Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea

Total marine fisheries extractions by country in the Baltic Sea: 1950-present, Rossing, Booth and Zeller 5
Latvia: The reconstructed catches were more than 26% higher than reported landings. Sprat and herring
accounted for 74% of the difference between reported landings and total reconstructed catches. Cod were
the most underreported taxa, with approximately 88% of cod catches added as IUU catches, mainly due to
discarding. Flatfishes were second-highest, with an annual average of 78% of catches added as IUU,
mainly due to unreported landings.
Lithuania: The reconstructed catches were on average 44% higher than reported landings. Cod and sprat
accounted for 61% and 21% of the total IUU, respectively. Cod represented, on average, 65% of the
estimated unreported landings per year.
Poland: The reconstructed catches were about 80% higher than reported landings. Cod, herring and
sprat accounted for 93% of the difference between reported landings and reconstructed total catches.
Unreported landings of cod, herring, and salmon were estimated to be substantial, on average equivalent
to approximately 300%, 100%, and 55% of reported landing per year, respectively.
Russia: The reconstructed catches were over 25% higher than reported landings. On average, sprat,
herring and cod accounted for 45%, 18% and 20% of total IUU catches per year. Access to data was
generally a problem for Russia.
Sweden: The reconstructed catches were 20% larger than reported landings, despite herring and sprat
catches (combined) being overreported by, on average 7% per year. Unreported landings were the largest
component, averaging 23,000 t∙year -1 and accounting for about 12% per year of total catches. Of these,
98% were due to cod, herring, and sprat. Discards and recreational catches averaged 6% and 4% of total
catches, respectively. Discarding was substantial for some species, e.g., flounder discards were more than
1.5 times larger than their reported landings.
The major problem encountered in our reconstruction efforts was a general lack of transparency in
published fisheries data from ICES stock assessment working group reports (WGRs). WGRs publish
aggregate estimates of IUU (including discards and unreported landings [unallocated catches]). It was not
transparent which countries did, or did not contribute to these estimates, and in what proportions. The
policy of ICES is to keep these data confidential, in an apparent effort to avoid political problems. We were
also not granted access to the relational database ‗FishFrame‘, which contains Baltic-wide estimates for
discards. Such non-transparency reduces accountability of managers, enforcement officers, and fishers,
whose IUU catches are thus rarely exposed, and hinders the establishment of public trust.
In 2012, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is set to be renewed, which provides an opportunity to
address some of the issues pertaining to accountability and transparency in fisheries data and practices. A
high priority should be more accountability for total catches, as opposed to reported landings. For
example, Denmark proposed an increase in allowable landings in return for the implementation of
mandatory video monitoring to help eliminate discards and high-?grading. One hundred percent observer
coverage as onboard and/or video coverage is the only real option to properly account for all catch
activities in a transparent manner, as has been demonstrated successfully in other fisheries.
The Sea Around Us Project, February 2010