................................................18

2.3 External support for improvements in management and conservation ............................................19

2.3.1 EU engagement in the region ......................................................................................................19

2.3.2 Other support ..............................................................................................................................21

3 Access to fishing zones in the region ..............................................................................................26

3.1 Types of access ...............................................................................................................................26

3.1.1 European Union FPAs. ................................................................................................................26

3.1.2 Private commercial agreements between foreign associations or companies, and governments in the region .................................................................................................................................................27

3.1.3 Bilateral intergovernmental agreements ......................................................................................28

3.1.4 Reflagging, chartering, joint ventures or similar arrangements between WIO states and foreign investors ...................................................................................................................................................28


Page xxiv



3.1.5 The specific case of Somalia .......................................................................................................29

3.1.6 The specific case of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) ....................................................29

3.2 Costs of access ...............................................................................................................................29

4 The tuna fishery in the western Indian Ocean .................................................................................33

4.1 WIO catches in the context of global tuna fisheries .........................................................................33

4.2 The purse seine fishery....................................................................................................................34

4.2.1 Evolution of the fleet ....................................................................................................................34

4.2.2 Evolution of effort ........................................................................................................................35

4.2.3 Purse seine catches by species ..................................................................................................37

4.2.4 FAD and free school set dependencies .......................................................................................37

4.3 The longline fishery ..........................................................................................................................38



4.3.3 Longline catches, by species .......................................................................................................42

4.4 The pole and line fishery ..................................................................................................................44



4.4.3 Pole-and-line catches, by species ...............................................................................................46

4.5 The gillnet fishery .............................................................................................................................47


4.5.2 Catches, by species ....................................................................................................................48

4.6 The handline fishery ........................................................................................................................49


4.6.2 Catches, by species ....................................................................................................................50

4.7 Status of target and bycatch fish stocks caught by tuna fisheries ....................................................51

4.7.1 Target species status ..................................................................................................................51

4.7.2 Skipjack tuna ...............................................................................................................................51

4.7.3 Yellowfin tuna ..............................................................................................................................52

4.7.4 Bigeye tuna .................................................................................................................................52

4.7.5 Albacore tuna ..............................................................................................................................52

4.7.6 Swordfish .....................................................................................................................................52

4.7.7 Status of bycatch species ............................................................................................................52

4.8 Ecosystem impacts of tuna fisheries ................................................................................................59

4.8.1 Purse seine fishery impacts .........................................................................................................59

4.8.2 Longline fishery impacts ..............................................................................................................59

4.8.3 Pole-and-line fishery impacts ......................................................................................................61

4.8.4 Gillnet fishery impacts .................................................................................................................61

4.9 Mitigation of the ecosystem impacts of fishing .................................................................................61

4.9.1 Sharks .........................................................................................................................................61

4.9.2 Marine turtles ...............................................................................................................................62

4.9.3 Seabirds ......................................................................................................................................63

4.9.4 Mitigation of the effects of FADs ..................................................................................................63

4.10 The impacts of piracy in the WIO .....................................................................................................64

4.10.1 History and prevalence of pirate attacks .................................................................................64

4.10.2 Effects of piracy on fleets ........................................................................................................65

5 Trade in tuna products from the WIO ...............................................................................................69

5.1 Trade flows ......................................................................................................................................69

5.1.1 From the purse seine fleet ...........................................................................................................69

5.1.2 From the longline fleet .................................................................................................................70


Page xxv



5.1.3 From the pole-and-line fleet .........................................................................................................71

5.1.4 From the gillnet fleet ....................................................................................................................71

5.1.5 From the handline fleet ................................................................................................................72

5.1.6 Summary of product flows from all fleets .....................................................................................73

5.1.7 Market prices ...............................................................................................................................76

5.2 Imports of tuna to the EU from the WIO ...........................................................................................79

5.3 EU and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in the WIO ......................................................80

6 The EU tuna fleet in the western Indian Ocean ...............................................................................83

6.1 The EU fleet .....................................................................................................................................83

6.1.1 Purse seine vessels.....................................................................................................................83

6.1.2 Longline vessels ..........................................................................................................................87

6.1.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................89

6.2 Key findings from recent evaluations of FPAs/protocols in the WIO, recent events, and text in this report, of potential relevance to FPAs with Kenya and Tanzania .............................................................90

6.3 A regional FPA? ...............................................................................................................................92

7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................93

7.1 Biological opportunities and constraints ...........................................................................................93

7.2 Technical opportunities and constraints ...........................................................................................93

7.3 Regulatory opportunities and constraints .........................................................................................93

7.4 Political and strategic opportunities and constraints ........................................................................95

7.5 Contractual opportunities and constraints ........................................................................................95

7.6 Economic opportunities and constraints ..........................................................................................95

8 References ..........................................................................................................................................97

ANNEXES

Annex A: Currency exchange rates used in this report ...................................................................................104

Annex B: List of acronyms/abbreviations ........................................................................................................105

Annex C: Consulted organisations ..................................................................................................................108

Annex D: Information on States and their Competent Authorities notified under Article 20(1) and (2) of the EU IUU Regulation (as of 18 March 2013) ....................................................................................................111

Annex E: Overview of key tuna processing plants in the WIO region ..............................................................113

Annex F: Information on fisheries research institutions in the WIO .................................................................115

Annex G: IOTC Members, and species under the management mandate of the IOTC ...................................116

Annex H: Projects in the WIO funded by the ACP FISH II Programme ...........................................................122

Annex I: Selected Articles from the Basic Regulation on the CFP. Council of the European Union. Brussels, 10 October 2013 ..........................................................................................................................................124

Annex J: Shrimp/prawn fisheries in Kenya and Tanzania ...............................................................................128

Annex K: Additional information on stock biology and status ..........................................................................130

Annex L: Additional information on the location of catches, by species and fleet type ....................................136

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure 0.1: geographical coverage of the IOTC ................................................................................................. 2

Figure 0.2: EEZs of selected countries in the WIO ............................................................................................. 3

Figure 1.1: phytoplankton concentration in two seasons: NE monsoon (left panel) and SW monsoon (right panel) ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 1.2: primary production rates within EEZs in the WIO (in mgCm-2day-1) ................................................. 6

Figure 4.1: global tuna catches 2000-2011 (in millions of tonnes).....................................................................33


Page xxvi Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


Figure 4.2: trends in effort (searching hours) for purse seine fleets in the WIO, 1980-2011 .............................36

Figure 4.3: fishing effort, in million of hooks, for selected longline fleets operating in the Indian Ocean ...........42

Figure 4.4: trends in the number of mechanised and non-mechanised pole-and-line vessels operating in the Maldivian fishery .......................................................................................................................................45

Figure 4.5: trends in the effort of pole-and-line vessels operating in the Maldivian and Indian fisheries ...........46

Figure 4.6: evolution of the gillnet fisheries of Iran and Pakistan, and the gillnet/longline fishery of Sri Lanka .48

Figure 4.7: trends in the catch, by species, caught by the Iranian fishery .........................................................49

Figure 4.8: distribution of breeding albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters in the Indian Ocean, and overlap with IOTC longline fishing effort for all gear types and fleets (average annual number of hooks set per 5° grid square from 2002 to 2005) ........................................................................................................................60

Figure 4.9: frequency of piracy-related events in the WIO, since 2009 .............................................................65

Figure 4.10: distribution of fishing effort (in days fishing for purse seine, and number of hooks for longline), before and during the peak of piracy threats .............................................................................................67

Figure 4.11: number of hooks set (millions) from longline vessels by 5º square grid and main fleets, for the years 2011 (left-hand plot) and 2012 (right-hand plot) ..............................................................................68

Figure 5.1: schematic of product flows from the purse seine and longline fleets operating in the WIO .............74

Figure 5.2: schematic of product flows from the gillnet and handline fleets operating in the WIO .....................75

Figure 5.3: purse seine frozen tuna prices, Thailand (cif), 2008 to August 2013 (EUR/t) ..................................76

Figure 5.4: landed prices paid in the WIO for selected tuna products Sep 2012 to Oct 2013 (EUR/t) ...............77

Figure 5.5: longline fresh and frozen tuna prices, Japan (cif), 2008 to May 2013 (EUR/t) ................................77

Figure 5.6: shortfin mako and swordfish prices (in EUR/kg) in Barcelona, origin (mostly Spain), 2006 to 201278

Figure 5.7: sharkfin prices (EUR/kg) in Hong Kong, 2002 to 2011 ....................................................................79

Figure 8.1: average annual catches of yellowfin tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas ..........................136

Figure 8.2: average annual catches of skipjack tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas...........................136

Figure 8.3: average annual catches of bigeye tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas .............................137

Figure 8.4: distribution of annual catches of albacore tuna for 2010, by 5º areas ...........................................137

Figure 8.5: distribution of annual catches of swordfish for 2009, by 5º areas ..................................................138

TABLES

Table 1.1: recent and current research in tuna fisheries and related marine ecosystems issues ......................11

Table 3.1: summary of active EU fishing agreements in WIO ...........................................................................26

Table 3.2: costs of active EU fishing agreements in WIO (EUR) .......................................................................30

Table 3.3: summary of fishing agreements in force in the Seychelles (non-EU) ...............................................30

Table 3.4: summary table of current costs of access charged by selected WIO countries (EUR/year) .............32

Table 4.1: tuna catches from the WIO (2005-2011) ..........................................................................................34

Table 4.2: tuna catches from the WIO (2011), by fleet segment and species, in tonnes ...................................34

Table 4.3: breakdown of the number of purse seine vessels fishing in the WIO, recent years and at 2000 and 2005 ..........................................................................................................................................................35

Table 4.4: purse seine catch (tonnes), by tropical tuna species, in WIO, 2011 .................................................37

Table 4.5: catch in tonnes by species and set type (average 2007-2011) for the three main purse seine fleets in the WIO .................................................................................................................................................38

Table 4.6: breakdown of the number of large-scale, deep-freezing longline vessels fishing in the Indian Ocean, recent years ..............................................................................................................................................40

Table 4.7: breakdown of the number of smaller-scale, fresh-tuna longline vessels fishing in the Indian Ocean, recent years ..............................................................................................................................................41

Table 4.8: longline catches in 2011 in the WIO, in tonnes .................................................................................44

Table 4.9: pole-and-line catch of key species, by flag, in tonnes (2011) ...........................................................46

Table 4.10: gillnet catch of key species, by flag and EEZ, in tonnes (2011) ......................................................49

Table 4.11: handline catch of key species, by flag and EEZ, in tonnes (2011) .................................................50


Page xxvii Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON


Table 4.12: summary table of catches, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and stock status for key target species ......................................................................................................................................................51

Table 4.13: key bycatch fish species from the main WIO tuna and tuna-like fisheries ......................................53

Table 4.14: turtles in the Indian Ocean and their status ....................................................................................58

Table 5.1: EU imports of different tuna products, by region (t) ..........................................................................80

Table 5.2: status of EPAs in the WIO ................................................................................................................82

Table 6.1: estimated typical EU purse seine dependency on different fishing zones ........................................84

Table 6.2: summary of key economic and social benefits created by the EU purse seine fleet in the WIO .......87


Page 1



Introduction

In recent years the European Union (EU) has signed a number of Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs4) and Protocols with ‘third countries’ in the western Indian Ocean (WIO), and the EU currently has four Protocols in force in the WIO: with Comoros, Madagascar, Mozambique and Seychelles. The Protocol to the FPA with Mauritius is expected to come into force in the coming months. The WIO FPAs have multiple objectives, including supporting responsible fisheries, effective use of EU fleet capacity, creation of employment and value-addition both in the EU and in third countries, provision of raw material product to the EU processing industry, and contribution to EU market supplies. All the current FPAs/Protocols are complementary and reinforce and strengthen the EU’s strategy to create a network of tuna-fishing opportunities for EU fishing vessels in the WIO5. The WIO FPAs are focused on promoting partnership arrangements, which secure access for EU vessels to highly migratory species (in particular yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, albacore tuna and swordfish), while providing financial contributions for access and support to fisheries sectoral policy.

According to Article 30(4) of the Financial Regulation, and Article 18 of its Rules of Application6, European Commission Services have to undertake both ex ante and ex post evaluations for all programmes and activities that entail significant spending. The Council of the EU Conclusions on the External Dimension of the common fisheries policy (CFP) adopted on 19 March 20127 also request that before a mandate is provided for a new Protocol to be negotiated, an ex post and ex ante evaluation be undertaken by the European Commission where there is already an FPA/Protocol in place, and an ex ante evaluation be completed where FPAs/Protocols are being considered where they have not previously existed.

Following informal contact between the EU and both Kenya and Tanzania8, which took place on the fringes of the annual Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) meeting in May 2013, both Kenya and Tanzania expressed interest in a possible FPA/Protocol with the EU. It is therefore necessary for ex ante evaluations to be completed of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and both countries to provide the Council of the EU with the data and technical analyses of the situation to decide whether to provide a mandate to the European Commission to negotiate FPAs/Protocols with one or both countries on behalf of the EU.

The ex ante evaluations of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and Kenya, and Tanzania, are presented separately and are not contained in this report. This report provides a regional analysis of the situation and opportunities in WIO, and is intended to underpin and inform both ex ante evaluations. Given that the possible FPAs/Protocols are being considered, and indeed the existing FPAs/Protocols in the region, are for highly migratory species i.e. tuna and tuna-like species, both the ex ante evaluations and this report only consider highly migratory species (although some brief comment is provided in Annex J of this report on shrimp/prawn fisheries in both Kenya and Tanzania).

4 Note that the Text for a Basic Regulation on the common fisheries policy refers to Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs), implying that the term FPAs may be changed to SFPAs in the future. Throughout the report, the term FPA is used both for past/existing FPAs, and for those that may be agreed in the future. 5 Note that as of 1 January 2014 Mayotte will become part of the EU and vessels flagged in Mayotte will therefore become EU vessels. 6 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/regulations/regulations_en.cfm#rf_modex (accessed 25 September 2013) The new Financial Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 repealed Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 1605/2002, and the new Rules of Application were adopted by the European Commission on 29 October 2012. 7 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf (accessed 1 October 2013) 8 In this report ‘Tanzania’ refers to The United Republic of Tanzania, which is composed of mainland Tanzania (former Tanganyika) and Tanzania Island (Zanzibar).

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/regulations/regulations_en.cfm#rf_modex

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf


Page 2



For the purpose of this report, the WIO is defined as the WIO area of competence of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), as shown in Figure 0.1 below, i.e. 20º east to 80º east (and 77º east north of the equator), and north of the Antarctic Convergence at 45º south.

Figure 0.1: geographical coverage of the IOTC

Source: IOTC website http://www.iotc.org/assets/iotc_area_l.gif (accessed 28 September 2013)

A more detailed map showing the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of selected countries in the region with EEZs of importance to the EU fleet is provided below.

http://www.iotc.org/assets/iotc_area_l.gif


Page 3



Figure 0.2: EEZs of selected countries in the WIO

Source: Fish-i Africa project. Note: The boundaries marked are for illustrative purpose only and are approximate

The objectives of this report, reflected in its different sections, are to:

Present information on the marine and oceanographic conditions in the WIO, and on the status of fish stocks;

Profile the management organisations in the region, and the related management measures in place;

Consider the different methods by which distant water fishing vessels obtain access to the EEZs of countries in the region;

Present information on the evolution of fleets and catches made by purse seine, longline and pole and line vessels fishing in the region;


Page 4



Profile product flows out of the region for catches made by different fleet types, and to consider any fisheries imports to the EU from the region;

Consider specifically the activities of the EU fleet operating in the WIO, and their interest in having FPAs in the region; and

Present some general conclusions regarding the problems/needs/threats common to the fisheries of highly migratory species in the WIO, and which may have an impact on possible FPAs/Protocols in the region.

This regional report was completed during the period September to December 2013, and was based on a review of relevant literature (see references at the end of the main text of this report), existing knowledge of the region, and relevant consultations in the WIO and in the EU with European Commission services, the European External Action Service (EEAS), Member State administrations, and the private sector.


Page 5



1 The western Indian Ocean – coastal and marine environment, aquatic ecosystems and fisheries resources

1.1 Coastal and marine environment

1.1.1 Main characteristics of the WIO waters

The WIO is characterised by a seasonally reversing monsoon wind system that dominates the ocean climate north of 25º South. During the boreal winter when the northeast monsoon is established, a general westward flow close to the equator develops into an overall southward coastal current along the east African coast. During the southwest monsoon, the general circulation in the Arabian Sea reverses northward, with strong winds along the coast of Arabia towards the Indian sub-continent, shifting towards the east and generating upwelling along the coastal areas and an energetic eddy field.

The most characteristic of these eddies is the Great Whirl, occurring off the east coast of Somalia, a clockwise circulation pattern, appearing around May and extending until a month after the winds have died, lasting on average 166 days per year with strong surface currents (up to 2.5 t/sec)9. A second, smaller eddy, known as the Socotra eddy, often accompanies the Great Whirl. These meso-scale processes bring increased nutrient supply to the upper layer during the monsoon seasons, contributing to the growth of phytoplankton blooms twice a year10. The upwelling associated with these processes creates an area of intense biological productivity from the coast of Somalia to the Gulf of Oman; this feature is continuous with an offshore region. In the northern Arabian Sea, north of 15º north, the high biological productivity results in a depleted oxygen content at a relative shallow depth, a limiting factor in the distribution of some species.

Another characteristic of the WIO is a relatively shallow thermocline, usually at 50-100 metres (m), which compares with the eastern Indian Ocean (EIO) where the thermocline is more than 100 m in the area from Sumatra to Sri Lanka11.

Episodes of anomalous oceanographic and atmospheric conditions affect the WIO at irregular intervals. There are effects related with El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events in the Pacific, although the timing, intensity and modality of the Indian Ocean ENSO are not necessarily synchronised with the ENSO events in the Pacific Ocean. The Indian Ocean dipole is an atmospheric anomaly that could be associated with the ENSO, and which is characterised by warmer than usual surface waters, a deeper thermocline and a reduced primary productivity in the WIO, a pattern that is reversed in the EIO12. The three most important dipole events in recent times took place in 1998, 2003 and 2006-7, with more pronounced effects when they coincide with an ENSO event.

Another atmospheric event that has been documented is moving sea-surface temperature anomalies, known as Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), promoting strong air-ocean interactions in a zone known as the Seychelles-Chagos Thermocline Ridge (SCTR). The SCTR is characterised by high surface temperature and a shallow thermocline, and anomalies such as the MJO have been reported as having a strong influence on the distribution of the fisheries.

9 Beal and Donohue, 2013. 10 Resplandy et al., 2011. 11 Longhurst, 1998. 12 Marsac, 2008.


Page 6



Figure 1.1: phytoplankton concentration in two seasons: NE monsoon (left panel) and SW monsoon (right panel)

Source: NASA SeaWiFS Ocean Colour Project13

Primary production rates in the region vary considerably, with a general pattern of rates increasing as you move from the south of the WIO to the north, as shown in Figure 1.2 below.

Figure 1.2: primary production rates within EEZs in the WIO (in mgCm-2day-1)

Source: Sea Around Us Project, 2013

13 http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS (accessed 16 November 2013)

http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/


Page 7



1.1.2 Marine and coastal environmental conditions in the WIO, and likely climatic changes – impacts on the migration of tuna and tuna-like fisheries

The oceanographic conditions described above provide the basic habitat for the large stocks of tuna that occur throughout the WIO.

As expected, catches are generally associated with areas of good productivity and the fish aggregating device (FAD) fishery off the Somali area is closely related to the presence of the strong gyre in the southwest monsoon14. The shallow thermocline of the WIO favours the concentration of fish in a habitat within the reach of the purse seine fleet. By contrast, there is very little or any purse seine effort in the EIO, given that the thermocline is, normally, much deeper and the tuna tend to be distributed lower down in the water column.

The low oxygen levels at intermediate depths north of 15º north means that the northern Arabian Sea is virtually devoid of bigeye tuna and that large yellowfin tuna are available at shallower depths than in the south.

The distribution of sea surface temperature also seems to have an effect on the extent of the spawning of yellowfin tuna, which tend to reproduce actively in waters above 25º C, and possibly of other species as well.

The potential impact of climate change on marine and coastal environmental conditions, and in turn on fish stocks, is not well enough understood to make firm estimates of future changes and timeframes in the WIO resulting from climate change. However, ecosystem productivity is likely to be reduced in most tropical and subtropical oceans such as the WIO due to sea temperature rises. Sea temperatures and salinity changes will both have an impact on ocean circulation and coastal upwelling; uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans will decrease surface seawater pH, thereby changing the depth below which calcium carbonate dissolves (affecting reef formation); and there could be significant changes in one- to two-year duration events and variability operating at decadal and longer timescales. All of the above potential changes could affect the timing and success of physiological, spawning and recruitment processes, primary and secondary production and fish distributions15.

However, some research indicates that recent increases in temperature might have affected the high-pressure systems, normally created in the WIO through a process known as Walker circulation, bringing more frequent and severe change in rainfall. Such atmospheric changes would create conditions similar to El Niño or the Indian Ocean dipole16.

These atmospheric anomalies can disrupt the normal sequence of the monsoon season, creating warmer than usual conditions in the WIO, together with reduced productivity and a deeper thermocline. During the strong ENSO-Indian Ocean dipole event of 1998, the purse seine fleet shifted its focus to the EIO in response to changes in the distribution of fish and reduced productivity in the WIO, or in the ability of the gear to catch the fish as a consequence of a deeper than usual thermocline.

Environmental conditions are likely to be behind the major increase in the catches of yellowfin tuna experienced during 2003-2006, possibly through a combination of good recruitments, perhaps driven by the warmer conditions in 1998-1999, or simply because of higher aggregations of the fish due to environmental conditions, or a combination of both effects. In 2004, a large bloom of macrozooplankton was recorded in most of the WIO, supporting the hypothesis that favourable forage conditions affected

14 Marsac, 2008. 15 Macfadyen and Allison, 2009. 16 Schewe and Leverman, 2012.


Page 8



the concentration of fish, and possibly, their growth. Fonteneau et al. (2006) have also documented exceptional catches in 2005 associated with a large chlorophyll concentration close to a thermal front.

1.2 Research into marine issues, tuna and related species, and tuna fisheries

1.2.1 Research mechanisms and capacity

Research on the species caught by tuna fisheries and their ecosystems is primarily the responsibility of the national scientists working in the IOTC countries. The results of the stock status analyses or new research conducted by national scientists are reviewed at IOTC scientific Working Parties, mainly to provide guidance to the Scientific Committee in the formulation of management advice to the Commission. The Working Parties are open to interested and technically competent participants and their reports are directed to the Scientific Committee.

The general terms of reference for these Working Parties are:

Review new information on the biology and stock structure of species of the relevant species, their fisheries and environmental data;

Coordinate and promote collaborative research on the species and their fisheries;

Develop and identify models and procedures for the species stock assessments;

Conduct stock assessments for each species or stock;

Provide technical advice on management options, the implications of management measures and other issues; and

Identify research priorities, and specify data and information requirements that are necessary for the Working Party to meet its responsibilities.

There are four species Working Parties (Tropical Tunas, Billfish, Neritic Tunas and Temperate Tunas), and others for Ecosystem and Bycatch, Data Collection and Statistics, and Methods.

The main national research institutions in the IOTC countries in the WIO are listed in Annex F.

In addition to research in the IOTC forum, the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA) is a regional advisory, non-governmental organisation, registered in Zanzibar. It is committed to promoting the development of marine sciences throughout the WIO region, and has 10 Member States17. WIOMSA recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) making it responsible for providing research, technical, managerial and advisory support to UNEP as requested.

1.2.2 Overview of current and recent research in the region

1.2.2.1 Tuna fisheries

The institutions associated with IOTC are the main regional providers of scientific research. The IOTC covers a number of work areas specifically on tuna, such as:

1) Biological parameters for stock assessment, including research on stock structure;

2) Development of indicators of stock status;

3) Analysis of catch-and-effort data for developing indices of abundance, including fleet dynamics;

4) Use of stock assessment models to determine stock status; and

17 Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Comoros, Madagascar, Seychelles, Mauritius and Réunion (France).


Page 9



5) Management strategy evaluations in order to develop harvest control rules and reference points.

The seven-year Indian Ocean Tuna Tagging Programme (IOTTP) was supervised in its entirety by the IOTC from 2002 to 2009 and was comprised of an EU-funded large-scale project implemented by the Commission de l’Océan Indien / Indian Ocean Commission (COI/IOC), the Regional Tuna Tagging Project (RTTP-IO) and a series of small-scale project in Maldives, India, Mayotte, Indonesia funded by the EU, the Government of Japan and the People’s Republic of China. The ultimate goal of the programme was to improve the ability of the IOTC Member States to manage the tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean through a better knowledge of the status and population dynamics of the main stocks. As part of the different activities of the IOTTP, more than 200 000 tuna were tagged and released, of which 84 % were released during the RTTP-IO. The results provided new insights on the biology, the population dynamics and status of the main tuna species. For example, tagging data provided new estimates of the growth of the three tropical tuna species. They have provided insights into their spatial dynamics, including examples of large-scale movements, from fish tagged in Tanzania waters and subsequently recovered in the Arabian Sea, Indonesia and the South Atlantic.

1.2.2.2 Ecosystems-related research

The institutions associated with IOTC are engaged in a number of ecosystems-related research areas in support of tuna fisheries management, such as work on:

1) Oceanographic conditions and climate change indicators; and

2) Other technical work related to ecosystem considerations, such as ecosystem risk assessments for non-target species, the technical merits of mitigation measures and estimation of bycatch rates.

The Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Programme (ASCLME), the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) and the Western Indian Ocean Land Based Impacts on the Marine Environment (WIO-LaB) Project

These three projects were part of a multi-project United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) / UNEP / World Bank / Global Environment Facility (GEF) programme, supporting management improvements for the Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems. The projects worked with Comoros, France (outermost regions), Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa and Tanzania. The intended relationship between the projects was for all three projects to work towards a harmonised transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) and strategic action plan (SAP), with an expected outcome being national commitments to address key transboundary fisheries management issues, and establishing monitoring and evaluation indicators (process, stress reduction and environmental status indicators) to monitor long-term ecosystem health.

The WIO-LaB project was implemented by UNEP and competed in 2010, and was focused on land-based pollution.

The objectives of the ASCLME Project (which ended 2013) were:

To gather new and important information about ocean currents and how they interact with and influence the climate, biodiversity and economies of the western Indian Ocean region;

To document the environmental threats faced by the countries of the region in a TDA;

To develop an SAP that sets out a strategy for the countries to collectively deal with transboundary threats; and

To strengthen scientific and management expertise, with a view to introducing an ecosystem approach to managing the living marine resources of the western Indian Ocean region.


Page 10



The SWIOFP, completed in March 2013, had the overall objective of promoting ‘the environmentally sustainable use of fish resources through adoption by countries riparian to the Southwest Indian Ocean of a Large Marine Ecosystem (LME)-based approach to fisheries management in the Agulhas and Somali LMEs that recognises the importance of preserving biodiversity.’ This was to be achieved through identification and study of offshore non-tuna species and their exploitation within the southwest Indian Ocean, development of institutional and human capacity for both fisheries science and management, development of fisheries management plans at both national and, where appropriate, regional levels, and mainstreaming biodiversity in fisheries management, policy and legislation. While the focus of the project was not on tuna, it did complete some work on large pelagic highly migratory species.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) implements the EAF-Nansen Project18, in collaboration with the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), which in addition to promoting the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF), has produced research and resource prospection through the activities of the R/V Fritjord Nansen, a research vessel that also contributes to capacity building of scientists from the region. Notionally, the project started in December 2006, but substantively from early 2008, and has a five-year time frame. The project is executed by FAO in close collaboration with the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) of Bergen, Norway and is funded by Norad. The objectives of the project are to provide the fisheries research institutions and management administrations in the participating countries with additional knowledge on their ecosystems for their use in planning and monitoring, and to further the acceptance and application of the key principles of the EAF.

The French Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) contributes with research programmes on oceanography, routinely reporting on the trends in climatological oceanographic conditions to the relevant IOTC Working Parties, and ecosystem modelling including tuna species.

The Réunion delegation of the Institut Français de Recherche por l’Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER) implements the project IOSSS-ESPADON, designed to study the genetic structure of the swordfish resource at the level of the Indian Ocean, improve knowledge of the biology of the species and improve understanding of the connections of swordfish across the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

1.2.2.3 Climate change

While research on climate change, including global forecasts about the evolution of various environmental characteristics receives a lot of attention (see section 1.1.2 above, for a discussion of possible trends in the WIO), there are few studies in the Indian Ocean concerning the consequences of these changes on the tuna fisheries.

A few exceptions are the modelling of responses of the distribution of skipjack tuna to the changing conditions of environment, including prey distributions19. Such a modelling programme could be used for predicting some of the effects of changes in the environment. Other work has looked directly at the possible economic consequences of a displacement of the fleet in response to change in environmental conditions similar to those during ENSO events20. If conditions caused by climate change are similar to those experienced during ENSO events, a large displacement of the tuna fleet is expected towards the EIO, which would seriously affect the competitiveness of Seychelles as the regional tuna hub.

18 ‘Strengthening the Knowledge Base for and Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Marine Fisheries in Developing Countries’, http://www.eaf-nansen.org/nansen/topic/18001/en (accessed 16 November 2013). 19 Dueri et al., 2012. 20 Guillotreau et al., 2012.

http://www.eaf-nansen.org/nansen/topic/18001/en


Page 11



Summary

The research presented above is summarised in the table below.

Table 1.1: recent and current research in tuna fisheries and related marine ecosystems issues

Title Scope / main area of research Researcher Status and timing

IOTC working parties Tropical Tunas, Billfish, Neritic Tunas and Temperate Tunas), and others for Ecosystem and Bycatch, Data Collection and Statistics, and Methods

IOTC and national scientists

Ongoing

Indian Ocean Tuna Tagging Programme (IOTTP)

Exploitation rate / population size, biology, and spatial movements of main tuna species

IOTC/EU consultants

Completed 2009

Western Indian Ocean Land Based Impacts on the Marine Environment (WIO-LaB) Project

Land-based pollution of marine ecosystems

UNEP Completed 2010

South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP)

Main scope of research on offshore shared non-tuna fisheries (demersal, shrimp, and small pelagic), but engaged with larger pelagic species research and with ETP species and ecosystems

Government research institutes and fisheries departments in nine countries in the southwest Indian Ocean (SWIO)

Completed March 2013

The Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Programme (ASCLME),

Marine ecosystems and small-scale fisheries

UNDP Completed 2013

EAF-Nansen Project (GCP/INT/003/NOR)21

Initiative to support the implementation of the ecosystem approach in the management of marine fisheries. The aim is to promote sustainable utilisation of marine living resources and improved protection of the marine environment

Executed by FAO with the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) of Bergen, Norway, funded by Norad

2006 – ongoing

IRD Oceanography in the Indian Ocean,

ecosystem modelling

Francis Marsac, Olivier Maury

Ongoing

IFREMER (Réunion) Genetic analysis for stock determination Jerome Bourjea Ongoing

Source: consultants’ compilation

21 http://www.eaf-nansen.org/nansen/en

http://www.eaf-nansen.org/nansen/en


Page 12



2 Management and conservation of tuna and related species in the western Indian Ocean

The extent of the migrations of tuna and tuna-like species, and the fact that they are caught both in the EEZs of coastal States and in the high seas, dictate that management and conservation actions have to be taken at regional level, involving both coastal States and distant fishing water nations (DWFNs). In this context, ‘regional’ should be understood as encompassing an area large enough for the actions to be effective, as they need to cover the whole range of the distributions of the species involved.

Regionalism provides opportunities for harmonised responses to common or shared problems, exchange of information and experience, and efficiencies of scale. This is particularly the case with regard to the region’s oceanic fisheries, which traverse the boundaries of all WIO countries.

The text below outlines the principal organisations in the region with an involvement with fisheries management.

2.1 Fisheries management organisations and related management measures

2.1.1 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)

The IOTC is the intergovernmental regional fishery management organisation, established under the framework of the FAO, mandated to manage tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean and adjacent seas. The IOTC Agreement came into force on 27 March 1996, and its Secretariat, based in Seychelles, became operational in January 1998. In spite of formally being an FAO body, IOTC enjoys full functional and budgetary autonomy from FAO.

The objective of the Commission is to ensure, through appropriate management, the conservation and optimum utilisation of stocks covered by this Agreement and encouraging sustainable development of fisheries based on such stocks. The management mandate for the IOTC includes 16 species (listed in Annex G), although conservation measures have also been taken to protect other species caught in association with IOTC species in the ecosystem.

The IOTC provides a formalised framework and legal basis for regional management of tuna stocks in the Indian Ocean. And indeed, the IOTC can be considered by far the most important regional fisheries management organisation with respect to highly migratory species in the WIO.

The use of vessel monitoring systems (VMS) has been mandatory since July 2007 for vessels of 15 m overall length and above, although coverage is still low in the small-scale fisheries in the region. There is no centralised VMS or protocols for exchange of information under the IOTC framework although such arrangements exist, in principle, for WIO coastal States under the IOC’s Regional Plan for Fisheries Surveillance.

Port State controls were first established in 2003, to be followed by the adoption in 2010 of a Port State Measures resolution virtually identical to the still-not-in-force FAO Port State Measures Agreement. No inspection-at-sea provisions have been adopted for the high seas, although there has been an extension of the mandate of the observers under the transshipment monitoring programme that allows them to conduct a limited inspection on the fishing vessels, allowing them to report a number of Illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) infractions to the Compliance Committee.

A trade documentation scheme for catches of frozen bigeye tuna was adopted in 2001, but several attempts to replace it with a catch documentation scheme (similar to the one adopted under the EU IUU Regulation) have not yet received support from countries concerned about the cost of implementation.

Measures on the data to be submitted on catches and fishing activities were first adopted in 1998, and continue to be updated periodically. A Regional Observer Scheme was adopted in 2010, which requires


Page 13



a minimum coverage of 5 % in national observer schemes for large-scale vessels and similar coverage of port sampling for small-scale and artisanal fisheries. As implementation depends on separate programmes being implemented at national level, there has been an unequal level of implementation between the different flag States depending on their resources. Also, some flag States have argued that the piracy threat and the need to have armed personnel on board mean that there was no room for scientific observers.

A recent important step has been the adoption of the precautionary approach, indicative interim reference points and establishing a process to define harvest control rules and refine those reference points, following analyses by the Scientific Committee.

In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on actions related to the application of the ecosystem approach, such as protection of marine turtles, mitigation of incidental mortality of seabirds, protection of some shark species (thresher, oceanic whitetip, whale sharks) and protection of cetaceans. However, in addition to the lack of data on by-catch, the difficulty of monitoring of compliance with these actions and the fact that some members consider that IOTC does not have a mandate over these species, have probably reduced the effectiveness of these actions.

Additional information on the IOTC is provided in Annex G. The annex describes how the organisation works in terms of proposals being tabled by Members and then adopted, the species under its mandate, its members, and the resolutions and recommendations that have been adopted.

2.1.2 Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC)

The SWIOFC is an advisory body, established under the FAO framework in 2004. It has the following goals:

To contribute to improved governance through institutional arrangements that encourage cooperation amongst members;

To help fishery managers in the development and implementation of fishery management systems that take due account of environmental, social and economic concerns;

To keep under review the state of the fishery resources in the area and the industries based on them;

To promote, encourage and coordinate research related to the living marine resources in the area and draw up programmes required for this purpose, and to organise such research as may be necessary;

To promote the collection, exchange, dissemination and analysis or study of statistical, biological, environmental and socio-economic data and other marine fishery information;

To provide a sound scientific basis to assist Members in taking fisheries management decisions;

To provide advice on management measures to Member governments and competent fisheries organisations;

To provide advice and promote cooperation on monitoring, control and surveillance, including joint activities, especially regarding issues of a regional or sub-regional nature;

To encourage, recommend and coordinate training in the areas of interest of the Commission; and

To promote and encourage the utilisation of the most appropriate fishing craft, gear, fishing techniques and post-harvesting technologies.

The current membership includes Comoros, France (on behalf of its overseas territories), Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, United Republic of Tanzania and Yemen.


Page 14



The area of jurisdiction is limited to the EEZs of the countries involved, but in practice, this does not constrain SWIOFC effectiveness, as currently it does not have a management mandate. Its current structure includes a Scientific Committee that has the task of reviewing the status of the domestic stocks in the EEZs of the Member States.

In February 2013 at a meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, SWIOFC members agreed to engage in a process to convert SWIOFC into a management body, still under FAO, but able to make management decisions that are binding on its members. However, to date, SWIOFC has not determined which stocks should be considered as shared between two or more of its members. As part of this evolution, SWIOFC is considering having an independent Secretariat based in Maputo, Mozambique. Currently, the FAO Sub-regional Office for Southern Africa in Zimbabwe provides the Secretariat.

In 2012, SWIOFC agreed to establish a Working Party on Collaboration and Cooperation in Tuna Matters, with the support of WWF, with the main purpose of establishing a common vision and strategy concerning IOTC management actions, most notably, on the issue of future allocation of fishing opportunities. The first meeting took place in 2013, with a common position agreed amongst almost all SWIOFC Members, with only France dissenting. The work plan of the Working Party for 2013 includes further consultation on IOTC matters and work towards common conditions to incorporate into access agreements. The second meeting took place in October 2013 in Mozambique.

2.1.3 The South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)

The SIOFA is an Agreement adopted at a Conference of Plenipotentiaries for the Adoption of the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, held on 7 July 2006 at the Headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in Rome, Italy. The Agreement entered into force on 21 June 2012, and the first meeting of the Parties took place in October 2013. The Contracting Parties are Australia, Cook Islands, European Union, Mauritius and Seychelles.

The SIOFA is a regional fishery ‘arrangement’, as referred to in several provisions of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. It has neither a seat nor a permanent secretariat. The main organ of the SIOFA is the Meeting of the Parties. The Agreement foresees that the Meeting of the Parties shall take place at least once a year and, to the extent practicable, back-to-back with meetings of the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission. The contracting parties may also hold extraordinary meetings when deemed necessary. In addition to the Meeting of the Parties, the Agreement has contemplated two subsidiaries:

A permanent Scientific Committee, which shall meet at least once a year, and preferably prior to the Meeting of the Parties;

A Compliance Committee, which shall meet in conjunction with the Meeting of the Parties and shall report, advise and make recommendations to the Meeting of the Parties.

2.1.4 Southern African Development Community (SADC)

SADC is an intergovernmental organisation established in 1992 that comprises 15 countries of southern Africa, including Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa and Tanzania from the Indian Ocean. SADC has taken decisions in the context of marine fisheries, including adopting a binding Fisheries Protocol, in which they agreed to harmonise their domestic legislation with particular reference to fisheries and the management shared resources, and to take adequate measure to optimise fisheries law-enforcement resources. The protocol has no implementing mechanism attached to it, and while some improvements in legislation and MCS have been achieved through donor-funded and national initiatives, domestic legislation is however still far from harmonised across the SADC region, and as discussed elsewhere in this report fisheries law-enforcement still requires considerable strengthening.

http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/10/en





Page 15



Under SADC there has been a plan to establish a Regional Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Fisheries Coordination Centre in Maputo, Mozambique, although funding difficulties have delayed the completion of this project.

2.1.5 Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organisation (WIOTO)

WIOTO was established by the Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organisation Convention, which entered into force in December 1992. It is an advisory body for coastal states with a stake in fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species. The main objectives are ‘(a) harmonization of policies with respect to fisheries; (b) relations with distant water fishing nations; (c) fisheries surveillance and enforcement; (d) fisheries development; and (e) access to exclusive economic zones of members’.

The membership is open to the funding States (Comoros, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Sri Lanka and Tanzania). Any independent coastal State bordering the western Indian Ocean whose territory is situated principally in the western Indian Ocean region may also be admitted by unanimous approval of the parties to the Convention. The present members of WIOTO are Seychelles, Mauritius, Comoros and India.

Following the first meeting of the Parties in 1994, WIOTO, which was expected to fulfil a role akin to that of the FFA in the Pacific Ocean, has conducted no further activities to date.

2.1.6 International Whaling Commission (IWC).

The IWC is a management body whose membership extends to countries all over the world. It is concerned with the conservation and management of whale stocks, and many countries in the WIO are members, although it has little relevance to the activities of tuna vessels in the WIO22.

2.1.7 Indian Ocean Commission (IOC)

The Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) is an intergovernmental organisation that was created in 1982 at Port-Louis, Mauritius and institutionalised in 1984 by the Victoria Agreement in Seychelles. IOC is comprised of five countries in the Indian Ocean: Comoros, Réunion, Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles. IOC’s principal mission is to strengthen the ties of friendship between the countries and be a platform of solidarity for the entire population of the Indian Ocean region. IOC’s mission also includes development, through projects related to sustainability for the region, aimed at protecting the region, improving living conditions of the populations and preserving the natural resources that the countries depend on. IOC is the only organisation in the region that is composed exclusively of islands; it aims to defend the islands’ mutual interests at a regional and international level, whilst promoting solidarity and sustainable development.

Its activities are organised around six areas of intervention, two of which i) Fishing, Agriculture and Energy, and ii) Environment and Natural Resources, are of relevance for support to fisheries management and ecosystem preservation.

The IOC has engaged in numerous projects related to fisheries, primarily with EU funding. These projects include the Regional Tuna Tagging Programme (2002-2009, supervised by the IOTC and described in section 1.2), the regional SmartFish project (ongoing), and the intergovernmental Regional Plan for Fisheries Surveillance (2007-2014).

2.1.8 New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)

NEPAD has been building capacity within fisheries for some years to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). The main fisheries component

22 http://www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/iwc/en#Org-OrgsInvolved


Page 16



under NEPAD Agency is the Partnership for African Fisheries (PAF) with working groups within governance, trade, aquaculture and Stop Illegal Fishing (SIF). PAF was a key player in the Conference of African Ministers of Fisheries and Aquaculture (CAMFA 1) in 2010, and is now planning the CAMFA II in cooperation with NEPAD and the African Union (AU). NEPAD is the implementing agency of the AU and has a large political and professional network in relation to fisheries. NEPAD also works with the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and can consequently facilitate cooperation between them. NEPAD mainly works with higher-level pan-African policy and governance issues. SmartFish has opportunities to co-operate with SIF in relation to case studies on MCS, as these would be valuable to share best practice and to develop a coherent voice in relation to capacity needs in MCS.

2.1.9 Other recent developments

IOTC coastal States, including those outside the WIO region, continue to meet to develop their common views of the actions under IOTC. A major catalyst for these efforts was the start, in 2011, of the work of IOTC Members towards developing criteria for quota allocation or adopting alternative management actions. Prior to the first meeting of the Technical Committee on Allocation Criteria in 2011, Sri Lanka, under the umbrella of Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Commission (IOMAC), led an effort to position coastal States as a group of 17 ‘like-minded’ States that shared the same views on the question of quota allocation and alternative management approaches to be considered.

WWF also has facilitated, through its Tanzania-based Coastal East Africa Network Initiative (CEANI), actions and discussions on the characteristics of FPAs, and on creating conditions for certification of fishery products, but also to discuss common IOTC positions, respectively. Prior to the last two IOTC Sessions (Australia, 2012 and Mauritius, 2013), there were two-day meetings, sponsored and facilitated by Australia, in which the member countries discussed the technical issues concerning proposals for conservation and management measures, with a view to developing a common position.

Maldives called for a tuna management workshop for Indian Ocean coastal States, which took place in Male, Maldives in June 2013, and was attended by officials from 17 countries. The workshop reviewed the progress of the IOTC process, especially following the allocation discussions, and was aimed at further building capacity on management and science issues related to tuna fisheries. There was an agreement that a body such as the Fisheries Forum Agency in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean could help States with limited capacity and financial resources to better address fishery management issues. There was also agreement to hold two meetings in 2014 before and after the Annual Session of IOTC to develop possible common positions.

Finally, it is noted that as of 1 January 2014, Mayotte will formally become part of the EU, as an outermost region of France. This has implications for management of fisheries resources in the waters around Mayotte, in particular the need to establish an agreement between Seychelles and the EU to allow Seychelles-registered vessels to fish in the waters of Mayotte. Such an agreement will be separate to the existing Seychelles/EU FPA, as there is no financial implication for the EU budget, and the agreement would involve fishing authorisation revenues being paid to the Mayotte administration by Seychelles-flagged vessels, and no sectoral support (as is the case for FPAs).

2.1.10 National tuna fisheries management frameworks

It is the responsibility of IOTC Members to ensure that action is taken under their national legislation to implement conservation and management measures, which become binding on them. It has not been possible within the scope of this project to review national legislation, conservation and management measures.


Page 17



2.2 Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) in the western Indian Ocean

2.2.1 Overview

Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) offers a series of tools that allow States to establish a mechanism to verify the compliance with i) the conservation and management measures adopted at the regional level (i.e. IOTC Resolutions), ii) any additional measures that could be adopted in domestic legislation, and iii) the conditions associated with access agreements with third parties23. The MCS of domestic legislation and access agreement conditions are noted as important, but given the scope of this report, the text below primarily considers compliance with regional conservation and management measures, although some brief information on national MCS capacities is provided in section 2.2.5.

2.2.2 Compliance with regional conservation and management measures

There are few regional binding actions to manage tuna fisheries adopted outside the IOTC-agreed measures. One possible exception is the agreement amongst IOC countries to ban transshipment at sea within its EEZs to all vessels, but there are no records of specific mechanisms of compliance of the measure. Therefore, the text below focuses on the compliance situation within the IOTC.

In the IOTC, the monitoring of compliance is the responsibility of the IOTC Compliance Committee, whose mandate and process were reinforced in 2010. Following this reform, the situation of each individual country is reviewed on the basis of country reports prepared by the Secretariat, listing the level of compliance of each Member according to the information supplied. At the end of each Session, the main outstanding issues for each country are noted, and the countries are invited to report, before the following session, on the specific actions that were taken to address these deficiencies.

While several States in the region have limited capacity to conduct effective surveillance over such a large area, Madagascar has an operational Centre for surveillance ensuring patrols at sea with 3 patrol vessels and 2 involved in high seas patrols which play a key role in the regional surveillance. Furthermore, Mozambique has recently placed an order for two more patrol vessels (together with additional fishing vessels). The ability to maintain patrol vessels in good operating conditions is often a concern, and regional patrolling might prove to be a better way of pooling resources (see next section).

2.2.3 Inspection in port and Port State Measures

The IOTC has adopted two Resolutions that regulate port inspection, and that are currently in force. They are almost identical to the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures, which although adopted has yet to enter into force.

The bulk of the unloading of catches in the WIO takes place in just a few ports of the region, and this has helped in establishing priorities for assisting States in developing their capacity. Some countries also require inspections to be conducted at the start of the licensing period. Capacity building efforts have been conducted for several years through various initiatives and, especially through the IOTC Secretariat, with direct support from the EU and other regional initiatives. The level of implementation is therefore uneven, with only Seychelles and Mauritius conducting regular inspections of vessels coming into port.

Another opportunity to conduct inspections has been presented with the expansion in 2010 of the measure to monitor transshipment at sea. The monitoring of the transshipment is conducted through

23 There has been confusion in some of the coastal States in the WIO (and in some of the projects supporting coastal States) as to their role in ensuring compliance of not only foreign-flagged vessels but also vessels under their own flag. A common misconception is that the term IUU only refers to foreign-flagged vessels fishing without a fishing authorisation, or violating some of the terms of the fishing authorisation.


Page 18



placing observers on all cargo vessels transshipping at sea with fishing vessels. The revision of the measure requires observers to conduct inspections at sea on board fishing vessels, which has led to an increase in the number of potential infractions reported to the IOTC Compliance Committee.

2.2.4 Observer programmes

There has been confusion concerning the various initiatives to establish an observer programme in the region. IOTC Members have agreed to establish a nationally implemented Regional Observer Scheme with the primary objective to obtain a better estimate of the catch by species in all tuna fisheries. That is, the role of the observers is to be a scientific one, and it is not expected that they will verify compliance. The Resolution requires a low 5 % coverage of the fishing operations of larger vessels. In fisheries where placing an observer on board is not feasible, such as artisanal fisheries, the Resolution requests that a sampling programme be implemented with an equivalent sampling coverage to that of the on-board programme.

Coastal states are often willing to place observers on board foreign-flagged vessels in order to verify compliance, erroneously believing that these observed trips count towards their 5 % coverage. The SWIOFP (discussed in section 1.2) developed training materials and carried out observer training in countries in the region, although national observer programmes are not operational.

DWFN have not had much coverage either in terms of observers. The EU purse seine fleet has highlighted that the need to have security personnel on board (typically three or four per vessel), due to piracy, limits its ability to have observers on board as well. However, there has been no formal derogation of the obligation to carry observers for any fleet. In fact, from 2014, some vessels in the purse seine fleet will carry observers on all trips in addition to carrying armed personnel24.

2.2.5 National MCS capacities in the region

A recent review25 focused on MCS capacities in seven countries (Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles, Somalia and the United Republic of Tanzania) in order to analyse and benchmark MCS capacity and to identify gaps. Seychelles and Mauritius emerged as the countries with the strongest capacity for MCS in the region, with Kenya, Madagascar and Tanzania having partial to weak capacity and the Comoros and Somalia having the weakest capacity. The report also concluded that the countries inspected had a limited capacity to oversee the offshore tuna industrial fishery, to monitor its catches or to inspect the vessels, reinforcing the idea that strong regional and international cooperation and intelligence sharing are required.

2.2.6 EU IUU Regulation

The implementation of the EU IUU Catch Certificate Scheme (CCS) for third countries exporting marine fisheries products to the EU, and for EU Members exporting fish to third countries if requested to do so by those third countries, is laid down in Council Regulation EC 1005/2008 and subsequent legislation.

Countries can only export to the EU if the EU has published the flag State notification, which certifies that a) it has in place national arrangements for the implementation, control and enforcement of laws, regulations and conservation and management measures which must be complied with by its fishing vessels, and b) its public authorities are empowered to attest the veracity of the information contained in catch certificates and to carry out verifications of such certificates on request from the Member States. The notification includes the necessary information to identify those authorities. A full list of

24 As part of attempts to obtain Marine Stewardship Council certification 25 Bergh, 2012.


Page 19



notifications for countries in the WIO, and for DWFNs that have had vessels active in the WIO in recent years, is provided in Annex D.

The importance of traceability in IUU issues and the CCS is noted, but it has not been within the scope of this report to assess traceability issues in WIO countries.

The European Commission recently (15 November 2012) passed a proposal for a Decision26 notifying a number of countries that they were considered to be potential non-cooperating third countries with regard to the IUU Regulation. No countries in the WIO were included in the Decision, but some countries are members of the IOTC.

Cooperation and compliance on matters of IUU fishing is considered by the EU as a pre-requisite for discussion with third countries on potential FPAs/Protocols. In this context, it should be noted that Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 Article 38(9) [Action in respect of non-cooperating third countries] states that ‘the Commission shall not enter into negotiations to conclude a bilateral fisheries agreement or fisheries partnership agreements with such countries’.

2.3 External support for improvements in management and conservation

Presentation of information on previous and ongoing support for management and conservation improvements in the region is important in the context of the ex ante evaluations of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and Kenya and the EU and Tanzania, as financial contributions provided for sectoral support must be used to build on previous initiatives while not duplicating previous/ongoing activities.

2.3.1 EU engagement in the region

This section summarises EU-funded programmes/projects in the region that focus specifically on fisheries management and conservation, i.e. regional and country-specific support. Some examples of EU-supported projects include:

SmartFish (in cooperation with FAO), has five main areas of work:

– Fisheries development and management, addressing the weaknesses of fisheries legal frameworks and existing policies, the poor quality of information, need for institutional capacity building;

– Fisheries governance, including promotion of principles of good governance at national and regional level; compliance with existing agreements; cost-effectiveness and participatory approaches in fisheries management; evaluation of current governance systems;

– Effective MCS through support to regional surveillance, exchange of information, support for capacity building for operational personnel;

– Regional fish trade through the development of a regional fisheries trade strategy; and

– Food security through an integrated plan that will address food availability and access, proper utilisation and stability of the fish supply.

SmartFish is one of the biggest regional programmes for fisheries in Africa. There are 20 eligible countries under the programme: Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles,

26 EC Decision of 15 November 2012 on notifying third countries that the Commission considers as possible of being identified as non-cooperating third countries pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005 /2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:354:0001:01:EN:HTML (accessed 6 October 2013).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:354:0001:01:EN:HTML

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:354:0001:01:EN:HTML


Page 20



Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Mozambique, Reunion Island and South Africa are participating; in some activities, although not as eligible countries.

A two-year project ‘Accompany Developing Countries in complying with the implementation of Regulation 1005/2008 on IUU fishing’ (EU IUU project). This project provided assistance to a number of countries in the WIO in complying with the EU IUU regulation. In each country where support was provided (Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles) MCS was reviewed, along with an assessment of performance as measured against best practice for coastal state control, flag state control, port state control, and control of the market. Recommendations were made to address any weaknesses identified.

The ACP FISH II Programme. A 4.5-year programme financed by the European Development Fund on behalf of ACP countries. The aim of the programme is to improve fisheries management in ACP countries to ensure that fisheries resources under the jurisdiction of these countries are exploited in a sustainable manner. This programme has supported projects distributed around five themes as follows:

– Improved fisheries policies, legislation and management plans at regional and national level;

– Strengthened MCS capabilities;

– Enhanced national and regional research strategies;

– Improved business support and private sector investment; and

– Increased knowledge sharing on management and trade.

Many countries in the region have benefited from the ACP FISH II Programme, as detailed in Annex H

Yemen Fisheries Support Programme. An International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Fisheries Investment Programme, co-financed by the EU, which will run from 2012 to 2018. The project goal is to improve the economic status of small fisher households by creating sustainable and diversified economic opportunities for poor women and men in fishing communities. The project will focus on sustainable resource management and value chain development.

In 2004-2007, the COI implemented a ‘Pilot Project for MCS of large pelagics in the Indian Ocean’ financed under 9th European Development Fund (EDF). Its achievements include the setting up of port inspection schemes in key unloading ports in Seychelles and Mauritius, a review of the national legislation of the participating countries to determine the level of implementation of the regional measures, and exploration of innovative uses of satellite imagery to assist in the fight against IUU operations.

In 2007, the European Commission and the IOC signed a framework partnership to implement a regional plan for fisheries surveillance in the south-western Indian Ocean (hereinafter referred to as the Regional Plan for Fisheries Surveillance or Plan Regional pour la Surveillance de Pêche, (PRSP)) agreed by the five fisheries ministers of the IOC countries via a joint statement.

The PRSP was designed to be the main tool for the regional strategy for fisheries monitoring required by IOC Member States in strengthening cooperation between the operational structures, data exchange for the organisation of regional joint patrols, fisheries surveillance and fighting illegal fishing. The specific objective was to pool and share existing capacities of coastal states in the region to consolidate and perpetuate the regional MCS strategy by monitoring regional fisheries through targeted and deterrent controls based on risk analysis. This was to be achieved through maritime joint patrols and aerial patrols, and active exchange of data including VMS data, remote sensing of fishing activities by


Page 21



satellite radar, data from various other sources and neighbouring countries, and the establishment of an operational analysis group. The framework partnership agreement has been extended through to early April 2014, when it should continue to be funded by the EU through SmartFish.

Following the mid-term review recommendations of the PRSP, which were adopted by the EU and the five country members in October 2011, the implementation of the PRSP was positive in terms of fighting IUU fishing and in terms of regional integration. The mid-term review report suggests the continuation of activities, and mobilising of complementary resources allocated to the MCS component implemented by the IOC SmartFish programme, involving in addition to new partners as, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia and Mozambique.

The PRSP has organised 35 joint patrols since 2007. This represents 825 hours of air patrols, 988 days of patrol vessels at sea where 375 vessels were inspected. Twenty infringements were reported and 11 vessels arrested by the national fisheries inspectors involved with the regional missions. None of the offences was reported to IOTC and none resulted in the inclusion of a vessel into the IUU list.

Finally, it should also be noted that EU support for fisheries conservation and management improvements is provided by the sectoral support component of the FPAs/Protocols in region (as discussed in Section 3.1.1), which provide considerable amounts of funding for priority issues identified by the third countries.

A summary of the support discussed above is presented in the table below.

Table 2.1: recent and current support by the EU to fisheries management and conservation in the WIO

Project/programme title Scope Status and timing

SmartFish project Fisheries development and management, fisheries governance, MCS, fish trade, and food security

Ongoing

ACP FISH II Programme Policy, legislation, research, private sector, trade Completed November 2013

EU IUU project Implementation of the EU IUU regulation Completed 2012

Regional Tuna Tagging Project

Enhance tuna management by improving estimates of exploitation rate and biological characteristics

Completed 2009

Regional Pilot Project for the Surveillance, Control and Monitoring of large migratory pelagic fish

Define and test the conditions for the establishment of regional collaboration in the field of fisheries MCS, for the sustainable management of large pelagic migratory fish

2004-2007

Regional plan for fisheries surveillance

Support for joint patrols, exchange of MCS information

2007-2014

Yemen Fisheries Support Programme

Sustainable resource management and value chain development

2012-2018

Sectoral support provided under FPAs/Protocols

Various, as agreed by third countries as being of priority

Ongoing

Source: consultants’ compilation

2.3.2 Other support

There are also a large number of other donors active in the WIO, supporting a range of projects aimed at improving tuna fisheries management.


Page 22



2.3.2.1 FAO

FAO has contributed historically through the Indian Ocean Fishery Commission in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which evolved into IOTC and SIOFA as management bodies, and SWIOFC as an advisory body. Both IOTC and SWIOFC retain their links to FAO, although IOTC enjoys functional and financial autonomy. In spite of this autonomy, IOTC Members deposit their contributions with FAO, which charges administrative fees on all contributions, and the administrative and financial procedures followed in the use of those funds are those of the FAO. There is still disagreement amongst FAO and some Members as to whether IOTC has legal personality, outside of FAO, that would allow it to enter into agreements with third Parties. This, in addition to the difficulties of engaging directly with Taiwan (also stemming from the relationship to FAO), has resulted in the desire of several Members to sever links with FAO. In addition to the institution building, FAO continues to assist individual countries through Technical Cooperation Projects, and is also a partner in the implementation of the SmartFish project.

FAO is also leading the global project, Sustainable Management of Tuna Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. Partly funded by GEF, this five-year project started in 2013 has three main intended outcomes:

1. Promotion of sustainable management (including rights-based management) of tuna fisheries, in accordance with an ecosystem approach;

2. Strengthening and harmonising MCS to address IUU; and 3. Reducing ecosystem impacts of tuna fishing.

This project incorporates a partnership with WWF and the five tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), for a total of USD 178 million (EUR 132 million), of which GEF will provide USD 27 million (EUR 20 million).

2.3.2.2 International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

IFAD has two ongoing tuna projects in the Maldives. The first is the Post-Tsunami Agriculture and Fisheries Rehabilitation Programme (PT-AFReP), set up after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 and implemented since 2006 with a planned closure in early 2014. The programme is backed by two IFAD loans and a grant, with a total project value of USD 4.5 million (EUR 3.3 million). This programme has focused on building capacity for fisheries management in the Maldives, has funded participation in IOTC meetings and overseas training in fisheries policy and management, has supported some developments in MCS, and has contributed to the costs of the Marine Stewardship Council accreditation of Maldivian skipjack tuna (which itself led to some fisheries management improvements due to the conditions set during the certification process).

The second project in the Maldives is the Fisheries and Agriculture Diversification Project (FADiP) (2009-2015), with a total budget of USD 5.4 million (EUR 4 million) which is working with local producers to ensure value-addition and improved marketing of Maldive Fish (see section 5 for more details about trade in this product).

In Mozambique, the Securing Artisanal Fishers’ Resource Rights Project (PRODIRPA) aims to improve the livelihoods of artisanal fishing communities by strengthening their security over and management of natural resources (Implementation: Institute for Development of Small-scale Fisheries, Mozambique, 2013-2016).

A country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP) approved in 2011 sets out a framework for the partnership between IFAD and the Government of Mozambique from 2011 to 2015. The COSOP builds on IFAD’s experience and lessons learned from past operations in the country, including facilitating the introduction of new technologies and services for fishing communities.


Page 23



In the past IFAD has also had programmes in Mauritius to support sustainable development of fisheries, and in Seychelles to develop infrastructure to facilitate the operations of artisanal fishermen.

2.3.2.3 World Bank

The World Bank has supported several fisheries initiatives in the WIO through support to large regional projects (such as SWIOFP, see section 1.2) or support to existing regional fishery bodies, such as SWIOFC, in addition to national-level projects.

The Tanzanian Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project (MACEMP) aimed to strengthen the sustainable management and use of Tanzania’s EEZ, territorial seas and coastal resources, resulting in enhanced revenue collection, reduced threats to the environment, better livelihoods for participating coastal communities living in the coastal districts and improved institutional arrangements. The project closed in early 2013.

The overall objective of the Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP) is to promote an environmentally sustainable management of Kenya’s coastal and marine resources. The objective of its fishery-related component is sustainable management through:

Promoting and developing fisheries governance including support for increased capacity to undertake MCS, and optimising the use of deep-sea resources within the EEZ;

Promoting fisheries management and research capacity, including assessment of fish stocks, ecosystem approach to fisheries, comanagement of fisheries and fishery management plans;

Promoting and developing value-addition of fish catches in the coastal fisheries; and

Promoting and developing aquaculture through research and technical support.

The development objective of the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth Program (SWIOFish), currently under preparation, is to increase the shared benefits from economic growth based on sustainable fisheries and coastal marine resources. The specific objectives of the first phase of the programme are to strengthen the capacity for fisheries’ economic governance and harnessing to national economies starting with Comoros, Mozambique and Seychelles; and to consolidate and strengthen regional cooperation on fisheries and marine resource management among the country members of the SWIOFC.

2.3.2.4 WWF

The WWF’s Coastal East Africa Network Initiative (CEA NI) is one of fourteen large-scale programmes that the WWF Network is embarking on in order to achieve transformational change by working at local, national and international scales, linking work on the ground with advocacy work and engagement.

The vision for the CEA NI is that Coastal East Africa’s unique and globally significant natural resource base provides the essential goods and services that support biodiversity as well as economic development and the livelihoods of present and future generations. To achieve this, WWF is working with governments and other key partners in the region – Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique – to implement the following strategies:

Strengthening natural resources governance for effective management of marine fisheries and coastal forest resources and improved effectiveness of institutions in implementation of policies and regulations;

Adoption of sustainable trade and investment approach with specific focus on shrimp, tuna and timber commodities; and

Secure the remaining high-value conservation areas in Coastal East Africa, through a number of initiatives, including protected areas, land use planning, etc.

In addition, WWF plays an active role through its network of offices in the Indian Ocean, and through the Smart Fishing Initiative, a WWF global fisheries programme facilitating a process of consultation


Page 24



between developing coastal States towards adopting common positions in IOTC, as well as encouraging countries to engage in the certification of their fisheries through eco-labelling initiatives.

2.3.2.5 African Union Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), FAO and WWF

The AU’s Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Fisheries Investment Fund (SPFIF)27 is jointly supported by AU-IBAR, FAO and WWF. This pan-African project (2005-2015) aims to promote sustainable use of fisheries resources and the management of marine ecosystems that support them, to facilitate poverty eradication and enhance sustainable income growth within fishing communities.

2.3.2.6 FISH-I Africa project

The FISH-I Africa project has been developed through a partnership between the five coastal States of Comoros, Kenya, Mozambique, Seychelles and Tanzania, the Stop Illegal Fishing (SIF) working group of the NEPAD Planning and Coordination Agency (NPCA), and the Pew Environment Group. These partners will work to build cooperation, information-sharing and analytical systems amongst the key southeast African coastal states to prepare them for targeted enforcement actions against IUU fishing operators in the western Indian Ocean. The work will also involve cooperation with regional partners such as the IOTC and the IOC. The partner countries have committed to establish a platform for real-time sharing of sometimes sensitive data on vessels, their movements, catch and owners, aimed at enabling nations to take timely action against suspected illegal operators.

2.3.2.7 UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)

NEPAD, a technical body of the African Union was set up to assist in African strategic development. One area of focus is Agriculture and Food Security. Its activities in this area are complemented by the Partnership for African Fisheries (funded by DFID) that aims to aid growth in the fisheries sector, improve governance, further develop trade and combat illegal fishing. This is done mainly through the activities of SIF. In partnership with governments, civil society, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international organisations and the fishing industry, SIF is working to promote coherent policy reform across Africa relating to illegal fishing, whether taking place in inland or marine waters and whether operating at the small-scale or industrial level. In order to achieve these aims the SIF programme is involved in working towards the overarching goal of African fisheries reform and the formation of a home-grown African voice on issues relating to fisheries.

2.3.2.8 Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)

COMESA, was established in 1994, represents one of the most important economic groupings on the continent. With 19 Member States, including Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles from the WIO, COMESA forms a major marketplace for both internal and external trading. COMESA’s mission is to ‘Endeavour to achieve sustainable economic and social progress in all Member States through increased co-operation and integration in all fields of development particularly in trade, customs and monetary affairs, transport, communication and information, technology, industry and energy, gender, agriculture, environment and natural resources’. With regard to fisheries, the recently agreed COMESA Fisheries and Aquaculture Strategy aims to achieve long-term productivity of fisheries and aquaculture, to strengthen food security and trade benefits of fish products to domestic, regional and international markets as well as ensuring alignment of programmes and projects in the sector. COMESA will pursue the establishment of a Common Marine Fisheries Investment and Management Policy supporting trade and investment in fish and fishery products. Another area of focus will be the promotion of production,

27 http://www.spfif.org/ (accessed 10 October 2013).

http://www.spfif.org/


Page 25



processing and marketing of value-added fish and fishery products based on cultured tilapia, shrimp as well as captured Nile perch, tuna and dagaa.

2.3.2.9 Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation of Japan (OFCF)

In 2002 IOTC and OFCF entered into an agreement by which, using resources provided by OFCF, IOTC and OFCF staff would implement a number of activities and capacity building to strengthen data collection, processing and reporting systems in fisheries that catch tuna and tuna-like species. The OFCF is an organisation based on contributions from the government of Japan and the Japanese private sector to implement bilateral projects in developing countries to promote closer ties to Japan. The IOTC/OFCF Project was the first to be executed in a multilateral environment through RFMOs. The programme has conducted activities in India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Thailand since its inception in 2003.


Page 26



3 Access to fishing zones in the region

3.1 Types of access

Access by distant water fishing vessels for tuna and tuna-like species in the EEZs of WIO States can be granted through a number of different mechanisms, with the main methods of obtaining access as follows28.

3.1.1 European Union FPAs.

FPAs provide tuna fishing opportunities to defined numbers of purse seine and longline vessels, and are based on financial contributions by the EU and vessel owners based on reference tonnages, with additional contributions due if these reference tonnages are exceeded. Importantly the FPAs also provide for financial contributions for sectoral support funding. Protocols typically, but not always, last for three years after which time they can be re-negotiated, representing a key difference with private access agreements which are only applicable on an annual basis and may be subject to modification. Given that most of the purse seine vessels operating in the WIO are from EU Member States, FPAs represent the most important access mechanism in the region for purse seine fisheries, as well as providing access for longline vessels from the EU. Table 3.1 below provides information about the current FPAs/Protocols in force.

Table 3.1: summary of active EU fishing agreements in WIO

Coastal State Type Duration of the agreement

Protocol duration and expiry date

Vessels provided fishing opportunities

Comoros Tuna 7 years renewable 3 years.

31.12.2013 45 PS, 25 LL

Madagascar Tuna 6 years renewable 2 years.

31.12.2014 40 PS, 34 LL> 100 GT, 22< 100 GT

Mozambique Tuna 5 years renewable 3 years.

31.01.2015 43 PS, 32 LL

Seychelles Tuna 6 years renewable 3 years.

17.1.2014 48 PS, 12 LL

Mauritius (see note)

Tuna 3 years renewable 3 years from date of entry

into force 41 PS, 49 LL, 25 PandL

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/ (accessed 10 September 2013). PS = purse seine, LL = longline, PandL = pole and line, GT = gross tonnes. Note: FPA with Mauritius has been initialled but is not yet in force, and legislative processes that must first be completed are ongoing at the time of writing. New Protocols with Seychelles and Comoros from January 2014 will be for a period of six and three years respectively.

28 The Maldivian and Indian governments do not allow any foreign fishing activity in their waters.

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/


Page 27



3.1.2 Private commercial agreements between foreign associations or companies, and governments in the region

These agreements typically provide access per year, and information about their existence or the exact basis for these agreements is generally not publicly available/published. However, some examples of agreements that provide for access to highly migratory species are as follows:

Comoros: Agreements with both Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Atuneros Congeladores (ANABAC) (signed in 2009) and Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congeladores (OPAGAC) (signed in 2012) for purse seine fishing vessels flagged in Seychelles, which are automatically renewable every two years unless specifically cancelled by either party29. Around seven vessels from ANABAC and six from OPAGAC use these agreements30;

Kenya: According to the 2011 National Report to the IOTC, in 2010 the Kenyan authorities issued 34 vessel authorisations to tuna purse seine vessels, through agreements with individual companies or fishing associations. This included eight registered in Seychelles, 13 registered in Spain, nine from France and four from Mayotte. Corresponding figures for 2013, reported in the Kenya ex ante evaluation report31, are that as of October 2013 Kenya’s EEZ had been accessed by 36 foreign purse seine vessels from four different countries – Republic of Korea, Spain, Seychelles and France. In 2011 the Kenya authorities reported to the IOTC that, due to piracy, since 2007 Kenya has not received any requests for vessel authorisations by longline vessels. This information possibly contradicts an earlier report to the IOTC in 2009, when vessel authorisations for some longline vessels were claimed to have been issued in 200832, but the consultants have confirmed that at the present time there are no foreign longline vessel authorisations issued by Kenya33;

Madagascar: There are 11 agreements, including eight with individual companies and associations from France/Réunion, Spain, Seychelles, and Japan (six for fishing vessels and two for support vessels), and three with local companies. All agreements typically run for three years34;

Mauritius: has an agreement with the Federation of Japan fishery cooperative associations (signed in May 2007) for up to 50 longline vessels. And while the EU FPA Protocol is not in force, EU vessels are taking private fishing authorisations for 90 days subject to renewal35;

Mozambique: fishing authorisations are provided in 2013 for one longliner and two purse seine vessels from Korea, six purse seine vessels from Seychelles, and 16 longline vessels from Japan. Each vessel is allowed to catch a maximum of 300 t per year36;

Seychelles: purse seine vessels are reported in NFDS et al. (2013) as being from Iran, Korea, Mayotte and Thailand, and longline vessels from Tanzania. Other information suggests that

29 http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/ (accessed 7 October 2013). 30 http://transparentsea.co (accessed 7 October 2013). 31 Poseidon et al., 2014. 32 http://transparentsea.co/index.php?title=Kenya:Offshore_fisheries#cite_ref-1 (accessed 7 October 2013). 33 Fisheries Department, pers. comm., 6 October 2013. 34 www.transparentsea.co (accessed 7 October 2013), and Ministère de la Pêche et de Ressources Halieutiques, pers. comm., 23 September 2013. 35 Ministry of Agro Industry, Food Production and Security, Mauritius, pers. comm., 13 September 2013. 36 Administração Nacional das Pescas, pers. comm., 1 October 2013.

http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/

http://transparentsea.co/

http://transparentsea.co/index.php?title=Kenya:Offshore_fisheries#cite_ref-1

http://www.transparentsea.co/


Page 28



China, Japan, Philippines and Tanzania have longliners flagged by them that are authorised to fish in Seychelles, and that purse seiners from Korea and Mayotte are authorised37; and

Tanzania: EU and Seychelles-flagged purse seine vessels are provided fishing authorisations under private agreements with ANABAC and OPAGAC, and French vessels under individual private agreements pending signature of an agreement with Organisation de Producteurs de Thon Congelé (ORTHONGEL).

3.1.3 Bilateral intergovernmental agreements

These types of agreements are between two countries in the region, or between a WIO country and a government from a DWFN with vessels wishing to fish in a WIO country.

In terms of intra-regional agreements, Mauritius and Seychelles have bilateral cooperation in the form of two separate agreements that have been in operation for about 10 years and are automatically renewed every two years. The agreements enable reciprocal access to each other’s waters for 10 purse seine and 20 longline vessels, subject to vessel authorisation applications and appropriate fees being paid.

With respect to bilateral agreements between DWFN and WIO countries, other known examples are the agreements for longline vessels between Seychelles and Japan and Seychelles and Taiwan38. No other specific examples of bilateral intergovernmental agreements were reported to the consultants during the consultations completed during the preparation of this report.

3.1.4 Reflagging, chartering, joint ventures or similar arrangements between WIO states and foreign investors

A number of other mechanisms are available for owners of vessels to obtain access to the resources in WIO countries. Some examples include:

Oman: the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries provides a total allowable catch (TAC) for tuna to Omani-owned fishing companies. These companies neither have a fleet to catch the allocated quota nor the crew to carry out the fishing operations, and generally sell their quota to foreign Taiwanese and Korean longliners. They are able to do so without any involvement or intervention by the Ministry39;

Pakistan: there are possibilities for access through joint ventures or if foreign companies make sizeable investments in the Korangi fish harbour in Karachi, but there have been no foreign fishing authorisations issued to purse seine vessels since 2005 or longliners since 20084041;

Seychelles: seven purse seiners with European ownership interests and previously with EU Member State flags are now flagged in the Seychelles, and there are also a number of Asian-owned longliners flagged in Seychelles. These vessels apply for fishing authorisations in Seychelles under what is called a ‘private agreement’42; and

South Africa: there are on average 10-15 foreign-flagged Asian longline vessels operating in South Africa each year. These vessels are mainly from Japan, and are engaged in chartering agreements as provided by ICCAT Rec 02-21, with vessels targeting albacore, bigeye and

37 http://transparentsea.co/images/d/d3/List_of_licensed_fishing_vessels_Seychelles.pdf (accessed 7 October 2013). 38 NFDS et al., 2013. 39 Department of Marine Science and Fisheries, Sultan Qaboos University, pers. comm., 11 September 2013. 40 Taiwanese longliners were most active in the early 1990s in Pakistan’s waters, from 2005 fished each year for only a few months, and ceased operating in Pakistan’s waters from 2008 (WWF, 2012). 41 Fisheries Development Board, pers. comm., 13 September 2013. 42 NFDS et al., 2013.

http://transparentsea.co/images/d/d3/List_of_licensed_fishing_vessels_Seychelles.pdf


Page 29



yellowfin tuna. Under charter agreements, the vessels fishing for a South African rights holder are under the management of the South African fisheries authority43.

3.1.5 The specific case of Somalia

In Somalia, the lack of a functioning government in recent years due to the civil war has meant that there have been no formal governmental agreements with foreign vessels to fish in Somali waters (either government to government or government to private sector), although regions / semi-autonomous ‘states’ for example in Somaliland and Puntland, had some arrangements with foreign vessels in the mid-1990s, issued through fishing authorisation brokers in Dubai. It is likely that any foreign fishing activity, to the extent that it takes place given the piracy risks, does so on an IUU basis. The lack of a declared EEZ also makes the licensing situation complex both legally and practically. Some efforts, in part supported by FAO, have recently taken place to declare the EEZ and to establish a Fisheries Licensing Authority for Somalia following the creation of the Federal Government of Somalia in August 2012, but no such authority is yet in place. It should also be noted that Kenya and Somalia have a disputed maritime boundary, an issue that is reported on more fully in the Kenya ex ante evaluation report44.

3.1.6 The specific case of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)

On 1 April 2010 the BIOT Commissioner proclaimed a marine protected area (MPA) in BIOT. No further fishing authorisations have been issued since that date and the last fishing authorisations expired on 31 October 2010. From 1 November 2010 onwards all BIOT waters (to 200 nautical miles), including coastal and pelagic areas, became a no-take MPA to commercial fishing. Diego Garcia and its territorial waters are excluded from the MPA (the MPA exclusion zone) and include a recreational fishery. BIOT itself does not operate a flag registry and has no commercial tuna fleet or fishing port.

3.2 Costs of access

Obtaining information about the costs of access is problematic during a desk-based project (no field visits were made for the preparation of this report specifically to collect information on costs of access, with missions only made to Kenya and Tanzania to inform the ex ante evaluation reports), and there is understandable sensitivity around this data, specifically the fees paid under bilateral arrangements. There are however moves towards greater transparency of such information in the south of the WIO region, particularly in the context of information available from www.transparentsea.co, and as part of World Bank dialogue with countries. Comoros, Seychelles and Mozambique have already made such commitments and others are expected to follow45. There is not thought to be any recently published report summarising the costs of access in all individual countries in the WIO, although reports on access costs in other areas of the world, for example western central Pacific Ocean and west Africa, suggest that access costs (whether they be as part of bilateral government agreements, or agreements between private parties and governments selling access) may provide a rate of return to countries selling access of between 5-7 % of the sales value of the fish being caught46. It should also be noted that additional technical measures or conditions associated with different types of access makes a comparison of the costs of different types of access difficult.

43 Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2013b, and Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, pers. comm., 19 September 2013. 44 Poseidon et al., 2014. 45 World Bank, pers. comm., 12 September 2013. 46 Poseidon et al., 2013; Cofrepeche et al., 2013.



Page 30



For the WIO, some specific examples of costs of access that are available include those for the EU FPAs in the region as provided in Table 3.2. And for Seychelles, MRAG et al.47 provides data on access costs, see Table 3.3.

Table 3.2: costs of active EU fishing agreements in WIO (EUR)

Coastal State

EU contribution

per year

Earmarked for fisheries policy development

Annual fishing authorisation advance fee per vessel(purse

seine)

Annual fishing authorisation advance

fee per vessel (longline)

Comoros 615 250 300 000 10 600 6 300

Madagascar 1 525 000 550 000 14 400 10 500

Mozambique 980 000 460 000 14 600 7 200 (< 250 GT), 11 800 (> 250 GT)

Seychelles 5 600 000 2 240 000 61 000 9 000 (< 250 GT), 12 000 (> 250 GT)

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/ accessed 27 October 2013 Note: Costs per vessel based on EUR 100 per tonne, and reference tonnages (GT)

Table 3.3: summary of fishing agreements in force in the Seychelles (non-EU)

Country with agreement

Type of vessel

Cost for fishing authorisation

Taiwan Longline USD 24 000 / EUR 19 048 per year or USD 17 500 /

EUR 13 888 for six months and USD 5 500 / EUR 4 365 per month

Japan Longline USD 22 000 / EUR 17 460 per year or USD 14 500 /

EUR 11 508 for six months, and USD 4 000 / EUR 3 175 for each extra 30 days

Private agreement for non-Asian flagged vessels

Longline USD 24 000 / EUR 19 048 per year or USD 17 500 /

EUR 13 888 for six months, and USD 5 500 / EUR 4 365 per month

Private agreement for Seychelles flagged vessels

Purse seine

USD 90 000 / EUR 71 429 per year

Private agreement for non-Seychelles flagged vessels

Purse seine

USD 120 000 / EUR 95 238 per year

Source: Adapted from NFDS et al., 2013 Note: Original table compiled from Seychelles Fishing Authority information

Some other examples (which are selective and do not provide a complete picture of authorisation fees paid in the region) have been obtained by the consultants during the preparation of this report, and include:

47 MRAG et al., 2013

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/


Page 31



Comoros: Costs of access for purse seine vessels under the private agreement with ANABAC are USD 13 000/year (EUR 9 770 per year), and EUR 13 000 per year under the agreement with OPAGAC48;

Kenya: Previous/official fees for purse seine vessels are USD 50 000 (EUR 36 945) per year. However, due to lower demand created by the Somali piracy situation, since 2010 the Kenyan authorities have lowered the vessel authorisation fee to USD 30 000 (EUR 22 167) in an attempt to attract more fishing vessels49. The Fisheries Act allows for varying durations of fishing authorisation validity for longline vessels (noting that no longline vessel authorisations are currently issued) and thus varying costs of EUR 7 575 (USD 10 000) for one month EUR 15 151 (USD 20 000) for three months, and EUR 22 727 (USD 30 000) for 12 months.

Madagascar: For the private agreements with the government, payments by foreign companies are generally consistent across the agreements, and are based on vessel weight, with purse seine access fees per year ranging from USD 3 000 (EUR 2 243) for vessels of under 100 gross tonnes (GT) to USD 5 000 (EUR 3 739) for vessels over 1 500 GT, and fees for longliners ranging from USD 2 000 (EUR 1 496) for vessels of under 100 GT to USD 4 500 (EUR 3 365) for vessels over 1 500 GT. For national vessels payment is based on the power and the category of the vessel and fixed by law50;

Mozambique: Vessels are divided into different groups for fishing authorisation proposes, and pay different access fees. Costs for purse seine vessels are: (i) national with port base in Mozambique USD 15 000 (EUR 11 103) per year; (ii) national with port base abroad USD 28 000 (EUR 20 726) per year, (iii) foreign with port base in Mozambique USD 28 000 (EUR 20 726) per year, (iv) foreign with port base abroad USD 35 000 (EUR 25 908) per year. Costs for tuna longline vessels are: (i) national with port base in Mozambique USD 10 000 (EUR 7 402) per year; (ii) national with port base abroad USD 26 000 (EUR 19 246) per year, (iii) foreign with port base in Mozambique USD 26 000 (EUR 19 246) per year and (iv) foreign with port base abroad USD 32 000 (EUR 23 687) per year51;

Oman: Foreign vessels pay ship and crew fishing authorisation fees to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in the range of OMR 700 (EUR 1 355) and registration fees with the Ministry of Transportation of around OMR 1000 (EUR 1 937), with exact fees depending on the length of the vessel and the engine power. In addition, the foreign commercial fishing vessels pay a fee to Omani companies having the catch quota, equivalent to OMR 27 per tonne (EUR 52 per tonne)52;

Pakistan: While there are currently no foreign fishing authorisations, should such fishing authorisations be issued, tuna longliners and purse seiners up to 350 GT would pay a royalty of USD 5 000 (EUR 3 771) and an annual fishing authorisation fee of PKR 500 000 (EUR 3 571). Tuna longliners and purse seiners over 350 GT would pay a royalty of USD 10 000 (EUR 7 543) and an annual fishing authorisation fee of PKR 1 million (EUR 7 142)53;

48 http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/ (accessed 7 October 2013). 49 Breuil and Snijman l., 2012, and ANABAC, pers. comm., 9 October 2013. 50 www.transparentsea.co (accessed 7 October 2013), and Ministère de la Pêche et de Ressources Halieutiques, pers. comm., 23 September 2013. 51 Administração Nacional das Pescas, pers. comm., 1 October 2013. 52 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, pers. comm., 19 September 2013. 53 Fisheries Development Board, pers. comm., 13 September 2013.

http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/



Page 32



Seychelles/Mauritius: The two reciprocal agreements require fees to be paid of USD 6 000 (EUR 4 509) for an initial period of 90 days and USD 2 000 (EUR 1 503) for any additional 30 days or part thereof for access by longline vessels. For purse seine vessels Seychelles vessels fishing in Mauritius have to pay USD 5 000 (EUR 3 758) for each period of 90 days, while vessels from Mauritius fishing in Seychelles have to pay USD 17 500 (EUR 13 153) for each period of 90 days54;

Mauritius: EU purse seine vessels are currently (in the absence of a Protocol to an FPA) paying quarterly fishing authorisation fees of USD 8 400 (EUR 6 214)55;

Mayotte: Seychelles purse seine vessels are paying fishing authorisation fees of EUR 10 000, plus EUR 100 per tonne for catches above 100 tonnes56;

South Africa: Under the charter arrangements discussed above, vessels are required to have a foreign vessel fishing authorisation costing ZAR 14 372 (EUR 1 097) per year, and a catch permit costing ZAR 831 (EUR 63) per year issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries57. Costs to foreign vessels payable to local South African rights holders are not publicly available; and

Tanzania: EU purse seine vessels fishing in Tanzania pay USD 38 000 (EUR 28 111) per year58.

Table 3.4 below provides a summary of the access costs being charged by the countries for which data have been obtained, as presented above.

Table 3.4: summary table of current costs of access charged by selected WIO countries (EUR/year)

WIO country Costs of access (purse seine) Costs of access (longline)

Comoros 9 700 - 13 000 6 300

Kenya 22 167 N/A

Madagascar 2 243 - 14 400 1 496 - 10 500

Mauritius 15 032 - 24 856 18 036

Mayotte 10 000 N/A

Mozambique 11 103 - 25 908 7 200 - 23 687

Pakistan 7 342 - 14 685 7 342 - 14 685

Seychelles 52 612 - 95 238 9 000 - 19 048

Tanzania 28 111 N/A

Source: Consultants’ compilation based on data sources and information provided in text N/A = not available or not applicable

54 Ministry of Agro Industry, Food Production and Security, Mauritius, pers. comm., 13 September 2013. 55 ANABAC, pers. comm., 9 October 2013. 56 ANABAC, pers. comm., 9 October 2013. 57 Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, pers. comm., 19 September 2013. 58 ANABAC, pers. comm., 9 October 2013.


Page 33



4 The tuna fishery in the western Indian Ocean

4.1 WIO catches in the context of global tuna fisheries

Global catches of the main species caught by tuna fisheries59 in 2011 amounted to 4.6 million tonnes. Of these global catches, the whole Indian Ocean provided slightly less than 20 % over the last five years, after reaching a peak of 27 % in 2004, and is the second most important global area. Of the catches in the Indian Ocean, the WIO provided around 65 % in the recent years, from a high of 85 % in 2005.

Figure 4.1: global tuna catches 2000-2011 (in millions of tonnes)

Source: FAO FishStat J

IOTC maintains records of tuna and tuna-like catches for all fleets operating the Indian Ocean. When the fishing countries do not supply catches, the IOTC Secretariat estimates the catches for the missing components. This is particularly relevant for the Indian Ocean as it is thought to be unique amongst oceans in terms of the large percentage of the catch of tuna estimated to come from small-scale or artisanal fisheries, as opposed to industrial fisheries. Catches from artisanal fleets are difficult to estimate accurately, especially for countries with an extensive coastline, such as India and Indonesia.

Data from the last five complete years in the FAO databases, 2007-2011, show a predominance of yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the catches of the WIO (see Table 4.1), accounting for almost 90 % of the catches of the main five species. The large reductions in bigeye tuna and swordfish in the most recent years are a direct consequence of the piracy activities on the longline operations in the fishing grounds of Somalia (see section 4.10 for more discussion). Similarly, a disruption of the activities of the gillnet fleet in the Somali region might have caused the decline in the skipjack fishery. However, the decline during 2012-2013 of the piracy activities (see later discussion) might result in a rapid return to the traditional fishing grounds.

59 In this context, we consider catches of albacore, skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin and the various species of bluefin tuna.


Page 34



As shown in the following table, the fishery for yellowfin tuna in the WIO is important at the global level, accounting for almost 20 % of the global catches of the species, while other species represent less than 10 % of global catches.

Table 4.1: tuna catches from the WIO (2005-2011)

Species

Catches 2007-2011 (tonnes) Catches 2011 (tonnes) as %

of

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 WIO catch Global catch

Skipjack 326 766 295 931 287 436 275 583 236 970 43.9 % 9.1 %

Yellowfin 247 435 221 078 200 682 222 064 242 558 44.9 % 19.8 %

Bigeye 84 919 68 009 63 202 42 060 36 213 6.7 % 9.4 %

Albacore 23 554 20 122 15 318 15 335 14 564 2.7 % 6.2 %

Swordfish 18 919 13 814 12 674 11 102 9 469 1.8 % 8.6 %

Total 701 593 618 954 579 312 566 144 539 774 100.0 % -

Source: FAO FishStatJ

Table 4.2: tuna catches from the WIO (2011), by fleet segment and species, in tonnes

Country Skipjack Yellowfin Bigeye Albacore Swordfish Total

Purse seine 130 413 112 604 21 840 725 N/A 265 581

Longline N/A 19 007 18 702 13 569 9 782 61 060

Pole and line 60 791 11 927 634 73 352

Gillnet 21 884 38 870 428 883 62 065

Handline 15 898 63 304 435 240 229 80 107

Total 228 986 245 712 42 039 14 534 10 894 542 165

Source: IOTC, Nominal Catch Database Notes: The small differences in totals shown in this table and Table 4.1 above are due to the use of different databases as the source of data used in the two tables. Spatial plots of the location of catches of different species by different fleet types are provided in Annex L

4.2 The purse seine fishery

4.2.1 Evolution of the fleet

The purse seine fishery started in the early 1980s, initially with a small number of vessels from Japan and the former Soviet Union. It really took off with the introduction of the European fleet of Spanish and French vessels. During the 1990s, some Japanese purse seiners were operating in the WIO, but they left after a few years to fish in the eastern Indian Ocean, unloading in Phuket.

The fleet expanded particularly rapidly following the introduction of drifting FADs in the early 1990s, predominantly by the Spanish operators, as discussed in more detail in section 4.2.2 below.


Page 35



Table 4.3: breakdown of the number of purse seine vessels fishing in the WIO, recent years and at 2000 and 2005

Country / country grouping 2000 2005 2009 2010 2012

EU 32 36 31 21 24

France 15 16 16 8 10

Spain 17 20 15 13 14

France territories 5

Seychelles 6 11 9 9 7

Iran 3 8 8 8 7

Japan 2 1 2 1 1

Other flags 32 12 8 9 3

Grand total 75 68 58 48 44

Source: IOTC, Fishing Craft Statistics Database Note: The vessels in the France territories (Mayotte) will become EU vessels on 1 January 2014

The significant decline in Spanish and French purse seine vessels, primarily due to the piracy problem in the WIO (see section 4.10) can be seen in the table above. With respect to future fleet evolution, it is possible that around five French and five Spanish purse seine vessels that left the WIO to fish elsewhere could return if improvements in the piracy situation are maintained. It is also reported that there are four new vessels in the process of being built by French vessel owners; these vessels will replace older vessels and vessels that are no longer in service. One French-flagged vessel beneficially owned in Italy may be flagged in Italy in the future60. Two new vessels are also being built in Spain at the time of writing, and are expected to fish in the WIO once completed, in addition to the existing vessels operating in the region61. The possible/likely increase in French and Spanish vessels in the future is not in contravention with IOTC resolutions on fleet capacity given previous vessel numbers, provided that the total tonnage does not exceed that of the reference years 2006 (for tropical tunas) and 2007 (for albacore and swordfish).

Also of relevance with respect to the evolution of the EU fleet, is the change of status of Mayotte from 1 January 2014, meaning that the current fleet of five vessels flagged in Mayotte will become EU vessels.

4.2.2 Evolution of effort

Figure 4.2 below summarises the historic levels of purse seine effort by the major countries in WIO waters, and shows the decline in total effort over 2006 to 2010 due to piracy (see section 4.10). Fishing effort is measured by IOTC in searching hours; time spent in sets or drifting is deducted. The biggest boost to the purse-seine fishery came with the introduction of the fishery on floating objects, initially of natural origin, then increasingly man made (FADs).

60 ORTHONGEL, pers. comm., 9 October 2013. 61 OPAGAC, pers. comm., 7 October 2013.


Page 36



Figure 4.2: trends in effort (searching hours) for purse seine fleets in the WIO, 1980-2011

Source: IOTC, Catch-and-effort database Note: ESP = Spain; FRA = France (including overseas territories); JPN = Japan; KOR = Korea; MUS = Mauritius; NEI = not-elsewhere-identified; SYC = Seychelles

The increase in the use of FADs over time in the WIO means that reported fishing effort must be interpreted with care. The traditional measure of effort continues to be days at sea, days fishing or searching hours (as shown above), and that it is an adequate measure when most of the time fishing is spent searching for schools. During the FAD-fishing season, however, as FADs act as ‘traps’ for the fish, the efficiency of the vessels in catching fish relates more to the number of FADs deployed and the accuracy in estimating the quantity of fish under a particular FAD, than the searching time for schools. Fishing under floating objects, either natural logs or man-made FADs, takes advantage of the tendency of the fish to aggregate under such objects at times, and increases the efficiency of the fleet relative to the pursuit of free-swimming schools, as the proportion of successful sets is higher for the fishery on objects. The use of auxiliary or ‘supply’ vessels (in particular by the Spanish fleet) enhances this method by locating FADs with the highest expected catch, and this could be the reason for the large increase in the frequency of very large sets seen in the late 2000s.

Over the years frequent technological developments have resulted in increases in efficiency of effort. This is particularly true of technology associated with FADs. Recent FADs are equipped with satellite transmitters and echo-sounders that allow skippers to estimate of the quantity of fish under the FAD.

For free-swimming schools, improvements in electronic detection equipment (for example, side-scan sonar) have led to better rates of detection of the schools that show no surface activity.


Page 37



4.2.3 Purse seine catches by species

Purse seine catch is dominated by two species, as shown in the table below, with skipjack and yellowfin tuna representing 49 % and 42 % of total purse seine catches respectively in 2011. Bigeye tuna is the next most important species, representing 8 % of catches.

Table 4.4: purse seine catch (tonnes), by tropical tuna species, in WIO, 2011

Country Skipjack Yellowfin Bigeye Albacore Total Percent

EU 84 762 73 264 14 441 359 172 824 66.0 %

Spain 67 184 52 241 10 686 121 130 231 49.0 %

France 17 578 21 023 3 755 238 42 593 16.0 %

Seychelles 32 953 25 165 4 996 29 63 143 23.8 %

France – outer territories 10 828 13 170 2 039 338 26 375 9.9 %

Iran, Islamic Republic 1 336 876 105 2 317 0.9 %

Japan 533 88 259 880 0.3 %

India 1 41 42 0.0 %

Grand total 130 413 112 604 21 840 725 265 581 100%

49 % 42 % 8 % 0.3 % 100 % Source: IOTC, Nominal Catch Database

4.2.4 FAD and free school set dependencies

The average catches for the period 2007-2011 of the three main species caught in the purse seine fishery by the main three fleets are shown in Table 4.5, classified according to the set type. Currently, the data are not reported to IOTC with details about the sets on floating objects that would allow a separation between natural objects and man-made FADs. Virtually all FADs are drifting FADs. There have been some feasibility studies to set up anchored FADs in some of the WIO islands, but the only anchored FADs in operation remain those in Maldives, for the use of its domestic pole and line fishery.

Overall, there is a large dependency on the schools associated with floating objects, especially by fleets from Spain and Seychelles (for these vessels around 80 % of the catch comes from sets associated with floating objects). This is not surprising as the Seychelles-flagged vessels are operated by Spanish crew, and behave like the Spanish fleet. The French fleet has a lower, but significant, dependency on floating objects (65 % of the catch).

Fishing in association with floating objects is clearly the preferred way to catch skipjack tuna, as for the three main fleets around 90 % of the catch of skipjack comes from that set type. There are significant catches of yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna under floating objects, and the fish of these species caught under floating objects are primarily juveniles. Since 2010, a one-month time-area closure has been applied to the purse-seine fleet in an area between 60º east and the coast of Somalia, to reduce fishing pressure in general, but in particular on juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tuna.

The proportion of catch coming from floating objects fluctuates from year to year dependent on environmental conditions. In 2003-2006, due to the unusually large availability of free-swimming schools of large yellowfin tuna, the proportion of yellowfin in the catch exceeded 50 %, with the catch reaching record quantities.

In terms of spatial distribution, most of the catches on floating objects come from the Somali basin region, defined as the high seas waters off the Somali coast, peaking in July-November.


Page 38



Table 4.5: catch in tonnes by species and set type (average 2007-2011) for the three main purse seine fleets in the WIO

Species/Set type Spain France Seychelles

Yellowfin tuna

Free-swimming 17 071 19 433 8 324

Floating objects 25 887 14 876 13 393

Percent from floating 60 % 43 % 62 %

Skipjack tuna

Free-swimming 6 105 4 056 2 706



Bigeye tuna

Free-swimming 2 574 2 161 1 209



Total catch 121 720 73 399 62 600


Source: IOTC, Catch-and-Effort Database Note: France catches includes vessels from its Overseas Territories

4.3 The longline fishery


The longline fishery was the first distant-water fishery to develop in the Indian Ocean, and in the early 1950s vessels from Japan rapidly expanded their activities to cover the whole of the Indian Ocean. The Japanese operations were followed in 1967 by the introduction of the Taiwanese fleet and quickly followed by the Korean fleet. During the early 1970s the Korean fleet was catching important quantities of bigeye tuna.

In the late 1970s Taiwanese vessels, shortly followed by Japanese vessels, developed a deep longline operation to target bigeye tuna, by increasing the number of hooks between floats, and switching the setting of the line to the deeper waters that are the preferred habitat of bigeye tuna.

In the early 1990s, the introduction of monofilament line represented another evolution in the fishery with lighter, stronger lines. The Taiwanese fleet combined this with different practices (such as setting at night-time) to increase its targeting on swordfish, especially in the southwest Indian Ocean.

The 1990s saw the development of a large fleet of smaller longliners (usually referred to as fresh-tuna longliners), built with wooden or fibreglass hulls, around 25 m in length and operating mainly from Indonesian ports, initially only seasonally in the Indian Ocean and then all year long. In contrast to the deep-freezing large-scale tuna longliners (Table 4.6) that can stay at sea for up to six months, the fresh-tuna longline fleet does not have the same deep-freezing capabilities and operates for around a month. By the mid-2000s a number of these vessels had left the EIO, moving west to the WIO as catch rates fell in the EIO. As they moved they shifted targeting from bigeye tuna to a more varied catch, including albacore and possibly sharks.

The Spanish surface longline fleet targeting swordfish in the Indian Ocean began it s activity in September 1993, with five vessels conducting some exploratory fishing in the SWIO. Commercial operations started in 1995 and continued with a small number of vessels until early 2000s (19 in


Page 39



2003, 24 in 2004). The fleet continued to expand its operations towards the east in the following years, following concerns over declining catch rates in the SWIO, and later over piracy.

Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 show recent estimates by IOTC of the number of longliners operating in different types of fisheries. For some countries (for example, Japan) these numbers will be considerably lower than the vessels that Japan identifies as authorised to fish in the Indian Ocean. It should be noted that the database does not allow identif ication of the area of operation, and that large-scale vessels in particular might change areas of operation depending on the catch rates or other factors (for example, the threat of piracy). Therefore, it is not possible to identify the exact area of operation of the vessels, for example in the WIO as opposed to the EIO. The fleets known to be primarily targeting swordfish, listed separately in Table 4.6, have operated primarily in the WIO, although the most recent areas being exploited also extend into the EIO. However, other fleets, such as the Taiwanese fleet, may also be targeting swordfish. In the absence of access to logbook information, it is not possible to identify how many boats are operating in the WIO.

Similarly, the smaller, fresh-tuna longline fleet identified in Table 4.7 contains vessels that might be operating in both the EIO and the WIO, in particular, those flagged in Indonesia. The fact that none of these fleets reports catch-and-effort data makes it very difficult to determine levels of effort in each side of the Indian Ocean.


Page 40



Table 4.6: breakdown of the number of large-scale, deep-freezing longline vessels fishing in the Indian Ocean, recent years

Fleets 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

Taiwan 272 289 300 341 154 138

Japan 197 219 191 184 85 98

NEI 58 81 65 39 9 18

Korea 77 52 38 28 13 7

Belize 92 4 1 8

China 8 41 15 32

Seychelles 6 26 26 28

Indonesia 15 30 36

India 1 6 3 24 29 2

Philippines 17 25 7 14

Oman 3 14 11 9

Others 3 7 26 11 8 2

EU 1 13 29 21 25

Spain* 1 6 12 13 19

Portugal* 7 15 4 3

UK* 2 4 3

South Africa* 3 2 15 10

NEI* 12 6

Tanzania* 3 2 8

Mauritius* 3 3 2 1

Madagascar* 2 3 4

Guinea* 3 3

Kenya* 1 1

Senegal* 1

France – outer territories *

1

Grand total 608 653 768 809 441 440

Source: IOTC, Fishing Craft Statistics Database, 2013 Notes: In 2013 Spain reported 20 longline vessels. Fleets marked * have been identified as targeting swordfish, when reported to the IOTC Record of Active Vessels, and they are likely to operate primarily in the WIO. Other fleets contain vessels that can operate in the WIO and the EIO. The number of vessels actually operating in each area of the Indian Ocean cannot be identified with the data available


Page 41



Table 4.7: breakdown of the number of smaller-scale, fresh-tuna longline vessels fishing in the Indian Ocean, recent years

Fleets 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

Indonesia 132 396 1 247 1 373 965 1 242

Taiwan 615 508 227 311 387 232

EU – France Réunion 13 25 33 29 28

China 12 90 26 5 4

Sri Lanka 36 82

Oman 2 11 41 31

Malaysia 18 38 5

India 19 24 18

Seychelles 4 4 1

Belize 5 8 6 12

Others 3 3 0 3 4 8

Grand total 750 942 1 596 1 806 1 539 1 653

Source: IOTC, Fishing Craft Statistics Database, 2013 Note: There is no information available to identify the number of vessels operating in the EIO or the WIO

Mozambique has recently placed an order for new vessels with a French shipyard. The order comprises six patrol vessels and 24 fishing vessels. Although initial reports indicate that the order is for 24 trawlers (chalutiers), the vessels will be fitted as longliners with the first vessels arriving in January62. The vessels are based on a coastal trawler design of the shipyard (CNM 23.5), they are 23.5 m long overall with a crew of eight, and an autonomy of 10 days. This reduced autonomy means that the vessels may have to operate from foreign ports during part of the year, which if confirmed, will limit their profitability. The funds for the construction of the vessels will originate from a USD 500 million (EUR 371 million) bond guaranteed by the Mozambican government by the newly created fisheries company Ematum that includes public and private interests.

There are also 100 vessels under construction for Comoros, financed by Qatari interests, and being built in Sri Lanka. Few details have emerged about the nature of the vessels involved, but they are likely to be similar to the wooden-hulled multi-day vessels from Sri Lanka and operating longline gear.

Seychelles also has about 20 new longliners under construction in Taiwan. These are assumed to be small-scale vessels.

In all cases, the new additions are within the Fleet Development Plans presented by the countries involved to IOTC.


The evolution of fishing effort reported for the WIO shows the dominance of the fleet from Taiwan since the mid 1980s, see Figure 4.3. The total amount of effort also fluctuates between years to the extent that suggests movement of the fleet between oceans. For example, the peak in 1993 in Taiwanese effort is associated with very high catches over a short period in the northern Arabian Sea, possibly attracting vessels from other oceans as well. On the contrary, the decline in overall effort since the beginning of 2000s can be traced to a combination of factors, including declines in catch rates and piracy threat in recent years. There is no data on the small fresh-tuna longline from Taiwan, as this fishery does report catch-and-effort data and, therefore, it is not possible to identify

62 Ministerio das Pescas, pers. comm., 27 October 2013


Page 42



areas of operation, and the exact amount of effort from the small vessels in the WIO.

Another element to consider is that longline vessels change target species if catch rates are better, or in response to external factors such as piracy, changing areas of operation. This has to be kept in mind in particular when evaluating the effectiveness of the limitation of fishing capacity measures in IOTC. Although countries are supposed to limit the tonnage of vessels targeting tropical tunas or swordfish and albacore, vessels can (and do) actually change targeting very easily, limiting the effectiveness of any capacity limitations.

Figure 4.3: fishing effort, in million of hooks, for selected longline fleets operating in the Indian Ocean

Source: Estimated on the basis of IOTC, Catch-and-effort Database Note: CHN = People’s Republic of China; ESP = Spain; JPN = Japan; KOR = Republic of Korea; SYC = Seychelles; TWN = Taiwan/China

A number of coastal States have initiated the development of their fleets and, in most cases, these are longline fleets, while for traditional fleets total effort has declined in recent years. This could be due to the threat of piracy, and this needs to be resolved before it will be possible to predict long-term trends in the evolution of the fleet. Nevertheless, the trend does seem to be towards the ‘domestication’ of the longline fleet, with more coastal State participation, in many cases based on small-scale longliners. It remains to be seen how many of these fleets will be able to operate at a profit.

4.3.3 Longline catches, by species

Catches of different species by the longline fleet are concentrated on albacore, bigeye and yellowfin tuna and swordfish. However, different fleets display marked differences in catch composition.

The main fleets of Taiwan/China and Seychelles (the latter beneficially owned by Taiwanese interests) continue to target bigeye tuna, in spite of not having access to the main bigeye fishing grounds in the


Page 43



tropical region because of the piracy threat. In 2012, Taiwanese longliners, following a decline in the frequency of attacks and after incorporating on-board security personnel, are returning to the traditional fishing grounds63. As these are primarily tropical areas with a much higher abundance of bigeye tuna, this return to traditional areas should result in an increase in the catches of bigeye tuna and a possible decrease of the catch of albacore tuna, which are not present in the tropical fishing grounds.

The Japanese fleet has continued to target yellowfin tuna on the fishing grounds in the northern Mozambique Channel, while the Spanish, UK and Portuguese fleet has been targeting swordfish and sharks64. Omani-flagged vessels, operating in the northern Arabian Sea, are also targeting yellowfin tuna.

A number of other fleets target albacore, in particular the smaller longliners as evident from the catches of the NEI-fresh tuna component of the fleet (see Table 4.8).

63 Although as noted in the Kenya ex ante evaluation report (Poseidon et al., 2014), no foreign longline vessels are authorised to fish in the Kenyan EEZ, although may now be doing so. 64 ORPAGU and Asociacion Armadores Buques De Pesca De Marin , pers. comm., 8 October 2013.


Page 44



Table 4.8: longline catches in 2011 in the WIO, in tonnes

Country Albacore Bigeye Yellowfin Swordfish Total

Taiwan/China 6 813 10 444 4 986 1 522 23 765

Japan 1 374 792 4 364 315 6 846

Seychelles 145 3 832 1 230 503 5 710

Oman 4 771 1 4 772

EU 470 590 398 4 997 6 475

Spain 45 188 91 3 064 3 388

Portugal 8 79 14 694 795

United Kingdom 1 3 7 228 239

France (Réunion) 416 320 286 1 031 2 053

India 113 1 409 1 269 381 3 172

NEI – fresh tuna 2 300 86 679 44 3 109

NEI – deep-freezing 217 998 291 119 1 625

China 925 174 183 138 1 421

Tanzania 312 44 71 880 1 308

South Africa 39 219 188 400 846

Thailand 263 170 94 81 608

Korea, Republic of 341 155 77 16 589

Madagascar 61 67 61 87 276

Mozambique 31 4 6 216 258

Belize 148 9 11 2 169

Mauritius 16 14 23 60 113

Total 13 569 19 007 18 702 9 782 61 060

% by species 22.2 % 31.1 % 30 6% 16.0 %

Source: IOTC, Nominal Catch Database Notes: NEI = Not-elsewhere-identified, indicates catches that cannot be assigned to a particular flag; data are not provided for catches of sharks, which are a targeted fishery by some fleets

4.4 The pole and line fishery


The pole-and-line fishery is the most traditional of all fisheries in the Indian Ocean, originating in the 12th century. The main fishing country is Maldives, although there is also a fishing fleet in western India, in Lakshadweep, which operates in a similar way to the Maldivian fishery, although it is not well documented. These are the only commercially viable pole-and-line fisheries in the western Indian Ocean, due to the lack of bait resources in most of the Indian Ocean. In the early 1980s, two Spanish vessels conducted trials, but they were not commercially successful.

The fishery in Maldives has been evolving continuously, in particular in recent years. In the period 1975-1985 most of the vessels were mechanised (Figure 4.4) and the evolution has continued to larger and better-equipped vessels. Currently, many of the vessels are above 24 metres in length, and carry have electronic equipment, for example bird radars to detect birds associated with tuna schools. Traditionally, the vessels made one-day trips. The increase in size and on-board facilities have allowed vessels to stay at the fishing grounds for several days, although day trips remain the norm for cultural reasons. The pole-and-line fleet in the Maldives, despite technological developments, remains an


Page 45



artisanal one however, with close to 1 000 vessels65. Vessels also work with collector vessels that receive fish at several points in the atolls and facilitate transport to processing plants.

Figure 4.4: trends in the number of mechanised and non-mechanised pole-and-line vessels operating in the Maldivian fishery

Source: IOTC, Fishing Craft Statistics Database


Fishing effort in the Maldives has declined dramatically in recent years, in part due to difficulties in obtaining crew given economic development in the country. However, the primary reason is the shift in fishing effort by many fishing vessels from pole-and-line fishing to handline fishing for higher value yellowfin tuna (see section 4.6).

65 Typically wooden or fibreglass vessels.


Page 46



Figure 4.5: trends in the effort of pole-and-line vessels operating in the Maldivian and Indian fisheries

Source: IOTC, Catch-and-Effort Database Note: IND = India (no effort reported after 1990); MDV = Maldives (no effort officially reported to IOTC between 1993 and 2004)

4.4.3 Pole-and-line catches, by species

Although it has been traditionally a skipjack fishery, in recent years the increasing demand for yellowfin tuna has caused a shift in the effort of the Maldivian dhonis towards handline operations targeting yellowfin (see section 4.6). As a result, the proportion of yellowfin in the total catch of Maldives has grown from 14 % in 2005 to 46 % in 2012. However, skipjack is still a very important part of the catch composition for the pole-and-line fleet as shown below.

Table 4.9: pole-and-line catch of key species, by flag, in tonnes (2011)

Country Skipjack Yellowfin Bigeye Total

India 8 302 2 911 n/a 11 213

Maldives 52 489 9 016 634 62 139

Total 60 791 11 927 634 73 352

% species 82.9 % 16.3 % 0.9 %

Source: IOTC, Nominal Catch Database

Maldivian data sources suggest that in 2012 the Maldivian pole-and-line fleet produced 71 411 tonnes of tuna (51 134 t of skipjack, 10 896 t of yellowfin) 7 873 tonnes of ‘other fish’, and small quantities of dogtooth, little and frigate tuna66.

In addition, to catches made by pole and line in India, it should be noted that a small pole-and-line fishery exists in South Africa (based primarily out of Hout Bay, near Cape Town) with catches of around 3 000 t per year of albacore and around 500-1 000 t of yellowfin. The tuna pole-and-line fishery in South Africa targets schooling juvenile albacore in the southeast Atlantic (rather than the WIO).

66 Fisheries Management Agency, 2013


Page 47



However, yellowfin catches in the warmer waters of the WIO off the east of South Africa have been increasingly targeted in recent years with rod and reel67.

4.5 The gillnet fishery


Gillnet fisheries have been traditional in the northern Arabian Sea, with catches predominantly of yellowfin tuna, utilising traditional wooden-hull vessels (known in the region as dhows). The particular environmental conditions of the northern Arabian Sea bring large yellowfin tuna close to the surface and fishermen from Pakistan, India, Oman, and especially Iran have taken advantage of this seasonal fishery. Trips were historically necessarily short in this fishery as the vessels were not carrying ice.

In the early 2000s, Iranian vessels began to be retrofitted with ice-making equipment and began making longer trips, expanding their range of operations to the Somali region and beyond. In 2010, Iranian vessels were detained for fishing illegally as far away as Seychelles and Mozambique. The fleet is based in southern Iranian ports, mainly Chabahar, but there is frequent exchange of vessels with the Pakistani fleet based in Baluchistan. In fact, many Iranian vessels have Pakistani crew and dual registration in Iran and Pakistan. The continued expansion of this fleet was hampered by the increase in pirate activities, as gillnet vessels became a frequent target of piracy and victims of frequent hijackings.

The Sri Lanka fleet, based in the EIO, is different in that its fishing operations have combined both gillnet and longline gears for many years, although more recently many operations have turned into longline-based operations. However, there is no documentation of the specific timeline of that evolution, and apparently they have ceased operations in the WIO with gillnet gear.

Figure 4.6 below shows the evolution of vessel numbers, by country, over the last 30 years. All Iranian and Pakistani vessels can be assumed to be fishing in the WIO, while Sri Lankan vessels fish predominantly in the EIO, but also sometimes in the WIO (the spatial distribution of the fleets is not well understood as these fleets do not report catch-and-effort information that is spatially disaggregated.

67 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2013.


Page 48



Figure 4.6: evolution of the gillnet fisheries of Iran and Pakistan, and the gillnet/longline fishery of Sri Lanka

Source: IOTC, Fishing Craft Statistics Database Note: Information about the number of gillnetters from India is not available

4.5.2 Catches, by species

As indicated in the previous section, the evolution of catch by species has been marked by the changes in the range of operations of the fleet. Recent catches indicate a predominance of yellowfin tuna in the catch, especially for the Iran-Pakistan fleet. In the absence of information on the spatial distribution of the fleets (as noted above, none of these fleets have reported catch-and-effort information spatially disaggregated), this is assumed to be a result of the piracy operations pushing the gillnet fleet back towards the northern Arabia Sea.

It is necessary to look at the history of the catch by species to see the effects of the movement of the Iranian fleet (taken as a representative example) on the species composition of the catch (Figure 4.7). Following the southern expansion of the fleets, the percentage of skipjack increased to reach a record value in 2006, only to decline rapidly in the subsequent years.


Page 49



Table 4.10: gillnet catch of key species, by flag and EEZ, in tonnes (2011)

Country Bigeye Yellowfin Swordfish Skipjack Total

Iran, Islamic Republic 420 27 227 258 16 137 44 042

Pakistan 7 350 552 5 350 13 252

India 1 427 73 181 1 681

Oman 1 400 22 1 422

Tanzania 1 243 121 1 364

Kenya 76 37 113

Comoros 8 69 4 81

Djibouti 70 7 78

Jordan 7 25 32

Total 428 38 870 883 21 884 62 065

% species 1 % 63 % 1 % 35 %


Figure 4.7: trends in the catch, by species, caught by the Iranian fishery


4.6 The handline fishery


Handline fisheries are predominantly artisanal and, therefore, are not well documented, with an uneven level of reporting. However, there are isolated fisheries that are known to contribute important catches of some of the key target species.

Yemen has a large fleet of over 2 000 small mechanised boats, organised in cooperatives, that fish seasonally from various landing sites along the coast. In years where environmental conditions are


Page 50



favourable, yellowfin is available along the coast very close to shore and become an important target for this artisanal fleet. IOTC has estimated catches of 25 000-30 000 tonnes annually for 2000-2005.

Another important fishery is the Maldivian handline fishery, operating on the basis of the same dhoni vessels that are the basis for the pole-and-line fishery, in response to the better prices for handline-caught yellowfin and the expansion of processing operations for export. It is estimated that there are now around 300 dhonis in Maldives, targeting yellowfin using handline operations.

4.6.2 Catches, by species

Handline fisheries are not well documented historically and it is therefore difficult to fully understand trends in catches by species. Apart from the cases of Maldives and Yemen discussed previously, there is great uncertainty about catches by India and it is possible that the figures listed in the Table 4.11 represent only a fraction of the actual catches.

In Comoros, a traditional fishery has benefitted from the proximity of deep waters due to the narrow continental shelf, making it easier for the artisanal fishery to access pelagic resources.

Table 4.11: handline catch of key species, by flag and EEZ, in tonnes (2011)

Country Albacore Bigeye Yellowfin Swordfish Skipjack Total

Maldives 25 925 5 183 31 108

Yemen 25 126 51 25 176

India 217 8 538 6 603 15 357

Comoros 28 190 1 617 228 2 716 4 779

Madagascar 27 675 834 1 536

France OT 308 477 785

Oman 548 548

Mauritius 158 2 165 2 22 349

Iran, Islamic Republic 277 277

EU-France(Reunion) 9 64 73

South Africa 46 5 51

Kenya 25 12 37

Tanzania 29 29

Total 240 435 63 304 229 15 898 80 107

% by species 0.3 % 0.5 % 79.0 % 0.3 % 19.8 %



Page 51



4.7 Status of target and bycatch fish stocks caught by tuna fisheries

4.7.1 Target species status

Table 4.12: summary table of catches, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and stock status for key target species

Species Recent average

catch

MSY in tonnes

Summary

Albacore Thunnus alalunga

41 600 (2007-2011)

33 300 Stock status is not overfished (5 % above optimum) but subject to overfishing (33 % above MSY level) and close to limit reference point. Affected by the displacement caused by piracy

Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus

107 600 (2008-2012)

132 000 Not overfished (44 % above optimum) and not subject to overfishing (58 % below target level). The tropical longline fishery was displaced by piracy but was returning by 2012

Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis

400 980 (2008-2012)

478 000 Not overfished (20 % above optimum) and not subject to overfishing (20 % below target level). Recent catch declines due to less fishing effort and lower catch rates

Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares

317 505 (2008-2012)

344 000

Not overfished (24 % above optimum) and not subject to overfishing (30 % below target level). Reductions in fishing effort, especially in longline effort, might reverse if the piracy threat continues to decline.

Swordfish (whole IO) Xiphias gladius

21 900 (2007-2011)

29 900

Not overfished (7-60 % above optimum) and not subject to overfishing (50-63 % of target level).

Source: Consultants’ compilation based on the status summary in the report of the 15th IOTC Scientific Committee (IOTC, 2012) and the report of the Working Party in Tropical Tunas, 2013

Notes: Maximum sustainable yield is the largest average yield (catch) that can theoretically be taken from a species’ stock over an indefinite period under constant environmental conditions. Overfishing is defined as occurring when the fishing intensity is higher than the one that produces MSY, while a stock is defined as being overfished when its total biomass is less that the biomass that produces MSY. Therefore catches/yield may be above MSY and still not being overfished if the biomass is sufficiently larger that the optimum biomass

The status of the main stocks exploited in the WIO (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas) is monitored by the Scientific Committee and Working Parties of the IOTC. The following text summarises the latest scientific advice produced, as presented in the table above (Table 4.12). Additional information on the biology of species, and the detailed Kobe plots68 are provided in Annex K.

4.7.2 Skipjack tuna

There is only a low risk of exceeding MSY-based provisional target and limit reference points by 2020 if catches are maintained at the current levels, and even if catches are maintained below the 2005-2010 average (500 000 t). Given the current MSY estimate and recent average catch, the stock appears to be in no immediate threat of breaching target and limit reference points. The recent declines in catches are thought to be caused by a recent decrease in purse seine effort as well as due to a decline in catch rate of large skipjack tuna in the surface fisheries. Recent declines of pole-and-line catch and catch rates may be due to the combined effects of the fishery and environmental factors affecting recruitment or catchability. Therefore, this stock situation should be closely monitored.

68 Kobe plots are a specific type of graph, designed to facilitate the perception of the status of the stock and the fishing intensity that the stock is being subject to, relative to target and reference points. More details are provided in Annex K.


Page 52



4.7.3 Yellowfin tuna

The results from stock assessment suggests that the stock is currently not overfished, although it is possible that the target reference points may have been exceeded during the period of high catches in the mid 2000s (2003-2006).

The decrease in longline and purse seine effort in recent years has substantially lowered the pressure on the Indian Ocean stock as a whole, indicating that current fishing mortality has not exceeded the MSY-related levels in recent years. If the piracy situation in the western Indian Ocean were to continue to improve, a rapid reversal in fleet activity in this region may lead to an increase in effort, which the stock might not be able to sustain, as catches would then be likely to exceed MSY levels. Catches in 2010 (299 000 t) are within the lower range of MSY values. The current assessment indicates that catches at about the 2010 level are sustainable, at least in the short term. However, the stock is unlikely to support substantively higher yields based on the estimated levels of recruitment over the last 15 years.

4.7.4 Bigeye tuna

The recent declines in longline effort, particularly from the Japanese, Taiwanese, Chinese and Republic of Korea longline fleets, as well as purse seine effort, have lowered the pressure on the Indian Ocean bigeye tuna stock, indicating that current fishing mortality would not reduce the population to an overfished state in the near future. In 2012 catches increased markedly (24 % over 2011 values), marking the return to the traditional fishing grounds. Projections from the 2011 assessment suggest there is a relatively low risk of exceeding MSY-based reference points by 2020 both when considering current catches or even if catches increased to around 100 000 t. If the recent declines in effort continue, and catch remains substantially below the estimated MSY of 132 000 t, immediate management measures are not required. However, continued monitoring and improvement in data collection, reporting and analysis is required to reduce the uncertainty in assessments.

4.7.5 Albacore tuna

Trends in the catch rates of Taiwan/China suggest that the longline vulnerable biomass has declined to about 29 % of the level observed in 1950. There were 20 years of moderate fishing before 1980, and the catch has more than doubled since 1980. Catches have increased substantially since 2007. This is attributed to the Indonesian fishery although there is substantial uncertainty remaining on the catch estimates. It is considered that recent catches have been well above the MSY level, and recent fishing mortality is 33 % above the optimum level, and approaching the interim limit reference point. Spawning biomass is considered to be at or very near to the optimum level. The IOTC Scientific Committee has recommended that the fishing mortality needs to be reduced by at least 20 % to ensure that spawning biomass is maintained at MSY levels. Maintaining or increasing effort in the core albacore fishing grounds is likely to result in further declines in albacore biomass, productivity and catch rates.

4.7.6 Swordfish

All analyses suggest that the stock is above, but close to a biomass level that would produce MSY and current catches are below the MSY level. MSY-based reference points are not exceeded for the Indian Ocean population as a whole. The decrease in longline catch and effort in recent years has lowered the pressure on the Indian Ocean stock as a whole, indicating that current fishing mortality would not reduce the population to an overfished state. There is a low risk of exceeding MSY-based reference points by 2019 if catches reduce further or are maintained at current levels until 2019.

4.7.7 Status of bycatch species

With the possible exception of pole-and-line fisheries, all major tuna-directed fisheries have some form of non-target bycatch (for example excluding the tuna and other target species discussed above). Some of this bycatch may be retained whilst much of it is discarded. In this section we briefly describe


Page 53



the bycatch characteristics of the main tuna fisheries and then evaluate the status of the key bycatch species involved. It should also be noted that for the purpose of this text we categorise shark as a ‘bycatch’ species, as they are for most fleets. However, it is known that some selected fleets actually switch between targeting swordfish and shark at different times of the year, and for such fleets sharks are a target species69.

Table 4.13: key bycatch fish species from the main WIO tuna and tuna-like fisheries

Gear type Key bycatch species Catch rate estimates (and fate)

Information source(s)

Longline Blue shark; swordfish; sailfish, pomfret and escolar

14.90 % Huang and Liu (2010), from 77 observer trips in Taiwanese fleet in 2004-2008

Sharks (primarily blue shark)

17-29 % (6.7 % for blue shark)

Bach et al. (2012), from observer and self-report, for period 2009-2011, Réunion Island fleet

Mejuto et al. (2006), Spanish fleet

Purse seine Sharks 0.15 %(FSC); 0.54 % (FAD) Amande et al. (2012), for period 2003-2009, from observer data Bony fish 0.36 %(FSC); 2.06 % (FAD)

Billfish 0.07 % (FSC); 0.12 % (FAD)

Rays 0.04 %(FSC); 0.02 % (FAD)

Turtles < 0.01 %(FSC); < 0.01 %(FAD)]

Discards of target species

1.08 % (FSC); 6.58 % (FAD)

Gillnet Sharks 3.20 % Shahifar (2011), from logbook data from Iranian fleet, probably underestimated Sailfish 3.70 %

Dolphinfish 2.40 %

Other 2.10 %

Discards of target species (tuna)

1.40 %

Source: Consultants’ compilation based on information sources provided in the table Notes: FSC = free school, FAD = fish aggregating device

A brief description of the status of these species is provided below, with information about species biology provided in Annex K. It should be noted that there is still insufficient data provided to develop any precise assessment of the status of most of the species. Catch reporting by species is partial and the catches for several of the species are underestimated by a large margin. In certain fisheries, species are reported aggregated or probably not reported. This is particularly so for bycatch species that are caught in artisanal fisheries.

69 Spanish administration and longline vessel associations, pers. comm., 7-9 October 2013.


Page 54



4.7.7.1 Sharks

There is little information on the fisheries prior to the early 1970s. Some countries continue not to collect shark data while others do collect data but do not report data to IOTC. It appears that substantial catches of sharks have gone unrecorded in several countries. Furthermore, many catch records probably under-represent the actual catches of sharks because they do not account for discards (i.e. do not record catches of sharks from which only the fins are kept, or of sharks usually discarded because of their size or condition) or they reflect dressed weights instead of live weights. FAO also compiles landings data on elasmobranchs, but the statistics are limited by the lack of species-specific data and data from the major fleets.

The practice of shark finning is considered to be regularly occurring and on the increase for this species by some fleets70. The bycatch/release injury rate is unknown, but is probably high.

Silky sharks

Silky sharks are often targeted by some semi-industrial, artisanal and recreational fisheries and are a bycatch of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and the purse seine fishery). Sri Lanka has had a large fishery for silky shark for more than 40 years.

Maldivian shark fishermen report significant declines in silky shark abundance over the past 20 years71. In addition, Indian longline research surveys, in which silky sharks contributed 7 % of catch, demonstrate declining catch rates over the period 1984-200672. No long-term data for purse seine catch per unit effort (CPUE) are available. However, there is anecdotal evidence of a five-fold decrease of silky shark catches per set between the 1980s and 2005.

4.7.7.2 Blue shark

Blue sharks are often targeted by some semi-industrial and artisanal fisheries and are a bycatch of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and anecdotally in the purse seine fishery). However, in recent years longliners have been targeting this species due to an increase in its commercial value worldwide. The blue shark appears to have a similar distribution to swordfish. Typically, the fisheries take blue sharks of between 180 and 240 cm fork length, or 30 kg to 52 kg. Males are slightly smaller than females. In other oceans, angling clubs are known to organise shark-fishing competitions where blue sharks and mako sharks are targeted. Sport fisheries for oceanic sharks are apparently not as common in the Indian Ocean.

Preliminary estimations of at-haulback73 mortality showed that 24.7 % of the blue shark specimens captured in longline fisheries targeting swordfish are captured dead at time of haulback. Specimen size seems to be a significant factor, with larger specimens having a higher survival at-haulback74.

There are no surveys specifically designed to assess shark catch rates in the Indian Ocean. Trends in localised areas might be possible in the future (for example, from the Kenyan recreational fishery). Historical research data shows overall decline in CPUE while mean weight of blue shark in this time series are relatively stable75.

70 Clarke et al. 2006; Clarke 2008. 71 Anderson, 2009. 72 John and Varghese, 2009. 73 At-haul mortality refers to the proportion of fish that are dead when they are first retrieved on board, meaning that they cannot be returned live to sea. 74 Coelho et al., 2011. 75 Romanov, 2008.


Page 55



Trends in the Japanese CPUE series suggest that the longline vulnerable biomass was more or less stable in 2000-2006 and subsequently increased to higher levels for the period 2007-1176. The standardised CPUE of blue shark catches by the Portuguese longline fleet in the Indian Ocean shows little variability between 1999 and 201177.

4.7.7.3 Oceanic whitetip shark

Oceanic whitetip sharks are targeted by some semi-industrial and artisanal fisheries and are a bycatch of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and purse seine fishery).

At-haulback mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Atlantic ocean longline fishery targeting swordfish was recently estimated to be 30.6 %78.

Historical research data shows overall decline in catch rates and mean weight of oceanic whitetip shark79. Anecdotal reports suggest that oceanic white tips have become rare throughout much of the Indian Ocean during the past 20 years. Indian longline research surveys reported zero catches from the Arabia Sea in 2004-200980.

Trends in the Japanese standardised catch rate series (2003-2011) suggest that the biomass available to the longline fishery has decreased81. Early catch rate data (2000-2002) were considered not reliable due to data quality problems.

Trends in the Spanish standardised catch rate series (1998-2011) suggest that the longline vulnerable biomass declined until 2007 and has been variable and without a discernible trend since82.

4.7.7.4 Scalloped hammerhead shark

Scalloped hammerhead sharks are often targeted by some semi-industrial, artisanal and recreational fisheries and are a bycatch of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and purse seine fishery).

Detailed catch data are not available at the IOTC Secretariat. However, Indian longline research surveys, in which scalloped hammerhead sharks contributed up to 6 % of regional catch, showed declining catch rates in the period 1984-200683. The catch rate in South African protective nets shows a steady decline from 1978.

4.7.7.5 Shortfin mako shark

Shortfin mako sharks are often targeted by some semi-industrial, artisanal and recreational fisheries and are a bycatch of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and anecdotally by the purse seine fishery). In other oceans, due to its energetic displays and edibility, the shortfin mako shark is considered one of the great gamefish of the world.

Historical research data shows overall decline in catch rates and mean weight of mako sharks84. Catch rates in South African protection nets are fluctuating without any trend85. The catch rates of shortfin mako caught by the Portuguese longline fleet in the Indian Ocean showed some significant variability in

76 Hiraoka and Yokawa, 2012. 77 Coelho et al., 2012. 78 Coelho et al., 2011. 79 Romanov, 2008. 80 John and Varghese, 2009. 81 Yokawa and Semba, 2012. 82 Ramos-Cartelle et al., 2012. 83 John and Varghese, 2009. 84 Romanov, 2008. 85 Holmes et al., 2009.


Page 56



the period 1999-2010, but no noticeable trends. The standardised series for the more recent years (2006-2010) also showed no significant trends86. Japanese catch rate series suggests that the longline vulnerable biomass largely fluctuated in the period1994-201087 and there are no apparent trends.

4.7.7.6 Bigeye and pelagic thresher sharks

Bigeye and pelagic thresher sharks are often targeted by some recreational, semi-industrial and artisanal fisheries and are a bycatch of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries). In Australia, thresher sharks used to be a target of sport fishermen, but sport fisheries for oceanic sharks are apparently not as common in other Indian Ocean countries.

The post-release mortality is unknown but is probably high. In most cases discarded sharks are not recorded in fisheries logbooks. There is a scarcity of data that could be used to assess trends in catch rates. There are no surveys specifically designed to assess shark catch rates in the Indian Ocean. Historical research data show overall decline both in CPUE and mean weight of thresher sharks88.

4.7.7.7 Marlins and sailfish89

Black marlin are caught mainly by drifting longlines (44 %) and gillnets (49 %) with remaining catches taken by troll and hand lines. Black marlin are not targeted by industrial fisheries, but are targeted by some artisanal and sport/recreational fisheries. In recent years, the fleets of Taiwan/China (longline), Sri Lanka (gillnet), Indonesia (gillnet) and India (gillnet) are attributed with the highest catches of black marlin. The minimum average annual catch estimated for the period 2007 to 2011 is 6 292 t, although this figure is considered to be a gross underestimate due to under reporting and misidentification.

No quantitative stock assessment for black marlin in the Indian Ocean is known to exist. However, the IOTC Working Party on Billfish has attempted a preliminary estimation of stock indicators based longline catch and effort datasets from Japan and Taiwan/China, which represent the best available information. Standardised catch rates have exhibited dramatic declines since the beginning of the Japanese longline fishery and catches in the initial core areas have also decreased substantially. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the degree to which these indicators, prior to 1958, represent abundance, as factors such as changes in targeting practices, discarding practices, fishing grounds and management practices are likely to interact in the depicted trend. Further work must be undertaken to derive additional stock indicators for this species, because in the absence of a quantitative stock assessment, such indicators represent the only means to monitor the status of the stock and assess the impacts of fishing.

Blue marlin are caught mainly by drifting longlines (60 %) and gillnets (30 %) with remaining catches recorded under troll and hand lines. Blue marlin is an important target for several artisanal and sport/recreational fleets. Blue marlin are also known to be taken in purse seine fisheries, but are not currently being reported. The reported catches of blue marlin are higher than those of black marlin and striped marlin combined, although this is highly uncertain due to under reporting and misidentification. In recent years, the fleets of Taiwan/China (longline), Indonesia (longline and gillnet), Sri Lanka (gillnet) and India (gillnet) are attributed with the highest catches of blue marlin. The distribution of blue marlin catches has changed since the 1980s with most of the reported catch now taken in the western areas of the Indian Ocean. However, non-reporting of catches by gillnet fleets in the northern Indian Ocean masks the true level of harvest in the Indian Ocean.

86 Coelho et al., 2011. 87 Kimoto et al., 2011. 88 IOTC, 2012. 89 Text below is primarily drawn from the collection of executive summaries published within the report of the IOTC Scientific Committee.


Page 57



Currently, there is no quantitative stock assessment available for blue marlin in the Indian Ocean that is considered developed enough for the provision of management advice. Due to a lack of reliable fishery data and poor quality of available data for several gears, only very preliminary stock indicators can be used. The standardised longline CPUE series suggest that there was a decline in the early 1980s, followed by a constant or slightly increasing abundance over the last 20 years. This contrasts with the majority of non-standardised indicators, which suggests a decline in abundance since the 1980s. Therefore the stock status is determined as being uncertain. However, aspects of species biology, productivity and fisheries, combined with the data on which to base a quantitative assessment, is a cause for concern.

Striped marlin are caught almost exclusively by drifting longlines (98 %) with remaining catches recorded by gillnets and troll lines. Catch trends for striped marlin are variable; however, this may reflect the level of targeting by longline fleets. The catches of striped marlin by drifting longlines have been changing over time, between 2 000 t and 7 000 t, although this is highly uncertain due to under reporting and misidentification.

Taiwan/China and Japan have reported large drops in the catches of striped marlin for their longline fleets since the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, respectively. The reason for such decreases in catches is not fully understood. The distribution of reported striped marlin catches has changed since the 1980s, with most of the catch now taken in the western areas of the Indian Ocean. However, non-reporting of catches by the gillnet and troll line fisheries masks the true level of harvest in the Indian Ocean.

The standardised CPUE series suggests that there was a sharp decline in the early 1980s, followed by slower decline from 1990. In analyses conducted at the IOTC Working Party on Billfish in September 2013, the results from three stock assessment models suggest that the stock has been subject to overfishing for some years, and that as a result, the stock biomass is well below the BMSY level (the biomass that produces MSY) and shows little signs of rebuilding despite the declining effort trend. Thus, on the weight of evidence available, the stock has been assumed to be overfished and subject to overfishing

Indo-Pacific sailfish are targeted by artisanal fisheries in the Maldives, Yemen and Sri Lanka and by sport/recreational fisheries including in Kenya, Mauritius and Seychelles. Indo-Pacific sailfish is caught mainly by gillnets (78 %) with remaining catches reported from troll and hand lines (15 %), longlines (7 %) or other gears. The minimum average annual catch estimated for the period 2007 to 2011 is 27 103 t. However, this figure is highly uncertain due to under reporting and misidentification. In recent years, the countries attributed with the highest catches of Indo-Pacific sailfish are situated in the Arabian Sea (India, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka). Smaller catches are reported for line fishers in Comoros and Mauritius, and by Indonesia longliners.

Catches of Indo-Pacific sailfish have greatly increased since the mid-1990s in response to the development of a gillnet/longline fishery in Sri Lanka and, especially, the extension in the area of operation of Iranian gillnet vessels to areas beyond the Iranian EEZ, as discussed earlier. The catches of Iranian gillnets increased dramatically, more than six-fold, from the late 1990s.

Catches of Indo-Pacific sailfish by drifting longlines and other gears do not show any specific trends in recent years. However, it is likely that longline fleets under report catches of this species due to its low commercial value. In recent years, deep-freezing longliners from Japan have reported catches of Indo-Pacific sailfish in the central western Indian Ocean, between Sri Lanka and the Maldives and the Mozambique Channel.


Page 58



4.7.7.8 Marine turtles

Table 4.14 lists the six species of marine turtles that interact with tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean, with their status according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (information on catches of turtles is provided in section 4.8).

Table 4.14: turtles in the Indian Ocean and their status

Common name Scientific name IUCN threat status

Flatback turtle Natator depressus Data deficient

Green turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered

Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Critically endangered

Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Critically endangered

Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta Endangered

Olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Vulnerable

Sources: Marine Turtle Specialist Group, 1996; Red List Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, 1996; Sarti Martinez (Marine Turtle Specialist Group), 2000; Seminoff, 2004; Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin, 2008; Mortimer and Donnelly, 2008; IUCN, 2012

4.7.7.9 Seabirds

Seabirds are species that derive their sustenance primarily from the ocean and spend the bulk of their time at sea (when not on land at breeding sites). Seventeen species of seabirds are known to interact with longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean. However, not all reports identify birds to species level and, overall, information on seabird bycatch in the IOTC area remains very limited90.

Seabirds are long-lived, typically with very low natural adult mortality. Seabirds are characterised as being late to mature and slow to reproduce; some do not start to breed before they are ten years old. Most lay a single egg each year, with some albatross species only breeding every second year. These traits make any increase in human-induced adult mortality potentially damaging for population viability, as even small increases in mortality can result in population decreases.

The southern Indian Ocean is of global importance in relation to albatross distribution: seven of the 18 species of southern hemisphere albatrosses have breeding colonies on Indian Ocean islands. In addition, all but one of the 18 southern hemisphere albatrosses forage in the Indian Ocean at some stage in their life cycle. The Indian Ocean is particularly important for Amsterdam albatross (Diomedea amsterdamensis – critically endangered) and Indian yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche carteri – endangered), which are endemic to the southern Indian Ocean, white-capped albatross (Thalassarche steadi – endemic to New Zealand), shy albatross (T. cauta – endemic to Tasmania, and which forage in the area of overlap between IOTC and WCPFC), wandering albatross (D. exulans – 74 % global breeding pairs), sooty albatross (Phoebetria fusca – 39 % global breeding pairs), light-mantled sooty albatross (P. palpebrata – 32 % global breeding pairs), grey-headed albatross (T. chrysotoma – 20 % global breeding pairs) and northern and southern giant-petrel (Macronectes halli and M. giganteus – 26 % and 30 % global breeding pairs, respectively).

90 Gauffier, 2007; IOTC, 2011.


Page 59



4.8 Ecosystem impacts of tuna fisheries

For all the tuna fisheries/fleets described in this report, there is little or no impact on sensitive bottom habitats as they are all conducted in the upper part of the pelagic water column. The main ecosystem issues with the purse seine, longline, gillnet, and pole-and-line fisheries are (i) their impacts on non-target fish species, (ii) the bycatch of ETP species and (iii) their potential to disrupt the functioning of marine ecosystems as a result of the removal of high trophic level species.

4.8.1 Purse seine fishery impacts

There is a clear difference in the impact of the two predominant fishing modes in the fishery. Free-swimming schools tend to have a much lower percentage by-catch of non-target species. The main bycatch of non-target species comprises an assortment of bony (non-shark) fish species, with low-value species such as triggerfish comprising a significant percentage of the catch.

It has always been assumed that sharks are not a common by-catch species in purse-seine fisheries. However, according to a recent study, there is significant mortality of sharks entangled in FADs designed with long underwater hanging netting91. For the Indian Ocean, the incidental catch of silky shark caused by entanglement is estimated to be between 480 000 and 900 000 fish per year. Some of the sharks caught in purse seine operations have been classified as vulnerable by IUCN.

There are virtually no impacts on seabirds in purse-seine operations, and there is a very low observed mortality of marine turtles on FAD sets, although there might be unobserved mortality due to entanglement with the FAD material, similar that described for sharks. However, there is greater concern about the diversity of the species incidentally caught in the FAD-log associated fishery, as this includes some species that are considered threatened. European Union observers (covering on average 5 % of the operations annually from 2003 to 2007) reported just 74 marine turtles caught by French and Spanish purse seiners in the period 2003 to 200792. The most common species reported were olive ridley, green and hawksbill turtles, and these were mostly caught on sets on floating objects and returned to the sea alive (although there is no systematic information on survival after release). Mortality levels of marine turtles due to entanglement in drifting FADs are still unknown and need to be assessed.

4.8.2 Longline fishery impacts

A discussed earlier, sharks comprise an important proportion of the catches of longline fleets, representing the majority of the catch in some fleets – such as the Spanish, UK and Portuguese longline fleets, for which some shark species are intended catch. However, some longline fleets do catch sharks as unintentional bycatch.

With regard to seabirds, in the absence of seabird bycatch data from observer programmes, risk of bycatch has been identified through analysis of the overlap between albatross and petrel distribution and IOTC longline fishing effort, based on data from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Database93. A summary map indicating the overlap between seabird distribution and IOTC longline fishing effort is shown in Figure 4.8. The 2007 analysis of tracking data indicated that albatrosses breeding on southern Indian Ocean islands spent 70–100 % of their foraging time within areas overlapping with IOTC longline fishing effort. The analysis identified the proximity of the critically endangered Amsterdam albatross and endangered Indian yellow-nosed albatross to high levels of pelagic longline effort. Wandering, shy, grey-headed and sooty albatrosses and white-chinned petrels showed a high overlap

91 Filmalter et al., 2013. 92 IOTC, 2009. 93 ACAP, 2007.


Page 60



with IOTC longline effort. Data on distribution during the non-breeding season was lacking for many species, including black-browed albatrosses and white-capped albatrosses (known from bycatch data to be amongst the species most frequently caught).

In 2009 and 2010,new tracking data were presented to the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch. This filled a number of gaps in the 2007 analysis, particularly for sooty albatross, and for distributions of juveniles of wandering, sooty and Amsterdam albatrosses, and white-chinned and northern giant petrels94. This analysis indicated substantial overlap with IOTC longline fisheries.

Figure 4.8: distribution of breeding albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters in the Indian Ocean, and overlap with IOTC longline fishing effort for all gear types and fleets (average annual number of hooks set per 5° grid square from 2002 to 2005)

Source: IOTC, 2012

With regard to turtles, information on most of the major longline fleets in the IOTC is currently not available and it is not known if this fishing activity represents a serious threat to marine turtles, as is the case in most other regions of the world. The South African longline fleets have reported that marine turtle bycatch mainly comprises leatherback turtles, with fewer loggerhead, hawksbill and green turtles95. Estimated average catch rates of marine turtles ranged from 0.005 to 0.3 marine turtles per 1 000 hooks and varied by location, season and year. The highest catch rate reported in one trip was 1.7 marine turtles per 1 000 hooks in oceanic waters.

In the period 1997 to 2000, the Programme Palangre Réunionnais96 examined marine turtle bycatch on 5 885 longline sets in the vicinity of Réunion Island (19-25° south, 48-54° east). The fishery caught 47 leatherback, 30 hawksbill, 16 green and 25 unidentified marine turtles, equating to an average catch rate of less than 0.02 marine turtles per 1 000 hooks over the four-year study period.

94 Delord and Weimerskirch 2009, 2010. 95 IOTC-2006-WPBy-15. 96 Poisson and Taquet, 2001.

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂ _̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂ _̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

10°E

10°E

20°E

20°E

30°E

30°E

40°E

40°E

50°E

50°E

60°E

60°E

70°E

70°E

80°E

80°E

90°E

90°E

100°E

100°E

110°E

110°E

120°E

120°E

130°E

130°E

140°E

140°E

150°E

150°E

160°E

160°E

70

°S6

0°S

60

°S

50

°S

50

°S

40

°S

40

°S

30

°S

30

°S

20

°S

20

°S

10

°S

10

°S

0°N

0°N

10

°N

10

°N

20

°N

Colonies_̂ colonies

UD50%

75%

95%

Range

Longline Effort(millions of hooks)

< 1

1 - 5

5 - 10

> 10


Page 61



The Fishery Survey of India carried out a survey of the whole Indian EEZ using four longline vessels from 2005 to 2009. During this period around 800 000 hooks were deployed in the Arabian Sea, in the Bay of Bengal and in the waters of Andaman and Nicobar. In total 87 marine turtles (79 olive ridley, four green and two hawksbill turtles) were caught. Catch rates were 0.302 marine turtles per 1 000 hooks in the Bay of Bengal area, 0.068 marine turtles per 1 000 hooks in the Arabian sea and 0.008 marine turtles per 1 000 hooks in the Andaman and Nicobar waters. The highest occurrence of incidental catches in the Bay of Bengal area is probably due to the large abundance of olive ridley turtles whose main nesting ground in the Indian Ocean is on the east coast of India, in the Orissa region.

4.8.3 Pole-and-line fishery impacts

The practice of pole-and-line fisheries requires the use of live bait that comes from stocks of small pelagic fish, or from coral reef fish. Estimates of the amount of bait fish needed to catch a tonne of target species vary widely, but for the main indian ocean fishery in the Maldives this has been estimated at about 11.6 %97. There have been some concerns historically, about catches/availability of bait fish in the Maldives, but otherwise there are virtually no impacts on other species, as the catch operation is highly targeted on tunas.

4.8.4 Gillnet fishery impacts

There are few direct observations on the consequences of the use of gillnets (there have been no observer programmes implemented in this fishery). However, it is expected that the gear has a significant impact on various pelagic species and a number of ETP species, such as threatened sharks, marine turtles and possibly marine mammals This is due to the low species selectivity of the gear and the fact that nets can be up to 10 km long. Furthermore, gear that is lost at sea continues to drift and cause incidental mortality. There is no information about the extent of this ‘ghost’ fishing or of its impact on the affected species, and quantified data for the impact of this gear at regional level are almost non-existent.

4.9 Mitigation of the ecosystem impacts of fishing

Actions towards mitigation of impacts of tuna fishing have been taken by Member States in the framework of IOTC in the form of a number of conservation and management measures developed with the support and in cooperation with, other inter-governmental and non-governmental institutions, such as Birdlife International, the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Sea Turtles (IOSEA).

There has been some debate amongst IOTC members as to whether the organisation has a mandate for dealing with species that are not in the IOTC list of species. This issue was raised in 2012 and delayed the adoption of resolutions protecting whale sharks and cetaceans. The measures were adopted in 2013, when the issue of mandate was not raised again, but it could remain a potential obstacle to adoption of actions unless there is consensus. As some of the actions proposed continue to generate resistance from the members directly involved (for example, the ban of wire leaders in longline gear), resorting to a vote might be blocked by the argument of the lack of mandate.

4.9.1 Sharks

Sharks in the Indian Ocean are currently subject to a number of conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission, but no specific mitigation measures:

97 Ardill et al., 2013.


Page 62



Resolution 05/05 Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by IOTC includes minimum reporting requirements for sharks, calls for full utilisation of sharks and includes a ratio of fin-to-bodyweight (5 %) for shark fins retained onboard a vessel;

Resolution 10/02 Mandatory statistical requirements for IOTC Members and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties (CPCs) indicated that the provisions, applicable to tuna and tuna-like species, are applicable to shark species;

Resolution 11/04 On a Regional Observer Scheme requires data on shark interactions to be recorded by observers and reported to the IOTC within 150 days. The Regional Observer Scheme (ROS) started on 1 July 2010; and

Resolution 12/03 On the recording of catch and effort by fishing vessels in the IOTC area of competence sets out the minimum logbook requirements for most gears, establishing that catch of all sharks must be recorded (retained and discarded).

In 2012, to reduce the catch rate of sharks, the IOTC Scientific Committee recommended banning the use of wire leaders. However, in 2013 the IOTC Member States declined to adopt the measure in 2013.

It should also be noted that the amended EU Shark Regulation now requires all shark fins landed by EU vessels to be landed attached to the carcasses. Proposals for similar requirements at IOTC level have not been supported by other IOTC members, resulting in the lack of a ‘level playing field’ between EU and Asian fleets.

4.9.2 Marine turtles

In 2013 the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystem and Bycatch (WPEB) made the following recommendations to the Scientific Committee concerning mitigation measures:

Gillnet: The absence of data for marine turtles on fishing effort, spatial deployment and bycatch in the IOTC area of competence makes any recommendation regarding mitigation measures for this gear premature. Improvements in data collection and reporting of marine turtle interactions with gillnets, and research on the effect of gear types (i.e. net construction and colour, mesh size, soak times, light deterrents) are necessary.

Longline: Current information suggests inconsistent catches by both area and by gear/fishery. The most important mitigation measures relevant for longline fisheries are to:

Encourage the use of circle hooks whilst developing further research into their effectiveness using a multiple species approach; and

Release live animals after careful de-hooking/disentangling/line cutting.

Purse seine: All FAD-directed purse seine fisheries should rapidly change to use only ecological FADs (i.e. improved FAD designs to reduce the incidence of entanglement of bycatch species, using biodegradable material whenever possible). Procedures on a fish aggregating devices (FADs) management plan, including more detailed specification of catch reporting from FAD sets, and the development of improved FAD designs to reduce the incidence of entanglement of non-target species.

Comment on mitigation of the impacts of FADs is described in section 4.9.4. Existing IOTC regulations mandate gillnet fleets to report all interaction with marine turtles in their logbooks (but logbooks are not submitted to the Secretariat). For longline vessels, operators are required to use de-hookers and line cutters to facilitate safe release of turtles and encourage the use of whole finfish bait, in addition to reporting all interactions. All Spanish longline vessels are governed by a compulsory longline fishing management plan for 2011-2013 for surface longliners in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. This plan is currently being reviewed/updated, and includes measures to avoid bycatch of birds, turtles and non-target sharks.


Page 63



In addition, the IOTC and the Indian Ocean have the South-East Asian Marine Turtle (IOSEA) Memorandum of Understanding, an agreement under the Convention on Migratory Species, which is resulting in the collecting of a range of information on fisheries and marine turtle interactions. The IOSEA database covers information from a wider range of fisheries and gears than that held by the IOTC. The IOSEA Online Reporting Facility98 compiles information through IOSEA National Reports on potential marine turtle fisheries interactions, as well as various mitigation measures put in place by its Signatory States and collaborating organisations. While the information is incomplete for some countries and is generally descriptive rather than quantitative, it has begun to provide a general overview of potential fisheries interactions as well as their extent. No information is available for China, Taiwan/China, Japan, Republic of Korea (among others), which are not yet signatories to IOSEA. Information is also provided on such mitigation measures as appropriate handling techniques, gear modifications, spatial/temporal closures etc. IOSEA is collecting all of the above information with a view to providing a regional assessment of Member States’ compliance with the FAO Guidelines on reducing fisheries interactions with marine turtles.

4.9.3 Seabirds

IOTC Resolution 10/06 makes it mandatory for vessels fishing south of 25° south to use at least two seabird bycatch mitigation measures selected from the two columns below, including at least one measure from column A, and is aimed at effectively reducing the mortality of seabirds due to longline operations. In addition, CPCs are required to provide to the Commission all available information on interactions with seabirds.

Column A Column B

Night setting with minimum deck lighting Night setting with minimum deck lighting

Bird-scaring lines (Tori Lines) Bird-scaring lines (Tori Lines)

Weighted branch lines Weighted branch lines

Blue-dyed squid bait

Offal discharge control

Line shooting device

IOTC Resolution 12/06 is due to come into force on 1 July, 2014, and will require all longline vessels in the area south of 25° south to use at least two of the following three mitigation measures:

Night setting with minimum deck lighting;

Bird-scaring lines (Tori Lines); or

Line weighting.

The catch rate of sharks is lower with the use of monofilament leaders (the section of line that goes from the hook to the main line) in the setting of longline gear, instead of wire leaders that are of widespread use in industrial longliners.

4.9.4 Mitigation of the effects of FADs

In 2013 the IOTC members adopted a Resolution 2013/08 mandating the formulation of FAD Management Plans that should include initiatives or surveys to investigate and, as far as possible, minimise the capture of small bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna and non-target species associated with

98(www.ioseaturtles.org/report.php)

http://www.ioseaturtles.org/report.php


Page 64



fishing on FADs. Management Plans should also include guidelines to prevent, as far as possible, the loss or abandonment of FADs. To reduce the entanglement of sharks, marine turtles or any other species, the design and deployment of FADs will be based on the following principles, which will be applied gradually from 2014:

The surface structure of the FAD should not be covered, or only covered with non-meshed material;

If a sub-surface component is used, it should not be made from netting but from non-meshed materials such as ropes or canvas sheets; and

To reduce the amount of synthetic marine debris, the use of natural or biodegradable materials (such as hessian canvas, hemp ropes, etc.) for drifting FADs should be promoted.

From 2015 onwards, IOTC States will report on the progress of the management plans of FADs. The IOTC Scientific Committee will analyse the information, when available, and provide scientific advice on additional FAD management options for consideration by the IOTC Members in 2016, including recommendations on the use of biodegradable materials in new and improved FADs and the phasing out of FAD designs that do not prevent the entanglement of sharks, marine turtles and other species. When assessing the impact of FADs on the dynamic and distribution of targeted fish stocks and associated species and on the ecosystem, the IOTC Scientific Committee will, where relevant, use all available data on abandoned FADs (i.e. FADs without a beacon).

In addition to these regional measures, the EU purse seine fleet, which was a key driver for the new IOTC Resolution, is taking steps to reduce bycatch and discards as follows99:

A FAD management programme is already administered by the Spanish administration, and all FAD logbooks are sent by vessels to the Spanish administration and to the Insituto Español

Oceanografico (IEO). Logbook information contains entries for each FAD operation including a description of FAD structure, the nature of FAD materials (for example, eco-FAD), and all catch and bycatch;

All FADs are being replaced by non-entangling FADs, without the use of old nets. Workshops have been held for captains, scientists and NGOs to develop a design for non-entangling FADs, and the technical elements are now agreed; and

Work is under way on discriminatory buoys. While the current generation of buoys have an eco-sounder that can estimate biomass and transmit data by satellite, work is taking place with developers of buoys to design a new generation with transmitters that are more powerful, and with makers of echo-sounders (Simrad) to develop echo-sounders to identify species and size. The main objective of this work is to avoid juvenile catches of bigeye tuna.

4.10 The impacts of piracy in the WIO

4.10.1 History and prevalence of pirate attacks

Pirate activities are not new in the Indian Ocean. In fact, more than 30 years ago there were already piracy attacks in the shipping lanes out of the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean. This counters the widely held belief, and misconception, that it was illegal fishing that motivated the piracy attacks in the Indian Ocean. While it is possible that fishermen joined the ranks of the pirate operators, it seems more likely that they did so for the expected financial gains, rather than to defend a traditional way of life under attack by illegal fishing.

99 OPAGAC, pers. comm., 24 January 2013.


Page 65



The range of the pirate activities, initially concentrated around the Socotra area, expanded in 2008-2009 to the waters off Somalia, with attacks taking place at 600-700 nm from the Somali coast.

In 2008 the first EU purse seine vessel was hijacked and released after a few days, following the payment of a fine/ransom. The number of attacks intensified following the second quarter of 2009, when the fleet stopped fishing and anchored in Seychelles as a way of demanding better protection during its operations. This was followed by the capture of a second EU purse seine vessel, also under Spanish flag. Several French vessels were also attacked.

As a result, and as part of the Comprehensive Approach to Somalia, in December 2008 the EU launched the European Union Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) Somalia – Operation Atalanta within the framework of the European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and in response to the rising levels of piracy and armed robbery off the Horn of Africa and in the western Indian Ocean.

For a number of reasons, including the ground operations by Kenyan / African Union forces in the south of Somalia, the success of Operation Atalanta, security personnel on board vessels, and the reduction in the number of easy targets, by the second half of 2012 there was a considerable reduction in the number of attacks.

Recent data show the decline in the number of attacks. During 2013, up until October, no vessels were captured by pirates in the region, and other indicators of pirate activity are also declining (see Figure 4.9). It should be noted however, that any increase in fishing vessel numbers in the northern areas of the WIO could possibly incentivise increased piracy activity again.

Figure 4.9: frequency of piracy-related events in the WIO, since 2009

Source: http://eunavfor.eu/key-facts-and-figures/ (accessed 1 October 2013)

4.10.2 Effects of piracy on fleets

The effects of piracy on the fishing fleets in the area has depended on the size and type of the vessels involved.

Purse seine vessels have the ability to embark armed military personnel, and unless the vessels are in the middle of a fishing operation they are fast enough to escape from an attack. Following the attacks on EU vessels mentioned above, EU purse seine vessels have needed to keep heavily armed security personnel on board (typically 2-4 personnel per vessel). This represents an additional operational cost. For the French fleet, France covers the salary costs of military-provided security, although not other related costs. This is not the case for the Spanish, where private security is contracted, although there

http://eunavfor.eu/key-facts-and-figures/


Page 66



is some assistance from the Basque government. In addition, insurance premiums have increased significantly100.

While purse seine vessels have not had to change from their traditional grounds to any great extent (see Figure 4.10), in the case of Spanish vessels the Spanish administration has prevented vessels from fishing within 200 nm of the Somali coast as a condition of the annual fishing permit issued to all vessels101. French purse seine vessels have also been affected; prior to 2009, 18 French-flagged vessels operated in the Indian Ocean, but due to increase in piracy, five vessels left the Indian Ocean to fish in the Atlantic Ocean102.

The effects of piracy have however been greater on gillnet and longline fleets, due to their smaller size and fishing method, which requires them to return to haul gear.

Pakistani officials reported that, at the height of the Somali operations, 40 % of their vessels (gillnet) had been attacked at least once in the area103. And the Asian longline fleet abandoned the traditional fishing grounds for a period of two to three years, with some of the vessels leaving the Indian Ocean altogether, while others displaced to the southern Indian Ocean, shifting their target towards albacore tuna. This displacement of effort (see Figure 4.10) is assumed to have contributed to the current level of overfishing of albacore. In 2012 Asian longline vessels started to carry armed security personnel (mainly former military personnel from Sri Lanka) and began returning to the traditional fishing grounds in the Somalia area (see Figure 4.11). EU vessels, which had historically fished in waters off Kenya and Tanzania, have declined to do so in recent years and have not yet returned to more northern waters, although this may also be due to their target catch (swordfish and shark) being found further south and east.

100 ORTHONGEL, pers. comm., 9 October 2013. 101 Minsterio de Agricultura, Alimentacio y Medio Ambiente , pers. comm., 7 October 2013. 102 ORTHONGEL, pers. comm., 9 October 2013. 103 WWF-Pakistan, pers. comm., 4 October 2013.


Page 67



2006 – purse seine 2010 – purse seine

2006 – longline 2010 – longline

Figure 4.10: distribution of fishing effort (in days fishing for purse seine, and number of hooks for longline), before and during the peak of piracy threats

Source: IOTC Note: LLJP (light green) deep-freezing longliners from Japan; LLTW (dark green): deep-freezing longliners from Taiwan, China; SWLL (turquoise): swordfish longliners (Australia, EU, Mauritius, Seychelles and other fleets); FTLL (red): fresh-tuna longliners (China, Taiwan, China and other fleets); OTLL (blue): longliners from other fleets (includes Belize, China, Philippines, Seychelles, South Africa, South Korea and various other fleets)


Page 68



Figure 4.11: number of hooks set (millions) from longline vessels by 5º square grid and main fleets, for the years 2011 (left-hand plot) and 2012 (right-hand plot)

Notes: Data as at September 2013. LLJP (light green): deep-freezing longliners from Japan; LLTW (dark green): deep-freezing longliners from Taiwan, China; SWLL (turquoise): swordfish longliners (Australia, EU, Mauritius, Seychelles and other fleets); FTLL (red): fresh-tuna longliners (China, Taiwan, China and other fleets); OTLL (blue): longliners from other fleets (includes Belize, China, Philippines, Seychelles, South Africa, South Korea and various other fleets)

Other effects of piracy

Apart from the direct impact of piracy on the activities on the fleets, in particular longline and gillnet operations, the contributions of the fishing operations to the economies of the coastal States were disrupted because of the rise in piracy. Kenya and Tanzania have had no longline vessels requesting fishing authorisations since 2008.

There were also added insurance costs that affected not only the fishing vessels, but also surface transport associated with the fishery, such as cargo vessels transshipping in ports in the area or bringing supplies for the fishing vessels.

MCS operations in the region can also be assumed to have been disrupted, with a tendency of patrol vessels to focus on piracy activities when they might otherwise have been engaged with fisheries patrols.

Finally, it is known that piracy has had a significant impact on fisheries research in the region. The SWIOFP discussed earlier had to totally re-think its modus operandi with a switch in research activity from the intended use of the R/V Fritjord Nansen, to the use of wet leases of commercial fishing vessels, and many of the planned research cruises had to be cancelled. Experiments on bycatch mitigation measures to be conducted by the International Sustainability Seafood Foundation (ISSF) were scheduled for the Indian Ocean had to be re-scheduled to other areas.


Page 69



5 Trade in tuna products from the WIO

5.1 Trade flows

Previous text (section 4) outlined the catches originating from the purse seine, longline, pole-and-line, handline and gillnet fleets in the region. This section explores the flow of product from the point of landing through to its market destination, and highlights the distinct supply chains for different products originating from different fleets. Annex E provides a summary of key tuna-processing businesses in the region.

Of particular interest and importance in the context of existing and possible future FPAs/Protocols, given their objectives, are:

The very significant levels of processing that takes place in the region of fish caught by EU vessels; and

The very significant levels of supplies to the EU market being provided by catches from both EU purse seine and longline fleets.

5.1.1 From the purse seine fleet

Given the migratory movement of tuna in the WIO, as described earlier in this report, and the resulting pattern of catches throughout the year, and given the position and size of the Seychelles EEZ, Seychelles is well placed to serve as the main regional hub for the purse seine fleet in the WIO. The vast majority of the frozen purse seine catch in the WIO (around 80 %) is either landed for processing in Seychelles (around 30 % of landings in Seychelles), or transshipped through Victoria for processing elsewhere (around 70 % of landings in Seychelles), although at some times of the year vessels land product direct to processing plants in Mauritius. Newly established deep frozen tuna processing plants with a capacity of 30 000 tonnes in Mauritius will also intensify the visits to Port Louis of the new generation of purse seiners vessels. Their characteristics enable the storage on board at -40 °C of dry deep frozen fish, supplied to the processing plants which export fillets, steaks and saku (frozen sashimi grade) blocks to markets in Asia and Europe.

Catches from the purse seine fleet in the WIO are predominantly destined for processing plants within the region. This differs from tuna fisheries in some other oceans, for example the western and central Pacific Ocean where the majority of product is processed outside the region104. As noted in Annex E and as shown in Figure 5.1 below, canneries in Mauritius and Seychelles buy very significant proportions of overall catches made by vessels in the WIO.

Where fish is landed directly to processors, vessels (or their agents) negotiate directly with the processing plants in the region. However, where transshipment takes place, tuna trading companies are typically involved in the sale of product from vessels to processing plants105.

The Indian Ocean Tuna cannery in Port Victoria, Seychelles produces around 1.3 million cans of tuna per day, from an annual supply of tuna of around 70-80 000 t. It is one of the largest tuna canneries in the world, with seven cold stores to store 25 days’ supply of fish106. The factory has an associated fishmeal production factory, which uses the cannery’s by-products and bycatch from the fleet. A subsidiary company, Ocean Products Seychelles, extracts fish oil from tuna heads.

104 Poseidon et al., 2013. 105 ANABAC, pers. comm., 9 October 2013. 106 NFDS et al., 2013.


Page 70



In Mauritius there are two large canneries, Princes Tuna and Thon des Mascareignes, which have a combined annual capacity of over 100 000 t, and purchase product landed in Port-Louis, or transshipped from Seychelles.

Smaller canneries and loining plants in Kenya and Madagascar also purchase product from the purse seine fleet, either from landings made in the countries (to Mombasa [primarily by part of the Spanish fleet] or to Diego Suarez, respectively) or with product transshipped from other landings locations. Some landings made in Madagascar may also be transshipped to other processing locations. The main processing plant in Kenya (Wananchi Marine Products Ltd) processes product into semi-processed (cooked) tuna loins, mainly for export to Italian and Spanish canneries, with residual tuna offal and waste processed into fishmeal and oil and sold locally, but some processing also takes place for ready-to-eat products in jars.

Only small proportions of overall purse seine catches are transshipped and processed outside the WIO either in the EU (Italy and Spain), or in Thailand, Iran, Tunisia and Turkey107. Canned and loined/pouched tuna products from all the processing plants in the region are predominantly destined for the EU market, with only very small volumes (< 10 %) being sold to other markets, for example in Africa, Middle East, North America and Asia108.

Two smaller companies based in Seychelles, Oceana Fisheries Co. Ltd. and Sea Harvest Pty. Ltd, purchase bycatch from purse seiners landing there for processing for the local and international markets, with product sold as fishing bait, pet food, or ready-to-eat products). Bycatch landed in other ports is generally only sold domestically through domestic retail marketing channels.

5.1.2 From the longline fleet

Asian longline fleets rely heavily on landing product in Port-Louis, Mauritius, and around 50 % of longline catch in the WIO is transshipped in Port-Louis. Asian frozen catches of yellowfin and bigeye tuna are predominantly destined for the Asian sashimi market. Albacore may be traded to canneries outside the WIO, or in the case of ultra-low-temperature vessels, also sold to sashimi markets in Asia. Shark and swordfish caught by the Asian fleet is also typically transshipped for sale in Asia.

The Spanish, UK and Portuguese longline fleet targets swordfish and shark. Frozen catches are predominantly offloaded in Durban, South Africa, although at some times of the year when vessels are fishing in more northern waters, catches may be landed in Diego Suarez, Madagascar, or in Port-Louis, Mauritius. Shark fins all end up being traded to Asia, and have historically been transshipped to Asia from Durban or Mauritius. However, the amended EU Shark Regulation has resulted in some confusion for vessel operators over whether fins that are partially cut onboard but then completely removed from the carcass in port are deemed as originating from the country where the land-based processing takes place. If that is the case, then in future it is likely that all fins would be brought back to Spain/Portugal attached to carcasses, before being removed and sent to Asian markets. Swordfish carcasses are transshipped from the WIO back to Europe for subsequent sale, predominantly in Spain, Italy, France, and Greece. Shark carcasses are transshipped back to Europe, and are then sold in southern European countries, in Eastern Europe and Russia, or in South America through Brazilian buyers109. Catches of tuna and swordfish from the Réunion-based long-line fleet are sold fresh in the domestic market (about 1 000 t per year) or to the EU/France (about 1 000 t per year), with some smaller quantities also sold in frozen form to Asian markets110.

107 OPAGAC/ANABAC, pers. comm., 7-9 October 2013. 108 SmartFish, 2013. 109 Asociacion Armadores Buques De Pesca De Marin and ORPAGU, pers. comm., 8 October 2013. 110 Oceanic Developpment et al., 2012


Page 71



In Mauritius (a key transshipment hub in the region), local regulations require that bycatch be sold to the Agricultural Marketing Board, and with the Mauritius Fishermen Cooperative Federation empowered as the exclusive administrative agent for the Board, this means that the Cooperative Federation sells landed bycatch. The Ministry of Fisheries is reported to be embarking on a project to establish a bycatch fish auction market.

5.1.3 From the pole-and-line fleet

All catch from the Maldivian pole-and-line fleet is landed fresh in the Maldives given that most fishing trips are day trips only, and product thereafter enters one of three main marketing channels. It is:

Consumed by the domestic population throughout the atolls and more than 200 inhabited islands in the country, with an estimated 63 700 t consumed domestically in 2012 in fresh or dried form – see discussion on Maldive Fish below111;

Processed into ‘Maldive Fish’ by small-scale processors (often home-based in the islands), before being transported to Malé and then exported to Sri Lanka by one of 3-4 large trading companies, or being consumed by the domestic market112. Maldive Fish processors purchase around 10 000-15 000 t of the skipjack landed in the Maldives each year. Maldive Fish is produced by de-heading and gutting, boiling, sometimes wood smoking, and then sun-drying skipjack loins, and requires around 3-5 kg of wet fish to produce 1 kg of processed product. An important by-product of the boiling process is the production of ‘rihaakuru’, a fish paste that has a high value on the domestic market. Exports of Maldive Fish in 2012 were 1 440 t; and

Sold to one of five large industrial/buying companies, each of which is allowed to buy skipjack tuna in specific zones of the EEZ. These companies typically freeze product for export to canneries overseas, for example in Thailand (17 706 t of frozen skipjack tuna were exported from the Maldives in 2012), or sell to the Felivaru or Maandhoo tuna canneries in the Maldives. The two canneries exported 2 003 t of canned tuna in 2012, with around half (982 t) destined for the EU market, with the balance sold to other markets primarily in the Middle East and North America. The Maldivian skipjack tuna fishery was accredited by the Marine Stewardship Council in 2012113.

Catches of albacore from the South African pole-and-line fishery are largely destined for export to canning markets, with yellowfin catches exported to the EU and the USA and only limited quantities sold on the domestic market114.

Pole-and-line fisheries in both the Maldives and South Africa are very ‘clean’, with effectively no bycatch available for marketing.

5.1.4 From the gillnet fleet

As already noted, the gillnet fishery for tuna is concentrated in the northern countries in the WIO. Tuna catches in Oman, India, Yemen, Pakistan and Iran are predominantly landed in fresh/chilled form, having been caught by artisanal or semi-industrial fleets115.

111 Fisheries Management Agency, 2012. 112 The Fisheries and Agriculture Diversification Project currently being financed by the International Fund for Agricultural Development, is exploring ways to add value and further improve the marketing of Maldive Fish in the domestic market, in Sri Lanka, and in other potential markets such as in the Middle East. 113 http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/indian-ocean/maldives_pole_line_skipjack_tuna 114 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2013b. 115 This report does not cover Sri Lankan fisheries given that Sri Lanka is located in the EIO, but it is acknowledged that some Sri Lankan vessels may fish in WIO waters.


Page 72



In Pakistan and Iran, much of the landed product is destined for tuna canneries in Iran. Pakistani tuna catch by vessels based in Gwadar, Pasni and Sur is transshipped at sea to carrier vessels that are reported to have fishing authorisations from both Pakistan and Iran, and which declare catch to be of Iranian origin when landing at Iranian factories. Construction of the coastal highway has also opened up a land route from Karachi to Iran. Other catch in Pakistan not sold to Iran follows a number of different marketing channels. Some quantities are marketed locally in fresh/chilled form (much of which is consumed by the large Bangladeshi population in Karachi), some is procured by a factory in Karachi fish harbour producing raw material for Korean surimi plants, and small tuna (such as kawakawa and frigate tuna) are processed in curing yards in Karachi and Gwadar for export to Sri Lanka in salted/dried form. Wet salted tuna landed by vessels operating in offshore waters of Pakistan is also processed before export to Sri Lanka in salted/dried form. In Iran, it is assumed that catches not destined for local canneries are consumed locally.

Catches from the Yemeni gillnet fleet is destined for Yemeni canneries, but with declining catches in Yemen, some product is now purchased by Iran, and Yemeni canneries are thought to be under considerable financial pressure116.

In Oman, Dhofar Fisheries and Food Industries Co SAOG, purchases product from the local Omani artisanal fleet for processing/canning, but most locally caught product is sold in fresh form, or smoked locally for local roadside sales117.

In India, a significant proportion of tuna catches is destined for export markets118, with most fish exported in frozen form, much of it to canneries in Iran (skipjack and yellowfin) or to the United Arab Emirates (yellowfin loins and whole skipjack). Some whole frozen skipjack is also exported to Tunisia119.

Bycatch in the gillnet fishery is almost certainly the highest as a proportion of total landings for all the main gear types considered in this report, but relevant data on the marketing of landed bycatch are not available and cannot therefore be included this report. However, it is assumed that all bycatch is sold locally in domestic markets

5.1.5 From the handline fleet

There are three significant artisanal handline fisheries in the WIO, in the Maldives, in Yemen, and in Oman, all of which are export orientated.

In the Maldives, the artisanal handline fishery produced 44 972 t in 2012 (32 969 t of yellowfin, 9 133 t of ‘other fish’, 1 981 t of skipjack, with the balance being small quantities of dogtooth, little and frigate tuna). Catch from the handline fishery is almost entirely focused on the export market, with processing taking place near the capital Malé near the necessary air transport connections, although small quantities are sold to the tourist island resorts in the country. In 2012 the Maldives exported 3 252 t of fresh yellowfin loins, 1 673 t of fresh/chilled yellowfin chunks, 6 001 t of fresh/chilled yellowfin, and 5 501 t of frozen yellowfin120. The EU is the main market for handline caught yellowfin, although other important markets include the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar and Iran) North America (USA and

116 http://gulfnews.com/business/economy/yemen-39-s-tuna-canneries-in-danger-of-collapse-1.965524 (accessed 28 September 2013). 117 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2009. 118 ISSF, 2012. 119 http://www.infodriveindia.com/india-export-data/Tuna-fish-export-data.aspx (accessed 28 September 2013). 120 Fisheries Management Agency 2012.

http://gulfnews.com/business/economy/yemen-39-s-tuna-canneries-in-danger-of-collapse-1.965524

http://www.infodriveindia.com/india-export-data/Tuna-fish-export-data.aspx


Page 73



Canada) and Asia (Japan, China, and South Korea)121. Some exports from the Maldives are known to be traded through Sri Lanka before ending up in final destination markets.

Handline fisheries in Yemen and Oman also produce volumes of fresh yellowfin and other tuna for export, typically in whole round, loined, headed and gutted, or gilled and gutted form, with most product sold in regional Middle Eastern markets.

The artisanal handline fishery for tuna in Oman provides catches of higher quality product than that caught by the gillnet fleet described above, and catches are purchased by trading/processing/export companies. In 2009 9 786 t of large pelagics were exported from Oman from the gillnet and handline fisheries (including 285 t of yellowfin tuna, 2 960 t of longtail tuna, and 603 t of skipjack tuna). Almost all tuna exports in 2009 were to the UAE (with exports by road), and this appears to be the case historically as well122.

Regional markets in the Middle East also remain the main market outlet for artisanal-caught handline tuna in Yemen (although historically there have been some exports to the EU), but there is also some canning of artisanal tuna catches in Yemen from the gillnet fishery as noted above, and total tuna exports in 2009 (combined for the gillnet and handline fleets) were recorded at 8 421 t123.

5.1.6 Summary of product flows from all fleets

The general flow of product from the WIO to different processing locations and end markets from the purse seine, longline, pole-and-line, gillnet, and handline fleets discussed above, is summarised in Figure 5.1. These product flows could change in the future based on a variety of factors, such as market prices in different countries, investments in processing infrastructure in different countries, the regulatory framework governing trade, the increasing demand for tuna and increasing purchasing power in some markets, and new technologies (e.g. ultra-low temperature freezing of tuna).

121 Fisheries Management Agency op. cit. 122 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries op. cit 123 FAO, FishstatJ database.


Page 74



Figure 5.1: schematic of product flows from the purse seine and longline fleets operating in the WIO Source: Consultants’ compilation, based on NFDS et al., 2013; other data sources in the text; and personal communication with EU stakeholders Notes: Figures estimates only. CCO = Conserverie des Cinq Océans, IOT = Indian Ocean Tuna Ltd. Figure does not portray the flow of landed bycatch or waste products from processing that is described in the text

Purse seine fleet catches (265 000 t) with around 70-80 % landed in

Seychelles either for processing or transshipment to the processing sector

in Mauritius

Skipjack and yellowfin (& some bigeye)

Longline fleet catches (61 000 t)

Yellowfin, bigeye and albacore

Swordfish (and shark)

Catching sector Processing sector Main end markets

Thailand, Iran, Tunisia, canning

EU canning (Italy, Spain)

Seychelles (IOT – canning)

5-10 %

< 10 %

30 %

USA (30 % of Thai product)

EU (15 % of Thai canned product,

100 % EU processed product, and

> 90 % of product processed in WIO

with balance mainly to Middle East)

M. East (12 % of Thai product, all Iran

product, not estimated for Tunisia

Fresh and frozen top-quality yellowfin and bigeye, and ultra-low-temperature albacore, to sashimi

markets (mostly in Asia [> 90 %], some in EU and USA)

Albacore, and lower-grade yellowfin and bigeye to canneries in WIO and

elsewhere EU, USA and Asia

Swordfish and shark – 100 % fins to Asia, carcasses to EU, Eastern Europe / Russia and South America

Mauritius (Princes – canning

Thon des Mascareignes – canning/loining)

40 %

Kenya (Wanachi – yellowfin loining)

Madagascar (CCO – canning/loining) 10 %

< 5 %


Page 75



Figure 5.2: schematic of product flows from the gillnet and handline fleets operating in the WIO Source: consultants’ compilation based on other data sources in the text and personal communication with EU stakeholders.

Pole and line fleet catches (70 000 t)

Mostly skipjack and yellowfin in Maldives,

plus some in India, and 3 000 t albacore in

South Africa

Canning of albacore from South Africa in canneries of WIO and EU

Mostly to EU with some to Africa, Middle East and North America

Catching sector Processing sector Main end markets

Handline catches (80 000 t)

Mostly yellowfin in Maldives, Oman, India and

Yemen

Gillnet catches (62 000 t)

Mostly skipjack (and yellowfin) in Pakistan,

Iran, India, Oman and Yemen

Loining of yellowfin in Maldives, Yemen, Oman and India

Frozen skipjack (and yellowfin) to Thai canneries

Fresh skipjack (and yellowfin) straight to Maldivian canneries or consumed domestically

Production of Maldive Fish in the Maldives from skipjack

Sri Lanka or consumed in the Maldives

Mostly to EU and Middle East

Canneries in Iran

Cannery in Oman

Canneries in Yemen Mostly to Middle East

Domestic consumption Smoking/drying in WIO countries

Fresh consumption in the Maldives, and India


Page 76



5.1.7 Market prices

Tuna is a global commodity product, and due to the very large amounts of tuna that is transshipped and traded by international buyers, and the large canning sector worldwide that provides the catching sector with a range of canning options, global prices for product of similar size/quality are thought to be generally consistent.

Given that Thailand is a key global market for purse seine caught fish, some relevant price series that are available are provided below. Data show the marked increases in prices of purse seine caught fish for canning over 2009 to 2012, but there is an apparent a weakening of prices in 2013124; a factor that could be of relevance to financial contributions paid by the EU to Kenya/Tanzania under a possible future FPA/Protocol if contributions are to be related to the value of catch.

Figure 5.3: purse seine frozen tuna prices, Thailand (cif), 2008 to August 2013 (EUR/t)

Source: http://www.customs.go.th Note: Prices based on weighted average value of imports to Thailand from various countries, converted to EUR from USD based on mid-year exchange rates for each year shown. Cif = carriage, insurance and freight (costs)

The weakening of prices in 2013 shown in the Thai data over 2012 and 2013 is confirmed by data provided for the WIO specifically during 2012 and 2013, as shown in Figure 5.4.

124 Probably due to good catches, although this study has not assessed in detail the reasons for prices changes

€ 500

€ 1 000

€ 1 500

€ 2 000

€ 2 500

€ 3 000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Purse seine frozen tuna prices, Thailand (cif)

Skipjack Yellowfin Bigeye

http://www.customs.go.th/


Page 77



Figure 5.4: landed prices paid in the WIO for selected tuna products Sep 2012 to Oct 2013 (EUR/t)

Source: OPAGAC Note: Prices are a regional average of landed prices in the WIO

Given that Japan is an important market for longline caught fish, some price series are provided below, and show a more static picture over time.

Figure 5.5: longline fresh and frozen tuna prices, Japan (cif), 2008 to May 2013 (EUR/t)

Source: http://www.customs.go.jp Notes: i) Prices based on weighted average value of imports to Japan from various countries, converted to EUR from USD based on mid-year exchange rates for each year shown, ii) ALB = albacore, YFT = yellowfin, BET = bigeye.

Poseidon et al. (2013) reported time series of wholesale prices of relevance to EU longline catches, for example fresh/frozen wholesale mako and swordfish prices in Barcelona (Figure 5.6), and dried and frozen sharkfin prices in Hong Kong (Figure 5.7), and these are re-presented below. However, it should be noted that stakeholder consultations in the EU completed during the preparation of this report,

€ -

€ 500

€ 1 000

€ 1 500

€ 2 000

€ 2 500

€ 3 000

Sep

-12

oct

no

v

dec

Jan

-13

feb

mar

apr

may jun jul

aug

sep

oct

Selected tuna time series data for landed prices in WIO (EUR/t)

Yellowfin +10 kg

Skipjack +1.8 kg

€ -

€ 2 000

€ 4 000

€ 6 000

€ 8 000

€ 10 000

€ 12 000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Longline fresh and frozen tuna prices, Japan (cif)

whole frozen ALB whole frozen YFT whole frozen BET

fresh ALB fresh YFT fresh BET

http://www.customs.go.jp/


Page 78



suggest that prices paid to vessels are considerably lower than those shown in Figures 5.6 and 5.7. For example, current prices (October 2013) are EUR < 2/kg for shark (fins and carcasses combined), EUR 6/kg for shark fins, EUR 1.6/kg for shark carcasses, and EUR 4.5/kg for swordfish. Downward pressure on sharkfin prices at the time of writing is reported to be in part due to ongoing deliberations by the Chinese authorities about whether to reduce taxes on sharkfin imports, meaning that buyers are currently reluctant to make purchases on the expectation that taxes may be reduced in the near future125.

Figure 5.6: shortfin mako and swordfish prices (in EUR/kg) in Barcelona, origin (mostly Spain), 2006 to 2012

Source: FAO/Globefish, 2012 Notes: Mercamadrid has quoted unchanging wholesale prices for blue shark carcasses of EUR 5.71/kg fresh, EUR 3.31/kg frozen, since January 2008

125 Asociacion Armadores Buques De Pesca De Marin and ORPAGU, pers. comm., 8 October 2013.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Shortfin mako and swordfish prices (in EUR/kg)

fresh shortfin mako frozen shortfin mako

fresh swordfish frozen swordfish


Page 79



Figure 5.7: sharkfin prices (EUR/kg) in Hong Kong, 2002 to 2011

Source: FAO/Globefish, 2012 Notes: i) Data based on unit import statistics, ii) Only a couple of countries (Hong Kong being the most reliable hence presentation of figures for Hong Kong) distinguish between processed/unprocessed or dried/frozen fins. This distinction is important, because frozen fins can weigh up to four times as much as their dried equivalents, so data for frozen product multiplied by four to normalise for water content, iii) Data assumed to be primarily for blue shark with some shortfin mako

5.2 Imports of tuna to the EU from the WIO

The EU is a main global market for tuna products, and imports of tuna to the EU may come both direct from WIO countries, and from product caught in the WIO but destined for canneries and loining plants outside the region, for example in Thailand, before being imported to the EU. As can be seen from the text and figures below, processing plants in Mauritius and Seychelles in particular, and to a lesser extent in Madagascar, Kenya and Maldives, provide considerable proportions of the EU’s tuna imports.

In 2012 370 432 t126 of prepared/canned tuna were imported to the EU valued at EUR 1.47 billion, with the WIO having two of the four main supplying countries: Ecuador (73 636 t, up from 71 331 t in 2011), Mauritius (46 846 t, up from 43 868 t in 2011), Thailand (45 430 t, down from 72 911 t in 2011), Seychelles (43 735 t, up from 43 548 t in 2011), and Philippines (30 892 t, down from 35 307 t in 2011). Madagascar also supplied 8 049 t in 2012 (down from 9 682 t in 2011) making it the 11th-largest supplier to the EU, and Maldives 982 t (up from 694 t in 2011) making it the 14th-largest supplier to the EU. The four WIO countries accounted for 26.9 % of the volume of EU imports of prepared/canned tuna in 2012. Imports from India totalled 19 t in 2012 but it is unclear from data if imports are of catches made in the WIO or from the EIO.

With respect to loins, EU imports in 2012 were 100 593 t (down from 108 761 t in 2011) valued at EUR 530 million, mainly from Ecuador (34 126 t, down from 36 333 t in 2011), Mauritius (11 692 t, largely unchanged from 11 722 t in 2011), Guatemala (9 112 t, up from 7 222 t in 2011) and Thailand (7 927 t, down from 16 418 t in 2011). Imports of loins to the EU from other WIO countries in 2012 included 4 342 t from Kenya (up from 4 241 t in 2011), 1 366 t from Madagascar (slightly down from

126 The data provided in this and the following paragraphs are Eurostat Comext data provided by DG MARE, 13 March 2013.

€ -

€ 20

€ 40

€ 60

€ 80

€ 100

€ 120

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sharkfin prices (EUR/kg) in Hong Kong

frozen origin Spain dried unprocessed all origins

frozen unprocessed all origins


Page 80



1 373 t in 2011), and 478 t from Maldives (also slightly down from 489 t in 2011). The four WIO countries accounted for 18 % of the volume of EU imports of loins in 2012.

Imports to the EU of frozen tuna for industry/processing were 95 277 in 2011 and 104 376 t in 2012 (valued at EUR 254 million), with main suppliers in 2012 being South Korea (13 764 t), Mexico (13 232 t) and Philippines (10 121 t). Imports to the EU from WIO countries, included 4 896 t from South Africa (up from 4 385 t in 2011 and making it the 7th-largest supplier to the EU), 4 464 t from Mayotte (up significantly from 1 945 t in 2011), 1 293 t from Seychelles (down from 1 967 t in 2011), 251 t from Mauritius, and 119 t from Madagascar. These imports from WIO countries represented 10.6 % of the volume of EU imports. Imports from India were 42 t in 2012 but it is unclear from data if imports are of catches made in the WIO or the EIO.

An additional quantity of frozen tuna for direct marketing was imported to the EU. Quantities are recorded as 62 031 t 2012 (down from 76 284 t in 2011) valued at EUR 129 million, with the Dutch Antilles (14 681 t), Panama (13 734 t), Cape Verde (9 586 t) and Mexico (8 112 t) the most important providers of product. WIO countries accounted for 11.6 % of the volume of EU imports of frozen tuna for direct marketing, with product being imported only from Mauritius (4 064 t in 2012, unchanged from 4 071 t in 2011), Seychelles (3 075 t in 2012, up from 2 372 t in 2011) and Yemen (62 t down from 67 t in 2011).

The table below shows how important the WIO is for EU imports relative to imports from other areas.

Table 5.1: EU imports of different tuna products, by region (t)

WIO

South and central America Asean

West Africa Pacific Other Total

WIO as % of total

Canned 99 611 89 366 99 684 60 724 19 578 1 469 370 432 27 %

Loins 17 879 51 875 10 651 3 805 12 644 3 739 100 593 18 %

Frozen for consumption 7 201 40 588 132 12 796 325 989 62 031 12 %

Frozen for industry 11 024 30 181 26 385 10 414 15 325 11 047 104 376 11 %

Total 135 714 212 011 136 853 87 739 47 872 17 243 637 432 21 %

WIO as % of total 73 % 42 % 73 % 69 % 41 % 9 % Source: Consultants’ compilation based on analysis of Eurostat Comext data provided by DG MARE

5.3 EU and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in the WIO

From the mid 1970s African countries in the WIO (along with other countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific) enjoyed preferential market access for exports to the EU under the Lomé Convention (1976-2000), and more recently the Cotonou Agreement. Preferential access takes the form of duty-free access for processed tuna products (cans/loins), while competing exports from other countries are subject to a 24 % tariff. However, under World Trade Organization (WTO) law non-reciprocal trade agreements (as was the case under the Lomé Convention and Cotonou Agreement) are deemed to be discriminatory to non-ACP developing countries. The Lomé Convention was thus replaced by commitments under the Cotonou Agreement to make ACP-EU trade relations reciprocal and complaint with the WTO by 2008. This resulted in trade arrangements being reformulated for ACP countries under reciprocal EPAs. These EPAs are intended to be ‘tailor made’ to suit specific regional circumstances, and to go beyond conventional free-trade agreements, focusing on ACP development, taking account of their socio-economic circumstances and include co-operation and assistance to help ACP countries implement the Agreements.


Page 81



Under existing rules, without full EPAs in place, ACP LDCs (shown in bold in Table 5.2) fall back on the EBA arrangement providing for preferential access to the EU market under the EU Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), although this is a unilateral and not a contractual arrangement and does not contain improved EPA rules of origin for processed fishery products. Other ACP non-LDCs are eligible for the EU’s GSP tariff reductions.

In the WIO there are three EPAs under negotiation, and a summary of the status of these negotiations is provided in Table 5.2.

Whilst the thrust towards regional economic integration of the WIO African ACP countries has progressed through the interim EPAs (IEPAs), regional EPAs still remain outstanding, and negotiations for comprehensive EPAs with all WIO African ACP countries are still in progress. There is now urgency surrounding these negotiations, because by 1 October 2014 the ACP countries that have not ratified IEPAs (or concluded full EPAs) with the EU will be delisted from the Market Access Regulation. LDCs could then use the EBA arrangement under EU GSP (i.e. 0 % tariff access on tuna) but other more developed countries would lose their 0 % tariff access. The only affected country of the WIO would be Kenya.


Page 82



Table 5.2: status of EPAs in the WIO

Region Current status Next steps and issues

Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA)

Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Malawi, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe

In 2009 Mauritius, Seychelles, Zimbabwe and Madagascar signed the IEPA. The Agreement has been provisionally applied since 14 May 2012. The European Parliament gave its consent on 17 January 2013. The inaugural EPA Committee under the Interim EPA was held in October 2012 in Brussels and the second meeting took place in May 2013 in Mauritius. The Customs Cooperation Committee and the Joint Development Committee were also held in the margins of the EPA Committee.

Negotiations for the comprehensive regional EPA are open. The next round of talks should take place at technical and Senior Official level, but there is no agreed date yet, and no dates have been set for the next EPA Committee in 2014.

ESA countries are seeking further derogations on rules of origin (like the one granted to Mauritius on skipjack127). Mauritius is concerned by the negative impacts of the EU Autonomous Tariff Quota (tuna loins 22 000 t at 0 %) on its loins exports to the EU.

Eastern African Community (EAC)

Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda

Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda agreed a framework EPA (mainly dealing with trade in goods) on 28 November 2007, and are now negotiating a comprehensive regional EPA. The framework agreement has not been signed or ratified. The latest Senior Official meeting in Arusha from 17-19 July 2013 was meant to be the final meeting before the ministerial meeting to conclude of the EPA. The long list of outstanding issues did not warrant a successful final ministerial meeting. About half of the outstanding issues were mutually agreed to be referred to ministers.

EAC insisted to refer all outstanding issues to ministers for political guidance for further work. The EU considers that some of them can still be discussed at technical and Senior Officials level before a ministerial meeting. Both parties now need to agree on the way forward.

Kenya is particularly keen to see agreement on the full EPA to secure its export sectors, but cannot move bilaterally for implementation of the IEPA if the full EPA fails as it is bound by the customs union with other EAC States (country possibly impacted by the 1/10/2014 Market Access Regulation amendment).

South African Development Community (SADC)

Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland

An IEPA was signed by the EU and by Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland on 4 June 2009. Mozambique signed the agreement on 15 June 2009. Namibia has indicated it is not ready to sign. The agreement has not been ratified.

Last Technical Working Group and Senior Official Meeting took place in September 2013 in South Africa. It addressed all matters: market access, textual unresolved issues, rules of origin and trade-related issues.

Negotiations focus on reaching a comprehensive agreement with the whole SADC EPA Group including South Africa.

Agricultural market access is a key issue. Mozambique will maintain its preferential market access as an LDC under EBA of the EU GSP if the negotiations do not succeed.

Source: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/september/tradoc_144912.pdf (accessed 15 August 2013), and DG MARE, pers. comm., September 2013 Note: countries categorised as least developed countries (LDCs) are shown in bold in the left-hand column

127 See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:240:0036:0038:EN:PDF which provides for a) an automatic derogation to the beneficiary ESA States (Mauritius, Seychelles and Madagascar) for 8 000 t of preserved tuna; and b) a derogation to Mauritius so that 2 000 t of preserved skipjack of HS Heading 1604 manufactured from non-originating skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) of HS Heading 0303 is regarded as originating in Mauritius for the purposes of imports to the EU during the period of 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/south-africa/

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/south-africa/

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/september/tradoc_144912.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:240:0036:0038:EN:PDF


Page 83



6 The EU tuna fleet in the western Indian Ocean

6.1 The EU fleet

6.1.1 Purse seine vessels

6.1.1.1 Fleet activity

Earlier text in section 4.2 described the activities of the purse seine fleet operating in the WIO, the catches made, the effort deployed, and the catch mix. As evident from this text, the purse seine fishery in the WIO is dominated by the activities of the EU fleet, which account for 66 % of total purse seine catches when considering catches by Spain and France. This very different to the situation in the west central Pacific, where EU purse seiners represent only 2 % of the total purse seine fishery. (Poseidon et al., 2013), and to the eastern Atlantic where EU purse seiners account for around 45 % of the total purse seine catch128.

The EU fleet is represented by three associations (with the two Spanish associations also members of the umbrella organisation Confederación Española de Pesca [CEPESCA]):

Organisation des producteurs de thon congelé (ORTHONGEL), representing French-flagged vessels in the WIO;

Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congeladores (OPAGAC) representing Spanish-flagged vessels in the WIO; and

Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Atuneros Congeladores (ANABAC), representing Spanish-flagged vessels in the WIO.

All EU vessels are roughly comparable in terms of size and specification. The fleet is characterised by vessels of 80-100 metres, with storage capacity of 1 500 m3, and engine power of around 3 500 kw. Vessels are typically manned by a crew of around 30. Some of the more modern vessels have ultra-low-temperature capabilities, meaning they can freeze tuna to temperatures as low as − 45C. Catching vessels are supported by support vessels (see earlier discussion in section 4). Based on data earlier in this report on catches and vessel numbers, an average catch per vessel of just under 10 000 t per year can be assumed.

Given the earlier text already provided on purse seine fisheries in the WIO (for example catches, access arrangements, bycatch mitigation and FAD management measures), this section provides additional (largely qualitative) discussion about the EU fleet’s activities, and potential developments in the future, based on consultations with the three associations concerned (and references are not therefore provided for specific statements made in the following text).

As noted earlier, and inferred from the catch mix and use of FADs described in section 4, the fishing strategy of all vessels, while similar, is distinguished by a higher dependency by the Spanish fleet on the use of FADs, and correspondingly on catches of skipjack. Within the French fleet, which targets more fishing on free schools for yellowfin tuna, it is common for a few vessels to search for new schools of tuna, and once found they start fishing them and then inform the rest of the fleet. French vessels may also specifically target skipjack depending on skipjack prices and fishing season, and use FADs particularly in the Mozambique channel. The higher focus on yellowfin tuna and a lower dependency on FAD fishing by the French fleet are closely linked to the remuneration system of the crew. Seafarers on French vessels are paid a proportion of the total value of the catch landed (with fish of less than 1.5 kg not included for the calculation of the total catch value, thus creating a disincentive for the crew to catch

128 COFREPECHE et al., 2013b.


Page 84



small-size tuna), as opposed to a proportion of the total tonnage landed, which is the system used by the Spanish vessels.

Having noted this slight difference in strategy, the fleets from Spain and France are otherwise largely comparable in that they are characterised by vessel movements determined entirely by the location of fish, rather than by any other economic factors such as port costs, fuel costs at different bunkering locations, etc. This means that the fleet can be found in the Mozambique channel from March to April (Iles éparse and Madagascar’s EEZ), in the EEZ of Kenya and Tanzania from May to July, and off the Somali EEZ from August to October in the case of the French fleet and to November in the case of the Spanish fleet, and finally in the Seychelles EEZ until February (in the northern part of the Seychelles EEZ first, and then throughout the zone, including in the northern part of the Mauritian EEZ).

Given the large percentage of total catches made in the high seas off Somalia and in Seychelles waters, the high concentration of total landings to Victoria, Seychelles is understandable (as described in section 5.1.1). Landings into Mauritius and Madagascar occur when vessels are fishing close to, or in the EEZs of those countries.

Catch rates in different zones may vary significantly between years for any specific month, but as long as vessels successfully follow the migration of the fish, catch rates at different times of the year in different zones do not vary enormously. However, it is the case that:

Catch rates in the Mozambique channel in March and April are often relatively low. As a result vessels may typically conduct repairs in Diego Suarez, Madagascar, during this period as necessary facilities/support services are not available in Seychelles; and

FAD catch focusing on skipjack in Seychelles has lower catch rates than in high seas areas in the Somali basin – the ocean current from Chagos and Seychelles going west splits into two when it hits the African coast, and the part that goes up to the Somali basin is very rich in primary production leading to high concentrations of plankton, and so of skipjack.

This pattern of fishing activity and resulting catches, is summarised in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: estimated typical EU purse seine dependency on different fishing zones

Country

Contribution of zone to total catch

Months of year in zone

French vessels Spanish vessels

French vessels Spanish vessels

Seychelles 35 % 30 % Nov-Feb Dec-Feb

Mauritius 4 % 1 % Feb-March Feb-March

Comoros 1 % 1 % March/April March/April

Mozambique 2 % 2 % March/April March/April

Mayotte 5 % 1-2 % April April

Madagascar 1 % 3-5 % May/July May/July

Kenya 1 % 1-2 % May/July May/July

Tanzania 1 % 1-2 % May/July May/July

High seas 51 % 50-55 % Aug-Oct Aug-Nov Source: Estimated based on data provided by DG MARE for FPA catches, and ORTHONGEL, OPAGAC and ANABAC, pers. comms, 7-9 October 2013 Note: Figures are approximate only, and vary per year

Some additional comments on access by EU purse seine vessels are appropriate, as follows:

Access to the EEZs of Kenya and Tanzania are by private access arrangements, and the catching sector associations report the considerable legal uncertainty over this access, given the necessary yearly application process;


Page 85



The EU fleet, as noted in section 3 of this report, does not fish in the BIOT, given that Chagos has been proclaimed as an MPA. Historically (for example, in the period 2006 to 2011) catches from the Chagos EEZ represented approximately 3 % of the French fleet’s total catch in the WIO;

Disputed maritime boundaries in the WIO pose problems for vessels in terms of reporting. While vessels typically have vessel authorisations to fish in all zones, the presence of ‘grey areas’ means that vessels have to avoid such zones altogether, declare catches to the administrations of both countries, or run the risk if they do not declare catches and entry/exit to both administrations of being accused of fishing illegally in one country or the other. The disputed area between Îles Éparses and Mozambique, and the Tromelin EEZ are cases in point;

Additional problems have arisen for EU (Spanish) vessels in the past. Fishing zones as specified in FPAs/Protocols have not been respected by national authorities as the basis for determining where vessels are allowed to fish based on notification to national authorities. The case of the fishing zone specified in the EU/Mozambique FPA/Protocol is a case in point; and

Access to Mayotte by the purse seine fleet is not expected to change from 2014 when Mayotte becomes part of the EU.

While the current EU fleet in the WIO is comprised of 22 vessels, historically, vessel numbers have been higher, which perhaps goes part of the way in explaining why purse seine vessel fishing opportunities provided in FPAs/Protocols in the region exceed 40 (see Table 3.1). As already explained, these declines in vessel numbers have largely been the result of piracy in the region (as outlined in section 4.10). With the apparent improvements in the piracy situation, one might expect an increase in EU vessel numbers in the coming years given that EU vessels authorised to fish in the WIO under IOTC capacity limits are considerably in excess of the current 22 operating (see section 4.2.1 for previous discussion on future evolution of the EU fleet).

Some important developments in support of improved fisheries management can be noted over and above those already presented in this report, for example FAD management and bycatch reduction measures.

Specifically relevant to the EU fleet (both purse seine vessels, and longline vessels discussed below in Section 6.1.2) is the landing obligation which is one of the key elements of the Basic Regulation of the reformed CFP (Article 15). The landing obligation (or ‘discard ban’) will be introduced gradually over the next few years, and will apply to EU vessels operating in EU waters and in non-Union waters not subject to third countries' sovereignty or jurisdiction. The potential impacts for vessels fishing outside of EU waters, including in the WIO, will be the subject of an EU-funded study129.

Spanish vessels represented by OPAGAC have been in discussions with WWF/Spain about engaging with a Fisheries Improvement Programme (FIP) to bring about further improvements in fisheries management. In the case of ANABAC, associated companies have engaged in Friend of the Sea certification since 2010 (Pevaeche group) and with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (Echebastar group) since early 2013. The Spanish and French fishing industry, in cooperation with the Long Distance Regional Advisory Council (LDRAC) and the Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation among African States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean (COMHAFAT) have also jointly launched a ‘Tuna Transparency Initiative’. The focus of this initiative is on reducing IUU fishing, on capacity building in

129 Specific Contract for the provision of advice on the management of discards in EU fisheries beyond EU waters. Under

framework contract number - MARE/2012/21: Scientific advice for fisheries beyond EU Waters.


Page 86



coastal countries, and on a transparent and harmonised legal framework of rules and regulations regarding access.

6.1.1.2 Economic and social impacts of the purse seine fleet

In terms of the economic and social impacts of the EU fleet, some brief information is provided in this section (and in section 6.1.2.2) based on available literature, in order to better inform the Kenya and Tanzania ex ante evaluation reports completed as part of this assignment.

Catching-sector employment onboard EU purse seine vessels is around 30 crew per vessel130, with around 20 members of the crew on each vessel being EU nationals, with the balance from third countries. Thus for the fleet of 22 vessels currently operating in the WIO, it can be estimated that 420 EU jobs and 210 third country jobs are created in the catching sector. Small numbers of jobs in the EU are also created in the areas of vessel management and representation.

An especially notable feature of EU purse seine catch is the very high levels of processing of catch that takes place in the WIO generating considerable benefits to countries in the region. As noted in Annex E, WIO cannery and loining plants generate around 6 000 jobs in the WIO in processing. Applying the percentage (66 %) of the total purse seine catch in the WIO made by the EU purse seine vessels to this figure (given that WIO processors process virtually no longline caught fish), it can be estimated (assuming no additional imports of tuna from other oceans for processing) that around 3 900 onshore processing jobs are created by EU fleet activities in the WIO.

In addition, in Seychelles alone it is estimated that around 750 people are employed on a part-time basis in unloading fishing being landed there (observations made by the contractors in Seychelles during other assignments). Given that around 80 % of the landings made in the WIO are made in Seychelles (as estimated in section 5), and that EU vessels contribute around 66 % of total purse seine catches, assuming similar levels of employment creation for fish landed in other ports, a total of around 620 part-time jobs are estimated to be generated in the WIO from the landing activities of the EU purse seine fleet.

The recent evaluation of the Seychelles FPA/Protocol131 made an estimation of the total economic benefits created by the EU purse seine fleet in the WIO, with Annex K of that report, providing an explanation of the methodology used. The economic model constructed (for 2011) can be used to determine that on a yearly basis (and subject to changes in inputs costs and sales prices) the EU purse seine fleet in the WIO generates:

EUR 23 million of crew income for EU nationals and EUR 11.5 million of crew income for non-

EU nationals;

EUR 102 million of net profits for EU vessel owners132;

EUR 16.7 million of value added in the upstream sector in the EU from vessel insurance, and

value-added on vessel construction and overheads and management charges in the EU;

EUR 1.7 million of value added from fish caught in the WIO being processed in the EU;

EUR 4.1 million of upstream (supplies) and downstream (offloading) value added by third

countries from port calls in the WIO; and

130 NFDS et al., 2013; COFREPECHE et al., 2013; and ORTHONGEL/OPAGAC/ORTHONGEL, pers. comm., 7-9 October 2013. 131 NFDS et al., 2013. 132 Note that this figure may be an over-representation given the costs and revenues assumed in the model.


Page 87



EUR 6.4 million of value added in WIO tuna processing plants from the processing of EU-

caught purse seine fish.

These economic and social benefits are summarised in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: summary of key economic and social benefits created by the EU purse seine fleet in the WIO

In EU In WIO

Employment benefits (number)

Upstream vessel support and port calls/services N/A 620 Catching sector 420 210 Downstream processing sector N/A 3 913

Economic benefits (EUR)

Upstream vessel support, and port calls/services value added

16.7 million 4.1 million

Crew income 23 million 11.5 million Vessel owner profits 102 million 0 Processing sector value added 1.7 million 6.4 million Source: Consultants’ compilation Notes: N/A = not available. Port call employment is largely part-time, while other estimates of employment are for full-time equivalents. Catching-sector crew employment and income may include non-EU nationals from outside the WIO. Figures in the table do not include financial contributions paid by the EU or by EU vessel owners to third countries in the WIO under either FPAs/Protocols or private sector access arrangements

6.1.2 Longline vessels

6.1.2.1 Fleet activity

As with the purse seine fleet, earlier text in this report has provided much information on the longline fleet in terms of catches, bycatch mitigation, product flows, etc., so text in this section adds to the information already provided, but focuses more specifically on the EU fleet.

The contribution of the EU longline fleet to total longline catches in the WIO (around 10 % in 2007- 2011133) is far lower than the contribution of the EU purse seine fleet to total purse seine catches in the region. The EU fleet can be divided into two different fleets based on their target catch i) Spanish, UK and Portuguese fleets targeting swordfish and sharks, i.e. sharks are not a bycatch of fishing for swordfish fishing but a target species in their own right, and ii) French/Réunion vessels targeting tuna and swordfish.

The Spanish fleet of 20 vessels is represented by a number of different associations as follows:

Asociacion Armadores Buques De Pesca De Marin;

Organización Palangreros Guardeses (ORPAGU);

Asociación Empresarial Espaderos Guardeses; and

Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Palangreros de Altura (ANAPA).

The Spanish fleet began fishing in the region in 1993, peaking at 28 vessels in 2008 before declining to 15 vessels in 2009, largely because of piracy in the region. Vessel number has now increased to 20.

133 NFDS et al., 2013.


Page 88



Portugal had three vessels in 2012, compared to more than three times as many (16), in 2006, again with piracy being the main cause for the decline. The UK has also has three vessels, beneficially owned in Spain. Vessel characteristics, movement and strategy for both the UK and Portuguese fleet are broadly similar to Spanish longline vessels.

Vessels target swordfish (about 50 % of total catch volumes) and shark, but also catch small amounts of albacore, bigeye and yellowfin tuna. Spanish vessels show catches of ‘others’ representing more than 50 % of total catches and catches of tuna at less than 10 % of total catches, indicating a strong reliance on catches of shark. In terms of catch values, it may be typical for swordfish to represent as much as 70 % of the value of the catch, sharks 20 %, tuna 5 % of the value of catch, and ‘others’ around 5 %.

Vessels most commonly land catch (and make any necessary repairs) in Durban, South Africa, although some landings are made in Diego Suarez, Madagascar, and Port-Louis, Mauritius. Catches are highly concentrated in high seas areas (> 75 % of total volumes), although catches are also made in both Mozambique and Madagascar134. There are no current catches in Kenya or Tanzania, and vessels are typically fishing much further to the south. Swordfish and shark are more disseminated/disparate than schooling tuna stocks, although of course their location is still linked to ocean currents and production. Nevertheless, the longline vessels are more dispersed, than are purse seine vessels. As catch is so dependent on temperature, in the summer southern African months (i.e. European winters), fish/vessels tend to move southwards, and then north again in the cooler months.

Vessels use monofilament surface long line gear with branch lines over 14 m long spaced evenly along the mainline at a mean distance of around 80 m. Vessel trips are typically 2.5-3 months in duration, and vessels are upwards of 27 m in length.

Spanish, Portuguese and UK longline fleets are reported by the industry135 to be under severe economic pressure at the current time. The issue of the current fall in sharkfin prices due to ongoing discussion over Chinese taxes on imports of fins has been discussed in section 5. In addition, shark fin prices are being negatively affected by NGO activity, carcass prices are also under pressure in key markets, while at the same time costs of production, for example the cost of fuel, remain high. Fleets are also reporting negative financial impacts of the amended EU shark regulation in the following ways:

Cutting fins partially onboard, then tying fins down flat to carcasses, and packing them takes more time, and more storage space. This in turn means shorter trips and more/costly steaming time; and

When in port, vessels must find a suitable freezer plant to do the final removal of fins from carcasses, sometimes having to wait to so, and have to pay around EUR 3 000 pre unloading for the processing.

The French fleet operates from, and close to Réunion, with a fishery that began in 1991 and had 28 operating vessels as of 2012. French vessels are relatively small, with none longer than 22 m and two-thirds of the fleet are under 16 m136. Over the last ten years, French vessels have recorded swordfish catches as representing more than 40 % of their total catches. French vessels record catches of ‘others’ (i.e. sharks) at just 6 % of total catches, with tuna catches representing more than 50 % of total

134 Catches of shark in Madagascar are limited by a maximum catch limit for EU vessels of 200 tonnes specified in the FPA/Protocol between the EU and Madagascar. 135 Pers. comm., 8 October 2013, Spanish longline associations. The contractors have not verified in any quantitative manner whether these claims are true or not. 136 NFDS et al., 2013


Page 89



catches (14 % yellowfin, 16 % bigeye, and 20 % albacore – see Table 4.8). Catches are made primarily in the waters of Réunion, Madagascar and nearby in high seas areas.

Regarding vessel numbers and potential evolution in the coming years, and in the context of informing ex ante evaluations of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and both Kenya and Tanzania, it appears unlikely, given current financial pressures, that Spanish, UK and Portuguese fleet numbers will increase. It is also far from clear whether the decline in piracy may encourage vessels to fish further north (or whether doing so could serve to increase levels of piracy again). Given the target catch for Spanish, UK and Portuguese vessels of shark and swordfish found in more southerly areas, a northward shift in activities might be unlikely. However, such a northward movement cannot be ruled out given historical catches in more northerly areas, and potential local depletion of swordfish stocks in current fishing grounds, which might cause vessels to move fishing location. It is not thought likely that Réunion vessels, given their smaller size and operating patterns, would be interested in fishing in either Kenya or Tanzania under a FPA.

6.1.2.2 Economic and social impacts of the longline fleet

Neither the Seychelles or Comoros FPA/Protocol evaluations, nor the evaluation of the Mauritius FPA/Protocol137 provide any information on the employment or value-added created by the EU longline fleet in the WIO. However, stakeholder consultations completed in the preparation of this report138 suggest that longliners typically have around 15 crew onboard, with five being from the EU and 10 from third countries. Applying these figures to the EU fleet of 20 longliners, an estimate can be made of 100 EU and 200 third country jobs created by the activities of the EU longline vessels operating in the WIO.

Onshore employment is created by EU vessel activity in ports, such as landing fish, repairs, transshipping or taking on supplies. This occurs primarily in Durban, but also Port-Louis and Diego Suarez for Spanish, UK and Portuguese vessels, and Réunion for vessels based in Réunion. But quantitative estimates of onshore employment and related value-added are not available for inclusion in this report. Likewise, given that estimates are not included in the other published evaluation reports, it is not possible to provide quantitative information on catching sector value-added, or on upstream or downstream economic benefits and value-added generated in the EU and the WIO based on the activities of the EU longline fleet.

6.1.3 Conclusion

In conclusion, both the EU purse seine and the EU longline fleets have historically relied on the EEZs of a number of countries in the WIO, as well as high seas areas, for its catches. Even though piracy has caused fishing patterns to change somewhat with a shift to the south and east away from Somali waters, both fleets still rely on a number of different fishing zones for their catch, and given the migratory nature of tuna, a regional network of fishing possibilities is critical for the EU fleet’s survival. This is perhaps especially the case for the purse seine fleet when considering the proportion of catches in high seas areas and EEZs of countries in the region for the two fleet types. Of particular note is the fact that Kenya and Tanzania’s EEZs remain the only Coastal States of the WIO where EU-flagged purse seine vessel have fishing access outside of FPA/Protocols.

Given the historical location/pattern of catches by the EU fleet as documented in this report, the potential EU fleet evolution, and the yearly movement of tuna stocks in the WIO as discussed earlier, it can be concluded that both the existing FPAs/Protocols in the WIO (with Comoros, Seychelles, Mozambique and Madagascar, and with the Mauritian/EU Protocol expected to come into force), and

137 Oceanic Developpment et al., 2011. 138 CEPESCA, pers. comm., 5 November 2013.


Page 90



access by the EU fleet to the EEZs of other countries (potentially including Kenya and Tanzania under a future FPA/Protocol), will remain vital for the continued viability of the EU fleets in the WIO in terms of providing a regional network of fishing opportunities. A continued decline in piracy in the region, FPAs/Protocols with Kenya and Tanzania, and resolution of Somalia’s EEZ delimitation and fishing authorisation problems, could all serve to support the activities of the EU fleets in the future.

The dependency on Kenya and Tanzania shown in industry consultations completed during the completion of this report, and earlier comments in the report about all EU vessels taking up vessel authorisations under private agreements, are all noteworthy in the context of the ex ante evaluations of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and both countries, and suggest that it is likely that fishing opportunities provided for EU vessels to fish in Kenyan and Tanzanian waters would be taken up (subject to the detailed requirements of the possible FPAs/Protocols).

6.2 Key findings from recent evaluations of FPAs/protocols in the WIO, recent events, and text in this report, of potential relevance to FPAs with Kenya and Tanzania

A number of important findings emerge from consultations completed as part of this assignment, and from evaluations of FPAs/Protocols and recent events, which are of potential relevance to possible FPAs/Protocols with Kenya and Tanzania.

1. The EU purse seine fleet’s focus of activities in the WIO, and the movement of tuna stocks in the WIO, mean that fishing opportunities in the northern waters of Mozambique all the way up to the horn of Africa are all of potential interest. However, outside of high seas fishing, the possibility to fish in Seychelles’ waters is by far the most important139;

2. Private access arrangements with both Kenya and Tanzania indicate possible demand by the EU purse seine fleet for FPAs/Protocols with both countries140;

3. The different specification of ‘fishing zones’ as defined in FPAs/Protocols, and EEZs as defined by third countries, creates potential ‘grey areas’ and confusion for both EU vessels and the third country administrations, and is a problem that needs resolution in the future141;

4. There are important ongoing developments within the IOTC about quota allocation or adopting alternative management actions, which could affect EU vessels in the future142;

5. Piracy in the WIO has had a significant impact on both purse seine and longline fleet activity, but the situation seems to be improving143;

6. The number of fishing opportunities provided for in existing FPAs/Protocols144 exceeds the number of vessels currently fishing in the WIO145;

7. Utilisation of longline fishing opportunities provided for in a number of the FPAs has been low in recent years, most notably due to the impacts of piracy146;

139 Spanish, French, UK and Portuguese fleet representation and Member State administrations, pers. comms, October 2013. 140 Spanish, French, UK and Portuguese fleet representation and Member State administrations, pers. comms, October 2013. 141 Spanish, French, UK and Portuguese fleet representation and Member State administrations, pers. comms, October 2013. 142 See section 2.1.9. 143 See section 4.10. 144 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm (accessed 28 September 2013) 145 See section 4. 146 NFDS et al., 2013; COFREPECHE et al., 2013.

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm


Page 91



8. EU purse seine and longline activity in the fishing zones of countries in the WIO region result in considerable direct economic and employment benefits in the catching sector, indirect upstream benefits for business in countries in the WIO and the EU supplying EU vessels with inputs, and indirect downstream benefits in both the EU and WIO from the processing and marketing of catches147. The high level of processing of catch within the region148, and the resulting benefits, is of special note;

9. Catches made in the WIO by EU purse seine and longline vessels contribute significantly to the EU market (see section 5, which suggests product flows to the EU from the WIO of around 99 000 t of canned tuna, 18 000 t of loined tuna, 11 000 t of frozen tuna for processing, and 7 200 t of frozen tuna for direct consumption);

10. FPAs/Protocols provide for financial contributions to be made by the EU to third countries, and include significant funds to support the implementation of fisheries policy and sustainable fisheries. The earmarking of funds for such purposes (which should also address improved MCS capacities of third countries through possible FPA cooperation with EU control services), is one of the principal benefits of FPAs/Protocols, and the added value of an EU framework for access, rather than leaving EU Member States to negotiate private agreements149; and

11. Most recent Protocols signed with countries in the WIO have typically been for a three year period.150. However a 3 year protocol period is not a policy objective as far as the EU is concerned, rather this period has been agreed in a number of recent Protocols as a result of negotiations (but not in all – see Table 3.1). Longer protocols may be desirable for the reason that they would provide for better security of access, a lower administrative burden for all parties, and evaluation at a time sufficiently elapsed after the Protocol has been initialed to as to better assess implementation and impacts. However it is also true that in the case of new FPAs, both the EU and the third country may prefer not to commit to Protocols that are too long in duration.

With regard to the reform of the common fisheries policy (see European Parliament 2012, European Parliament 2013, Council of the European Union 2012, and the recently published Basic Regulation of the CFP, future FPAs/Protocols will need to:

Serve to support the EU’s role in strengthening RFMOs, particularly in regard to transparency in mechanisms for the allocation of fishing opportunities, and ensuring that recommendations are based on scientific advice;

Include robust provisions for respect for the principle of restricting access to resources that are scientifically demonstrated to be surplus for the coastal State in line with the provisions of UNCLOS;

Ensure similar landings obligations as to EU vessels operating in EU waters, i.e. no discards;

Include robust provisions for safeguarding human rights in line with international agreements on human rights, and ensuring in all cases the strictest respect for democratic principles;

Ensure that the part of access paid for by vessel owners is commensurate with the benefits, which may imply an increasing share of the cost of access; and

147 See Table 6.2. 148 See section 5. 149 NFDS et al., 2013; COFREPECHE et al., 2013. 150 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm (accessed 28 September 2013).

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm


Page 92



Ensure that sectoral support is coherent with development and programmes in the third country, and that financial assistance for sectoral support is closely monitored to assess the results of the assistance provided.

6.3 A regional FPA?

A recent European Parliament report expressed support for a regional approach to the negotiation and implementation of the EU’s bilateral agreements151. Given the European Parliament’s position, it is therefore worth considering briefly possible advantages and disadvantages of a regional WIO FPA/Protocol providing access for EU purse seine vessels to the waters of a number of countries in the WIO, and how realistic/possible it might be to reach such a regional agreement.

A regional agreement could provide significant benefits in terms of ‘simplification’, both in terms of the negotiation process, i.e. the need to negotiate one regional agreement rather than a number of bilateral ones, and in terms of standard conditions applying across different EEZs in the region. However, it should be noted that the European Commission’s FPA, Protocol, and Annex templates already provide for a high level of standardisation. A regional FPA could also further support efforts designed to ensure sustainable exploitation through ensuring that EU fleet catches in the region are assessed in their totality and in light of regional stock status. Although, once again, ex ante and ex post evaluations of individual FPAs/Protocols already specifically consider the issue of rational and sustainable exploitation of living marine resources and the concept of ‘fishing surplus’.

A regional agreement, with regional sectoral funding support from the EU, could however result in a reduced focus on financial support for improvements in policy implementation in the specific countries of interest to the EU fleet, which may not be desirable. Also of concern is that the negotiation process could be extremely protracted and difficult, given the need for the EU to negotiate with a number of countries in the region that may have different views as to the conditions of access for EU vessels and the specific content of a regional FPA/Protocol. The difficulties in negotiating EPAs provide some lessons about the challenges of regional negotiations; challenges that the EU would perhaps rather not face again.

Given these comments, it is the consultants’ perception that negotiating a regional agreement may not be practical at the current time. However, individual FPAs/Protocols could nevertheless be used to push for more regional consistency on issues such as fisheries management, science and compliance, through the use of consistent legal text, and consistent approaches to sectoral support provided by different FPAs/Protocols.

151 European Parliament, 2012.


Page 93



7 Conclusions

The final section presents some brief conclusions based on the text of this report, grouped around a number of key themes.

7.1 Biological opportunities and constraints

None of the key species of skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna or swordfish being targeted in the WIO by EU vessels are either overfished (B < BMSY), or subject to overfishing (F > FMSY), as highlighted in section 4.7.

Constraints to improved fisheries management of highly migratory species are faced because of insufficient information and/or a lack of stock assessment for many non-target species (fish, and endangered, threatened and protected species such as turtles and seabirds), in part because some important species are not included within the IOTC mandate, and in part because of financial and human resource constraints in most countries in the region, meaning that biological research is often limited unless supported by donor projects.

Furthermore, stock assessments are often based on estimations of catches by coastal countries. When the fishing countries do not supply catches, the IOTC Secretariat estimates the catches for the missing components. This is particularly relevant for the Indian Ocean, as a large percentage of the tuna catch comes from small-scale or artisanal fisheries, as opposed to industrial fisheries. Catches from artisanal fleets are difficult to estimate accurately, especially for countries with an extensive coastline, such as India and Indonesia.

7.2 Technical opportunities and constraints

A number of important technical opportunities have been seized in the WIO to improve the sustainability of fisheries in the region. These have included IOTC measures and nationally implemented initiatives aimed at bycatch reductions and improved FAD management as documented in section 4.9. It should also be noted, however, that technical developments in the form of FADs themselves, and the use of supply vessels, have served to effectively increase effort over the years. Further improving selectivity of fishing methods is an area where opportunities may still exist.

Bycatch from purse seine, longline, handline, and pole-and-line fisheries are not significant considering the total volumes of catch being made by these fishing methods. Some innovative use of bycatch is already occurring in the region (for example, in Seychelles and Mauritius), and by-products are already produced from waste generated by the significant levels of processing in the region (for example, fish meal from canning factory waste). Bycatch from gillnet fisheries in the northern part of the WIO is likely to be significant, but it can be assumed that most bycatch is landed and sold domestically.

7.3 Regulatory opportunities and constraints

The IOTC provides a formalised framework and legal basis for regional management of tuna stocks in the Indian Ocean, and as the RFMO with responsibility for management and conservation of tuna and tuna-like species, has successfully put in place many regulatory measures aimed at ensuring sustainable fisheries management. However, an issue of concern, as noted in section 2.1.1, is that countries can opt out of Resolutions, although few countries have objected to approved Resolutions. On the other hand, consensus is not necessary to adopt Resolutions, and Recommendations need only be adopted by a simple majority of the Members present and voting. It should also be noted that while the IOTC has a key role in the development of multilateral management and conservation measures,


Page 94



other initiatives such as the IOC and the Regional Plan for Fisheries Surveillance (which may have a more limited geographical coverage) are also important.

IOTC Members have attempted to manage tuna fisheries on the basis of the capacity limitation since 2003. While there are advantages in this approach in theory (ease of enforcement, constant fishing pressure on the stocks, etc.), the implementation mechanisms chosen by the Members, in particular since 2006 and 2007, have several weaknesses. The capacity limits were established for groups of species, with no possibility for vessels to be in the two lists. Vessels (in particular, longliners), were to declare whether they target tropical tunas, or swordfish and albacore. For the regulation to be effective, they should not be allowed to switch target to a different species group, to prevent large increases in fishing pressure from shifts in effort. However, as piracy increased in the Somali region, many vessels that target tropical tunas moved to targeting albacore and, to a lesser extent, swordfish in southern areas, with the resulting overfishing of albacore.

However, fishing capacity limitation has also faced opposition from coastal States that want to retain their options to develop a fleet. In order to resolve this impasse in the negotiations for a limit, the concept of the Fleet Development Plans was created, although it weakens the original spirit of the capacity limitation approach. If all Fleet Development Plans are implemented, the fleet will grow to a level that will make catch limits unavoidable if serious overfishing is to be avoided, and many of the advantages of effort-based controls will be lost.

Consideration of catch limits to supplement a weakened capacity control has brought up the need for IOTC Members to discuss allocation criteria. Current difficulties in the negotiations toward a single mechanism that would be applicable to all species illustrate the challenge facing IOTC Members.

With respect to MCS, the current process of evaluation and action by the IOTC Compliance Committee on the level of compliance is an evolving process, and important decisions, such as the inclusion of a vessel in the IUU list, are made without the benefit of clear guidelines as to what constitutes due process, and can therefore often be political in nature. There is also no standardised scheme of sanctions and no unified view as to what would constitute adequate sanctions for certain infractions. A further constraint is that there are still many misconceptions on the part of many IOTC Members as to what is expected of them once a Resolution is adopted. This means that often decisions are not transposed into the domestic legislation, and/or no domestic mechanisms are implemented to ensure compliance. This is especially the case given limited financial and human resources in the region for MCS, which means that there are few countries in the region with strong MCS capabilities. It is also noteworthy that there is no regulatory requirement for compliance observers in the WIO (typically considered important for the detection of certain regulatory infractions), only initiatives aimed at scientific observation.

The lack of clarity of some maritime boundaries in the WIO is a further constraint to the activities of fishing sector operators, and to MCS activities.

Some fishing fleets operating in the WIO are subject to regulations with which vessels from other countries are not obliged to comply. For example, the amended EU shark regulation, requiring shark fins to be landed attached to carcasses, applies to all EU vessels operating in the WIO, but not to Asian longline vessels fishing for shark. Likewise, the landing obligation under the Basic Regulation on the CFP will be phased in over the coming years to apply to EU vessels, but not to non-EU vessels.

Given the strong concentration of tuna catches in the Somali basin, the lack of formalised and regulatory fishing authorisation regime (with no established/agreed EEZ and no licensing authority), coupled with the existing threat of piracy in the region off the Somali coast, provide a significant regulatory constraint, and resolution of these issues provides an important opportunity for improvements in the future. Developments in this direction would be of significant long-term benefit to


Page 95



fleets operating in the region, and to both Kenya and Tanzania, whose fishing authorisation revenues have been negatively affected by these issues.

Finally, it is noted that the regulatory basis for access by vessels from DWFNs, is not consistent and harmonised throughout the WIO. This means that individual DWFN vessels have to comply with different sets of regulations. As suggested in section 6.3, FPAs/Protocols offer a specific opportunity in this regard to standardise conditions surrounding access by EU vessels to the fishing zones of countries in the region. However, a level playing field for all vessels operating in the fishing zone of a particular country is important.

7.4 Political and strategic opportunities and constraints

FPAs/Protocols in the WIO are important for the EU, given its strong political and strategic interests in the region. They provide the potential for improved political contact between the EU and countries in the region, and serve to support the EU’s role in assisting with both improvements in fisheries management, and with economic development. They also serve to ensure a consistent political and strategic approach to the provision of access by countries in the region to EU vessels. FPAs/Protocols between the EU and both Kenya and Tanzania would provide an opportunity to build on existing political and strategic linkages that the EU has with both countries. In terms of fishing operations, the FPAs/Protocols provide for continued, secure and stable conditions for the EU vessels operators, which enables the EU fleet to follow the tuna through the majority of the migratory cycle. The conclusion of FPAs/Protocols with coastal States with whom the EU does not yet have an FPA, would ensure that almost all the migratory range of the tuna is accessible to the EU fleet through FPAs/Protocols.

7.5 Contractual opportunities and constraints

Related to the issue of differing regulations for access to fishing zones in the region, are the contractual insecurities that are present for EU vessels fishing under private access arrangements, rather than under FPAs/Protocols. Possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and other potential third countries in the region provide an opportunity in this regard, and provide a strong argument in support of FPAs/Protocols rather than the existing private access arrangement, as they would considerably improve the long-term security of access, and allow vessels to engage in longer-term planning of their business and operational strategies.

7.6 Economic opportunities and constraints

Fish resources in the region provide economic opportunities for the EU catching sector, for vessels from within the region, and for other non-EU DWFN vessels152. These economic opportunities relate to value-addition generated by vessels and the related employment onboard EU and non-EU vessels. However, also of great importance are the upstream economic and employment opportunities created for businesses supplying inputs to vessels (particularly for example, fuel suppliers, chandlery services, etc. based in the region), as well as the downstream processing and marketing activities that result from catches. This is the case both for the purse seine fleet which is strongly dominated by EU vessels, as well as the longline fleet, which has an EU component but which is more strongly dominated by Asian vessels. The very high levels of processing in the region of catches made by the EU and non-EU purse seine fleet153, specifically by canneries in the region, is a particularly notable feature of the industry in the WIO, as is the supply of large quantities of fish to markets around the world, and particularly to the

152 See section 6 and Table 6.2. 153 See Figure 5.1.


Page 96



EU from the purse seine fleet. The sale of access to fish by countries in the WIO also generates important economic revenue for governments in the region, in the form of foreign exchange154. Opportunities for greater economic benefits to all stakeholders could be based on improved management of resources for long-term sustainability, and efforts aimed at value-addition, for example improved marketing and processing. An IOTC resolution aiming at prohibiting transshipments at sea (as it applies for EU vessels within FPAs) would certainly impact positively on the economies of coastal states in the region.

Economic benefits are strongly determined by end-market prices, and as this report has highlighted, while fish prices for purse seine and longline caught fish have increased over the last few years, the last year has seen falling prices. However, although it is not clear how fish prices will evolve, they will have an important impact on economic opportunities.

Other factors are also placing economic constraints on some fleets. Some regulations may result in additional costs or reduced revenues for vessel operators (for example amended EU shark regulation, IOTC Resolution 2013/08 on FADs). Also as highlighted earlier, the piracy problem in the region has had significant impacts on vessel operations and costs. Finally, the purse seine fleet’s strategy of ensuring a regional network of fishing opportunities means that these vessels may often pay for fishing authorisations to fish in particular zones, but catch only small quantities of fish in those zones.

154 See section 3.2.


Page 97



8 References

EU legislation Council of the European Union. Basic Regulation on the CFP. Brussels, 10 October 2013.

Commission delegated regulation of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.

Consolidated versions of EU legal texts presented below are available on the European website EUR-Lex155.

Council regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters.

Council regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 of 26 June 2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels.

Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 1605/2002.

Documents on tuna production and trade

Campling, L. and Doherty, M., 2007. A comparative analysis of cost structure and SPS issues in canned tuna production in Mauritius/the Seychelles and Thailand: Is there a level playing field?

Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, Branch Fisheries Management (South Africa), 2013. Draft policy for the allocation of fishing rights in the tuna pole and line fishery: 2013. Available at: http://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/sideMenu/fisheries/21_HotIssues/April2010/AllocationOfRights/Draft%20revised%20tuna%20pole%20policy%20May%202013.pdf

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Branch Fisheries Management (South Africa), 2013b. Tuna longline and tuna pole website contributions.

FAO/Globefish, 2012. Tuna commodity update.

Fisheries Management Agency, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture (Maldives). Basic Fisheries Statistics, 2012. Available at: http://www.fishagri.gov.mv/images/download/basic_fisheries_statistics_2012.pdf

International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, 2012. A review of bycatch in the Indian Ocean gillnet tuna fleet focussing on India and Sri Lanka. Available at: http://iss-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/ISSF-2012-05-IO-Gillnet-Bycatch.pdf

Macfadyen, G. and Allison, E., 2009. Climate Change, Fisheries, Trade and Competitiveness: Understanding Impacts and Formulating Responses for Commonwealth Small States. Commonwealth Secretariat.

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2009. Fisheries Statistical Book. Available at: http://www.maf.gov.om/Pages/PageCreator.aspx?lang=ENandI=0andCid=0andCMSId=800631andDid=0

155 http://eur-lex.europa.eu.

http://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/sideMenu/fisheries/21_HotIssues/April2010/AllocationOfRights/Draft%20revised%20tuna%20pole%20policy%20May%202013.pdf

http://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/sideMenu/fisheries/21_HotIssues/April2010/AllocationOfRights/Draft%20revised%20tuna%20pole%20policy%20May%202013.pdf

http://www.fishagri.gov.mv/images/download/basic_fisheries_statistics_2012.pdf

http://iss-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/ISSF-2012-05-IO-Gillnet-Bycatch.pdf

http://iss-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/ISSF-2012-05-IO-Gillnet-Bycatch.pdf

http://www.maf.gov.om/Pages/PageCreator.aspx?lang=EN&I=0&CId=0&CMSId=800631&DId=0

http://www.maf.gov.om/Pages/PageCreator.aspx?lang=EN&I=0&CId=0&CMSId=800631&DId=0

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/


Page 98



Oceanic Developpment, Megapesca, and Fundacion Universitaria de Las Palmas, 2012. Evaluation des mesures prevues dans les region ultraperipheriques sous le Reg (CE) No. 791/2007

SmartFish, 2013. Fisheries trade in the Indian Ocean. Project report.

Sweenerain, S. and Hannomanjee, S., 2013. Market study on the bycatch from the tuna fishery in the Indian Ocean.

WWF, 2012. Tuna situation analysis, Pakistan.

Other documents and sources of information used

Abreu-Grobois, A. and Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group), 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org

ACAP, 2007. Analysis of albatross and petrel distribution and overlap with longline fishing effort within the IOTC area: results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Database. Paper submitted to the Third Session of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch, Victoria, Seychelles, 11-13 July 2007.

ACAP, 2010. Review of seabird bycatch mitigation measures for pelagic longline fishing operations.

Amande, M. J., Chassot, E., Chavance, P., Murua, H., Delgado de Molina, A. and Bez, N. 2012. Precision in bycatch estimates: the case of tuna purse-seine fisheries in the Indian Ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69:1501-1510.

Amande, M.J., Ariz, J. and Chassot, E., 2008. Bycatch and discards of the European purse seine tuna fishery in the Indian Ocean: Characteristics and estimation for the 2003-2007 period. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission document, IOTC-2008-WPEB-12, 23pp.

Anderson, R.C., 2009 Opinions count: decline in abundance of silky sharks in the central Indian Ocean reported by Maldivian fishermen. IOTC–2009–WPEB–08.

Ardill, D., Itano, D. and Gillet, R., 2013 A review of bycatch and discard issues in Indian Ocean tuna fisheries. Indian Ocean Commission Report: SF/2013/32, 65pp.

Bach, P., Romanov, E., Rabearisoa, N., Sharp, A. and Lamoureux, J-P, 2012. Preliminary results of bycatch ratio, catch rates and species CPUE distributions of bycatch of sharks in the pelagic longline fishery based in Reunion Island.

Beal, L.M. and Donohue, K.A., 2013. The Great Whirl: Observations of its seasonal development and interannual variability, J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 118:1-13. Doi:10.1029/2012JC008198.

Bergh, P.E., 2012. Comprehensive Review of MCS Capacity in the ESA-IO Region, Indian Ocean Commission, Report: SF/2012/14, 122pp.

Clarke, S., 2008. Use of shark fin trade data to estimate historic total shark removals in the Atlantic Ocean. Aquat Living Res 21:373-381.

Clarke, S.C., McAllister, M.K., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Kirkwood, G.P., Michielsens, C.G.J., Agnew D.J., Pikitch, E.K., Nakano, H. and Shivji, M.S., 2006. Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecol Lett 9:1115-1126.

Coelho, R., Lino, P.G., Santos, M.N., 2011. At-haulback mortality of elasmobranchs caught on the Portuguese longline swordfish fishery in the Indian Ocean. IOTC–2011–WPEB07–31.

Coelho, R., Santos, M.N., Lino, P.G., 2012. Update of the standardized CPUE series for major shark species caught by the Portuguese longline fishery in the Indian Ocean. IOTC–2012–WPEB08–29, 17pp.


Page 99



Delord, K. and Weimerskirch, H., 2009. New information on the distribution of southern seabirds and their overlap with the IOTC zone. Paper presented to the fifth meeting of the IOTC WPEB, Mombasa, Kenya 12-14 October 2009. IOTC–2009–WPEB07–13.

Delord, K. and Weimerskirch, H., 2010. New information on the distribution of southern seabirds and their overlap with the IOTC zone seasonal changes in distribution and the importance of the non-breeders and juveniles in assessing overlap between seabirds and longliners. Paper presented to the sixth meeting of the IOTC WPEB, Victoria, Seychelles, 27-31 October 2010. IOTC–2010–WPEB04–14.

Dueri, S., Faugeras, B. and Maury, O., 2012. Modelling the skipjack tuna dynamics in the Indian Ocean with APECOSM-E: Part 1. Model formulation. Ecological Modelling 245 (2012) 41-54.

Filmalter, J.D., Capello, M. Deneubourg, J-L, Cowley, P.D. and Dagorn, L., 2013. Looking behind the curtain: quantifying massive shark mortality in fish aggregating devices. Front Ecol Environ 2013; 11(6):291–296, doi:10.1890/130045.

Fonteneau, A., Lucas, V., Delgado A. and Demarcq, H., 2006. Meso-scale exploitation of a major tuna concentration in the Indian Ocean. IOTC-2006-WPTT-24.

Gauffier, P., 2007. A review of the information on Bycatch in the Indian Ocean IOTC Secretariat. Paper submitted to the third meeting of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch, 11-13 July 2007, Victoria. IOTC–2007–WPEB–11.

Guillotreau, P., Campling, L. and Robinson, J., 2012. Vulnerability of small island fishery economies to climate and institutional changes. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:1-5.

Hiraoka, Y. and Yokawa, K., 2012. Update of CPUE of blue shark caught by Japanese longliner and estimation of annual catch series in the Indian Ocean. IOTC–2012–WPEB08–28, 16pp.

Holmes, B.H., Steinke, D. and Ward, R.D., 2009. Identification of shark and ray fins using DNA barcoding. Fish Res 95:280-288.

Huang, H.W. and Liu, K.M., 2010. Bycatch and discards by Taiwanese large-scale tuna longline fleets in the Indian Ocean, Fisheries Research, Volume 106, Issue 3, December 2010, Pages 261-270, ISSN 0165-7836. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.08.005

IOTC, 2009. Report of the Twelfth Session of the Scientific Committee. IOTC-2009-SC12-R. 156pp.

IOTC, 2011. Report of the Fourteenth Session of the Scientific Committee. IOTC-2011-SC14-R. 206pp.

IOTC, 2012. Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Scientific Committee. IOTC-2012-SC15-R. 212pp.

IOTC, 2013a. Report of the Eleventh Session of the Working Party on Billfish. IOTC-2013-WPB11-R. 85pp.

IOTC, 2013b. Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Working Party on Tropical Tunas. IOTC-2013-WPTT15-R. 93pp.

IUCN, 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org

John, M.E. and Varghese, B.C, 2009. Decline in CPUE of oceanic sharks in the Indian EEZ: urgent need for precautionary approach. IOTC–2009–WPEB–17.

Kimoto, A., Hiraoka, Y., Ando, T. and Yokawa, K., 2011. Standardized CPUE of shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) caught by Japanese longliners in the Indian Ocean in the period between 1994 and 2010. IOTC–2011–WPEB–34.

Longhurst, A. 1998. Ecological Geography of the Sea. Academic Press, San Diego. 398 pp.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.08.005


Page 100



Macfadyen, G., 2012. Sustainable shrimp/prawn fisheries in Kenya and Tanzania – assessment of stakeholder interest in, and the potential benefits of, a WWF-supported shrimp blueprint adaptation process in both Kenya and Tanzania. Poseidon/WWF report.

Marine Turtle Specialist Group, 1996. Caretta caretta. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org

Marsac, F., 2008. Outlook of ocean climate variability in the west tropical Indian Ocean, 1997-2008. IOTC-2008-WPTT-27.

Marsac, F., 2012. Outline of climate and oceanographic conditions in the Indian Ocean over the period 2002-2012. IOTC-2012-WPTT-09OPEN ACCESS.

Mejuto, J., García-Cortés, B. and Ramos-Cartelle, A., 2006. An overview of research activities on swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and the by-catch species, caught by the Spanish longline fleet in the Indian Ocean. IOTC 2006-WPB-11.

Mortimer, J.A. and Donnelly, M. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group), 2008. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

Muths, D., Le Couls, S., Evano, H., Grewe, P. and Bourjea, J., 2013. Multi-genetic marker approach and spatio-temporal analysis suggest there is a single panmictic population of swordfish Xiphias gladius in the Indian Ocean. PloS ONE 8(5): e63558. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063558.

Palha de Sousa, B., 2011. Mozambique National Report to the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Instituto Nacional de Investigaçao Pesqueira. IOTC–2011–SC14–NR30.

Poisson, F. and Taquet, M., 2001. Programme palangre réunionnais, rapport final, 248pp. Available at: www.ifremer.fr/drvreunion

Ramos-Cartelle, A., García-Cortés, B., Ortíz de Urbina, J., Fernández-Costa, J., González-González, I. and Mejuto, J., 2012. Standardized catch rates of the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) from observations of the Spanish longline fishery targeting swordfish in the Indian Ocean during the 1998-2011 period. IOTC–2012–WPEB08–27, 15pp.

Red List Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, 1996. Natator depressus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org

Resplandy, L., Lévy, M., G. Madec, S., Pous, Aumont, O. and Kumar, D., 2011. Contribution of mesoscale processes to nutrient budgets in the Arabian Sea, J. Geophys. Res. 116, C11007, doi:10.1029/2011JC007006.

Romanov, E.V., 2002. Bycatch in the tuna purse-seine fisheries of the western Indian Ocean. Fish Bull 100:90-105.

Romanov, E.V., 2008. Bycatch and discards in the Soviet purse seine tuna fisheries on FAD-associated schools in the north equatorial area of the Western Indian Ocean. Western Indian Ocean J Mar Sci 7:163-174

Sarti Martinez, A.L., (Marine Turtle Specialist Group), 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org

Schewe, J. and Levermann, A., 2012. A statistically predictive model for future monsoon failure in India Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044023 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044023.

Sea Around Us Project, 2013. Data on EEZ primary productivity downloaded from http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/ on 6 February 2013.

Seminoff, J.A., (Southwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S.), 2004. Chelonia mydas. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org

http://www.ifremer.fr/drvreunion

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044023

http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/


Page 101



Shahifar, R., 2011. Estimation of bycatch and discard in Iranian fishing vessels (gillnets) in the IOTC area of competence during 2012. IOTC–2012–WPEB08–42.

Vialard, J., Duvel, J. P., Mcphaden, M. J., Bouruet-Aubertot, P., Ward, B., Key, E., Bourras, D., Weller, R., Minnett, P., Weill, A., Cassou, C., Eymard, L., Fristedt, T., Basdevant, C., Dandonneau, Y., Duteil, O., Izumo, T., de Boyer Montégut, C., Masson, S., Marsac, F., Menkes, C. and Kennan, S., 2009. Supplement to Cirene: Air-Sea Interactions in the Seychelles-Chagos Thermocline Ridge Region. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90 (1). ES1-ES4. Doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2499.2.

Yokawa K., Semba Y., 2012. Update of the standardized CPUE of oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) caught by Japanese longline fishery in the Indian Ocean. IOTC–2012–WPEB08–26, 5pp.

Documents related specifically to FPAs/Protocols and their evaluations, and other access agreements

Breuil, C., and Snijman, P., 2012. IOC IRFS Programme Kenya case study and workshop on fisheries licencing. Smartfish working papers, No. 27.

COFREPECHE, MRAG, NFDS et POSEIDON, 2013. Évaluation retrospective et prospective du protocole de l’accord de partenariat dans le secteur de la pêche entre l’Union européenne et l’Union des Comores, Contrat cadre MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, contrat spécifique n° 4, Bruxelles. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/comoros/index_en.htm

COFREPECHE, POSEIDON, MRAG et NFDS, 2013b. Revue des pêcheries thonières dans l’océan Atlantique Est (Contrat cadre MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, contrat spécifique n° 5). Bruxelles.

Comores / ANABAC, 2009. Accord de peche entre le Ministere de l’Agriculture de la Peche et de lEenvironment de l’Union des Comores, et l’Association Nacional de Armadores de Buques Atuneros Cogeladores (ANABAC) Espagne dans la zone economique exclusive des Comores. Available at: http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/Accord%20ANABAC.pdf

Council of the European Union, 2012. Council conclusions on a Communication from the Commission on the External dimension of the Common fisheries policy 3155th Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting. Brussels, 19 and 20 March 2012. Available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf

European Parliament, 2012. Report on the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy (2011/2318(INI)). Committee on Fisheries. Rapporteur: Isabella Lövin. 27.09.2012. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORTandreference=A7-2012-0290andlanguage=EN

European Parliament, 2013. Opinion of the Committee on Development for the Committee on Fisheries for a comprehensive EU fishery strategy in the Pacific region (2012/2235(INI)). Rapporteur : Maurice Ponga. 23.01.2013. Available at: http ://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do ?type=COMPARLandreference=PE-500.519andformat=PDFandlanguage=ENandsecondRef=02

NFDS, MRAG, COFREPECHE and POSEIDON, 2013. Ex post evaluation of the current Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Seychelles and ex ante evaluation including an analysis of the impacts of the future Protocol on sustainability (Framework contract MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 4). Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/seychelles_2013/index_en.htm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2499.2

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/comoros/index_en.htm

http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/Accord%20ANABAC.pdf

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2012-0290&language=EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2012-0290&language=EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-500.519&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=02

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-500.519&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=02

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/seychelles_2013/index_en.htm


Page 102



NFDS, POSEIDON, COFREPECHE and MRAG, 2014. Ex ante evaluation of a possible future fisheries partnership agreement and protocol between the European Union and Tanzania (Framework contract MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 7).

Oceanic Developpement and Megapesca Lda, 2008. Specific contract No. 4 – Establishment of a Framework Contract Management Unit (FCMU) to manage, monitor and coordinate the activities under the framework management unit and the relevant specific agreements – Specific Methodological Guidelines for Evaluation of Fisheries Partnership Agreements (under Framework Contract FISH/2006/11).

Oceanic Développement, MegaPesca Lda 2011. ‘Contrat cadre pour la réalisation d'évaluations, d'études d'impact et de suivi concernant les accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche (FPA) conclus entre la Communauté européenne et les pays tiers, et plus généralement sur le volet externe de la Politique Commune de la Pêche: ex-ante evaluation of existing conditions in the fisheries sector in mauritius with a view to concluding a new fisheries partnership agreement and protocol.

Oceanic Developpement, Megapesca Lda and Poseidon, 2005. Study on the European tuna sector.

POSEIDON, MRAG, COFREPECHE and NFDS, 2013. Review of tuna fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (Framework contract MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 6). Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/tuna-fisheries-western-and-central-pacific_en.pdf

POSEIDON, MRAG, COFREPECHE and NFDS, 2014. Ex ante evaluation of a possible future fisheries partnership agreement and protocol between the European Union and Kenya (Framework contract MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 7).

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/tuna-fisheries-western-and-central-pacific_en.pdf


Page 103



Annexes


Page 104



Annex A: Currency exchange rates used in this report

EUR exchange rate

(1 =) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

USD 1.35 1.58 1.41 1.22 1.45 1.34 1.33

Pakistan rupee (PKR) 137

Omani riyal 0.51

South African Rand (ZAR)

13.64

Rates at year mid-point (30 June)

Source: Inforeuro156

156 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm


Page 105



Annex B: List of acronyms/abbreviations

ACAP Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific

ANABAC Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Atuneros Congeladores

ASCLME Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Programme

AU African Union

B BIOT

Biomass British Indian Ocean Territory

CAMFA Conference of African Ministers of Fisheries and Aquaculture

CCS Catch Certificate Scheme

CEANI Coastal East Africa Network Initiative (of WWF)

CEPESCA Confederación Española de Pesca

CFP common fisheries policy

cm centimetre

COI Commission de l’Océan Indien

COMESA Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa

CPC Cooperating non-Contracting Party

CPUE catch per unit effort

DG MARE Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

DWFN distant water fishing nation

EAF ecosystem approach to fisheries

EBA Everything But Arms

EC European Commission

EEAS European External Action Service

EEZ exclusive economic zone

EIO east Indian Ocean

ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation

EPA Economic Partnership Agreement

ETP endangered, threatened or protected

EU European Union

EUR euro F fishing mortality FAD fish aggregation device

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FMSY fishing mortality rate that would give maximum sustainable yield

FPA Fisheries Partnership Agreement

GSP Generalised System Of Preferences

GT gross tonnes

i.e. id est in Latin meaning ‘that is’ in English

IEPA Interim Economic Partnership Agreement

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFREMER Institut Français de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer

IMR Institute of Marine Resources (Bergen)


Page 106



IOC Indian Ocean Commission

IOSEA Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Sea Turtles

IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

IOTTP Indian Ocean Tuna Tagging Programme

IRD Institut de Recherche pour le Développement

ISSF International Sustainability Seafood Foundation

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

IUU illegal, unregulated or unreported

IWC International Whaling Commission

kg kilogramme(s)

kw kilowatt

LDC least developed country

m metre(s)

MCS monitoring, control and surveillance

MJO Madden-Julian Oscillation

MPA marine protected area

MSY maximum sustainable yield

N/A not applicable or not available

NEI not elsewhere identified

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO non-governmental organisation

nm nautical mile

OMR Omani rial

OPAGAC Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congeladores

ORPAGU Organización Palangreros Guardeses

ORTHONGEL Organisation de Producteurs de Thon Congelé

PAF Partnership for African Fisheries

PKR Pakistani rupee

PRSP Plan Regional de Surveillance des Pêches dans le Sud-Ouest de l'Océan Indien

RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation

RTTP-IO Regional Tuna Tagging Project – Indian Ocean

SADC South African Development Community

SAP strategic action plan

SB spawning biomass

SCTR Seychelles-Chagos Thermocline Ridge

SIF Stop Illegal Fishing

SIOFA South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement

SWIO southwest Indian Ocean

SWIOFC Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission

SWIOFP South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project

t tonne(s)

TDA transboundary diagnostic analysis

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme


Page 107



USD United States dollar

VMS vessel monitoring system(s)

WIO western Indian Ocean

WIO-LaB Western Indian Ocean Land Based Impacts on the Marine Environment (Project)

WIOMSA Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association

WIOTO Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organisation

WPEB Working Party on Ecosystem and Bycatch

WTO World Trade Organization

ZAR South African rand


Page 108



Annex C: Consulted organisations

The consultants are grateful to all stakeholders who shared their time, thoughts, information and data with the consulting team that completed this specific contract.

A. Organisations consulted in the WIO

Organisation Department position

IOTC Executive Secretary

EU Delegation in Mauritius Fisheries attaché, in Mauritius

IOC/COI in Mauritius Fisheries staff

Indian Ocean Tuna Operators Association Secretariat

Indian Ocean Tuna cannery, Seychelles Managing Director

SmartFish project Team Leader, MCS, socio-economic and trade experts

Fisheries Development Board, Pakistan Company Secretary

Fisheries Management Agency, Maldives Director

Marine Science and Fisheries Centre, Oman Licence and marketing departments

Ministère de la Pêche et de Ressources Halieutiques, Madagascar

Fisheries staff

Direction Nationale des Ressources Halieutiques, Comoros

Head of institution

Ministry of Agro Industry, Food Production and Security, Mauritius

Fisheries Division

Seychelles Fishing Authority Secretariat

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa

Fisheries Management and Resources Research divisions

Sea and Coastal Inter-ministerial Actions Service, under the Sea Direction for the Indian Ocean, Reunion

Deputy Director

Administração Nacional das Pescas, Mozambique

Fisheries Advisor

Sultan Qaboos University, Oman Department of Marine Science and Fisheries

World Bank Task Team Leader for South West Indian Ocean fisheries projects

WWF, Pakistan Fisheries officer

Various in both Kenya and Tanzania as listed in the Kenya ex ante evaluation reports


Page 109



B. People consulted in Europe

Organisation Department position

European Commission DG MARE F.2. Evaluation and impact assessment coordination

DG MARE B.3

- Desk officer Seychelles, coordinator for Indian Ocean

- Desk officer Kenya

DG MARE.B.1 Desk officer for IOTC

DG MARE D.4 Fishing authorisation and catch data officer

DG MARE B.2 Trade, Indian Ocean EPAs

DG DEVCO Horn of Africa Unit, desk officer for Seychelles

EEAS II A1, Aid cooperation East Africa

Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation, de la pêche, de la ruralité et de l’aménagement du territoire (MAAP), Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture (DPMA), Sous-direction des Ressources Halieutiques, France

Bureau des affaires internationales et européennes, Affaires européennes, Chargé de Missions

SG Acuerdos y Organizaciones Regionales de Pesca. DG Recursos Pesqueros y Acuicultura. Secretaría General de Pesca. Spain

SG Adjunta de Acuerdos y ORPs

Head and Deputy Head of Unit unit for fisheries agreements and RFMOs

Direcção-Geral das Pescas e Aquicultura. Portugal

Chefe de Divisão de Recursos Externos

Técnico Superior

Marine Scotland Head of Sea Fisheries Operations

CEPESCA (Professional organisation), Spain Secretaria General Adjunta

OPAGAC (Professional organisation), Spain Director Gerente

ANABAC (Professional organisation), Spain Directeur and Assistant Manager

Asociacion Armadores Buques De Pesca De Marin (Professional organisation), Spain

Director – Gerente

Organización Palangreros Guardeses (Professional organisation), Spain

Dirección

Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Palangreros de Altura (Professional organisation), Spain

Dirección


Page 110



Individual Portuguese longline vessel owners

ORTHONGEL (Professional organisation), France

Directeur

Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations

Fish marketing division / Globefish


Page 111



Annex D: Information on States and their Competent Authorities notified under Article 20(1) and (2) of the EU IUU Regulation (as of 18 March 2013)

The table below provides information on third countries in the WIO, and DWFNs that have had vessels active in the WIO in recent years, having already notified their competent authorities to the Commission in accordance with Article 20(1) and (2) of the IUU Regulation. This information includes the names of the authorities notified in accordance with Annex III of the IUU Regulation, which are competent for:

1/ The registration of fishing vessels under the flag of the Flag State; 2/ Granting, suspending and withdrawing licences to the fishing vessels of the Flag State; 3/ Attesting the veracity of the information provided in the catch certificates referred to in Article 12 and for validating such catch certificates; 4/ The control and enforcement of laws, regulations and conservation and management measures that must be complied with by fishing vessels; 5/ The verifications of catch certificates to assist the competent authorities of Member States through the administrative cooperation referred to in Article 20(4); 6/ The communication of a sample form of the catch certificate in accordance with the specimen in Annex II; and 7/ Updating the notifications.

WIO country

Comoros Not notified

Eritrea Points 1 and 6: Ministry of Fisheries. Point 2: Fisheries Resource Regulatory Department. Point 3: Fish Quality Inspection Division. Point 4: Monitoring Controlling and Surveillance, Ministry of Fisheries. Point 5: Liaison Division, Ministry of Fisheries. Point 7: Government of the State of Eritrea.

India Points 1 and 2: Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Director General of Shipping, Ministry of Shipping, Department of Fisheries of State (Provincial) Governments of West Bengal, Gujarat, Kerala, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharastra, and Tamil Nadu. Points 3 and 5: Marine Products Exports Development Authority. Point 4: Director General of Shipping, Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Coast Guard and Department of Fisheries of the State Governments. Point 6: Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Point 7: Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture.

Iran Not notified

Kenya Point 1: Kenya Maritime Authority. Points 2 to 7: Ministry of Fisheries Development.

Madagascar Point 1: Agence Portuaire Maritime et Fluviale, Service Régional de Pêche et des Ressources halieutiques de Diana, Sava, Sofia, Boeny Melaky, Analanjirofo, Atsinanana, Atsimo Atsinanana, Vatovavy Fitovinany, Menabe, Atsimo Andrefana, Anosy, and Androy. Point 2: Ministère chargé de la Pêche. Points 3 and 4: Centre de Surveillance des Pêches. Points 5, 6, 7: Direction Générale de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques.

Maldives Point 1: Ministry of Housing, Transport and Environment. Point 2: Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture (MOFA) and Ministry of Economic Development. Points 3, 5, 6, 7: Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture (MOFA). Point 4: Coast Guard, Maldives National Defense Force and Maldives Police Service.

Mauritius Points 1 to 7: Ministry of Fisheries.

Mayotte Points 1, 2, 5, 7: Monsieur le Préfet de Mayotte. Point 3: Le Centre National de Surveillance des Pêches (CNSP). Point 4: Monsieur le Préfet de la Réunion.

Mozambique Point 1: National Marine Institute (INAMAR). Points 2 to 7: National Directorate of


Page 112



Fisheries Administration.

Oman Points 1, 2, 5 and 7: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Wealth, Directorate General of Fisheries Development, Department of Surveillance and Fisheries Licensing. Points 3, 4 and 6: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Wealth, Directorate General of Fisheries Development, Department of Surveillance and Fisheries Licensing; and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Wealth, Directorate General of Fisheries Dhofar Region, Department of Fisheries Affairs.

Pakistan Point 1: Mercantile Marine Department. Points 2 and 4: Marine Fisheries Department / Directorate of Fisheries of Balochistan / Directorate of Fisheries of Sindh. Points 3, 5, 6: Marine Fisheries Department. Point 7: Ministry of Livestock and Dairy Development.

Seychelles Point 1: Seychelles Maritime Safety Administration. Point 2: Seychelles Licensing Authority. Points 3 to 7: Seychelles Fishing Authority.

Somalia Not notified

South Africa Points 1 to 7: Branch: Fisheries Management, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Tanzania Points 1 to 7: Director of Fisheries Development

Yemen Point 1 Maritime Affairs Authority – Ministry of Transport. Points 2 to 7: Ministry of Fish Wealth and its branches from Aden, Alhodeidah, Hadramout, Almahara.

DWFN active in WIO

Belize Point 1: IMMARBE. Points 2 to 7: Fisheries Department of the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development.

China Points 1 to 7: Bureau of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture.

Equatorial Guinea Not notified

Honduras Not notified

Japan See source of information for complete details.

Korea Points 1, 2, 4, 6, 7: Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Points 3 and 5: Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine Inspection Agency and its 17 regional or district offices.

Panama Point 1: Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos de Panamá - Autoridad Marítima de Panamá. Points 2 to 7: Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos de Panamá.

Philippines Point 1: Maritime Industry Authority. Points 2 to 7: Bureau for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agriculture.

Taiwan Point 1: Council of Agriculture. Points 2 to 7: Fisheries Agency.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/info/flag_state_notifications.pdf (accessed 10 September 2013)

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/info/flag_state_notifications.pdf


Page 113



Annex E: Overview of key tuna processing plants in the WIO region

Country Company Overview

Production and Employment

Kenya Kenya-Wanachi Marine Products Ltd. Processing agreement to supply Tri Marine (a tuna trading company).

Other licensed industries processing tuna loins for export include Shimko, Trans Africa and Sea Harvest.

Annual raw material production capacity 20 000 t for yellowfin loins. Direct employment: unknown.

N/A

Iran N/A N/A

Madagascar

Conserverie des Cinq Océans (CCO) (former Pêche et Froid Océan Indien).

Annual raw material production capacity 36 000 t for canned and pouch157 skipjack/ yellowfin.

Direct employment: 1 200-1 600.

Maldives Felivaru and Maandhoo tuna canneries.

Several yellowfin tuna loining factories.

Home-based processing of Maldive Fish.

Direct employment: N/A

Mauritius Princes Tuna (Mauritius) Ltd (PTM). 58/59 % share bought by Princes Ltd (UK) in 1999, which is a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corporation/ 35 % Ireland Blyth Ltd (IBL, Mauritius)/6-7 % State Investment Corporation (Mauritius). Formerly known as the Mauritius Tuna Fishing Canning Enterprise, the first cannery was established in 1971/2.

Annual raw material production capacity 50 000 t for canned skipjack.

Direct employment: 1 950

Thon des Mascareignes (est. 2005). Owned 75 % IBL / 25 % Pesqueras Echebastar (Spain).

Annual raw material production capacity 55 000 t for albacore, skipjack and yellowfin loins (90 %) cans and pouch.

Direct employment: 750

Mer des Mascareignes (IBL/SAPMER) (est. 2008).

Frozen fish processing plant with an annual production capacity of 9000 tonnes

Tuna Processing Services Indian Ocean (est. 2013) (SAPMER).

Frozen fish processing plant with an annual capacity of 21 000 tonnes

Oman

Dhofar Fisheries and Food Industries Co SAOG. Tuna and sardine canning.

Fishmeal is produced from residues and lower grade fish purchased locally. Its main products are canned tuna and sardines, tuna loins, frozen tuna and sardines, fish meal and fish oil. The Company’s products are marketed under the brand names Blue Ocean and Taibat Oman tuna.

157 Tuna packed in aluminium foil pouches.


Page 114



Seychelles Indian Ocean Tuna Ltd (IOT) (est. 1995) owned 60 % Lehman Brothers until 2011/40 % government of Seychelles, managed by MW Brands (taken over by Thai Union in 2011). Previously owned by Heinz European Seafood until 2006.

Annual raw material production capacity > 100 000 t for canned skipjack/yellowfin and some loins.

Direct employment: 2,600

Yemen Three canneries (including Mukalla Ghawizi Fish Canning Factory), and loining.

Direct employment: N/A

Source: Campling et al., 2007, http://gulfnews.com/business/economy/yemen-39-s-tuna-canneries-in-danger-of-collapse-1.965524, http://www.alacrastore.com/company-snapshot/Dhofar_Fisheries_Food_Industries_Company_S_A_O_G-2510606, http://transparentsea.co/index.php?title=Kenya:Offshore_fisheries#cite_ref-1.



http://www.alacrastore.com/company-snapshot/Dhofar_Fisheries_Food_Industries_Company_S_A_O_G-2510606

http://www.alacrastore.com/company-snapshot/Dhofar_Fisheries_Food_Industries_Company_S_A_O_G-2510606


Page 115



Annex F: Information on fisheries research institutions in the WIO

WIO Country Name of primary research institutions

Comoros Direction Nationale des Ressources Halieutiques

Eritrea Ministry of Fisheries

National Fisheries Corporation

India Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, and federal level research institutes

Fishery Survey of India

Iran Iran Fisheries Research Organisation (IFRO)

Kenya Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI)

Madagascar Ministère de la Pêche et de Ressources Halieutiques

Institut Halieutique et des Sciences Marines (IHSM)

Maldives Fisheries Management Agency

Marine Research Centre (MRC)

Mauritius Ministry of Agro Industry, Food Production and Security (Fisheries Division)

Albion Fisheries Research Centre (AFRC)

Rodrigues Fisheries Research Centre (RFRC)

Mayotte and Réunion Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (IFREMER)

Institut de Recherche pour le Developpment (IRD)

Mozambique Instituto Nacional de Investigação Pesqueira (IIP)

Oman Marine Sciences and Fisheries Centre

Pakistan Pakistan Agricultural Research Council

Institute of Marine Research

Institute of Marine Science

Seychelles Seychelles Fishing Authority

Somalia Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources

South Africa Oceanagraphic Research Institute(ORI)

South-African Institute for Biodiversity (SAIAB)

Tanzania Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TaFIRI)

Institute of Marine Science (in Zanzibar)

Yemen Marine Science and Resources Centre

Ministry of Fish Wealth

Source: consultants’ compilation Note that many universities and Ministries/Fisheries Departments in the WIO also conduct fisheries research


Page 116



Annex G: IOTC Members, and species under the management mandate of the IOTC

Management arrangements and mechanisms

In addition to being full Members, States that have a stake in tuna fisheries can participate as Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, with the same obligations as Members, but with no requirements for financial contributions and with no voting rights. Current Membership includes 32 Members and two Cooperating non-Contracting Parties (see later in this Annex).

Proposals for conservations and management measures can be tabled by Members, often responding to advice from the Scientific Committee. The proposals are then debated and modified, as necessary, during the sessions of the Commission. Measures binding on Members of the Commission (Resolutions) must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of Members present and voting. Individual members objecting to a decision are not bound by it. If objections to a measure are made by more than one-third of the Members of the Commission, the other Members are not bound by that measure; but this does not preclude any or all of them from giving effect. Non-binding measures concerning conservation and management of the stocks (Recommendations) need only be adopted by a simple majority of its Members present and voting.

The workings of the IOTC, inputs to decision-making, and all outputs are open to scrutiny and review. A potential issue of concern, however, is that countries can opt out of Resolutions, although few countries have objected to approved Resolutions. On the other hand, consensus is not necessary to adopt measures.

By virtue of its link to FAO and, therefore, to the UN system, Taiwan is only recognised as a province of the People’s Republic of China and, as such, is not allowed to participate as a full member of a Cooperating non-Contracting Party. However, Taiwan is actively involved with IOTC.

The first meeting of IOTC took place in November 1996, and the first meetings concentrated on completing the basic texts that would govern the organisation. Substantive measures towards constructing a body of regional measures were taken in the years following the formulation of an Inspection and Control Scheme in 2001. This Scheme enunciated a number of principles that the IOTC Members had agreed to embrace, and in subsequent years the Commission adopted resolutions implementing these principles. For example, the establishment of a Record for Authorised Vessels (a closed registry for participating countries only) and the IUU List (including a definition of what constitutes IUU activities) were setup in 2002, Records of Active Vessels and Licensed Vessels that had been adopted in 1998 have been refined in later years.

Measures on the data to be submitted on catches and fishing activities, including guidelines for the collection, and deadlines on the submission were first adopted in 1998, and continue to be updated periodically, with additional data reporting requirements. An important addition has been the adoption in 2010 of a Regional Observer Scheme, a nationally implemented programme to estimate catches of all species caught by tuna fisheries, which requires a minimum coverage of 5 % for large-scale vessels and similar coverage of port sampling for small-scale and artisanal fisheries. As implementation depends on separate programmes being implemented at national level, there has been an unequal level of implementation between the different flag States depending on their resources. Also, some flag States have argued that the piracy threat and the need to have armed personnel on board means that there was no room for scientific observers.

Few specific conservation measures were required to address concerns about stock status, as the condition of the stocks under IOTC mandate continues to be good in general. In 1998 the Scientific Committee had raised concerns about the high catches of juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tunas, but there was no agreement on a proposed moratorium. Resolutions 99/01, 01/04, 01/06, 02/08, and 05/01 represent the measures adopted for bigeye tuna (including a limit on the catches from the Taiwanese


Page 117



fleet). Concerns about the stock status of yellowfin tuna were the origin of a proposal for the adoption of a catch limit for the species, but the disadvantages of implementing an unallocated quota meant that a time-area closure for both purse seine and longline fisheries was instead adopted (the Scientific Committee advised that the effect of the closure was probably negligible in 2012). The same resolution initiated the work of the IOTC Members towards either a mechanism for quota allocation or alternative management measures for the future. In 2013, there was a proposal to encourage catches of albacore to be reduced in response to the reports of fishing mortality being close to the limit reference point, but no agreement was reached.

The following is a list of the resolutions and recommendations adopted by the IOTC that are currently active. Many of the principles contained in these resolutions had been adopted in earlier years and the current resolutions represent updates and modifications to their contents, and that supersede the previous versions. A file containing the text of all the active resolutions is available on the IOTC website (http://www.iotc.org/files/CMM/IOTC%20-%20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2015%20September%202013.pdf)

Res/Rec number Title

Resolution 13/01 On the removal of obsolete Conservation and Management Measures

Resolution 13/02 Concerning the IOTC record of vessels authorised to operate in the IOTC area of competence

Resolution 13/03 On the recording of catch and effort data by fishing vessels in the IOTC area of competence

Resolution 13/04 On the conservation of cetaceans

Resolution 13/05 On the conservation of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus)

Resolution 13/06 On a scientific and management framework on the conservation of shark species caught in association with IOTC managed fisheries

Resolution 13/07 Concerning a record of licensed foreign vessels fishing for IOTC species in the IOTC area of competence and access agreement information

Resolution 13/08 Procedures on a fish aggregating devices (FADs) management plan, including more detailed specifications of catch reporting from fad sets, and the development of improved FAD designs to reduce the incidence of entanglement of non-target species

Resolution 13/09 On the conservation of albacore caught in the IOTC area of competence

Resolution 13/10 On interim target and limit reference points and a decision framework

Resolution 13/11 On a ban on discards of bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, and a recommendation for non-targeted species caught by purse seine vessels in the IOTC area of competence

Resolution 12/01 On the implementation of the precautionary approach

Resolution 12/02 Data confidentiality policy and procedures

Resolution 12/04 On the conservation of marine turtles

Resolution 12/05 On establishing a programme for transshipment by large-scale fishing vessels

Resolution 12/06 On reducing the incidental bycatch of seabirds in longline fisheries

Resolution 12/09 On the conservation of thresher sharks (Family Alopiidae) caught in association with fisheries in the IOTC area of competence

Resolution 12/10 To promote implementation of Conservation and Management Measures already adopted by IOTC

Resolution 12/11 On The Implementation Of A Limitation Of Fishing Capacity Of Contracting Parties And Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties

Resolution 12/12 To prohibit the use of large-scale driftnets on the high seas in the IOTC area

Resolution 12/13 For the conservation and management of tropical tunas stocks in the IOTC area of competence

http://www.iotc.org/files/CMM/IOTC%20-%20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2015%20September%202013.pdf

http://www.iotc.org/files/CMM/IOTC%20-%20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2015%20September%202013.pdf


Page 118



Recommendation 12/15

On the best available science

Resolution 11/01 Regarding consolidation of IOTC Resolutions and Recommendations

Resolution 11/02 On the prohibition of fishing on data buoys

Resolution 11/03 On establishing a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the IOTC area of competence

Resolution 11/04 On a regional observer scheme

Resolution 10/02 Mandatory statistical requirements for IOTC Members and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties (CPCs)

Resolution 10/05 On the establishment of a meeting participation fund for developing IOTC Members and Non-Contracting Cooperating Parties (CPCs)

Resolution 10/06 On reducing the incidental bycatch of seabirds in longline fisheries

Resolution 10/08 Concerning a record of active vessels fishing for tunas and swordfish in the IOTC area

Resolution 10/09 Concerning the functions of the Compliance Committee

Resolution 10/10 Concerning market related measures

Resolution 10/11 On port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing


On the implementation of a ban on discards of skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna and non targeted species caught by purse seiners

Resolution 09/01 On the performance review follow-up

Resolution 07/01 To promote compliance by nationals of Contracting Parties and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties with IOTC Conservation and Management Measures

Resolution 06/03 On establishing a vessel monitoring system programme

Resolution 05/01 On Conservation and Management Measures for bigeye tuna

Resolution 05/03 Relating to the establishment of an IOTC programme of inspection in port

Resolution 05/05 Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by IOTC


Concerning a management standard for the tuna fishing vessels


On incidental mortality of seabirds

Resolution 03/01 On the limitation of fishing capacity of Contracting Parties and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties

Resolution 03/02 On criteria for attaining the status of Co-Operating Non-Contracting Party

Resolution 03/03 Concerning the amendment of the forms of the IOTC statistical documents

Resolution 03/07 Recognising the contributions of David Ardill


Concerning measures to prevent the laundering of catches by IUU large-scale tuna longline fishing vessels

Resolution 02/08 On the conservation of bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean

Resolution 02/09 Establishment of the Standing Committee on Administration and Finance (SCAF)

Resolution 01/03 Establishing a scheme to promote compliance by Non-Contracting Party vessels with Resolutions established by IOTC

Resolution 01/04 On limitation of fishing effort of Non Members of IOTC whose vessels fish bigeye tuna

Resolution 01/06 Concerning the IOTC bigeye tuna statistical document programme

Resolution 01/07 Concerning the support of the IPOA-IUU plan

Resolution 00/01 On compliance with mandatory statistical requirements for IOTC Members and requesting cooperation with Non-Contracting Parties


Page 119



Resolution 00/02 On a survey of predation of longline caught fish

Resolution 99/01 On the management of fishing capacity and on the reduction of the catch of juvenile bigeye tuna by vessels, including flag of convenience vessels, fishing for tropical tunas in the IOTC area of competence

Resolution 99/02 Calling for actions against fishing activities by large scale flag of convenience longline vessels

Resolution 99/03 On the elaboration of a control and inspection scheme for IOTC

Resolution 98/03 On Southern Bluefin Tuna

Resolution 98/05 On Cooperation with Non-Contracting Parties

The Compliance Committee

The Compliance Committee reviews proposals for listing of vessels in the IOTC IUU List, as well as other possible infractions to IOTC measures. The Compliance Committee also advises the Commission on any requests by non-Member States to become Cooperating non-Contracting Parties.

The current process of evaluating and acting on the level of compliance is an evolving process. Important decisions, such as the listing of a vessel in the IUU list, are done without the benefit of clear guidelines as to what constitute due process, and are, therefore, often political in nature.

There is no standardised scheme of sanctions and there is no unified view as to what would constitute adequate sanctions for certain infractions. At times, vessels have been proposed for inclusion in the IUU lists even after paying fines imposed by the flag State, without a clear indication of how, in the future they would be removed from the List.

There are still many misconceptions on the part of many Members as to what is expected of them once a Resolution is adopted, and that means that often decisions are not transposed into the domestic legislation, and/or no domestic mechanisms are implemented to ensure compliance. Capacity building is required to improve an understanding of the process.

Most of the alleged infractions noted in recent IOTC sessions are more related to the inability of the flag State to exercise proper control over its vessels, than to clear intent by a vessel of conducting an IUU operation. For example, there have been several incidents involving the Sri Lanka semi-industrial vessels that are not fitted with the mandatory VMS system. The uneven supply of data about the species caught and the operations of the fleet have also been highlighted as a serious concern, particularly for those species that have significant catches taken by artisanal or small-scale fisheries. Finally, it is noted that the Compliance Committee has also recently discussed cases involving EU vessels as there have been discrepancies between the coordinates specified for fishing zones in FPAs, and the coordinates used by coastal States to define EEZs.

Research mechanisms within IOTC

The Scientific Committee, a formal body structured around member delegations, receives the reports of the Working Parties at its Annual Session, reviews their recommendations and, finally casts its advice to the Commission on the status of the stocks and any action that might be necessary, including ecosystem considerations. The Scientific Committee also advises its members on strategic needs in regional research, as required, to improve its ability to assess the status of the resource.

The IOTC Secretariat contributes to the scientific process by coordinating the process, collating the information supplied by the fishing countries, assisting in the analyses and producing stock status determinations when necessary. The Secretariat has been responsible in recent years for the execution of some large projects such as data collection efforts with support from Japan, and the large-scale tuna-tagging experiments of the mid-2000s.


Page 120



Most of the research concerning tuna and tuna-like species, in particular that related to the evaluation of the stocks, originates in the national institutions from DWFN. Regional institutions have a limited research capacity and this is evident in the distribution of documents contributed by IOTC Member States. Countries in the region have typically only been able to conduct more research when external funding and structures have been provided.

Some of the small-scale tagging projects that were part of the Indian Ocean Tuna Tagging Programme in the region have been executed by national institutions with support from staff from the Secretariat, in India, Maldives, Mayotte and Seychelles.

Members of the IOTC are as follows

Member Date of accession

Australia 13 November 1996

Belize 01 May 2007

China 14 October 1998

Comoros 14 August 2001

Eritrea 09 August 1994

European Community 27 October 1995

France 03 December 1996

Guinea 31 January 2005

India 13 March 1995

Indonesia 09 July 2007

Iran, Islamic Republic of 28 January 2002

Japan 26 June 1996

Kenya 29 September 2004

Korea, Republic of 27 March 1996

Madagascar 10 January 1996

Malaysia 22 May 1998

Maldives 13 July 2011

Mauritius 27 December 1994

Mozambique 13 February 2012

Oman, Sultanate of 05 April 2000

Pakistan 27 April 1995

Philippines 09 January 2004

Seychelles 26 July 1995

Sierra Leone 01 July 2008

Sri Lanka 13 June 1994

Sudan 03 December 1996

Tanzania 18 April 2007

Thailand 17 March 1997

United Kingdom 31 March 1995

Vanuatu 25 October 2002

Yemen 20 July 2012 Source: IOTC website (www.iotc.org)


Page 121



In addition, Senegal and South Africa participate as Cooperating non-Contracting Parties.

Species mandated

The species listed below are under the management mandate of IOTC. In addition, the Commission has instructed the Secretariat to collate data on non-target, associated and dependent species affected by tuna fishing operations.

FAO English name FAO French name Scientific name

Yellowfin tuna Albacore Thunnus albacares

Skipjack tuna Listao; Bonite à ventre rayé Katsuwonus pelamis

Bigeye tuna Patudo; Thon obèse Thunnus obesus

Albacore tuna Germon Thunnus alalunga

Southern bluefin tuna Thon rouge du sud Thunnus maccoyii

Longtail tuna Thon mignon Thunnus tonggol

Kawakawa Thonine orientale Euthynnus affinis

Frigate tuna Auxide Auxis thazard

Bullet tuna Bonitou Auxis rochei

Narrow barred Spanish mackerel Thazard rayé Scomberomorus commersoni

Indo-Pacific king mackerel Thazard ponctué Scomberomorus guttatus

Blue marlin Makaire bleu Makaira nigricans

Black marlin Makaire noir Makaira indica

Striped marlin Marlin rayé Tetrapturus audax

Indo-Pacific sailfish Voilier de l’Indo-Pacifique Istiophorus platypterus

Swordfish Espadon Xiphias gladius

Source: IOTC website (www.iotc.org)


Page 122



Annex H: Projects in the WIO funded by the ACP FISH II Programme

Project Beneficiary country Status Budget (EUR)

Implementation period

Preparation of a Fisheries Policy for Sudan

Sudan Finished 134 300 25/06/12-15/03/13

Regional Training on Co-Management Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania,

Uganda

Finished 142 500 26/01/11-26/05/11

Regional Training on Commercial Aquaculture Management and Development

Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda,

South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda

Implementation 103 090 7/13-11/13

Review and Update the Legal Framework Governing Fisheries in The Republic of Djibouti

Djibouti Implementation 98 780 30/10/2012-30/09/2013

Support to Eastern Africa Industrial Fish and Fish Processors Association (Eaiffpa) In Reducing Regional Trade in Undersized and Illegally Caught Fish

REGIONAL (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda)

Finished 9 990 10/2012-02/2013

Support to Legislative Development In Tanzania and Preparation of a Draft Aquaculture Policy in Kenya

Tanzania, Kenya Finished 190 000 12/2010-05/2011

Technical Support to the Fisheries Administration in Eritrea to Review and update the Fisheries Proclamation 104/1998

Eritrea Implementation 113 192 5/2013-10/2013

Analytical Review of Private Sector Involvement in Aquaculture in EAC Partner States, with Recommendations for Future Areas of Growth and Support

EAC, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi

Implementation 126 972 04/2013-08/2013

Strengthening Implementation of the IOTC Port State Measures Resolution through Assessment and Training in Five Countries

Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles,

Tanzania, Kenya

Finished 195 000 4 months. 31/01/11-31/05/11

Action Planning for Improved Regional Fish Trade for Sustainable Fisheries Management

Uganda, Sudan, Kenya, Rwanda,

Democratic Republic Of The Congo

Finished 103 500 4 months. 26/01/11-

26/05/2011

Elaboration of a Manual on Regional Best Practices for Evidence Gathering and Delivery of Training to MCS Practitioners

Djibouti, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia,

Sudan, Tanzania.

Implementation 105 852 6 months. 27/05/2013-27/11/2013.

Support to Djibouti’s Fisheries Administration for Stock Assessment

Djibouti Implementation 83 158 5 months. 28/06/2013-


Page 123



Project Beneficiary country Status Budget (EUR)

Implementation period

28/11/2013

Training on Socio-Economic Monitoring, Analysis in Fisheries in South Sudan

South Sudan Implementation 86 980 4 months. 02/07/2013-02/10/2013

Development of an Online Database for the IOTC Conservation And Management Measures

REGIONAL (IOTC Secretariat)

Finished 45,000 3 months. 06/2012-09/2012

Source: ACP FISH II


Page 124



Annex I: Selected Articles from the Basic Regulation on the CFP. Council of the European Union. Brussels, 10 October 2013

Introductory text

(50) The Union should promote the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy internationally, ensuring that Union fishing activities outside Union waters are based on the same principles and standards as applicable Union law, and promoting a level playing field for EU operators and third-country operators. To this end, the Union should seek to lead the process of strengthening the performance of regional and international organisations to better enable them to conserve and manage marine living resources under their purview, including combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The Union should cooperate with third countries and international organisations for the purpose of improving compliance with international measures, including combating IUU. The positions of the Union should be based on the best available scientific advice.

(51) Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements with third countries should ensure that Union fishing activities in third country waters are based on the best available scientific advice and relevant information exchange, ensuring a sustainable exploitation of the marine biological resources, transparency as regards the determination of the surplus and, consequently, a management of the resources that is consistent with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. Those agreements, which provide for access to resources commensurate with the Union fleet's interests in exchange for a financial contribution from the Union, should contribute to the establishment of a high quality governance framework to ensure in particular efficient data collection, monitoring, control and surveillance measures.

(52) Respect for democratic principles and human rights, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant international human rights instruments, and for the principle of the rule of law, should constitute an essential element of sustainable fisheries partnership agreements and be subject to a specific human rights clause. The introduction of a human rights clause in sustainable fisheries partnership agreements should be fully consistent with the overall Union development policy objectives.

Definitions (Article 4)

(33) 'surplus of allowable catch' means that part of the allowable catch which a coastal State does not harvest, resulting in an overall exploitation rate for individual stocks that remains below levels at which stocks are capable of restoring themselves and maintaining populations of harvested species above desired levels based on the best available scientific advice;

(37) 'sustainable fisheries partnership agreements' mean international agreements concluded with another state for the purpose of obtaining access to waters and resources in order to sustainably exploit a share of the surplus of marine biological resources, in exchange for financial compensation from the Union which may include sectoral support;

PART VI. EXTERNAL POLICY. Article 28

Objectives

1. To ensure sustainable exploitation, management and conservation of marine biological resources and the marine environment, the Union shall conduct its external fisheries relations in accordance with international obligations and policy objectives, the objectives and principles set out in Articles 2 and 3.

2. In particular the Union shall:

(a) actively support and contribute to the development of scientific knowledge and advice;


Page 125



(b) improve policy coherence of Union initiatives, with particular regard to environmental, trade and development activities and strengthen consistency of actions taken in the context of development cooperation and scientific, technical and economic cooperation;

(c) contribute to sustainable fishing activities that are economically viable and promote employment within the Union;

(d) ensure that Union fishing activities outside Union waters are based on the same principles and standards as applicable Union legislation in the area of the Common Fisheries Policy while promoting a level playing field for EU operators vis-à-vis other third-country operators;

(e) promote and support, in all international spheres, action necessary to eradicate IUU fishing;

(f) promote the establishment and strengthening of RFMO compliance committees, periodical independent performance reviews and appropriate remedial actions, including dissuasive and effective penalties, which need to be applied in a transparent and non-discriminatory fashion.

TITLE II. SUSTAINABLEFISHERIESPARTNERSHIPAGREEMENTS.

Article 31. Principles and objectives of Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements

1. Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements with third countries shall establish a legal, environmental, economic and social governance framework for fishing activities carried out by Union fishing vessels in third country waters.

Such frameworks may include:

(a) development and support for the necessary scientific and research institutions;

(b) monitoring, control and surveillance capabilities;

(c) other capacity building elements concerning the development of a sustainable fisheries policy of the third country.

2. For the purpose of ensuring the sustainable exploitation of surpluses of marine biological resources, the Union shall endeavour to ensure that the Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements with third countries are of mutual benefit to the Union and to the third country concerned, including its local population and fishing industry and that they contribute to continuing the activity of Union fleets and seek to obtain an appropriate share of the available surplus, commensurate with the Union fleets' interest.

3. For the purpose of ensuring that Union vessels fishing under Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements operate, where appropriate, under similar standards to those applicable to Union fishing vessels fishing in Union waters, the Union shall endeavour to include in Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements appropriate provisions on obligations to land fish and fishery products.

4. Union fishing vessels shall only catch surplus of the allowable catch as referred to in Article 62(2) and (3) of the UNCLOS, and identified, in a clear and transparent manner, on the basis of the best available scientific advice and of the relevant information exchanged between the Union and the third country about the total fishing effort on the affected stocks by all fleets. Concerning straddling or highly migratory fish stocks, the determination of the resources available for access should take due account of scientific assessments conducted at the regional level as well as conservation and management measures adopted by relevant RFMOs.

5. Union fishing vessels shall not operate in the waters of the third country with which a Sustainable fisheries partnership agreement is in force unless they are in possession of a fishing authorisation which has been issued in accordance with that agreement.


Page 126



6. The Union shall ensure that Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements include a clause concerning respect for democratic principles and human rights, which constitutes an essential element of such agreements.

Those agreements shall also, to the extent possible, include:

(a) a clause prohibiting the granting of more favourable conditions to other fleets fishing in those waters than those granted to Union economic actors, including conditions concerning the conservation, development and management of resources, financial arrangements, and fees and rights relating to the issuing of fishing authorisations;

(b) an exclusivity clause relating to the rule provided for in paragraph 5.

7. Efforts shall be made at Union level to monitor the activities of Union fishing vessels that operate in non–Union waters outside the framework of Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements.

8. Member States shall ensure that Union fishing vessels flying their flag and operating outside Union waters are in a position to provide detailed and accurate documentation of all fishing and processing activities.

9. A fishing authorisation, as referred to in paragraph 5, shall be granted to a vessel which has left the Union fishing fleet register and which has subsequently returned to it within 24 months, only if the owner of that vessel has provided to the competent authorities of the flag Member State all data required to establish that, during that period, the vessel was operating in a manner fully consistent with the standards applicable to a vessel flagged in the Union.

Where the state granting the flag during the period that the vessel was off the Union fishing fleet register became recognised under Union law as a non-cooperating state with regard to combating, deterring and eliminating IUU fishing, or as a state allowing for non-sustainable exploitation of living marine resources, such fishing authorisation shall only be granted if it is established that the vessel's fishing operations ceased and the owner took immediate action to remove the vessel from the register of that state.

10. The Commission shall arrange for independent ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of each protocol to a Sustainable fisheries partnership agreement, and make them available to the European Parliament and to the Council in good time before it submits to the Council a recommendation to authorise the opening of negotiations for a successor protocol. A summary of such evaluations shall be made publicly available.

Article 32. Financial assistance

1. The Union shall provide financial assistance to third countries through Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements in order to:

(a) support part of the cost of access to the fisheries resources in third country waters; the part of the cost of access to the fisheries resources to be paid by Union vessel owners shall be assessed for each Sustainable fisheries partnership agreement or a Protocol to it and shall be fair, non-discriminatory and commensurate with the benefits provided through the access conditions;


Page 127



(b) establish the governance framework, including the development and maintenance of the necessary scientific and research institutions, promote consultation processes with interest groups, and monitoring, control and surveillance capability and other capacity building items relating to the development of a sustainable fisheries policy driven by the third country. Such financial assistance shall be conditional upon the achievement of specific results and complementary to and consistent with the development projects and programmes implemented in the third country in question.

2. Under each Sustainable fisheries partnership agreement, the financial assistance for sectoral support shall be decoupled from payments for access to fisheries resources. The Union shall require the achievement of specific results as a condition for payments under the financial assistance, and shall closely monitor progress.


Page 128



Annex J: Shrimp/prawn fisheries in Kenya and Tanzania

While the focus of this report, as noted in the introduction, is on highly migratory species, as background to consideration by the ex ante evaluations of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and both Kenya and Tanzania and whether they would be ‘tuna agreements’ or ‘mixed’ agreements, some brief text is also provided on prawn/shrimp fisheries in the region (hereafter referred to as prawn fisheries). Text is based on Macfadyen (2012), and an analysis and benchmarking in that report of prawn fisheries in both countries against the Marine Stewardship Council standard for certification.

The marine environment described in section 1.1, along with the presence of shallow offshore banks and a number of rivers that flow into the sea along the coast bringing with them nutrient-rich sediments, has a strong influence on the productivity of the prawn fisheries – prawn fishing is highly concentrated in estuarine and coastal areas close to river outflows in both countries. In Tanzania the prawn fishery is most strongly concentrated in the Rufiji delta but also exists at the outflows of other rivers such as the Pangani, Ruvu, Wami, Mbwemkuru, Matandu, Lukuledi and Ruvuma. In Kenya, the main prawn fishery is concentrated in the Malindi-Ugwana bay at the outflow of the Tana and Sabaki rivers.

In Kenya the shallow water prawn fishery is made up of five principal species as shown below:

Penaeus indicus – the Indian banana prawn (68 % of catch by weight);

Metapenaeus monoceros – speckled shrimp (14 % of catch by weight);

Penaeus semisulcatus – brown tiger prawn (10 % of catch by weight);

Penaeus monodon – black tiger prawn (7 % of catch by weight); and

Penaeus japonicas – kruma prawn (1 % of catch by weight).

Deepwater prawn species include Heteropcarpus woodmansonii, Melicertus marginatus, Sqilla mantis, and Panaeopsis balsii, but are not well researched and stock status is not understood.

In Tanzania four prawn species are considered as target species based on the sum of quantities recorded by recent trawl surveys:

Penaeus indicus – the Indian banana prawn (59 % of catch by weight);

Metapenaeus monoceros – speckled shrimp (24 % of catch by weight);

Penaeus semisulcatus – brown tiger prawn (12 % of catch by weight); and

Penaeus monodon – black tiger prawn (5 % of catch by weight).

Both countries have prawn management plans in place, but in both cases these plans are weak and require improvement. The development of these plans took place because of conflict between industrial and artisanal vessels, and following recognition of concerns of stock status. The industrial fishery in Tanzania has been closed since 2007, and in Kenya there is now only one industrial vessel operating following a partial opening of the fishery following a previous ban on industrial activity. Approval of the introduction of any EU vessels to fish in either country can be considered highly unlikely given potential opposition by domestic small-scale fishermen, and by domestic industrial interests, which would seek to be allowed back into the fishery before foreign vessels once stocks have improved, i.e. there is almost certainly no ‘surplus resources’ that could be exploited by EU vessels.

With regard to stock status, recent stock assessment surveys suggest that stocks in both countries may be improving with the ban/control of industrial fishing. However, stock recovery is slower than expected, and coupled with low levels of regulation and control over small-scale vessels, suggests that artisanal fisheries are also having considerable, and potentially negative, impacts on stock status. Of particular concern in both countries is that there are no clear harvest control rules in place, and no quantifiable specification of reference or trigger points that would then invoke specific management measures.


Page 129



These comments for the prawn resource (for example, potential over-exploitation, poor control and management, potential conflict between industrial and small-scale vessels, and priority for domestic industrial vessels if stocks recover) are thought to be equally applicable for demersal fisheries in both countries, suggesting that any future FPAs/Protocols between the EU and Kenya/Tanzania would need to focus exclusively on highly migratory species.


Page 130



Annex K: Additional information on stock biology and status

Skipjack tuna. Skipjack tuna generally form large schools, often in association with other tunas of similar size such as juveniles of yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna. The tagging recoveries provide evidence of rapid, large-scale movements of skipjack tuna in the Indian Ocean, thus supporting the current assumption of a single stock for the Indian Ocean. Skipjack tuna live about seven years, reaching maturity at about two years. It is highly likely that most of skipjack tuna taken by fisheries in the Indian Ocean have already reproduced. It shows high fecundity and spawns opportunistically throughout the year in the whole inter-equatorial Indian Ocean (north of 20° south, with surface temperature greater than 24°C) when conditions are favourable.

The Kobe plot for skipjack is provided below. In this type of plot, annual values of the indicators of overfishing and overfished status are plotted against a background divided into four sectors, given by the values of the target reference points. This allows for a quick visualisation of the status of the stock and its potential trend. For example, if the stock is too low (Biomass (B) less than the optimal, Bmsy) and the fishing intensity too high (F greater than the optimal value Fmsy) the stock is in the red quadrant, indicating that is overfished and still subject to overfishing. The expected trend of the stock depends on the fishing intensity or mortality (F): if it is above Fmsy, a stock is expected drift into the red zone, if F is less than Fmsy, the stock is expected to move towards the green zone (i.e. to recover) gradually.

The Kobe plot is based on the 2012 assessment. Circles indicate the trajectory of the point estimates for the spawning biomass (SB) ratio158 and F/FMSY ratio for each year 1950-2011.

Yellowfin tuna. Yellowfin is a species distributed mainly in the tropical and subtropical oceanic waters of all the three major oceans, where it forms large schools. Tagging experiments provide evidence of large movements of yellowfin tuna, thus supporting the assumption of a single stock for the Indian Ocean. Yellowfin tuna live about nine years, maturing at three to five years at a size of 100 cm. Spawning occurs mainly from December to March in the equatorial area (0-10° south), with the main

158 The ratio of the current biomass of the fish spawning compared to the optimal spawning biomass at the MSY level


Page 131



spawning grounds west of 75° east. Secondary spawning grounds exist off Sri Lanka and in the Mozambique Channel and in the eastern Indian Ocean off Australia.

Newly recruited fish are primarily caught by the purse seine fishery on floating objects. Males are predominant in the catches of larger fish at sizes great than 140 cm (this is also the case in other oceans). The sizes exploited in the Indian Ocean range from 30 cm to 180 cm fork length. Smaller fish (juveniles) form mixed schools with skipjack tuna and juvenile bigeye tuna and are mainly limited to surface tropical waters, while larger fish are found in surface and sub-surface waters. Intermediate age yellowfin tuna are seldom taken in the industrial fisheries, but are abundant in some artisanal fisheries, mainly in the Arabian Sea.

The Kobe plot for yellowfin tuna is provided below. Blue circles indicate the trajectory of the point estimates for the SB ratio and F ratio for each year 1972–2010. The two panels represent results obtained with two models based on different assumptions: Multifan-CL: a model that integrates catch, effort, size-frequency and tagging, on the left; and ASPM: that uses estimated ages, catch and effort, on the right.

Bigeye tuna. Bigeye tuna inhabit the tropical and subtropical waters of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans in waters down to around 300 m. Juveniles frequently school at the surface underneath floating objects alongside yellowfin and skipjack tunas. Association with floating objects appears less common as bigeye grow older. Tagging data supports the current assumption of a single stock for the Indian Ocean. The range of the stock (as indicated by the distribution of catches) includes tropical areas, where reproduction occurs, and temperate waters which are believed to be feeding grounds. The lifespan is about 15 years, and they mature when they are three years old at a size of 100 cm. The spawning season is from December to January and also in June in the eastern Indian Ocean.

The Kobe plot for bigeye tuna is provided below The Kobe plot presents the trajectories for the range of 12 plausible model options included in the formulation of the final management advice (grey lines with the black point representing the terminal year of 2012). The trajectory of the median of the 12 plausible model options (purple points) is also presented. The biomass (Blim) and fishing mortality limit (Flim) reference points are also presented.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

SB=SBmsySB<SBmsy SB>SBmsy

SB/SBmsy

F=

Fm

sy

F<

Fm

sy

F>

Fm

sy

F/F

msy

Ove

rfis

hin

gOverfished

19952000

2005

20102009

2010

Blim Btarg

Ftarg

Flim


Page 132



Albacore tuna. Albacore are a temperate tuna living mainly in the mid-oceanic gyres of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans. In the Pacific and Atlantic oceans there is a clear separation of southern and northern stocks associated with the oceanic gyres that are typical of these areas. In the Indian Ocean, there is probably only one southern stock, distributed from 5° north to 40° south, because there is no northern gyre.

Albacore is a highly migratory species and individuals swim large distances during their lifetime. Pre-adults (2-5-year-old albacore) appear to be more migratory than adults. It has been observed on all albacore stocks that juveniles concentrate in cold temperate areas (for instance in a range of sea-surface temperatures between 15° C and 18° C), and this has been confirmed in the Indian Ocean, where albacore tuna are more abundant north of the subtropical convergence (an area where these juvenile were heavily fished by driftnet fisheries during the late 1980s). It appears that juvenile albacore show a continuous geographical distribution in the Atlantic and Indian oceans in the north edge of the subtropical convergence. Albacore may move across the boundary between the convention areas of ICCAT and IOTC.

It is likely that the adult Indian Ocean albacore tunas do yearly circular counter-clockwise migrations following the surface currents of the south tropical gyre between their tropical spawning and southern feeding zones. In the Atlantic Ocean, large numbers of juvenile albacore are caught by the South African pole-and-line fishery (catching about 10 000 t yearly) and it has been hypothesised that these juveniles may be taken from a mixture of fish born in the Atlantic (northeast of Brazil) and from the Indian Ocean. For the purposes of stock assessments, one pan-ocean stock has been assumed.

Little is known about the reproductive biology of albacore in the Indian Ocean but it appears, based on biological studies and on fishery data, that the main spawning grounds are located east of Madagascar between 15° south and 25° south during the 4th and 1st quarters of each year. Like other tunas, adult albacore spawn in warm waters (surface waters warmer than 25° C).

The Kobe plot for albacore tuna is provided below. The shaded areas around the last point in the trajectory represent the uncertainty on the values for the most recent year in the analysis.


Page 133



Swordfish. The swordfish range covers the entire Indian Ocean down to 50º south. Juvenile swordfish are commonly found in tropical and subtropical waters and migrate to higher latitudes as they mature. Large, solitary adult swordfish are most abundant at 15º south to 35º south. Males are more common in tropical and subtropical waters. By contrast with tunas, swordfish is not a gregarious species, although densities increase in areas of oceanic fronts and seamounts. A recent genetic study (Muths et al., 2013) did not reveal any structure within the Indian Ocean with the techniques used, yielding support to the single population hypothesis. Spatial heterogeneity in stock indicators (catch rate trends) indicate the potential for localised depletion of swordfish in the Indian Ocean.

The lifespan of swordfish may exceed 30 years, with females maturing at 6-7 years and males after 1-3 years. They may spawn as frequently as once every three days over a period of several months in spring. Known spawning grounds and seasons are tropical waters of the Southern hemisphere from October to April, including in the vicinity of Réunion Island.

The Kobe plot for swordfish is provided below. This result is based on an analysis of the data for the entire Indian Ocean, assuming it constitutes a single stock. Confidence areas around the last point in the trajectory reflects the uncertainty around the most recent value.


Page 134



Black marlin. Little is known about the biology of the black marlin in the Indian Ocean. Black marlin is a highly migratory, large oceanic apex predator that inhabits tropical and subtropical waters of the Indian and Pacific oceans. Some rare individuals have been reported in the Atlantic Ocean but there is no information to indicate the presence of a breeding stock in this area. Black marlin inhabits oceanic surface waters above the thermocline and typically near land masses, islands and coral reefs; however, rare excursions to mesopelagic waters down to depths of 800 m are known. It is thought to associate with schools of small tuna, one of its primary food sources. No information on stock structure is currently available in the Indian Ocean; thus for the purposes of assessment, one pan-ocean stock is assumed. Long-distance migrations at least in the eastern Indian Ocean (two black marlins tagged in Australia were caught off the east Indian coast and in Sri Lanka) support a single stock hypothesis. It is known that black marlin forms dense nearshore spawning aggregations, making this species vulnerable to exploitation even by small-scale fisheries. Spatial heterogeneity in stock indicators (CPUE trends) for other billfish species indicates that there is potential for localised depletion. In the Pacific (Australia), the species is known to live for up to 11-12 years. No spawning grounds have been identified in the Indian Ocean.

Blue marlin. Blue marlin is a solitary species and prefers the warm offshore surface waters; it is scarce in waters less than 100 m in depth or close to land. It lives up to 28 years, reaching maturity after two to four years. No spawning grounds have been identified in the Indian Ocean. No information on stock structure is currently available in the Indian Ocean; thus for the purposes of assessment, one pan-ocean stock is assumed. Tagging off western Australia revealed potential intermixing of Indian Ocean and Pacific stocks: one individual was caught in the Pacific Indonesian waters. However, spatial heterogeneity in stock indicators (catch–per–unit–effort trends) for other billfish species indicates that there is potential for localised depletion.

Striped marlin. Striped marlin is a large oceanic apex predator that inhabits tropical and sub-tropical waters of the Indian and Pacific oceans. Its distribution is different from other marlins in that it prefers more temperate or cooler waters. However, in the Indian Ocean it is common in tropical zones: off the east African coast (0-10º south), the south and western Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal, and north-western Australian waters. Several transoceanic migrations were reported in the Indian Ocean (the longest is from Kenya to Australia). Therefore a single stock hypothesis seems the most appropriate for stock assessment and management. It lives approximately 10 years, reaching maturity at 2-3 years old. It usually spawns in the vicinity of oceanic islands, seamounts or coastal areas, associated with local


Page 135



increases in primary productivity. In the Indian Ocean, larvae of this species have been recorded off the Somali coast, around Reunion and Mauritius and off northwestern Australia.

Indo-Pacific sailfish. Indo-Pacific sailfish is found throughout the tropical and subtropical regions of the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. It is mainly found in surface waters above the thermocline, close to coasts and islands in depths from 0 m to 200 m. Indo-Pacific sailfish is a highly migratory species and renowned for its speed and (by recreational fishers) for its jumping behaviour. The stock structure of Indo-Pacific sailfish in the Indian Ocean is uncertain: apparently there are local reproductively isolated stocks. At least one stock was reported in the Persian Gulf with no or very little intermixing with open Indian Ocean stocks. However outside of the Gulf no stock differentiation has been determined; thus for the purposes of assessment, one pan-ocean stock is assumed. However, spatial heterogeneity in stock indicators (catch–per–unit–effort trends) for other billfish species indicates that there is potential for localised depletion.

Females live up to 11–13 years; males up to seven-eight years. Spawning in Indian waters occurs between December to June with a peak in February and June. In subtropical waters of the southern hemisphere spawning is associated with warmer months: in Mozambique Channel and around Réunion Island a high percentage of ripe females occur in December.


Page 136



Annex L: Additional information on the location of catches, by species and fleet type

Figure 8.1: average annual catches of yellowfin tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas

Source: IOTC Notes: FS: purse seine fishing on free-swimming schools; LS: purse seine fishing in association with floating objects; BB: baitboat; LL: longline; OT: gillnet and other fleets not elsewhere included. The catches of fleets for which the flag countries do not report detailed time and area data to the IOTC are shown within the area of the countries concerned, in particular driftnets from Iran, gillnet and longline fishery of Sri Lanka, and coastal fisheries of Indonesia. However, in reality, these fleets might operate far from the EEZs of their flag States.

Figure 8.2: average annual catches of skipjack tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas



Page 137



Figure 8.3: average annual catches of bigeye tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas


Figure 8.4: distribution of annual catches of albacore tuna for 2010, by 5º areas

Source: IOTC Notes: PS: purse seine fishing LL: longline; DRFT: drifting gillnet (not operational after 1991); OTHR: Gears not elsewhere included.


Page 138



Figure 8.5: distribution of annual catches of swordfish for 2009, by 5º areas

Source: IOTC Notes: ELL: longline effort identified as targeting swordfish; LL: longline; OT: gillnet and other fleets not elsewhere included. The catches of fleets for which the flag countries do not report detailed time and area data to the IOTC are shown within the area of the countries concerned, in particular driftnets from Iran, gillnet and longline fishery of Sri Lanka, and coastal fisheries of Indonesia. However, in reality, these fleets might operate far from the EEZs of their flag States

Review of tuna fisheries in the western Indian Ocean · Review of tuna fisheries in the western...

Documents

Transcript of Review of tuna fisheries in the western Indian Ocean · Review of tuna fisheries in the western...