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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

.<br />

190 <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 />

gillnets and traps, catch quotas <strong>in</strong> Vistula lagoon were almost completely filled <strong>in</strong> recent years (Anon.,<br />

2006b).<br />

Major commercial species caught <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

waters near Len<strong>in</strong>grad oblast (ICES<br />

subdivision 32, Figure 1) are herr<strong>in</strong>g<br />

(Clupea harengus) and sprat, which<br />

constituted approximately 76% of total<br />

land<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> 2007 (Anon., 2006b). European<br />

smelt and brackish water fish, such as<br />

pikeperch, bream and nor<strong>the</strong>rn pike (Esox<br />

lucius) are also commercially important. In<br />

2007, <strong>the</strong> majority of herr<strong>in</strong>g (97%) was<br />

caught <strong>by</strong> trawl, while gillnets accounted for<br />

approximately 3%. Sprat is mostly caught<br />

as <strong>by</strong>catch dur<strong>in</strong>g herr<strong>in</strong>g trawls. In 2007,<br />

48% of <strong>the</strong> quota for herr<strong>in</strong>g was caught,<br />

and pikeperch and bream had land<strong>in</strong>gs that<br />

were 29% and 38% of <strong>the</strong>ir quotas,<br />

respectively (Anon., 2007c).<br />

In ICES subdivision 26, major commercial<br />

fish species <strong>in</strong>clude sprat, herr<strong>in</strong>g, and cod<br />

(Gadus morhua). In recent years, <strong>fisheries</strong><br />

land<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> subdivision 26 were<br />

significantly below <strong>the</strong> allocated quota, with<br />

53.8%, 55%, and 60% of <strong>the</strong> quota be<strong>in</strong>g<br />

caught <strong>in</strong> 2004, 2005, and 2006,<br />

respectively (Shibaev, 2004). The only<br />

species for which <strong>the</strong> quota was rout<strong>in</strong>ely<br />

met was cod, which had 97% of its quota<br />

caught <strong>in</strong> 2006. Pelagic and bottom<br />

trawl<strong>in</strong>g are <strong>the</strong> most common fish<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Denmark<br />

Sweden<br />

Figure 1. Map of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Baltic</strong> <strong>Sea</strong> with ICES subdivisions and<br />

surround<strong>in</strong>g countries. Russia‘s coastl<strong>in</strong>e borders ICES<br />

subdivisions 26 (Kal<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>grad) and 32 (Len<strong>in</strong>grad).<br />

techniques <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Baltic</strong> <strong>Sea</strong> proper (ICES subdivision 26), and gillnets are used less frequently. Catches <strong>in</strong><br />

Vistula lagoon are taken <strong>by</strong> gillnets and traps, and 80% of catches <strong>in</strong> Curonian lagoon are taken with<br />

gillnets (Shibaev, 2004).<br />

Start<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1990s, Russia‘s <strong>fisheries</strong> land<strong>in</strong>gs began to decl<strong>in</strong>e. After <strong>the</strong> dissolution of <strong>the</strong> USSR,<br />

Russia lost <strong>fisheries</strong> access to ICES sub-divisions 28 and 29, which are partly with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> waters of <strong>the</strong> now<br />

<strong>in</strong>dependent <strong>Baltic</strong> states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. However, <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> reason for decl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />

land<strong>in</strong>gs was stated to be <strong>in</strong>efficient distribution of quotas and new requirements to obta<strong>in</strong> separate<br />

paperwork for fish<strong>in</strong>g ei<strong>the</strong>r with<strong>in</strong> 12 nautical miles or Russian exclusive economic zone (Shibaev, 2004).<br />

Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, often quotas were distributed very late <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> fish<strong>in</strong>g season and fishers had less time to<br />

catch <strong>the</strong>ir assigned quota. Ano<strong>the</strong>r reason for <strong>the</strong> decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> catches was <strong>the</strong> deterioration of fish<strong>in</strong>g<br />

vessels and equipment s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> dissolution of <strong>the</strong> USSR. Fishers could rarely afford new vessels, and<br />

comb<strong>in</strong>ed with <strong>in</strong>creases <strong>in</strong> fuel prices, and <strong>the</strong> requirement to sell all catches <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> territory of Russia, led<br />

to <strong>in</strong>creased operat<strong>in</strong>g costs and low land<strong>in</strong>gs (Anon., 2006b).<br />

The Russian <strong>fisheries</strong> can be divided <strong>in</strong>to three categories: 1) state-owned <strong>fisheries</strong>; 2) <strong>fisheries</strong>-collective<br />

farms; and 3) small, private fish<strong>in</strong>g enterprises. Recently, 35-40 private fish<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>esses were registered<br />

to fish <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> waters surround<strong>in</strong>g Kal<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>grad with a total of approximately 300 small boats. Of <strong>the</strong>se<br />

small, private fish<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>esses, 78% were local, 17% were registered <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r regions of Russia, and 5%<br />

were foreign-owned (Shibaev, 2004). In 2000, approximately half of <strong>the</strong> catch quotas <strong>in</strong> Kal<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>grad were<br />

received <strong>by</strong> small, private firms, and half were assigned to collective farms (Shibaev, 2004). State-owned<br />

<strong>fisheries</strong> operate <strong>the</strong> larger vessels rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong> Soviet era, whereas <strong>the</strong> small, private firms use a<br />

variety of vessel types. The collective farms are still assigned a large portion of <strong>the</strong> catch quota <strong>in</strong><br />

comparison to <strong>the</strong> small, private enterprises (Shibaev, 2004).<br />

Currently, <strong>fisheries</strong> statistics <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se two adm<strong>in</strong>istrative divisions of Russia are obta<strong>in</strong>ed from reports<br />

collected every 15 days from registered <strong>fisheries</strong>, and <strong>in</strong>formation from log books, collected at <strong>the</strong> time of<br />

22<br />

23<br />

Germany<br />

24<br />

25<br />

27<br />

30<br />

26<br />

Poland<br />

28-2<br />

29<br />

RF<br />

31<br />

28-1<br />

F<strong>in</strong>land<br />

Latvia<br />

Lithuania<br />

32<br />

Estonia<br />

Russian<br />

Federation<br />

(RF)<br />

0 200 400 Km<br />

N

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!