Mackerel Gramme Size Analysis PELAC WORKING GROUP II 11 JULY 2017, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Monitoring Compliance with the Landing Obligation in Pelagic Fisheries Project on

Mackerel Gramme Size Analysis

PELAC WORKING GROUP II 11 JULY 2017, THE HAGUE EFCA Unit 2 Programmes and Assistance

• Background and Process
• Initiative under the JDP for Western Waters
• Data Collection
• Data Analyses conducted
• Evaluation by MS Data experts
• Further steps
• NWW and Scheveningen Control Expert Groups

Contents

• 1 January 2015 landing obligation in force
• During 2015 Regional Control Expert Groups developing

recommendations on monitoring and control of LO

• In EFCA Steering Group decided on project to analyse

mackerel catch composition data. Preliminary scoping of possibilities in 2015 with trial implementation in 2016 within the JDP for WW. EFCA contracted data analyst.

• Beginning of this year, as follow-up of a NWW CEG

recommendation, new terms of reference given by HLG to further evaluate the potential use of gramme size data for monitoring purposes

Background and Process

• The value of mackerel is related to the weight of the

individual fish.

• The overall weight range is <200gr. – 600gr. / >600gr.
• 1 mackerel of 600 gr. is worth more than 2 mackerels of

300 gr. The bigger the fish the more quotum turnover.

• In the past, on this basis (and other indicators) control

authorities of pelagic states have assessed the risk of discarding smaller size mackerel to be substantial.

• Analysis to focus on presence/absence of lower size

ranges

Principle of Gramme size analysis in Mackerel fishery

• The information on gramme sizes of the catch is not

reported by operators in the regulated reporting forms (logbooks, landing declaration, sales notes).

• Therefore this data needs to be collected by MS

authorities on a voluntary basis and requires cooperation by industry.

• The data received was of a scattered nature, giving

potential issues for interpretation and comparison

• It was difficult for MS to provide verified data on gramme

size (obtained during inspection)

Data Collection within JDP

WW JDP Mackerel Campaigns

Data Collected

Catches from RSW and Freezer vessels:

• RSW: data from sampling at sea (by vessel)
• RSW: data from sampling on landing in factory (by
• perator)
• Freezers: data from the ‘production log’ of catch during

full fishing trip (by factory on vessel)

• This is all ‘self-reported data’
• Limited data from inspections at sea (difficult to gather)

7

Sampling on board RSW vessels

• RSW vessel may pump mackerel on board at a rate
• f 10 T/min.
• Catch sampled for gramme size…every 5 mins

approx.

• Approximately 20kg samples are taken at intervals

and all individuals are weighed.

• The individual weights are recorded automatically.
• Printed copies are produced at the sampling location
• n the ship.
• This provides a breakdown of the gramme size in

real time as the vessel is taking the fish on board.

Gramme size sampling on board RSW fishing vessel

Gramme size

Gramme size sampling on board RSW fishing vessel

Times of sampling Gramme size

Gramme size sampling at Factory

Gramme size

Gramme size sampling at Factory

Individual gramme size Sample weight Average Gramme size Number of individual fish in the sample

Sampling report on Landing

13

Gramme size data 3rd country

Gramme size

RSW Sampling Summary

• Vessels are completing a sample at sea

approximately once every 5 minutes.

• This equates to a sample of approximately

25kg/50 tonnes.

• = 0.05% of the catch
• Factories (processing 60 tonnes per hour)

sampling approximately 50 kg/60 tonnes.

• = 0.08% of the landing

A limited part of samples (just a selection from samples of the haul and full fishing trip and in some cases only 1 average number) provided.

Freezer Trawler Process

• When fish is pumped on board, it is not

sampled

• The fish goes into the tanks and is then

pumped into the factory for grading

• In the factory the size categories are

established for which grading will take place

• One category is for fish below MCRS
• Fish is sampled for quality and for manual

cross-check with the automatic grading

• Fish into hoppers and to the plates for freezing

No sampling like on RSW vessels, since the grade distribution is obtained though the grading.

Production log from freezer vessel

VOORRAADGEGEVENS VISG EGE VENS BEMONSTERING PAKGEGEVENS DA G TOTALE DAG- PRODUKTI E M/T IN RSW MERK AANTAL PAKKEN VISTI JD TIJD IN TANK STUK S / KG SORTEER KLASSE Vangstgebi ed SOR TERI NGS- KWA LITEI T kWAL ITEIT VISS TIJFH EID MOD EL BUIK VULL ING VOE DSEL IN MAA G BESC HADI GD AND ERE VIS STUKS/ PAK BAND KLEU R 1 4,992

Hom 001 1,189 A A 2.5 28+ VIAN A A B D A A A 60-65 G

2 3,324

150 Hom 002 4,133 A A 3.4 25-28 VIAN B A B D A A A 80-90 G

3 14,092 170

Hom 003 446 A A 4.6 23-25 VIAN B A B D A A A 110-120 G

4 15,548 330 WhbMZZ 004

52 VIAN

5 15,028 300

MacR 005 936 A A 1.9 500-600 VIAN A A A A A A A 40-45 R

6 15,132 350

MacG 006 5,200 A A 2.4 370-500 VIAN B A A A A A A 50-55 R

7 15,080 150

MacM 007 5,200 A A 3 250-370 VIAN B A A A A A A 60-70 R

8 15,186 320

Hom 008 624 A A 2.8 25+ VIAN B A A D A A A 60-70 G

9 15,080 250

MacK 009 780 A A 4.7 200-250 VIAN C A A A A A A 100-110 R

10 15,214 180

MacM 010 3,744 A A 2.9 250-370 VIAN B A A A A A A 60-70 R

Trip date

Production weight

Cartons

Grade size

Catch area Fish per carton

Batch code

Data Exploration on basis of Average Gramme Size

Overall mean= 371 gramme

No effect of time

• n AGS. All weeks

around overall mean, 371 gr.

Data Exploration on basis of Average Gramme Size

South west

• f Ireland

Spatial effect: AGS lower in southern areas.

Average Gramme Size by vessel (all vessels)

Issues of Data Interpretation

On what level is the data comparable (assumptions and uncertainties).

• Vessels having fished in the same area? Statistical rectangle
• r ICES area?
• Vessels having fished at the same time? Same day, week,

season?

• Sampling: does the distribution of the individuals’ weight

frequency of a fishing operation correspond to a normal distribution?

• Gramme size categories vary between vessels and trips
• When you have 3 samples while 20 samples are taken?

Reliability of data

• When only one average gramme size number is reported

21

Evaluation by MS Data Experts

In May 2017 workshop of data experts from MS held. Observations:

• Reference data is needed for the project to succeed
• More complete and consistent catch data will be needed.
• Verified data at sea, (but circumstances are difficult)

followed up by landing inspection

• The focus should not be on average gramme size, but on

gramme size distribution (catch composition)

• Analysis should focus on degree of absence/presence of

lower weight mackerel in the catch.

22

JDP next steps

• New external Data analyst being contracted to

analyse all data already collected, not yet analysed (2 campaigns)

• Discuss in Steering Group in September possible
• ptions of way forward in view of conclusions data

expert workshop

• Autumn campaign: creation of an operational plan

for the IVa fishery for collecting verified data

• For MS authorities it is resource intensive

23

Regional Process: NWW Control Expert Group

• Parallel to JDP Coordination, EFCA cooperates with the

regional Control Expert Groups (CEG) in support of a uniform implementation of the LO

• North Western Waters CEG has made a recommendation on

gramme size analysis as a complementary tool to REM in April 2015 report.

• 1st quarter of 2017 new terms of reference for the NWW CEG

from the High Level Group focused on this topic:

24

NWW Control Expert Group ToR

The CEG is asked to further develop its recommendations around the potential utility of catch conformity/variance appraisal (specifically gramme size and species mix) as an input to the assessment of risk of non-compliance with the LO.

• The CEG is asked to make further recommendations on how such an

appraisal would be best designed and operated at a regional level to determine when variations from normal expected catches might indicate risk

• f non-compliance with the LO.
• The CEG is specifically asked to consider how this risk assessment might

inform the risk categorisation of vessels previously proposed, with high risk vessels identified as those to which REM/CCTV systems should best be deployed.

25

CEG discussions on the way forward

• Last week a CEG meeting held in Utrecht
• Initial Reply to HLG is being discussed and prepared,

exact contents not yet known.

• Verified data to be essential, to develop view of catch

composition one could expect (model of last observed haul project in demersal fisheries)

• To analyse size distribution of whole catch in the

reported data, need of more complete data sets

• Question of commitment to share data by parties involved
• Too early to say what will be the way forward

26

THANK YOU

leon.bouts@efca.europa.eu

http://www.efca.europa.eu