30.06.2014 Views

Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea

Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea

Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

12 <strong>Total</strong> <strong>mar<strong>in</strong>e</strong> <strong>fisheries</strong> <strong>extractions</strong> <strong>by</strong> <strong>country</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Baltic</strong> <strong>Sea</strong>: 1950-present, Ross<strong>in</strong>g, Booth and Zeller<br />

Unreported % = unallocated catches /(total cod land<strong>in</strong>gs – Sweden‘s cod land<strong>in</strong>gs)<br />

In order to account for historical and political differences, <strong>the</strong> former<br />

eastern bloc countries (East Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,<br />

Poland, and <strong>the</strong> Russian Federation) were treated separately from<br />

western countries. The western countries, which already had market<br />

economies <strong>in</strong> 1950, were assumed to have unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

throughout <strong>the</strong> time period considered here. As <strong>the</strong>re were no reports<br />

document<strong>in</strong>g unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs prior to 1993, we used an<br />

assumption-based approach to derive an anchor po<strong>in</strong>t for 1980 and<br />

1950. For 1950, it was conservatively assumed that unreported<br />

land<strong>in</strong>gs were 5% of <strong>the</strong> reported land<strong>in</strong>gs, while for 1980,<br />

unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs were assumed to have been half <strong>the</strong> 1993<br />

estimated rate (Table 2). For <strong>the</strong> former eastern bloc countries, with<br />

state controlled economies <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early years, it was assumed that<br />

<strong>the</strong>re was no <strong>in</strong>centive to not report all land<strong>in</strong>gs because prices for<br />

different species were similar enough to discourage mis-report<strong>in</strong>g (R.<br />

Oeberst, pers. comm., Johann He<strong>in</strong>rich von Thünen-Institut). Thus,<br />

unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>by</strong> eastern countries were conservatively set to<br />

zero from 1950 to 1990, and <strong>the</strong>n l<strong>in</strong>early <strong>in</strong>terpolated to 1993, <strong>the</strong><br />

first year when estimates of unreported catches were available (Table<br />

2).<br />

Atlantic salmon: Unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs of salmon are not presented <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> ICES stock assessment results database; however, some<br />

<strong>in</strong>formation on unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs of salmon were available from<br />

ICES work<strong>in</strong>g group reports (ICES, 2008b). The work<strong>in</strong>g group<br />

reports <strong>Baltic</strong>-wide estimates of <strong>the</strong> mode, m<strong>in</strong>imum and maximum<br />

of unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs for all <strong>Baltic</strong> countries comb<strong>in</strong>ed from 1981-<br />

2007. Countries whose reported land<strong>in</strong>gs data <strong>in</strong>cluded recreational<br />

catches (Denmark, F<strong>in</strong>land, and Sweden; see Table 2.1.2 <strong>in</strong> ICES,<br />

2008b) had anchor po<strong>in</strong>ts derived <strong>in</strong> a slightly different manner than<br />

countries that did not report recreational catches.<br />

Table 2. Default anchor po<strong>in</strong>ts (%)<br />

used for estimat<strong>in</strong>g unreported<br />

land<strong>in</strong>gs of eastern cod stocks <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

<strong>Baltic</strong> <strong>Sea</strong> based on ICES (2007, Table<br />

2.3.1). Dashes (-) <strong>in</strong>dicate years of<br />

l<strong>in</strong>ear <strong>in</strong>terpolation between anchor<br />

po<strong>in</strong>ts.<br />

Eastern cod<br />

Year Western<br />

countries<br />

Eastern<br />

countries<br />

1950 5.0 a 0.0 b<br />

1951-1979 - 0.0 b<br />

1980 31.1 c 0.0 b<br />

1981-1990 - 0.0 b<br />

1991-1992 - -<br />

1993 62.2 62.2<br />

1994 103.0 103.0<br />

1995 30.0 30.0<br />

1996 10.0 10.0<br />

1997-1999 - -<br />

2000 46.0 46.0<br />

2001 47.6 47.6<br />

2002 46.6 46.6<br />

2003 61.5 61.5<br />

2004 52.9 52.9<br />

2005 46.4 46.4<br />

2006 47.9 47.9<br />

2007 43.2 43.2<br />

a assumption of 5% of reported land<strong>in</strong>gs;<br />

b assumption of zero unreported catches;<br />

c assumption of ½ <strong>the</strong> estimated rate for<br />

1993.<br />

Thus, we used two separate assumption-based approaches to estimate salmon IUU catches:<br />

a) for Denmark, F<strong>in</strong>land, and Sweden, whose reported land<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> Table 2.1.2 <strong>in</strong> ICES (2008b)<br />

<strong>in</strong>cluded estimates of recreational catches, we utilized both <strong>the</strong> mode and <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imum value<br />

of unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs from <strong>the</strong> ICES salmon work<strong>in</strong>g group report (Table 2.1.2 <strong>in</strong> ICES,<br />

2008b) to estimate <strong>country</strong> specific unreported salmon catches. The mode was used prior to<br />

countries report<strong>in</strong>g recreational catches, and after countries started to report recreational<br />

catches <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imum was used; and<br />

b) for all o<strong>the</strong>r countries, whose reported land<strong>in</strong>gs data <strong>in</strong> Table 2.1.2 <strong>in</strong> ICES (2008b) did not<br />

<strong>in</strong>clude recreational catches, we used <strong>the</strong> mode value of unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs from Table 2.1.2<br />

<strong>in</strong> ICES (2008b) to estimate <strong>country</strong> specific unreported catches.<br />

In keep<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong> assumption-based approach, <strong>the</strong> former eastern bloc countries were assumed to report<br />

all land<strong>in</strong>gs, and thus, were conservatively assumed to have no unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs from 1950-1990<br />

(Table 3). To account for <strong>the</strong> shift to market economies and <strong>the</strong> associated underreport<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>centives,<br />

l<strong>in</strong>ear <strong>in</strong>terpolations were made between 1990 and <strong>the</strong> first anchor po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> 1993 based on <strong>the</strong> above<br />

described method for estimat<strong>in</strong>g unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs. Prior to apply<strong>in</strong>g this method to <strong>the</strong> western<br />

countries, a correction was applied to reported land<strong>in</strong>gs, as it was assumed that <strong>the</strong> eastern bloc countries<br />

reported all land<strong>in</strong>gs of salmon prior to 1990. For <strong>the</strong> earlier time periods, assumption-based approaches<br />

were used, but when unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs were first documented <strong>in</strong> ICES work<strong>in</strong>g group data, <strong>the</strong><br />

estimates of unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs between 1950 and 1990 for western countries <strong>in</strong> each year were<br />

calculated as,<br />

Unreported land<strong>in</strong>gs % = mode of unreported catches/[total reported land<strong>in</strong>gs – eastern bloc land<strong>in</strong>gs]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!