Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea

244 Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea: 1950-present, Rossing, Booth and Zeller
The estimated unreported cod landings were about 18% of reported ICES landings statistics, and made up
45% of the total IUU catches of cod. A study on unreported cod fishing in the Baltic Sea suggested that the
countries with the largest fraction of the TAC (i.e., Sweden, Denmark and Poland), were the biggest
offenders with respect to unreported landings (Sporrong, 2007). According to a Polish fisher the quotas
are exceeded in each country, but mainly by Poland and Sweden (M. Sandecki,
www.fishsec.org/downloads/1172158401_70868.pdf). However, compared to the average unreported
landings of Eastern Cod from 1993-2007, estimated by the ICES stock assessment working group (section
2.4.1.2, ICES, 2008a), Sweden‘s unreported landings of cod, as estimated here, are relatively small. ICES
working group uses a ‗Raising Factor‘ (RF), to estimate total landings. The RF is based on information on
unallocated catches (i.e. unreported landings) from various countries, which has been added to the
landings reported by the working group. The total landings (reported + unallocated) are divided by the
unallocated catches to derive the RF. In ICES (2008a) the RF is different depending on if it is presented as
RF (table in section 2.4.1.2; ICES, 2008a), or calculated based on the data presented (Table 2.4.1; ICES,
2008a). This is an example of the lack of transparency that makes stock assessment working group reports
very unclear for anyone not part of the working group. Since the RF factor is a Baltic Sea total, and it is not
possible to identify which, or how many countries, contributed actual information on unreported landings
to derive it, Sweden‘s unreported landings may be higher than some, and smaller than some of the other
individual countries surrounding the Baltic Sea. Since not all countries contribute with information, the
RF factor is a minimum estimate (ICES. 2008a), and unreported landings will be more or less
underestimated based on which countries that the working group obtain information from. For example;
Sweden‘s unreported landings in 1994 estimated here for the catch reconstruction, equals a RF of 1.24 for
Sweden. The unreported landings for Poland are thought to be about 300% (Bale et al., this volume) which
equals a RF of 3, hence, if Poland is one of the countries that does not report their unreported landings to
the working group, the unallocated catches would be substantially underestimated.
The key message here is that the lack of data transparency evident in all ICES stock assessment working
group reports is a problem for open and transparent accounting of resource use and countries‘ adherence
to EU policies. The resources of the Baltic Sea are essentially public property (owned by the people of all
Baltic countries), yet the continued non-transparency of fisheries data apparent in ICES reports makes the
possibility for public accountability of democratically elected governments of Europe limited.
Discards
Information on Swedish boat-based discards was sparse, except for cod and flounder. Swedish discard
studies have mainly focused on cod fisheries, and information found on other species was not detailed
enough to be used to derive anchor points. The Swedish sampling of discard data has covered