Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea

More documents

Recommendations

Info

228 Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea: 1950-present, Rossing, Booth and Zeller catches. The focus of the Swedish statistics is the revenue from the commercial fishery, and the reported data are based on information from first hand purchasers, the registered homeport of vessels, and fisher‘s logbooks. The data are thought to be reliable, although not all landed fish have to be reported (e.g., quantities
Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea: 1950-present, Rossing, Booth and Zeller 229 commercial landings data (Table 1). An optimal source for commercial landings data should have been the data from the ICES stock assessment working group reports (although only for species with stock assessments) that are known to attempt adjustment of reported landings data based on additional information. However, data as presented in these working group reports lack transparency with regards to country-specific accounting of each catch component (e.g., landings, unallocated, discards, recreational). This lack of country-specific transparency makes the use of stock assessment report data very difficult when focusing on country- rather than stock-specific catches. Unreported landings Unreported landings are thought to be the largest component of IUU catches in the Baltic Sea (Sporrong, 2007), especially if illegal is defined as pertaining to ‗without permission‘ rather than quota violations. Information on unreported landings was obtained through interviews and literature (including grey literature and media reports). While some anchor points could be found starting in the late 1980s (Table 2), no information could be found for the pre-1980 period. Thus, a few assumptions were made to create anchor points for 1950 and 1980 so that linear interpolations could be done. In 1950, there were fewer incentives to underreport landings due to a lack of quota limitations (Eero et al., 2007), however, there was also less enforcement for reporting landings (Anon. pers. comm., Swedish Board of Fisheries). Therefore, the unreported landings for all species (except salmon, see below) in 1950 were assumed to be 5% of reported landings, which is thought to be conservative. To reflect the introduction of quotas, and the associated stronger incentives for underreporting, starting in the 1970s (Søndergaard, 2007), 1980 was used as a break point. Thus, for 1980, half of the value for the first post-1980 data anchor point was applied. This rule was applied to all species, except salmon (see below), even though not all have quotas. For species without any information on unreported landings, an estimated percentage was derived from anchor point data for cod in 1987, and herring and sprat in 1993 (see paragraph ‗other species‘ for details). Percentage rates were linearly interpolated between anchor points (Table 2), and applied to ICES landings statistics + adjustments to derive a complete time series of estimated unreported landings. Cod: Based on information on reported and unreported landings of cod in the harbor of Härnösand in 1987 (P.-O. Larsson, pers. comm., Table 1. Species specific adjustments to ICES landings statistics by year. Common name ICES landings ICES stock assessment reports Swedish data a Cod 1950-1964, 1965-1975 - 1976-2007 Herring 1950-1989 1990-2007 - Salmon 1978 - 1950-1977, 1979-2007 Burbot 1970, 1979-2007 Dab 1950-1975 b , 1977-2007 Flounder 1950-1969 b , 1973-1989 Perch 1970, 1974-1975, 1979-2007 Sprat 1950-1955, 1964-1968, 1973-1974, 1978-1986, 1988-1989 - 1950-1969 - 1976 1990-1999 1970-1972 - 1950-1969 1990-2007 1956-1963 c , 1969-1972 c , 1975- 1977 c , 1987 Whitefish 1970-1972 d , 1974-2007 d - 1950-1969 Pike 1970, 1974-1975, 1979-2007 - 1950-1969 Sea trout 1978 - 1950-1977, 1979-2007 Turbot 1950-1961, - 1962-1969 1970-2007 Vendace 1970-1972, 1974-2007 - 1950-1969 a data from yearbooks of Swedish fisheries statistics 1950-1993, e.g., Anon. (1952). For 1999 onwards, data are available at www.fiskeriverket.se. b taxonomic mislabeling between common dab and European flounder 1956-1959, and 1972. c half of the nonspecies-specific industrial fishmeal catch for that year was added to the sprat catch. d European whitefish and ‘whitefish nei’ combined. Swedish Board of Fisheries, retired), a conservative anchor point for unreported landings was calculated for 1987 (Table 2) based on the assumption that there were no other unreported landings in Sweden that year (see next paragraph for details). Anchor points for 1950 and 1980 were derived according to the assumptions described above. In recent years three different sources (Anon., 2004a; 2007c; 2008b) were combined to derive an average percentage used as anchor points for 2006 and 2007 (Table 2; see next
Page 1 and 2:
ISSN 1198-6727 Fisheries Centre Res
Page 3:
Fisheries Centre Research Reports 1
Page 6 and 7:
2 Total marine fisheries extraction
Page 8 and 9:
Catch ( t x 10 5 ) 4 Total marine f
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
10 Total marine fisheries extractio
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Catch ( t x 10 6 ) 18 Total marine
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Catch (t x 10 6 ) Catch ( t x 10 6
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Landings (t x 10 4 ) 70 Total marin
Page 76 and 77:
Catch ( t x 10 5 ) Catch ( t x 10 5
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
. 86 Total marine fisheries extract
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Catch (t x10 5 ) Catch ( t x 10 5 )
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
100 Total marine fisheries extracti
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
. 108 Total marine fisheries extrac
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Catch (t) Catch (t x 10 3 ) 134 Tot
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
. 146 Total marine fisheries extrac
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Catch (t) 152 Total marine fisherie
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183: 178 Total marine fisheries extracti
Page 194 and 195: . 190 Total marine fisheries extrac
Page 200 and 201: Catch ( t x 10 3 ) 196 Total marine
Page 202 and 203: Catch ( t x 10 5 ) 198 Total marine
Page 230 and 231: . 226 Total marine fisheries extrac
Page 240 and 241: Catch (t x 10³) Thousands Thousand
Page 242 and 243: Catch (t) Catch (t x 10³) Thousand
Page 244 and 245: Catch (t) Catch (t) 240 Total marin
Page 246 and 247: Catch (t x 10³) Thousands Thousand
Page 262 and 263: Catch ( x 10 3 t) 258 Total marine
Page 264 and 265: Catch ( x 10 3 t) 260 Total marine
show all

Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?