User menu
This project appraised the current status of data collection systems in place for artisanal fisheries in the Indian Ocean by coastal States that are Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Members and Co-operating Non-Contracting Parties (CPCs). Improving awareness of the range of artisanal data collection systems in place throughout the region is needed to better understand the accuracy of current catch estimates, and support the development of general guidelines for data collection from artisanal fisheries at the landing place. To support this, the current work examined the methods used and range of data collected for artisanal fisheries, the format such data are collated and what procedures are used within Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, Eritrea, European Union/France (OT), India, Indonesia, IR Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Pakistan, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand and Yemen.
The current definition of artisanal fisheries by the IOTC is too simplistic for the region, resulting in substantial differences in the terminology applied to artisanal fisheries between CPCs. It is suggested that the IOTC should develop a single, global definition of “small-scale fisheries”. In this respect, recent work by the FAO has examined developing a matrix approach to help countries define their small-scale fishing fleets. Utilising such an approach to define and classify artisanal fishing fleets across CPCs will substantially increase the ability to define the artisanal fisheries throughout the Indian Ocean, while also allowing managers to place their fishery in the context of other CPCs.
The majority of CPCs do not have a published methodology for all artisanal data collection. It is suggested that each CPC publish a detailed methodology for collection and processing of all data on artisanal fisheries. This methodology should include a full definition of artisanal fisheries by each CPC, a clear statement of the statistical methods used for the collection, processing and reporting data for artisanal fisheries (e.g. estimation of total catches, or raising to total fishing effort including clear reporting or raising factors), the methodology and temporal undertaking of national fishing craft frame surveys, and all logistic issues which may negatively impact effective data collection for artisanal fisheries.
Each CPC should develop or maintain an up-to-date data processing manual. The data processing manual should describe the processes used by the CPC to aggregate and raise catches, e.g. calculation of raising factors, levels of aggregation at each level (port, region, fleet). The manual should be available in all required local languages and include annotated examples for each data raising process. The manual should also be available in English or French for submission to IOTC by all CPCs.
Between CPCs, there is little similarity in the extent to which species level data is collected, with data for a range of taxa (e.g. sharks) predominantly aggregated when reported. To enhance CPCs ability to collect data at the species level it is suggested that published methodology manuals for each CPC should include species identification guides with such guides provided for all required species. In addition, although data on CITES species are not required as part of the mandatory IOTC data submission, IOTC reporting should ideally be expanded to cover CITES listed sharks and to species level for all sharks, seabirds, turtles and cetaceans.
Substantial differences exist in the collection of data on catch and effort between CPCs. It is suggested that each CPC should have a clear, defined and published methodology to estimate catch and effort data for all required species. CPCs should all have clear monthly estimates, at a minimum of effort by gear type. Size frequency sampling programmes should also be implemented for all species under the mandate of IOTC, including sharks, and be representative of all fleets, gears and species. The data collection of incidental mortality is relatively low across the majority of CPCs, and improvements are needed to ensure consistency across CPCs in reporting. For example, data collection of species of sharks is particularly low across most CPCs and improvements are needed in terms of recording of incidental shark mortalities at species level. In addition, for ETP species including turtles, seabirds, cetaceans and whale sharks it is important that CPCs submit zero incidental mortalities in a NULL report if no catches or interactions have been observed in order to minimise non-reporting. For seabird interactions this is particularly valid for northern Indian Ocean States where seabird interactions are limited.
