CCAMLR

The case is made that the Ross Sea is an evolutionary site on par with those of the Galápagos, Hawaii, Madagascar, the African Rift Valley lakes, and Lake Baikal, all recognized as World Heritage Sites. The focus herein will be on notothenioid fishes because their taxonomy and phylogeny are reasonably well known, and have been more thoroughly studied from an evolutionary perspective than many other Antarctic marine groups. The Ross Sea fish fauna includes 95 species of fishes, dominated by 61 species of notothenioids, an endemic perch-like group. Relative to fish fauna in warmer regions, the nature of the Ross Sea fish diversity overshadows the absolute numbers of species. Antarctic notothenioid fishes, living at subzero temperatures possess blood antifreeze and lack hemoglobin; moreover, lacking a swim bladder, they have repeatedly diversified into water column niches where they dominate abundance and biomass. As the Ross Sea continental shelf was not entirely covered by a grounded ice sheet, which was true of almost the entire remainder of Antarctic shelves during the most recent glaciations, it also constitutes an evolutionary refuge, so far, relatively untouched by direct human influence. The adaptive radiation involved, therefore, is unique and should be further investigated, including the ecological interactions among species and the environment, in its natural state.

After the Scientific Committee did not reach consensus and advise the Commission on the risks associated with three options for a Stage-1 allocation of the precautionary krill catch limit among SSMUs in Subareas 48.1-48.3, it was suggested that a comprehensive assessment of the risks that might be incurred by not deciding on such an allocation (i.e., a risk assessment of status quo management) be undertaken. We used the same methods applied by the WG-EMM in 2008, including averaging results provided from multiple parameterizations of the same model, and present such a risk assessment here. Our results demonstrate that i) status quo management may jeopardize the Commission's ability to achieve the objectives specified in Article II, and ii) the current trigger level is not as precautionary as previously presumed. Our work also reiterates the advice that the WG-EMM delivered to the Scientific Committee during 2008, and the caveats associated with that previous advice also apply here. Given the risks of status quo management, we identify three approaches by which the Commission can manage risks to krill-dependent predators in a precautionary manner: i) cap krill catches at recent levels until a feedback approach to management of the krill fishery can be implemented; ii) agree a new trigger level, that is less than the current trigger level, while continuing work to evaluate options for a Stage-1 allocation and feedback management strategies; or iii) eliminate the current trigger level, agree a Stage- 1 allocation, and focus research to design and evaluate a feedback management strategy. We feel that the collective body of scientific work to advise on issues related to the SSMU allocation has met the "burden of proof" that would be required for decision making.

Analysis of the Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) commercial and research fishery in 1970-ies and 1980-ies showed that different modifications of midwater trawls applied had comparatively low catchability, as a rule, 10-20%. The experiments showed that while percolated through large meshes 40-50% of the «percolated» individuals were injured, at the same time while «punched» through small meshes of the trawl codend 60 to 100% of individuals perished. There are two main aspects of this problem: economic and ecological.

This study documents methods and data collection during commercial Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) fishery with the vessel “Saga Sea” in the South Orkney Islands area. We present preliminary results regarding krill demography from the sampling period in January-March, 2009. Total body length was measured from 7520 individuals and ranged from 16-58mm (average: 47 ± 4.5mm). Sex and maturation stages was determined from 4678 individuals and consisted of ~19% juvenile and sub adults, ~17% adult males and ~64% adult females (overall adult sex ratio: 1:4). The proportion of immature krill was similar throughout the study period; whereas the proportion of males decreased and the female proportion increased. This field work was part of the Antarctic Krill and Ecosystem Studies (AKES) and the purpose was also to explore the possibilities for using commercial fishing vessels as a research platform in the Southern Ocean.

This paper is based on a presentation given at the Joint CEP/SC-CAMLR Workshop (3-4 April 2009). It provides information on the different objectives and types of marine spatial protection and management that can be implemented in Antarctic waters, including details on the tools currently available under CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty. The paper aims to bring together the relevant information on the principles and priorities agreed by CCAMLR Members and the ATCPs, so that further progress can be made on establishing effective systems of marine spatial protection. It is concluded that appropriate tools for marine spatial protection and management are already in place, that scientific information is now adequate to make progress, and that practical means to cooperate with the CEP/ATCM are available. The paper therefore recommends that WG-EMM Members should agree to:

1. Work towards the establishment of effective, representative and coherent spatial protection of marine biodiversity, using the full range of tools available under CCAMLR and the ATCM.
2. Cooperate as far as possible with the CEP to ensure that such measures are implemented on a scientific basis, and with the aim of achieving harmonised protection for Antarctic marine biodiversity across the Antarctic Treaty System.

So far in 2008/09, the Secretariat has received 30 VME-indicator notifications from exploratory bottom fisheries (Conservation Measure 22-07). These notifications were from Subarea 48.6 (1 notification, 5.5 VME-indicator units per line segment, seafloor depth 880-980 m), Subarea 88.1 (18 notifications, 5.0-68.6 VME-indicator units per segment, depth 585-1528 m) and Subarea 88.2 (11 notifications, 5.1-10.4 VME-indicator units per segment, depth 1272-1694 m). No notification has been made in relation to fishing in Divisions 58.4.1, 58.4.2 and 58.4.3b. The notifications resulted in the declaration of seven risk areas in Subareas 88.1 and 88.2, and one VME FS rectangle was identified in Subarea 88.2. In addition, the Secretariat has received 30 notifications of encounters with VMEs during the course of research surveys conducted by the U.S.A. in Subarea 48.1 (17 notifications, seafloor depth 92-642 m) and Subarea 48.2 (11 notifications, depth 96-252 m), and by Australia in Division 58.4.1 (2 notifications, depth 436-844 m). These encounters were detected using in-situ photography and benthic/bottom trawls, and notifications were made under CM 22-06. Under conservation measures in force, Subarea 48.1 and SSRU H in Division 58.4.1 (where the 2 encounters were notified) are closed to bottom fishing. Bottom fishing for crabs is permitted in Subarea 48.2; however no fishing will occur in 2008/09. Vessels fishing in exploratory bottom fisheries were requested to record, to the extent possible, fine-scale data on VME-indicator units recovered. Thirteen of the 18 vessels fishing reported VME data for 853 (43 %) of 1964 longline hauls reported in the fine-scale catch and effort data. Scientific observers also collected detailed information on the composition of VME-indicator taxa caught in the fisheries in Subareas 48.6, 88.1 and 88.2 and Division 58.4.3b. No scientific observer data were available from Divisions 58.4.1 or 58.4.2 at the time of writing this report.

Seven Members submitted notifications for a total 13 vessels for krill fisheries in Subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4 and Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 in 2009/10. In addition, Norway notified for an exploratory fishery for krill in Subarea 48.6.

Five Members (6 vessels) are fishing for krill in Area 48 in 2008/09, and have taken 82849 t of krill to date (Norway 33482 t, Korea 23522 t, Japan 13515 t, Russia 9654 t, Poland 2676 t). Most of this catch was taken in Subarea 48.2 (51316 t) with the remainder in Subarea 48.1 (31533 t). The forecast total catch of krill for the current season falls in the range 109000-147000 t. This compares with 156521 t of krill reported in STATLANT data in 2007/08. Recent developments in the krill fishery include: improvements in the ‘haul-by-haul’ data from the continuous fishing system; a Ukrainian project to process and submit historic haul-by-haul data from approximately 57 expedition logbooks from the Soviet krill fishing fleet; and proposed improvements to conservation measures which apply to krill fisheries. The report also includes information on krill stocks, parameter estimation and stock assessment.

The CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program (CEMP) uses indices derived from data on indicator species collected by standard methods in the three Integrated Study Regions of the Convention Area. Each year the Secretariat updates the standardised index values and provides a summary of trends and anomalies in these data. This report covers biological indices only. Six Members submitted data for 11 sites and 12 CEMP parameters in 2008/09. This continues a decreasing trend in the amounts of data being submitted to the CCAMLR database. No data was received from CEMP sites in Area 88. Since 1989/90, a total of 110 anomalous values (anomalies, see Appendix 1) have been observed in the times series of biological indices. Over that time period, 8 or more anomalies per season were observed in six seasons including 2008/09 when the following anomalies were observed:

• Low number of chicks fledged per egg laid (A6a) for Gentoo penguins at Bird Island;
• Low fledging weight (A7) for Macaroni and Gentoo penguins at Bird Island;
• Low pup growth rate deviate (C2b) for Antarctic fur seals (male and female) at Bird Island;
• Low number of chicks fledged per egg laid (A6a) for Adelie penguins at Signy Island;
• Low stomach contents weight (A8a) for Chinstrap penguins at Signy Island;
• High number of breeding pairs (A3) for Gentoo penguins at Admiralty Bay;
• High number of breeding pairs (A3) for Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins at Cape Shirreff;
• High number of breeding pairs (A3) for Adelie penguins at Esperanza Station;
• High number of breeding pairs (A3) for Macaroni penguins at Marion Island; and
• High number of breeding pairs (A3) for Adelie penguins at Stranger Point Station.