← Malta

L.S. 425.09 Ordni dwar l-Implimentazzjoni u l-Infurzar ta’ Ċertu Pjanijiet ta’ Ġestjoni tas-Sajd

IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 1 SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION 425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS ORDER 25th October, 2013 LEGAL NOTICE 354 of 2013. 1.

(1)The title of this Order is the Implementation and Enforcement of Certain Fisheries Management Plans Order. Citation and scope.
(2)The scope of this Order is the implementation and, where applicable, the enforcement of management plans in conformity with the obligations of Malta under Article 19 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1626/94. 2.
(1)In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires: "the Act" means the Fisheries Management and Conservation Act; Interpretation. Cap. 425. "Director" shall have the same meaning as that assigned to it in the Act; "management plans" means the management plans as provided under article 3 of this Order; "the Regulation" means Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, amending Regulation (EE C) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1626/94.
(2)Save as otherwise provided in this Order, the definitions provided for in the Act are to apply to this Order. 3.
(1)Management plans for certain fisheries are hereby being adopted, made applicable and enforceable, as the case may be and according to law in Malta, the said management plans being th os e p r ov ided fo r in th e Fir st Sch ed ul e an d in th e Seco n d Schedule.
(2)Without prejudice to the general applicability of subarticle
(1), the management plans referred in under subarticle
(1)include tables with the objectives, indicators and targets as found in the Third Schedule, in the Fourth Schedule and in the Fifth Schedule, which tables are, respectively: (
  1. a)Table 1 which shows the objectives, indicators and targets for lampara; (
  2. b)Table 2 which shows the objectives, indicators and Management plans. 2 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS targets for bottom otter trawlers; (
  3. c)Table 3 which shows the objectives, indicators and targets for lampuki fisheries.
(3)Without prejudice to the general applicability of subarticle
(1), as referred in the management plans, it is expected that within the time periods or under those circumstances as established hereunder, or as established in the management plans or according to the discretion of the Director, there shall be: (
  1. a)a reduction of lampara fisheries by 20% (equivalent to 3 vessels) by the end of 2015; and (
  2. b)a reduction of the fishing effort in the case of bottom otter trawl fisheries through the introduction of a capacity reduction plan targeting 20% reduction in capacity, as well as a reduction of the same fishing effort by 10% through the introduction of a temporary cessation for the period spanning from 15 August to 15 September; and (
  3. c)in the case of lampuki fisheries, the number of fishing vessels authorised to fish in the Fishing Aggregating Devices fishery will be retained to 130 vessels and on such vessels there will be a tracking system installed as from the 15th August 2014 onwards, while the same vessels, including those under 10 metres length, will have to register their landings in their catch logbook and land in a designated port.
(4)Without prejudice to the general applicability of subarticle
(1), as referred in the management plans, the Director shall enhance data collection and research on: (
  1. a)the identification of stock units in the Mediterranean sub-regions; and (
  2. b)the identification of critical habitats (nursery and spawning sites) and of ecological requirements for the development of eggs and larvae; and (
  3. c)the definition of some biological aspects like growth paramenters and maturity ogives; and (
  4. d)the impact of fisheries based on Fishing Aggregating Devices on by-catch species and on the environment.
(5)The Director shall be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the management plans referred to under this article and for such purposes shall have all those powers pertaining to said Director under the Act. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 3 FIRST SCHEDULE [Article 3
(1)] Fisheries Management Plan Bottom otter trawl fishery Lampara fishery Table of contents List of Figures List of Tables Abbreviations used 1 Introduction 2 The Common Fisheries Policy and the Mediterranean Sea 3 The Maltese fisheries 4 5 3.1 The 25 nautical mile Fisheries Management Zone (25NM FMZ) 3.2 The Maltese commercial fishing fleet 3.3 Recreational fisheries Fisheries covered by the multi-annual national management plan 4.1 Lampara fishery 4.2 Bottom otter trawling fishery 4.3 Biological Review 4.4 Socio-economic review 4.4.1 Projected price trends 4.4.2 Projected income streams Maltese management plan for the lampara fishery 5.1 Objectives 5.2 Review of the status of the stocks based on Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) 5.3 5.2.1 Status of the stocks 5.2.2 Species Composition of Landings 5.2.3 Trends from Catch per Unit Effort data 5.2.4 Trends of biomass from the MEDIAS survey 5.2.5 CPUE Thresholds Potential management tools 5.3.1 List of possible management tools 5.4 Assessment of the socio-economic impact of the potential management measures 5.5 Management measures to be adopted 4 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 6 5.6 Implementation of management measures 5.7 Review of management measures Maltese Management Plan for the bottom otter trawler fishery 6.1 Objectives 6.2 Review of the status of the stocks 6.3 6.2.1 Trends from landings data 6.2.2 Trends from Catch per Unit Effort data 6.2.3 Trends of biomass from the MEDITS survey 6.2.4 Stock assessments Potential management tools 6.3.1 7 List of possible management tools 6.4 Assessment of the socio-economic impact of the potential management measures 6.5 Selection of best management tools 6.6 Implementation of management measures 6.7 Review of management measures Conclusion Annex I - Lampara 1.1 Description of Fishery 1.2 Fleet Structure and Capacity 1.3 Fishing effort 1.3.1 Effort Data 1.3.2 Total Effort 1.3.3 Monthly Effort 1.4 Conservation Status of Stocks 1.5 Evolution of Landings 1.5.1 Evolution of Total Landings 1.5.2 Species Composition of Landings 1.6 MEDIAS Biomass Indices 1.7 Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) Data 1.7.1 Evolution of CPUE Trends 1.7.2 CPUE Thresholds 1.8 Stock Assessments 1.9 Impact on the By-Catch Species and the Environment 1.10 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Fishery IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 5 Annex 2 - Bottom Otter Trawlers 1. Fisheries Characteristics 1.1 Fleet Structure and Capacity 1.2 Total landings over 2007-2011 1.2.1 Evolution of Total Landings 1.2.2 Species Composition of Landings 2. MEDITS Biomass Indices 2.1 Fishing Effort 2.1.1 Evolution of CPUE Trends 3. Biological characteristics of the main species caught 3.1 Stock assessments 4. Environmental Impacts 4.1 Impact on Marine Habitats 4.2 Impact on Coastal Resources 4.3 By-Catch and Discards 5. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Fishery 5.1 Capacity utilization 5.1.1 Economic performance of the trawl fleet Annex 3 – Economic variables List of definitions and formulas – Indicators 8 REFERENCES List of Figures Figure 1: Declining growth rate of fish production. Figure 2: Regression analysis of total annual landings of the lampara fleet recorded in 2006-2012. Figure 3: Total annual landings of the lampara fleet for the key target species Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) compared to the combined annual landings of all other species recorded for the period 2006-2012. Figure 4: Relative contribution of Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus), Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) and other species as mean percentage contribution to total monthly landings (±1SD) recorded for the period 2006-2012. Figure 5: Catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) recorded in the Maltese lampara fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. Figure 6: Catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) recorded in the Maltese lampara 6 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. Figure 7: Landings in Metric Tonnes under each scenario Figure 8: Income and Operating cash flow in 2017 under each scenario Figure 9: Regression analysis of total annual landings of the trawl fleet recorded in 2006-2011. Figure 10: Mean monthly total landings (±1 SD) for the trawl fishing fleet in 2006-2011. Figure 11: Total annual landings of the trawl fleet for the key target species: giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet and striped red mullet (Mullus spp.), compared to the comb Figure 12: Relative contribution of the key target species: giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet and striped red mullet (Mullus spp.), to total mean monthly landings (±1SD) recorded for the period 2006-2012 Figure 13: Catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for the key target species: giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet and striped red mullet (Mullus spp.), recorded in the Maltese trawl fishery for the period 2006-2011. Figure 14: Biomass indices for the main target species caught during the MEDITS survey for the years 2007-2011 Figure 15: Landings in Metric Tonnes under each scenario Figure 16: Income in 2017 under each scenario Figure 17: Temporal variation in nominal fishing effort, expressed as engine strength (kW)* fishing days, for the lampara fishing fleet, with fitted regression line. Figure 18: Temporal variation in nominal fishing effort, expressed as vessel gross tonnage (GT)* fishing days, for the lampara fishing fleet, with fitted regression line. Figure 19: Mean monthly fishing effort (+/- 1 SD) for the lampara fishing fleet in 2006-2012; units are effort in engine strength (kW)* fishing days. Figure 20: Mean monthly fishing effort (+/- 1 SD) for the lampara fishing fleet in 2006-2012; units are effort in vessel gross tonnage (GT)* fishing days. Figure 21: Chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) landings recorded in the Maltese Islands in 1954-2012 (Source: Maltese National Statistics). Figure 22: Regression analysis of total annual landings of the lampara fleet recorded in 2006-2012. Figure 23: Total annual landings of the lampara fleet for the key target species chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and round sardinella IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 7 (Sardinella aurita) compared to the combined annual landings of all other species recorded for the period 2006-2012. Figure 24: Relative contribution of chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) and other species as mean percentage contribution to total monthly landings (±1SD) recorded for the period 2006-2012. Figure 25: Biomass Indices for lampara target species obtained from MEDIAS Figure 25: Catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) recorded in the Maltese lampara fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. Figure 26: Catch per unit effort (as kg/GT*Fishing Days) for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) recorded in the Maltese lampara fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. Figure 27: Catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) recorded in the Maltese lampara fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. Figure 28: Catch per unit effort (as kg/GT*Fishing Days) for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) recorded in the Maltese lampara fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. Figure 29: Regression analysis of total annual landings of the trawl fleet licensed to work within the Malta FMZ recorded in 2006-2011. Figure 30: Mean monthly total landings (±1 SD) for the trawl fishing fleet in 2006-2011. Figure 31: Total annual landings of the trawl fleet for the key target species: giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet and striped red mullet (Mullus spp.), compared to the combined annual landings of all other species recorded for the period 2006-2011. Figure 32: Relative contribution of the key target species: giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet and striped red mullet (Mullus spp.), to total mean monthly landings (±1SD) recorded for the period 2006-2011. Figure 33: Biomass index for M. merluccius Figure 34: Biomass indices for Mullus spp. Figure 35: Biomass Index for A. foliacea Figure 36: Biomass Index for P. longirostris Figure 38: Catch per unit effort (as kg/GT*Fishing Days) for the key target species: giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet and striped red mullet (Mullus spp.), recorded in the Maltese trawl fishery for the period 2006-2011. 8 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 Figure 39: Trends in catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea) recorded in the Maltese trawl fishery for the period 2006-2011, and in MEDITS biomass indices recorded during annual scientific surveys for the period 2006-2011. Both indices are shown for data from the 25 NM FMZ only. Figure 40: Trends in catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) recorded in the Maltese trawl fishery for the period 2006-2011, and in MEDITS biomass indices recorded during annual scientific surveys for the period 2006-2011. Both indices are shown for data from the 25 NM FMZ only. Figure 41: Trends in catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) recorded in the Maltese trawl fishery for the period 2006-2011, and in MEDITS biomass indices recorded during annual scientific surveys for the period 2006-2011. Both indices are shown for data from the 25 NM FMZ only. Figure 42: Trends in catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) red mullet and striped red mullet (Mullus spp.) recorded in the Maltese trawl fishery for the period 2006-2011, and in MEDITS biomass indices recorded during annual scientific surveys for the period 2006-2011. Both indices are shown for data from the 25 NM FMZ only. Figure 43: Map showing the available information about the presence of sensitive habitats within the Malta FMZ, areas where trawling is authorised as per Annex V of Council Regulation 1967/2006/EC (marked as ‘Authorised trawling zones’), trawling zones as amended trawling zones’). Figure 44: Average length frequency distributions of discards measured for the whole Maltese trawling fleet in 2009-2011; red line indicates minimum landing size as per Council Regulation 1967/2006/EC where applicable. Figure 45: Ratio between actual per vessel effort deployed and maximum effort (observed and theoretical) for the Maltese bottom otter trawl fleet in 2006-2011. List of Tables Table 1: Price elasticity co-efficient for some of the target species of the trawl Table 2: Profitability estimate per vessel Table 3: Objectives, indicators and targets for the lampara fishery management plan Table 4: Central Mediterranean landings (
  1. t)of species targeted by the lampara fishery. Malta’s values include landings from all of the Maltese fleet and not only from the lampara fishery. Source: GFCM Production Statistics; reference year 2010. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 9 Table 5: Monthly CPUE threshold limits for the Maltese lampara fleet based on 25th percentile of monthly CPUE recorded during 20062012. Table 6: Assumptions made in the scenario analysis Table 7: Economic net present value compared of all scenarios to scenario 1 Table 8: Objectives, indictors and targets for the bottom otter trawler fishery management plan Table 9: Landings of key taxa fished by Maltese bottom otter trawlers in the Maltese FMZ during 2006-2011. Table 10: Species characterised by an important increase in landings recorded from Maltese bottom otter trawlers in the Maltese FMZ during 2006-2011. Table 11: Results of stock assessments conducted in 2011 and 2012; Fcur = current fishing mortality (F). Table 13: Assumptions made in the scenario analysis Table 14: Economic net present value compared of all scenarios to scenario 1 Table 15: Minimum, maximum and average dimensions of Lampara nets Table 15: 2006 - 2012 fleet capacity data for the lampara fleet Table 16: Percentage contribution of vessels with <12 m length overall (LOA) to total lampara fleet effort. Effort data are represented in terms of kW*fishing days and GT*fishing days. SD = standard deviation. Table 17: Percentage contribution of vessels with >12 m length overall (LOA) to total lampara fleet effort. Effort data are represented in terms of kW* fishing days and GT*fishing days. SD = standard deviation. Table 18: Percentage contribution to total landings by small vessels (<12 m in length) and large vessels (>12 m in length) in the lampara fleet. SD = standard deviation. Table 19: Landings (tonnes) of key target species of the lampara fishery obtained from logbooks and sales market vouchers. Table 20: Cumulative frequency of annual CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold. Table 21: Cumulative frequency of annual CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold. Table 22: Percentage monthly contribution to total annual landings for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 2006-2012. The months which represent the main 10 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS fishing season of the species are marked in bold. Table 23: Percentage monthly contribution to total annual landings for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 2006-2012. The months which represent the main fishing season of the species are marked in bold. Table 24: Cumulative frequency of monthly CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during the months of April-August 20062012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold. Table 25: Cumulative frequency of monthly CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during the months of May-August 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold. Table 26: Monthly CPUE threshold limits for the Maltese lampara fleet based on 25th percentile of monthly CPUE recorded during 20062012. Table 27: Central Mediterranean landings (
  2. t)of species targeted by the lampara fishery. Malta’s values include landings from all of the Maltese fleet and not only from the lampara fishery. Source: GFCM Production Statistics; reference year 2010. Table 28: Values for the economic variables and indicators for the lampara fleet, years 2006-2011. For definitions of the variables and indicators used refer to Annex 3. Table 29: Vessels licensed to use bottom otter trawl gear within the Malta FMZ. Table 30: Landings of key taxa fished by Maltese bottom otter trawlers in the Maltese FMZ during 2006-2011. Table 31: Species characterised by an important increase in landings recorded from Maltese bottom otter trawlers in the Maltese FMZ during 2006-2011. Table 32: Species distribution of targeted species Table 33: Maximum age, maturity and spawning season of targeted species Table 34: Results of stock assessments conducted in 2011 and 2012; Fcur = current fishing mortality (F). Table 35: Ratio between Festimated and Ftarget (F/Ft) for the Maltese bottom otter trawl (OTB) fleet in 2011. Table 36: Data used to calculate fleet capacity indicator for the Maltese trawl fleet. Table 37: Summary of the technical indicator for the Maltese trawl fleet. Table 38: Values for the economic variables and indicators for the trawl fleet, years 2007-2011. For definitions of the variables and indicators used refer toAnnex 3 – Economic variables. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 11 Abbreviations used AIS Automatic Identification System CFP Common Fisheries Policy CPUE Catch per Unit Effort CU Capacity utilisation DCF Data Collection Framework DCR Data Collection Regulation DFA Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture EnerCost Energy cost EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FTE Full-time equivalent FMZ Fisheries Management Zone FVR Fishing Vessel Register GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean GT Gross Tonnage GNP Gross National Product GVA Gross Value Added ICCAT Tuna International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic NoVarCost Non-variable costs OCF Operating cash flow OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development RepCost Repair and maintenance costs RightsCost Lease/rental payments for quota and other fishing rights SGBRE Subgroup on Balance between Resources and Exploitation STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries TotDepHist Value of physical capital: depreciated historical value TotDepRep Value of physical capital: depreciated replacement value VarCost Variable costs VMS Vessel Monitoring System 12 [ S.L.425.09 1. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS Introduction The Maltese archipelago lies more or less at the centre of the Mediterranean, 93 km south of Sicily and 288 km north of Africa in a maritime area largely characterised by international waters. Malta is geographically the smallest EU Member State and its coastline amounts to around 0.8% of the total EU coastline*. The Maltese fleet is predominantly small-scale with a rich and extensive artisanal portfolio. It accounts for around 0.03% of the total EU catch†. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) notes that because most of the resources are shared with other countries, the current status of stocks depends little on the activity of the Maltese fleet. The STECF concludes that this fact creates many problems for identifying actions that the Management Plan can carry out unilaterally. Malta’s geographic position and size, the scale of its fishery, and the scale of its fishery, the spatial distribution of exploited stocks and fishing grounds shared with neighbouring EU and non EU countries, severely restrain the scope of any unilateral conservation effort and de-facto limit the applicability of Article 19 of Council Regulation 1967/2006. 2. The Common Fisheries Policy and the Mediterranean Sea The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) sets out the main framework for managing the fisheries sector in the EU. Because of the characteristics of the Mediterranean fishery, EU catch limits or quotas are not applicable, with the exception of limits on bluefin tuna that have been introduced in response to recommendations by the International Commission on Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). Apart from the general absence of catch limits, in all other respects, the region is subject to a range of EU wide management measures, including requirements relating to the EU vessel register, licensing, monitoring and control arrangements, and data collection measures. The core of EU Mediterranean fisheries management measures are set out in EU Council Regulation (EC) 1967/2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean. Article 19 of the said regulation, together with Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, form the legal framework for the implementation of management plans. * Including data on Croatia † Based on 2009 Eurostat data IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 3. The Maltese fisheries 3.1 The 25 nautical mile Fisheries Management Zone (25NM FMZ) 13 The provisions related to the 25 nautical mile management zone (25 NM FMZ) around Malta are outlined in Article 26 of the Council Regulation 1967/ 2006. Therefore the fisheries covered by this management plan are already subject to a number of targeted measures including measures limiting fishing effort, capacity, vessel size, engine power and fishing areas for certain modes of fishing. The main fleet segment which is allowed to fish in the 25 NM FMZ is that composed of vessels smaller than 12 m. The small scale artisanal sector is the most sustainable fishing segment and this measure limits impacts on the marine environment to a minimum. The maximum fishing capacity for the 25 NM FMZ is set in the Treaty of Accession and is reflected in Council Regulation (EC) 1967/2006. A number of fishing activities conducted by vessels larger than 12 m are allowed to fish in the FMZ by way of derogation. These include a limited number of trawlers, vessels fishing for dolphinfish and vessels fishing with small pelagic purse seines and longlines. Annex V of Council Regulation (EC) 1967/2006 also sets the authorised trawlable areas within the 25 NM FMZ. In this regard it is also pertinent to note that the Maltese authorities are currently studying the possibility of relocating part of the authorised trawlable areas due to the closure of parts of the areas due to protected habitats present in the zones and the zones within 3 NM. This issue will be examined under different cover and will include a review on the trawlability of the said zones. 3.2 The Maltese commercial fishing fleet As from January 2013, the Maltese fishing fleet is currently composed of 399 full time vessels and 635 part time vessels. Out of these vessels 959 (92.7%) vessels are below 12 m and are considered to be small-scale fishing vessels, while the remaining 75 (7.3 %) vessels are over 12 m. The main fisheries in Maltese waters are those for bluefin tuna, dolphinfish, swordfish, demersal and small pelagics. These fisheries are mostly operated on a seasonal basis, according to the particular targeted species’ migratory or biological behaviour. 3.3 Recreational fisheries As of January 2013, the recreational category of vessels in the Maltese Fishing Vessel Register (FVR) is composed of 1,915 vessels. In accordance with Article 17 of Council Regulation 1967/2006, the use of towed nets, surrounding nets, purse seines, boat dredges, mechanised dredges, gillnets, trammel nets and combined bottom-set nets and longlines for highly migratory species are prohibited for recreational fisheries. Fish caught by vessels in this 14 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS category cannot be sold. A Recreational Fisheries Board to discuss possible management measures including the possibility of restricting fishing effort has been set up. The Recreational Fisheries Board will provide a report with possible management measures and this, together with a consultation exercise with stakeholders, will be used as a basis to draft a Legal Notice on recreational fishing establishing minimum thresholds in terms of effort, gear selectivity and licensing to fish. 4. Fisheries covered by the multi-annual national management plan In line with Article 19 of Council Regulation 1967/2006, two management plans have been developed; one for the lampara purse seine fishery and one for the bottom otter trawler fishery. The management plans have been developed taking into account biological, economic and social objectives and will be implemented for the vessels within the 25 NM FMZ. For each plan the following steps will be followed: 1. Definition of the objectives and quantifying targets to reach such objectives 2. Review of the status of the stocks based on indices of stock abundance obtained from stock assessments where possible and on Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) 3. Review of potential management tools and possible scenarios 4. Assessment of the socio-economic impact of the potential management measures 5. Selection of best management tools 6. Implementation of the management measures and 7. Monitoring and evaluation of the results. The submitted management plans should be considered as a living document. The plans will be revised on the basis of new information (data) and in terms of the biological and socio-economic performance of the chosen measures. Step 7 is therefore of paramount importance. 4.1 Lampara fishery The management plan applies to Lampara fishing vessels authorised to carry out pelagic fisheries. The main target species include Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita). The lampara fleet consists of 18 boats having an overall tonnage of 520 GT, a total main engine power of 3,236 kW and provides 25 jobs. This represents less than 2% of the number of vessels registered in the Commercial fishing register. 17 vessels in this fleet are on average 16 m long, with an average tonnage of 25 GT and average engine power of 151 kW. In 2011, lampara production amounted to 176 metric tonnes (€191,000 in IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 15 value terms) which represents 9% of total landings but less than 2% of the selling value. In the same year, landings from Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) represented 58% and 28% of the ‘lampara’ landings respectively. All stocks targeted by the Maltese lampara fishery are stocks shared with Sicily due to the population distribution over the Malta Bank, which connects the Maltese Islands with Sicily. Stock assessment information for the Central Mediterranean is at present not available for Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita). Irrespective of their length overall, all lampara vessels are fitted with a tracking system and are requested to complete a catch logbook in order to better monitor their fishing activity. In addition the fishing capacity in terms of GT and dimensions of the gear are not allowed to increase. 4.2 Bottom otter trawling fishery The management plan applies to trawlers authorised to carry out demersal fisheries within the 25 NM fishing management zone. The main target species include Red Shrimps (Aristeomorpha foliacea), Red Mullet (Mullus spp.) and Pink Shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris). The trawler fleet authorised to fish within the 25 NM FMZ consists of 12 boats having an overall tonnage of 1,056 GT, a total main engine power of 3,700 kW and provides 59 jobs. This represents less than 2% of the number of vessels registered in the Commercial fishing register. The vessels in this fleet are on average 22 m long, have an average tonnage of 88 GT and average engine power of 333kW. In 2011, trawler production amounted to almost 171 metric tonnes (€1.6m in value terms) which represents 8% of total landings but less than 14% of its selling value. Landings from Red Shrimps (Aristeomorpha foliacea), Red Mullet (Mullus spp.) and (Parapenaeus longirostris) represent 23%, 18% and 12 % of the trawler landings respectively. 4.3 Biological Review For the lampara fishery, the Department of Fisheries and Aquacultureexamined several options with regards to the biological review of the stocks and possible extrapolation of data, to assess the possible impacts of the scenarios on the stocks. However in the light that no stock assessment of the target species is available at regional level and due to the fact that that the main species exploited by the Maltese fleet are part of a shared stock, and due to the fact that the Maltese catches are substantially low when compared to catches by other countries, the only review which is viable and could be considered to be reliable was the results of the trends of the CPUE. For the bottom otter trawler fishery, the stock assessments conducted at 16 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS regional level were used to determine the status of the stocks. 4.4 Socio-economic review For each of the identified scenarios mentioned in sections 5.2.1 and 6.2.1, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculturehave estimated the catches for each of the main target species by reference to growth rates in the past as well as production growth expectations for the future. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) expects world fisheries production in 2020 to grow by about 15% above the average level for 2008-2010. It is anticipated that the major increases in the quantity of fish produced will originate from aquaculture. However, when considering the annual growth rate of aquaculture for the same projected period it is estimated to be 2.8% which is lower than the rate of 5.6% observed during the previous decade. Capture fisheries are expected to register small growth over the next ten years as shown in Figure 1: Declining growth rate of fish production. below. Figure 1: Declining growth rate of fish production. On the other hand, the revised CFP estimates that a rise in average consumption of between 0.5% to 1% average yearly growth rate is expected in the majority of European countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta and the United Kingdom).3 The effects that the planned management measures might have on the fishing effort have been taken into consideration in this analysis. 4.4.1 Projected price trends OECD/the Food and Aquaculture Organisation (FAO) expects world fish prices to continue the growing trend experienced in 2010 and early 2011. They will be affected by income and human population growth, stagnant capture IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 17 fisheries production, increasing feed cost and higher crude oil prices. All these factors will contribute to the rise in fish prices over the medium term. However, OECD/FAO opines that there will be different scenarios for capture fisheries production and for aquaculture. With the growing price of fishmeal and the higher price of other feeds, the spread between the average price of output from aquaculture and capture will grow over the medium term. In addition, the average price for wild fish should increase less than farmed species due to expected changes in the catch composition, with more catches of lower value fish. OECD/FAO expects the average world price for captured species to increase by 23% and for aquaculture species by a 50% by 2020 compared to the average 2008-10. In addition to the need to compensate for the higher cost of fish meal, prices of aquaculture will also grow due to strong domestic demand. The price-quantity relationship has been specified by various formulae in the literature (Huang, 2005). The price elasticity co-efficient from Nielsen
(2000)were derived and are summarised below: Table 1: Price elasticity co-efficient for some of the target species of the trawl Species Price elasticity co-efficient for every 1% fall in production Hake -0.37 Mullet -0.22 Shrimp -0.20 Choice of ordinary or inverse demand model may be based on the realism of causality. In the case of food, the causality from demand changes to price is found more realistic than vice versa, as demand for food seems more determined by human needs, regardless of the price, than the demand for other goods. In the case of seafood in particular, the causality from demand changes to price is found more realistic than vice versa. This is because seafood is food and that demand is given by a marked exogenous supply, which is determined by circumstances such as bio-economy, weather, fishery management etc. In the literature ordinary demand models are used to forecast demand and inverse demand models are used to forecast price. In a part of this literature both models are used on the same data set and thereby forecast properties are tested. Burton
(1992)finds that the inverse demand model forecasts price of wet fish in UK significantly better than the ordinary model forecasts demand for wet fish in UK. Eales et. al.
(1997)reach the same conclusion regarding Japanese fish markets. 4.4.2 Projected income streams Revenues by species are obtained as a product of the projected price and the estimated landings of a particular species. The costs of each fleet segment are broken down in categories that include salaries and wages, energy costs, 18 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS repairs and maintenance costs, variable costs and non-variable costs. The cost projections are based on cost relationships that are derived from actual results registered in the period 2008 to 2011. 4.4.3 Supporting workings with respect to loss of profits estimates The following table includes the workings that were used in estimating the loss of profits that could be incurred in the different scenarios envisaged in the management plans. Table 2: Profitability estimate per vessel Lampara Trawlers Five year revenues 895,304 7,187,896 Number of vessels 18.60 12.00 Average five year revenue per vessel 48,135 598,991 Average profit conversion 46% 15% Average five year contribution per vessel 22,030 89,849 The information is based on the economic data collected annually for the purpose of the EU Data Collection Programme by means of a sample survey. This data provides indications of the revenues generated by each type of fleet, nature and split of operational costs between fixed and variable costs and resultant profit contributions. The number of vessels is based on the fishing vessel register information. 5. Maltese management plan for the lampara fishery 5.1 Objectives Based on the biological, social and economic aspects of the fisheries the following objectives have been defined: 1. Ensuring the sustainability of the stock 2. Ensuring financial stability for fishers 3. Safeguarding artisanal fishing activity For each objective specific indicators and benchmarks were established so as to reach the objectives of the plan. As explained in section 4, stock assessments for the related stocks were not available and thus the biological indicators and targets reference points were calculated based on CPUE data. The data used in the calculations were collected through logbooks for vessels over 10 m and Market Sales Vouchers for vessels smaller than 10 m. As from 2012, all of the landings of the fleet were recorded by officials at landing. However, the data collected at landing for 2012 was not included in this analysis, so as to avoid variances arising due to sampling methodologies. Thus 2012 data was extracted using the same IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 19 methodology as for previous years; through logbooks for vessels over 10 m and Market Sales Vouchers for vessels smaller than 10 m. CPUE trends were established to indicate the status of the stocks. The socio-economic indicators and targets were calculated based on a set of variables and indicators based on the economic data collected annually. With this data the several scenarios were presented and assed in order to select the best management measures for the Maltese lampara fishery within the 25 NM FMZ. The objectives, indicators and targets are presented below in Table 3: Objectives, indicators and targets for the lampara fishery management plan. Table 3: Objectives, indicators and targets for the lampara fishery management plan Objectives Biological Indicator Targets 1. Ensuring sustainability 1. Catch Per Unit Effort 1. CPUE trend does not decrease below the annual 25 % threshold for Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) which lie at CPUE of 3.09 and 2.15 kg/ kW*fishing days respectively Socio-economic1. Ensuring financial 1. Stability or increase 1. Gross profit per vessel stability of fishers of profit per vessel 2. Number of vessels, 2. Safeguarding 2. Ensuring that fishing GT, kW and gear artisanal fishing capacity in terms of dimensions at that of activity number of vessels, 2012 or less GT and gear dimensions does not increase 5.2 Review of the status of the stocks based on Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) This section will give a summary of the in depth review conducted on the stocks concerned and attached as annex 1. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 5.2.1. Status of the stocks All stocks targeted by the Maltese lampara fishery are stocks shared with Sicily due to the population distribution over the Malta Bank, which connects the Maltese Islands with Sicily. Stock assessment information for the Central Mediterranean is at present not available for Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita). Stock assessments of the relevant species will thus have to be carried out in collaboration with Italy. Malta’s relative contributions to the landings of the main species caught with the lampara in the Central Mediterranean are presented in Table 4 below. Malta’s contributions towards catches of these species are below 10 % for the majority of the species except for Sardinella aurita which is slightly higher (24.9%). This slightly higher percentage can be attributed to the grouping of clupeoids under one name in Maltese landings data. Table 4 indicates that Maltese contribution to the fishing pressure on the stocks is very minimal and any effort to reduce fishing effort cannot be taken by Malta unilaterally. Table 4: Central Mediterranean landings (
  1. t)of species targeted by the lampara fishery. Malta’s values include landings from all of the Maltese fleet and not only from the lampara fishery. Source: GFCM Production Statistics; reference year 2010. English Name Scientific Name Italy Malta % Contribution Chub Mackerel Scomber japonicus 594 61 9.3 Round Sardinella Sardinella aurita 130 43 24.9 Jack Mackerel Trachurus spp 1708 13 0.8 Anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus 13898 5 0.0 Total annual landings of the lampara fishery were plotted and the trend analysed by a regression analysis. Linear regression shows that although there was an overall increasing trend, the trend was not linear due to important inter-annual fluctuations in the data (R2 = 0.67). 600 Total Landings (
  2. t)20 500 y = 64.21x - 129 2 R = 0.67 400 300 200 100 0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Year Figure 2: Regression analysis of total annual landings of the lampara fleet IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 21 recorded in 2006-2012. 5.2.2 Species Composition of Landings Available landings data for the Maltese lampara fishery contains records of at least 42 different taxa. The rise in total annual landings observed in 2012 is due to two species: Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita). Landings of Chub Mackerel were low in 2006-2008 (mean 12 tonnes), increased dramatically to 223 tonnes in 2009 before dropping to lower values in 2010 and 2011 (mean 81 tonnes) and rising to the highest levels recorded in the entire time series in 2012 (248 tonnes). Round Sardinella landings were low in 2006-2009 (mean 4 tonnes) before increasing significantly in 20102011 (mean 47 tonnes) and again in 2012 (193 tonnes). Landings of all other species combined on average only contributed 25% to total catches. Total Landings (
  3. t)300 Scomber japonicus 250 Sardinella aurita 200 Other Species 150 100 50 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Figure 3: Total annual landings of the lampara fleet for the key target species Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) compared to the combined annual landings of all other species recorded for the period 2006-2012. An assessment was made to quantify the relative monthly landing contributions of Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus), Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) and total landings of other species. Results show that non target species in 2006-2012 dominated catches during the months of October, November, December and January. Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) on average was the most important species caught in February-September. The relative contribution of Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) catches increased during the second and third quarters, but the species was never the dominant species in recorded catches. Whilst these patterns give an indication of the species composition of monthly landing patterns, the recorded high standard deviation values show that there IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 was considerable variation over the analysed time period. Average % Contribution 120 Scomber japonicus Sardinella aurita 100 Other Species 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Figure 4: Relative contribution of Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus), Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) and other species as mean percentage contribution to total monthly landings (±1SD) recorded for the period 20062012. 5.2.3 Trends from Catch per Unit Effort data A CPUE analysis was carried out for the two key target species Scomber japonicus and Sardinella aurita based on kW*fishing days and GT*fishing days. Results showed increasing trends in CPUE for both species during 20062012; GT*fishing days and KW*fishing days give virtually identical patterns. Overall, the data suggests that neither chub mackerel nor round sardinella are currently overfished. Scomber japonicus CPUE (kg/kW*Fishing Days) 22 7 6 5 4 3 y = 0.6555x - 1314.1 2 R = 0.4174 2 1 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year Figure 5: Catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for Chub Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) recorded in the Maltese lampara fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 23 CPUE (kg/kW*Fishing Days) Sardinella aurita 3.0 2.5 2.0 y = 0.4986x - 1000.6 2 R = 0.791 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Figure 6: Catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for Round Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) recorded in the Maltese lampara fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. 5.2.4 Trends of biomass from the MEDIAS survey In addition to the trends observed through the CPUE data presented above, it was possible to calculate the biomass indices for the two main target species caught by the lampara; Sardina pilchardus and Engraulis encrasicolus, obtained from the MEDIAS survey. The graphs are presented in Annex 1.1.6. Interannual fluctuations were observed for both species but over the last 4 years the biomass of E. encrasicolus showed an overall increase whilst that of S. pilchardus showed an overall decrease. 5.2.5 CPUE Thresholds In the absence of biomass target reference points such as ‘maximum sustainable yield’ from stock assessments, CPUE effort thresholds were used as an alternative until sufficient biological data has been collected to carry out a full stock assessment. Since the lampara fishery is targeting small pelagic species, the limitations of the CPUE as a relative index of stock size need to be kept in mind, and lower threshold levels need to be set than would be required for demersal species. CPUE thresholds were calculated for the two main target species, chub mackerel and round sardinella. The thresholds were only calculated for CPUE trends in kW*fishing days since effort data based on engine strength and gross vessel tonnage seem to be closely correlated for vessels in the Maltese lampara fishery. Annual CPUE thresholds as well as monthly CPUE were calculated; the latter was deemed necessary due to the observed seasonal fluctuations in catch volumes. The CPUEs corresponding to the 25% percentile of the datasets are indicated in Tables 4-10 below. These were then used as minimum reference IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 points for CPUE trends recorded for the lampara fleet. The annual 25% threshold for chub mackerel and round sardinella catches lie at a CPUE of 3.09 and 2.15 kg/kW*fishing days, respectively. The months during which over 80% of landings of the two key target species chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) were recorded during 2006-2012 were identified in order to determine the respective species’ main fishing seasons. Monthly CPUE thresholds were calculated for the relevant months; for Scomber japonicus, on average 87% of landings were made in April – August, whilst for Sardinella aurita on average 95% of landings were made in May – August. A summary of the monthly 25% threshold CPUE thresholds for chub mackerel and round sardinella catches which could be used as the basis of monthly safety thresholds to maintain the long term sustainability of catches are shown in Table 5: Monthly CPUE threshold limits for the Maltese lampara fleet based on 25th percentile of monthly CPUE recorded during 2006-2012. Table 5: Monthly CPUE threshold limits for the Maltese lampara fleet based on 25th percentile of monthly CPUE recorded during 2006-2012. Chub Mackerel Species Round Sardinella 24 5.3 Month CPUE Threshold April 2.88 May 4.2 June 3.31 July 3.46 August 3.76 May 0.57 June 1.66 July 2.62 August 4.37 Potential management tools As explained in section 3, in line with Council Regulation 1967/2006 several management tools are already in force in the Maltese Fisheries. In addition to these management tools, other tools are also being considered. In this section a list of possible management tools will be established and a brief description of each tool will be given. 5.3.1 List of possible management tools Freezing capacity - In order to ensure that the capacity of the current fleet does not increase, the capacity of the fleet may be frozen at current levels. The capacity freezing may be done by limiting the number of vessels and/or gross tonnage (GT) and/or gear dimensions and/or length of vessels. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 25 Reducing capacity - A reduction of current capacity may be introduced by temporarily or permanently reducing the number of vessels from the specific fishery or from the whole commercial fishing fleet. Gear size restrictions - Such restrictions are already set in Council Regulation 1967/2006. Article 9 establishes a minimum mesh size of 14 mm for surrounding nets. While Annex II of Council Regulation 1967/2006 establishes the length of netting which must not exceed 800 m and the drop to 120 m. Further national gear restrictions may be considered for this fishery to reduce the impacts on the environment so as to reduce discards. Minimum landing sizes - Minimum landing sizes for certain species have been established at EU level in Annex III of Council Regulation 1967/2006. Fishing prohibited areas - Article 13 of Council Regulation 1967/2006 restricts fishing activity within 300 meters of the coast or within the 50 metres isobath where that depth is reached at a shorter distance from the coast. Catch Logbook - Article 14 of the Control Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 obliges vessels over 10m to record catches in a fishing logbook. This requirement has been extended to all vessels to better monitor the catches and landings. Vessel Monitoring System- Article 9 of the Control Regulation (EC) 1224/ 2009 obliges vessels over 12m to have a satellite based monitoring system to better monitor fishing activities. This requirement has been extended to all vessels in the fishery. Fishing authorisations: Article 19 of Council Regulation 1967/2006 obliges MS to have fishing authorisation for vessels included in the management plan. Fishing seasons: National fishing seasons may be considered to protect juveniles during spawning seasons of the targeted species. Total Allowable Catch and Quotas: A total allowable catch may be established for the targeted species so as to limit the fishing morality of the said stocks. Based on the above possible management tools the following scenarios were developed and assessed. Scenario 1: Freezing all fishing effort. This would be achieved by stabilising both the number of licences as well as the number of fishing trips and gear dimensions allowed to the current level. This should lead to a stabilisation of the fishing effort which in turn should minimise the risk of stock exploitation. Increase in fisher’s earnings would therefore depend on increases in catches per unit effort (CPUE) and increases in prices. These increases are, however, not expected to be significant. Scenario 2: Freezing fishing capacity but allowing the number of fishing trips to fluctuate. The allowed increase in fishing trips could have an adverse effect on the stock levels of certain species. Fishers’ income may benefit from reduced competition as a result of stabilisation of vessel capacity as long as fishing activities are conducted in a manner which ensures the long term 26 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS sustainability of stock exploitation. Scenario 3: Reducing fishing capacity by 20% in line with the precautionary approach in the short-term and re-visiting the situation once better and more reliable biological data is obtained. This scenario will minimise the risk of stock exploitation, whilst still providing the majority of fishers with the opportunity of maintaining their livelihoods. R Scenario 4: Reducing fishing capacity by 20% in line with the precautionary approach and freezing of fishing effort in the short-term and re-visiting the situation once better and more reliable biological data is obtained. This scenario will minimise the risk of stock exploitation, whilst still providing the majority of fishers with the opportunity of maintaining their livelihoods. 5.4 Assessment of the socio-economic impact of the potential management measures The management plan indicates that the current level of pelagic fishing is not threatening the conservation of the target fish stock. The fact that catch per unit effort is still on the increase indicates that the catch is still below the maximum sustainable yield and any increases in landings would not lead to negative economic rents. However, until further research is carried out this conservation status cannot be demonstrated beyond doubt. The management plan is in essence geared to freeze the fishing capacity / effort until the necessary research is carried out to enable future plans to provide a more reliable foundation for future initiatives. The four scenarios mentioned in section 4.1 have been simulated to estimate the effects of the different management initiatives included in the plan. For each scenario, based on the results on total landings, the model was used to estimate the changes in economic variables over time. The main assumptions behind the different scenarios are included in Table 6 Table 6: Assumptions made in the scenario analysis 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Landings growth Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 0.90% 0.90% 0.90% 0.90% 0.80% 8.00% 2.44% (5.56% ) 0.70% 9.00% 3.44% (5.56% ) 0.60% 10.00% 4.44% (5.56% ) 0.50% 10.00% 4.44% (5.56% ) 0.50% 10.00% 4.44% (5.56% ) Growth in prices Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 (0.18% ) (0.18% ) (0.18% ) (0.18% ) (0.16% ) (1.60% ) (0.49% ) 1.11% (0.14% ) (1.80% ) (0.69% ) 1.11% (0.12% ) (2.00% ) (0.89% ) 1.11% (0.10% ) (2.00% ) (0.89% ) 1.11% (0.10% ) (2.00% ) (0.89% ) 1.11% Licence revocation Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 (42,000) (42,000) % of capacity (5.56% ) (5.56% ) Lampara landings are projected to increase in line with the projected national average increase in landings when fishing effort is frozen i.e. growth per annum in landings drops from 0.9% to 0.5% at which level it stabilises from 2016 onwards. These landings growth projections are based on OECD and IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 27 CFP studies that are referred to earlier. When fishing effort is not regulated it is assumed that landings growth stabilises at 10% per annum from 2015 onwards. The price-quantity relationship has been specified by various formulae in the literature [1]. The price elasticity co-efficient was derived from [2] and assume that for every 1 kg increase in landings, the price drops by 0.2%. Every licence revocation leads to a 5.56% reduction in landings. The cost of licence revocation is set at €42,000 and is based on the estimated earnings per vessel from the lampara activity over a ten-year period. The figures below show the outcome of the scenario analysis compared with the 2011 baseline data. Figure 7: Landings in Metric Tonnes under each scenario Landings are expected to stabilise under Scenario 1 wherein fishing effort is frozen at current levels, drop significantly under scenario 4 where fleet capacity is reduced by at least one vessel and fishing effort is frozen at current levels. Landings are expected to increase mostly under scenario 2 where fishing capacity is frozen but fishing effort is not regulated. However, in scenario 3 landings are still expected to increase even though to a lesser degree than in Scenario 2 since fishing effort is still allowed to fluctuate only after the fishing capacity is reduced by at least one vessel. 28 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS Figure 8: Income and Operating cash flow in 2017 under each scenario Fluctuations in income are mainly determined by the dynamics of landings since price elasticity is generally low on fish products shows that income is highest under scenario 2 and lowest under Scenario 4, as indeed is operating cash flow. Table 7: Economic net present value compared of all scenarios to scenario 1 % variations with Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Baseline 31% 5% (32% ) Licence revocation under scenarios 3 and 4 are assumed to be achieved at the rate of €42,000 per vessel representing lost earnings form ten years of lampara activity. While the economic net present value (ENPV, discounted at 5.5%) is positive in each of scenarios 2 and 3, scenario 4 represents the lowest return whilst scenario 2 generates the highest economic return. 5.5 Management measures to be adopted The increasing trend in CPUE estimates measured over time for the lampara fleet seems to indicate the key target species of the lampara fishery are currently exploited at sustainable levels none-the-less; since stock assessments are not available the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture will be implementing a reduction in capacity by 20%. With regards to results obtained through the socio-economic review the DFA believes that Scenario 3 is the plan which provides results that are closest to its objectives since increase in landings is subdued when compared to increases under Scenario 2 whilst still retaining positive net economic benefits. As a result Malta will be reducing the fishing capacity in the short-term and re-visiting the situation once better and more reliable biological data is IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 29 obtained. This scenario will minimise the risk of stock exploitation, whilst still providing fishers with the opportunity of increasing their earnings. The definition of harvest control rules, due to very low contribution of the Maltese Lampara in terms of total landings, and the shared nature of the stock, can only be done jointly for all fleets exploiting the same stocks. This opinion is also found in the analysis put forward by STECF which, for the same reasons, also establishes that Malta’s proposed reduction in effort is excessive but that would still have little impact on the overall mortality on these shared stocks. Therefore if harvest control rules were to be deemed to be required, it is necessary to establish these through regional mechanisms and not though national and unilateral management plans. 5.6 Implementation of management measures A 20 % reduction (3 vessels) in line with the precautionary approach on the current lampara capacity in terms of number of vessels will be implemented by the end of 2015. 5.7 Review of management measures The review of the management measures will be conducted in 2016, by when better data on landings would have been collected. Based on the results of the review new management measures may be adopted. The data collected will also include data on discards in order to develop management measures to reduce the impacts of the fishery on the environment if necessary. 6 Maltese Management Plan for the bottom otter trawler fishery 6.1 Objectives Based on the biological, social and economic aspects of the fisheries the following objectives have been defined: 1. Aiding in the recovery of the stocks 2. Ensuring financial stability of fishers For each objective specific indicators and benchmarks were established so as to reach the objectives of the plan. Stock assessments are available for the following species exploited by bottom otter trawlers in the Strait of Sicily: giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), thornback skate (Raja clavata), red mullet (Mullus barbatus), common Pandora (Pagellus erythrinus), black bellied anglerfish (Lophius budegassa), pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) and hake (Merluccius merluccius). The assessment of thornback skate was classed as preliminary due to the limited time series of data available. The socio-economic indicators and targets were calculated based on a set of variables and indicators which were based on the economic data collected annually. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 With this data the several scenarios were presented and assed in order to select the best management measures for the Maltese bottom otter trawler fishery within the 25 NM FMZ. The objectives, indicators and targets are presented in Table 8: Objectives, indictors and targets for the bottom otter trawler fishery management plan below. Table 8: Objectives, indictors and targets for the bottom otter trawler fishery management plan Objectives Biological Reducing fishing mortality SocioeconomicEnsuring financial stability fishers 6.2 Indicator Targets Reduced number of fishing days Reduction in total kW allowed within the 25 NM FMZ Reduction of fishing effort and reduction of capacity by at least 30%. Gross profit per sector Stability increase income vessel of or of per Review of the status of the stocks This section will give a summary of the in depth review conducted on the stocks concerned and attached as annex 2. 6.2.1 Trends from landings data Between the period 2006 and 2011, landings showed an overall increasing trend, with inter-annual fluctuations (regression analysis, R2 = 0.63). 200 Landings (
  4. t)30 150 100 y = 17.85x - 35714 R2 = 0.6216 50 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year 2010 2011 2012 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 31 Figure 9: Regression analysis of total annual landings of the trawl fleet recorded in 2006-2011. Mean Total Landings (
  5. t)An analysis of monthly variations in mean landings during the period 20062011 showed lower levels of landings in the months of October – March, followed by a period with higher landings in April – September. This pattern mirrors the pattern of mean monthly fishing effort exerted during the same period, indicating that monthly fluctuations in landings are almost certainly due to variations in fishing effort, rather than being caused by seasonal fluctuations in the target populations. Since many of the species targeted by Maltese bottom otter trawlers are deep water species found on the continental shelf / slope, and which occur in habitats where there are much more subdued seasonal variations than in shallow waters, such a pattern can be expected. 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Year Figure 10: Mean monthly total landings (±1 SD) for the trawl fishing fleet in 2006-2011. 6.2.1.1 Species Composition of Landings Available landings data for the Maltese trawl fishery contains records of at least 128 different taxa. An overview of key taxa fished by trawlers in 20062011 is presented in Table 9 below. Table 9: Landings of key taxa fished by Maltese bottom otter trawlers in the Maltese FMZ during 2006-2011. Landings (
  6. t)Scientific name 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Aristaeomorpha foliacea 27.40 31.65 26.30 29.21 25.73 39.22 Boops boops 1.01 5.60 4.40 4.56 3.50 2.76 Lophius spp. 0.27 0.85 1.54 1.26 0.00 0.00 Merluccius merluccius 4.75 5.61 0.65 7.46 1.68 4.79 Mullus spp. 9.35 23.17 43.55 35.71 29.46 30.11 Nephrops norvegicus 0.01 0.63 1.21 1.49 2.57 1.74 Octopus spp. 1.22 1.57 3.09 1.05 1.02 0.84 32 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 Pagellus spp. 0.91 2.23 Pagrus pagrus 0.04 0.19 Parapenaeus longirostris 11.08 7.04 3.33 5.76 4.01 3.05 0.09 1.26 0.05 0.07 21.65 14.09 6.67 19.92 Raja spp. 1.32 3.24 4.64 5.87 4.70 6.07 Sepia spp. 1.18 2.54 6.18 12.36 8.37 9.83 Spicara spp. 0.12 4.60 4.17 5.54 8.73 8.66 Zeus faber 0.20 0.74 2.42 3.04 2.03 2.38 Other Species 10.55 16.38 40.53 47.16 40.98 42.42 Total 69.40 106.05 163.76 175.83 139.50 171.87 An analysis of trends in total landings of important target species (giant red shrimp, pink shrimp, hake, red mullet and striped red mullet) compared to landings of all other species combined during 2006-2011, revealed that
(1)landings of giant red shrimp remained relatively stable during 2006-2010 but increased in 2011,
(2)pink shrimp and hake landings underwent several fluctuations during the six year period analysed,
(3)landings of red mullet and striped red mullet combined increased considerably during 2006-2008, and have been steadily decreasing since, and
(4)there has been an important increase in the relative contribution to total landings by other species. The latter effect is due to an increase in landings of a variety of species, of which six were of particular importance during 2006-2011 (Table 10): common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis), blue whiting (Micromesistius pouassou), Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), common pandora (Pagellus erythriunus), golden shrimp (Plesionika martia) and unicorn octopus (Scaergus unicirrhus). 100 A. foliacea Landings (
  1. t)80 P. longirostris 60 M. merluccius 40 Mullus spp. 20 Other species 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Figure 11: Total annual landings of the trawl fleet for the key target species: giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet and striped red mullet (Mullus spp.), compared to the comb IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 33 Table 10: Species characterised by an important increase in landings recorded from Maltese bottom otter trawlers in the Maltese FMZ during 2006-2011. Landings (
  2. t)Scientific Name 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sepia officinalis 1.18 2.54 6.18 12.28 8.29 9.77 Micromesistius poutassou 0.01 0.00 0.09 6.04 8.11 4.51 Nephrops norvegicus 0.01 0.63 1.21 1.49 2.57 1.74 Pagellus erythrinus 0.90 1.81 3.32 5.50 3.98 2.99 Plesionika martia 0.00 0.00 3.49 3.07 4.24 6.73 Scaergus unicirrhus 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.14 4.98 4.12 Total 2.10 4.98 14.29 33.51 32.17 29.84 When mean monthly landings information was analysed, no major fluctuations in the relative monthly contributions of the main target species to mean landings recorded in 2006-2011 were observed. 8 7 Landings (
  3. t)6 M. merluccius 5 P. longirostris 4 Mullus spp. 3 A. foliacea 2 1 0 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Month Figure 12: Relative contribution of the key target species: giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet and striped red mullet (Mullus spp.), to total mean monthly landings (±1SD) recorded for the period 2006-2012 6.2.2 Trends from Catch per Unit Effort data Overall, CPUE for giant red shrimp, hake and pink shrimp decreased during 2006-2011, whilst CPUE for red mullet and striped red mullet combined increased in 2006-2008, before decreasing gradually back to 2006 levels during 2008-2011. The latter could be the result of an artefact since data is only available for the two species in an aggregated form; it is generally not advisable to combine CPUE indicators for several species. CPUE for all species during 2006-2011 expressed in terms of GT*fishing days and [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS KW*fishing days give virtually identical patterns. CPUE (kg/kW*Fishing Days) 34 A. foliacea Mullus spp. 0.24 M. merluccius P. longirostris 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.00 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Figure 13: Catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for the key target species: giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet and striped red mullet (Mullus spp.), recorded in the Maltese trawl fishery for the period 2006-2011. 6.2.3 Trends of biomass from the MEDITS survey Figure 14: Biomass indices for the main target species caught during the MEDITS survey for the years 2007-2011 Apart from CPUE data, fisheries-independent data obtained from the annual spring-summer MEDITS survey, is used and presented below in order to show the trend of the main target species in the bottom otter trawl fishery. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 35 MEDITS data shows that over a 5 year period (2007 – 2011) the biomass index (BI) of Merluccius merluccius showed a considerable decline, while that of Mullus barbatus, Mullus surmuletus and Parapenaeus longirostris remained relatively stable, while that of Aristaeomorpha foliacea increased. 6.2.4 Stock assessments Table 11: Results of stock assessments conducted in 2011 and 2012; Fcur = current fishing mortality (F). shows the results of available stock assessments carried out at a regional level. The biological reference points used for the assessments were Fcur and F0.1. Fcur refers to the present fishing mortality, and F0.1 refers to the target fishing mortality taking into account the precautionary principle. Using F0.1 as a target reference point, all of the assessed stocks were overexploited. Table 11: Results of stock assessments conducted in 2011 and 2012; Fcur = current fishing mortality (F). English Name Scientific Name Fcur F0.1 Stock Status Maltese Share of 2010 Landings (%) Pink shrimp P. longirostris 1.20 0.92 Overexploited 0.07 Hake* M. merluccius 0.60 0.1 Overexploited 0.23 Giant red shrimp A. foliacea 1.09 0.42 Overexploited 2.04** Red mullet M. barbatus 1.3 0.45 Overexploited 3.6** Common Pandora P. erythrinus 0.72 0.30 Overexploited 4.8** Black angler L. budegassa 0.3 0.16 Overexploited 1.6** bellied * Preliminary assessment; ** Excluding Tunisian landings. The ratio between Festimated and Ftarget for the demersal species which were subject to a stock assessment at GFCM / SGMED in 2011 (Table 11) shows that the Maltese trawling fleet is overall catching the amount of fish expected under desirable fishing mortality rates from the entire national fleet. Nevertheless, the same results also indicate that while Malta is fishing the pink shrimp at F0.1, below F0.1 for the common pandora, the fleet is overexploiting stocks above F0.1 levels both for the giant red shrimp and hake. Table 12: Ratio between Festimated and Ftarget (F/Ft) for the Maltese bottom otter trawl (OTB) fleet in 2011. The target F used in the calculations was F0.1, which was the target F calculated in the stock assessments and which is 36 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 considered to be a proxy for FMSY. Pink Shrimp Giant Red Shrimp Hake Common Pandora All other species and total Catch in Fleet segment 7.3 27.4 6 7.11 Unknown Total catch of the stock for all the countries 9641 1341.3 2173 319.08 Unknown Current F assessment) 1.2 1.09 0.6 0.72 Unknown Current F applied to fleet segment 0.001 0.022 0.002 0.016 Unknown Target F (stock assessment) 0.92 0.42 0.1 0.36 Unknown Quota of the Member State 0.1% 2% 0.3% 6.3% Unknown Target F split according to Member State quota 0.001 0.009 0.0002 8 0.02268 Unknown F/Ft for species in the fleet segment 1.41 2.60 5.92 0.71 Unknown Catch composition of fleet segment 3.80% 14.70% 3.20% 3.80% 75%(of 100%) F/Ft weigthed by catch composition of assessed species 0.21 1.53 0.76 0.11 Unknown Sum of all weighted F/Ft for the fleet segment 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.61 Unknown Weight for each stock 0.15 0.57 0.13 0.15 Unknown 0.03 0.88 0.10 0.02 Unknown (Stock F/Ftarget multiplied Weight for each stock by Biological indicator (sum of all weighted F/Ft) 1.02 Percentage of fleet segment catch used for F/Ft calculation 25% However, when taking into account the Maltese share of total landings (composed of vessels fishing both within and outside the Malta FMZ) made in the Central Mediterranean (Table 11) and the Festimated and Ftarget for the demersal species (Table 12) it is clear that any action taken by the Maltese authorities to address the overexploitation will not have an effect on the status of the stock. 6.3 Potential management tools In line with Council Regulation 1967/2006 several management tools are already in force in the Maltese Fisheries, with specific reference to Article 26 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 37 of the said regulation which makes reference to the 25NM FMZ. In addition to these management tools several other tools are also being considered. In this section a list of possible management tools will be established and a brief description of each tool will be given. 6.3.1 List of possible management tools Freezing capacity- Capacity within the zone is limited by Article 16 of Council Regulation 1967/2006. For the whole FMZ maximum capacity is 4800 kW, for Maltese vessels 3600 kW Reducing capacity- A reduction of the current capacity may be introduced by temporarily or permanently reducing the number of vessels from the entire commercial fishing fleet. If such reductions are applied on a permanent basis the total threshold of 4800 kW established in Council Regulation 1967/2006 the threshold of 3,600 kW for Maltese towed vessels will need to be revised. It should be noted that once such reductions take place, the capacity cannot be replaced. Gear size restrictions- Such restrictions are already set in Council Regulation 1967/2006. Article 9 establishes a minimum mesh size of 40 mm square or 50 mm diamond for towed nets. Further national gear restrictions may be considered for this fishery to reduce the impacts on the environment so as to reduce discards. Minimum landing sizes- Minimum landing sizes for certain species have been established at EU level in Annex III of Council Regulation (EC) 1967/ 2006. Fishing prohibited areas- Annex V of Council Regulation 1967/2006 established the authorised fishing zones within the FMZ. Further restrictions at a national level have also been applied in order to comply with Article 4 of the same regulation. Further studies are also currently underway under a different cover to relocate the authorised fishing zones found within the 3 NM zone to further reduce the impacts on the environment. Catch Logbook- Article 14 of the Control Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 obliges vessels over 10 m to record catches in a fishing logbook. Vessel Monitoring System- Article 9 of the Control Regulation (EC) 1224/ 2009 obliges vessels over 12 m to have a satellite based monitoring system to better monitor fishing activities. Fishing authorisations: Article 19 of Council Regulation obliges MS to have fishing authorisation for vessels included in the management plan. Fishing seasons: National fishing seasons may be considered to protect juveniles during spawning seasons of the targeted species. Total Allowable Catch and Quotas: A total allowable catch may be established for the targeted species so as to limit the fishing morality of the said stocks. 38 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS In view of the results obtained from stock assessments, the Maltese authorities have decided to opt for a 30% reduction in fishing effort; which reduction is slightly bigger than reduction usually suggested as a precautionary approach in order to take into account the species which are overexploited by the Maltese fleet; A. foliacea and M. merluccius. Based on the possible management tools presented above the following scenarios were developed and assed: Scenario 1: Reduce over-capacity through the reduction of capacity by 30%. This option would reduce the fishing capacity within the FMZ but not necessarily reduce the fishing effort. Scenario 2: Reduce fishing capacity through 20% reduction in capacity and the reduction in effort by a further 10% through the introduction of a temporary cessation for the period spanning from 15 August to 15 September. This option will ensure that if the capacity reduction initiative is not successful in reducing the fishing effort, the temporary cessation will at least reduce the effort by 10% which is equivalent to the fishing effort that is normally dedicated in the 15 August to 15 September period which coincides with the reproductive season of some of the targeted species. Scenario 3: Reduce fishing capacity through 10% reduction in capacity and the reduction in effort by a further 20% through the introduction of a temporary cessation for the period spanning from 15 August to 15 October. This option will ensure that if the capacity reduction initiative is not successful in reducing the fishing effort, the temporary cessation will at least reduce the effort by 20% which is equivalent to the fishing effort that is normally dedicated in the 15 August to 15 October period which coincides with the reproductive season of some of the targeted species. Assessment of the socio-economic impact of the potential management measures The statistical data indicates that the current level of bottom otter trawling carried out by Maltese fishers is not significant in the Central Mediterranean context. However, biological studies prove that the target fish stock is overexploited. Level of fishing is therefore beyond the maximum sustainable yield and yielding negative economic returns. The management plan should therefore be designed to reduce the fishing capacity / effort through different initiatives that include permanent and temporary cessation actions in order to reduce the fishing effort below the maximum sustainable yield, thus turning the current situation of negative economic rents into one that generates positive economic rents. The three scenarios mentioned in section 6.3.1 have been simulated to estimate the effects of the different management initiatives included in the plan. For each scenario, given the results on total landings, the model was used to estimate the changes in economic variables over time. The main assumptions behind the different scenarios are included in Table 13. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 39 Table 13: Assumptions made in the scenario analysis 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Landings growth Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% (30.00% ) (30.00% ) (30.00% ) 1.00% 0.50% 0.50% 2.00% 0.50% 0.50% 3.00% 0.50% 0.50% 4.00% 0.50% 0.50% Growth in prices Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% (0.20% ) (0.10% ) (0.10% ) (0.40% ) (0.10% ) (0.10% ) (0.60% ) (0.10% ) (0.10% ) (0.80% ) (0.10% ) (0.10% ) Permanent cessation Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Cost % of current capacity (640,000) 67% (370,000) 83% (260,000) 92% Growth in landings beyond 2013 is assumed to be in line with the projected national average increase in landings i.e. growth per annum of 0.5% at which level it stabilises from 2014 onwards. The only exception is scenario 1 where fishing effort might still increase due to lack of actions earmarked at freezing fishing effort under this scenario. These landings growth projections are based on OECD and CFP studies that are referred to earlier. The price-quantity relationship has been specified by various formulae in the literature[1]. The price elasticity co-efficient was derived from [2]and assume that for every 1kg increase in landings, the price drops by 0.2%. The figures below show the outcome of the scenario analysis compared with the 2011 baseline data. Figure 15: Landings in Metric Tonnes under each scenario Landings are expected to grow under Scenario 1 wherein fishing capacity is reduced by 30% but no measures with respect to fishing effort are introduced. In scenarios 2 and 3 landings are expected to drop substantially where measures at controlling fishing effort are introduced in conjunction with capacity reduction cessation initiatives. 40 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS Figure 16: Income in 2017 under each scenario Fluctuations in income are mainly determined by the dynamics of landings since price elasticity is generally low on fish products. Figure 16 shows that the income is highest under scenario 1 and lowest under Scenarios 2 and 3. Table 14: Economic net present value compared of all scenarios to scenario 1 % variations with Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Baseline 15% 14% The economic net present value (ENPV, discounted at 5.5%) of scenario 2 is highest and is expected to lead to a significant reduction in landings when compared to baseline. Reduce fishing effort through the introduction of a capacity reduction plan targeting 20% reduction in capacity and the reduction in effort by a further 10% through the introduction of a temporary cessation for the period spanning from 15 August to 15 September is therefore the preferred option economically. 6.5 Selection of best management tools Based on the stock assessments provide at a regional level a reduction in fishing effort and capacity will be implemented. The best scenario based on the socio-economic –review scenario 2 is deemed the most beneficial. On this basis the DFA will be reducing fishing effort through the introduction of a capacity reduction plan targeting 20% reduction in capacity and the reduction in effort by a further 10% through the introduction of a temporary cessation for the period spanning from 15 August to 15 September. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 41 This option will ensure that if the capacity reduction initiative is not successful in reducing the fishing effort, the temporary cessation will at least reduce the effort by 10% which is equivalent to the fishing effort that is normally dedicated in the 15 August to 15 September period. The definition of harvest control rules, due to very low contribution of the Maltese bottom otter trawling in terms of total landings, and the shared nature of the stock, can only be done jointly for all fleets exploiting the same stocks. This opinion is also found in the analysis put forward by STECF which, for the same reasons, also establishes that Malta’s proposed reduction in effort is excessive but that would still have little impact on the overall mortality on these shared stocks. Therefore if harvest control rules were to be deemed to be required, it is necessary to establish these through regional mechanisms and not though national and unilateral management plans. 6.6 Implementation of management measures The 20% capacity reduction is to be concluded by end of 2016, while the temporary cessation of one month closed season will be implemented as from 2014 for the next three years. 6.7 Review of management measures The review of the management measures will be conducted in 2016, unless there is a drastic change in the stock assessment/economic situation of the fishery. In such cases the review should take place earlier. 7 Conclusion The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture believes that the projected actions in this document provide a coherent plan for safeguarding the longterm future of the FMZ. It should be noted that the stocks being managed under this management plan are shared stocks and the contribution of landings by the Maltese fishing fleet, when compared to landings of neighbouring countries are insignificant. On this basis efforts should be made so as to agree and implement management plans on a regional level to achieve the desired outcomes and to be in a position to implement more concrete measures. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture will do its utmost to implement effective monitoring and control measures focusing on gear selectivity in order to ensure that all fishing activities within the FMZ are conducted in a responsible and sustainable manner. This plan should be treated as a 'living document' with ongoing processes for reviewing, evaluating and amending the plan as needed. Regular review of the progress in implementing the plan and its impact to the fishery will result in continual re-examination of and improvement to policies, procedures and legislation. 42 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS Annex I - Lampara 1.1 Description of Fishery Coastal pelagic fishing in the Maltese Islands has been practised for a very long time and at least since the 1930s when the use of the ‘lampara’ was first recorded locally. The lampara is a surrounding net with purse seines. The term ‘lampara’ is used because fishers use strong lights to attract fish, which are then caught by purse seining. Fishing takes place all along the North side of the island but the main zone is around a shallow area covering about 13 square kilometres, known as Hurd bank located 11.5 km to the South East of the Maltese Islands. The minimum depth at Hurd Bank is approximately 50 m with the intermediate area descending to a maximum of 100 m. The fishing operation is usually undertaken from 7 p.m. to 3 or 4 a.m. Two or three small boats (tenders) use strong lights to attract the fish. When sufficient fish have been attracted, the tender signals to the purse seine and switches off the lights. Then the purse seiner surrounds the fish school, the net’s purse line is closed and net is pulled out of the water. Species targeted in this fishery in 2012 include in particular species of mackerel and mackerel like fish (Scomber japonicus, Trachurus spp., Sarda sarda), sardinella (Sardinella aurita), anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), bogue (Boops boops), sardine (Sardina pilchardus) and barracuda (Sphyraena sphyraena). 1.2 Fleet Structure and Capacity In December 2012, 18 vessels were licensed to fish with the lampara. Whilst the majority of vessels are artisanal in nature (multi-purpose, luzzu and kajjik vessels), one large vessel is part of the fleet: which has a length of 27 m (compared to an average of 14 m for the rest of the fleet), gross tonnage (GT) of 97 (compared to an average of 25 for the rest of the fleet) and an engine power of 671 kW (compared to an average of 151 for the rest of the fleet). Considering the entire fleet, vessel length ranges from 4.8 m to 27 m, and average vessel length is 14.8 m. Vessel gross tonnage ranges from 1 to 97, and average GT is 29. Vessel engine power varies ranges from 7 kW to 671 kW, and average power of the main engine is 180 kW. The minimum, maximum and average of the dimensions of the lampara nets used by the Maltese fleet as in January 2013 are presented in Table 16 below. Table 15: Minimum, maximum and average dimensions of Lampara nets Average Max Min Length (
  4. m)369.98 750.00 158.00 Width (
  5. m)88.98 119.50 26.00 Meshsize (
  6. mm)27.30 26.00 17.00 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 43 In order to better gauge the evolution and current capacity of the vessels licensed to use lampara gear, an indication of the 2006 - 2012 fleet capacity is presented below. As can be seen from Table 16: 2006 - 2012 fleet capacity data for the lampara fleet, fleet capacity of vessels using lampara, in terms of engine power and GT, has remained relatively stable in the 2006 to 2012 period. Nevertheless, a slight increase in kW and GT can be observed in 2009, even though the number of vessels decreased. This can be attributed to transfers of the lampara licences from one vessel owner to the other, as the new owners may have vessels of different engine power and GT. Table 16: 2006 - 2012 fleet capacity data for the lampara fleet Number of vessels Average GT of vessels Total GT of vessels Average vessel length (
  7. m)Average main engine power (kW) Total main engine power (kW) 2006 21 23 492 13 157 3306 2007 21 23 492 13 157 3306 2008 21 23 492 13 157 3306 2009 17 37 631 16 208 3529 2010 19 36 683 16 203 3865 2011 18 25 443 13 163 3305 2012 18 29 520 15 180 3236 Year 1.3 Fishing effort The available time series of effort data obtained from logbooks for vessels larger than 10 m and from market sales vouchers for smaller vessels, was used for analysis in this section. While market sales vouchers do not contain effort information, this could be estimated since fishing trips using this gear do not exceed more than one fishing day. Even though in 2012 landing officers monitored all lampara catches and recorded fishing effort information, which data is expected to be an improvement over the logbook and market sales voucher data, the latter data was still used for 2012 in order to keep methodology along the data series constant. 1.3.1 Effort Data In order to assess whether the two fleet components which make up the Maltese lampara fishery contribute equally to the overall fishing effort, the percentage contributions of small vessels measuring less than 12 m length and of large vessels measuring over 12 m length were calculated. 12 m is the vessel length associated with vessels involved in artisanal fisheries. Results show that the mean fishing effort exerted by small vessels in 20062012 was very low in terms of both kW*fishing days and GT*fishing days. Table 17: Percentage contribution of vessels with <12 m length overall (LOA) to total lampara fleet effort. Effort data are represented in terms of kW*fishing 44 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 days and GT*fishing days. SD = standard deviation. <12m 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mean SD KW*fishing days 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.03 GT*fishing days 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 Table 18: Percentage contribution of vessels with >12 m length overall (LOA) to total lampara fleet effort. Effort data are represented in terms of kW* fishing days and GT*fishing days. SD = standard deviation. >12m 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mean SD KW*fishing days 0.95 0.94 0.98 1.00 0.96 0.92 1.00 0.96 0.03 GT*fishing days 0.98 0.96 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.02 Due to the dominance of vessels measuring > 12 m LOA in the lampara fleet it is not necessary to carry out separate analyses for the two fleet segments. 1.3.2 Total Effort The nominal annual fishing effort of the lampara fleet in terms of both kW*fishing effort and GT*fishing effort was stable in 2006 - 2008, before effectively doubling from 2008 to 2009. In 2010 fishing effort again decreased to levels similar to those observed in 2008. After only a small increase in effort in 2011, there was a drastic increase in fishing effort (by over 65%) in 2012 compared to the previous year. Since there was no important increase in either mean vessel GT or mean engine power, and Figure 17 shows a much smaller increase in fishing days compared to the increase in kW*fishing effort and GT*fishing effort, this pattern may be attributed to increased fishing activities by the larger vessels in the Maltese lampara fleet. Linear regression analyses were carried out for the increasing trends in fishing effort in terms of kW*fishing effort and GT*fishing effort for the period 2006 - 2012 in order to gauge the measure of variation in the data. The results returned low R2 values (0.53 and 0.51 respectively), which confirms important inter-annual fluctuations in the data. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 45 Effort (kW*Fishing Days) 70000 60000 y = 6422.79x + 1720.44 R2 = 0.53 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Figure 17: Temporal variation in nominal fishing effort, expressed as engine strength (kW)* fishing days, for the lampara fishing fleet, with fitted regression line. Effor (GT*Fishing Days) 12000 10000 y = 985.01x + 308.24 8000 R 2 = 0.51 6000 4000 2000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Figure 18: Temporal variation in nominal fishing effort, expressed as vessel gross tonnage (GT)* fishing days, for the lampara fishing fleet, with fitted regression line. 1.3.3Monthly Effort An analysis of monthly variations in average fishing effort in both kW*fishing days and GT*fishing days showed low levels of fishing activity during the autumn / winter months of September – February, followed by a gradual rise in spring until reaching a clear peak in July. Such information is important in relation to the biology of the two major target species, chub mackerel (Somber japonicus) and round sardinella (Sardinella aurita). The spawning season of both species is June-September, with a peak in July for chub mackerel. The peak reproductive period thus coincides with the period when the species are subjected to the highest fishing pressure. Catch / effort control measures should target this period in order to allow the species to reproduce successfully and ultimately ensure long term sustainability of catches. [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS Average Effort (kW * Fishing Days) 16000 12000 8000 4000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Figure 19: Mean monthly fishing effort (+/- 1 SD) for the lampara fishing fleet in 2006-2012; units are effort in engine strength (kW)* fishing days. 3200 Average Effort (GT * Fishing Days) 46 2400 1600 800 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Figure 20: Mean monthly fishing effort (+/- 1 SD) for the lampara fishing fleet in 2006-2012; units are effort in vessel gross tonnage (GT)* fishing days. 1.4 Conservation Status of Stocks Due to the low volume of landings, effort and value the ‘lampara’ metier was not identified by the ranking system referred to in Chapter III section B/B1 3
(1)(
  1. b)of the DCF (2008/949/EC). Consequently a series of data collected under the EU Data Collection Programme is not available to assess this fishery. Nevertheless, the available data was presented below and catch per unit effort (CPUE) was used in order to base advice for management. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS 1.5 Evolution of Landings 1.5.1 Evolution of Total Landings [ S.L.425.09 47 Figure 21: Chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) landings recorded in the Maltese Islands in 1954-2012 (Source: Maltese National Statistics). The pelagic species targeted by the lampara fishery used to be a very important part of the total national fish landings. Before the advent of the fisheries targeting swordfish and tuna and the targeting of demersal species such as hake and red mullet, the local market used to absorb all the catches, and especially chub mackerel was then, along with the dolphin fish, one of the most sought after species. Catch and effort for the lampara fishery have however decreased significantly since the 1960s, with an average of 27 tonnes of landings recorded in 2006-2008. The main reasons for the decline of the lampara fishery after the 1960s are the development of long-line fishing, starting with swordfish in 1964 (peaking in 1971) and the tuna fishery in 1993. These fish were more sought after by the consumer, and attracted higher prices. This is in particular the case with blue fin tuna, which is often exported directly to the Japanese market. The percentage contribution of small (vessels with < 12 m length overall) and large (vessels with > 12 m length overall) was calculated in order to assess the relevant contributions made by the two fleet components which make up the Maltese lampara fishery. Due to the dominance of vessels measuring > 12 m length overall in the lampara fleet it is not necessary to carry out separate landings analyses for the two fleet segments. Table 19: Percentage contribution to total landings by small vessels (<12 m in length) and large vessels (>12 m in length) in the lampara fleet. SD = standard 48 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 deviation. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mean SD <12 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.06 >12 0.97 0.84 0.97 1.00 0.96 0.99 1.00 0.96 0.06 Total annual landings of the lampara fishery were plotted and the trend analysed by a regression analysis. Linear regression shows that although there was an overall increasing trend, the trend was not linear due to important inter-annual fluctuations in the data (R2 = 0.67). Total Landings (
  2. t)600 500 y = 64.21x - 129 R2 = 0.67 400 300 200 100 0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Year Figure 22: Regression analysis of total annual landings of the lampara fleet recorded in 2006-2012. 1.5.2 Species Composition of Landings Detailed information on the species composition of landings is important to consider when managing a fishery. This is particularly the case if monthly catch / effort control measures are being considered for a multi-species fishery like the lampara. Monthly species composition of landings in this context need to be evaluated in order to effectively guide management measures aiming at
(1)minimising the impacts of the fishery on by-catch,
(2)effectively reducing fishing effort on those stocks showing the greatest signs of possible overexploitation, and
(3)reducing the socio-economic impact of monthly control / effort management measures if species with different market value are being harvested. Available landings data for the Maltese lampara fishery contains records of at least 42 different taxa. Due to a number of species which are very similar in appearance, data for landings of S. aurita may actually include more than one species. In order to solve for this problem in future years, monthly samples will be collected and the fish accurately identified and counted. The results from these samples will be extrapolated to the total landings. Table 20: Landings (tonnes) of key target species of the lampara fishery obtained from logbooks and sales market vouchers. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 49 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 10.74 10.51 13.37 223.09 60.33 102.43 248.41 Chub Mackerel Scomber japonicus Round Sardinella Sardinella aurita Jack Mackerel Trachurus spp. Anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus 0.00 0.00 1.46 8.36 4.51 8.39 0.12 Bogue Boops boops 2.80 1.43 0.96 2.99 1.86 0.64 5.35 Barracuda Sphyraena sphyraena 0.00 0.52 0.08 0.00 0.23 0.03 0.00 Atlantic Bonito Sarda sarda 0.00 0.21 0.00 1.18 0.29 0.02 0.03 Sardine Sardina pilchardus 2.53 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.00 32.97 2.95 1.45 4.88 4.91 43.51 50.86 192.85 6.09 3.61 8.79 5.32 7.58 13.27 11.92 Other species 4.25 1.85 0.96 1.87 2.60 0.48 33.00 Grand Total 26.82 19.58 30.51 247.71 120.91 176.12 491.67 When landings information is plotted by species, it becomes clear that the rise in total annual landings observed in 2012 is due to two species: chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and round sardinella (Sardinella aurita). Landings of chub mackerel were low in 2006 - 2008 (mean 12 tonnes), increased dramatically to 223 tonnes in 2009 before dropping to lower values in 2010 and 2011 (mean 81 tonnes) and rising to the highest levels recorded in the entire time series in 2012 (248 tonnes). Round sardinella landings were low in 2006-2009 (mean 4 tonnes) before increasing significantly in 20102011 (mean 47 tonnes) and again in 2012 (193 tonnes). Landings of all other species combined on average only contributed 25% to total catches. Total Landings (
  1. t)300 Scomber japonicus 250 Sardinella aurita 200 Other Species 150 100 50 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Figure 23: Total annual landings of the lampara fleet for the key target species chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) compared to the combined annual landings of all other species recorded for the period 2006-2012. An assessment was made to quantify the relative monthly landing contributions of chub mackerel, round sardinella and total landings of other species. Results show that non target species in 2006 - 2012 dominated catches during the months of October, November, December and January. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 50 Chub mackerel on average was the most important species caught in FebruarySeptember. The relative contribution of round sardinella catches increased during the second and third quarters, but the species was never the dominant species in recorded catches. Whilst these patterns give an indication of the species composition of monthly landing patterns, the recorded high standard deviation values show that there was considerable variation over the analysed time period. Average % Contribution 120 Scomber japonicus Sardinella aurita 100 Other Species 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Figure 24: Relative contribution of chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) and other species as mean percentage contribution to total monthly landings (±1SD) recorded for the period 20062012. 1.6 MEDIAS Biomass Indices The biomass indices (BI) for two main target species caught by the lampara fisheries were calculated using data from the MEDIAS survey. This survey uses Echosounders in order to collect abundance, biomass and other biological parameters for the target species; Engraulis encrasicolus and Sardina pilchardus. As shown in figure 25, Engraulis encrasicolus had a greater average BI (333.3 kg/km2) than Sardina pilchardus (72.1 kg/km2). While interannual fluctuations were observed for both species, over the last 4 years the biomass of E. encrasicolus showed an overall increase whilst that of S. pilchardus showed an overall decrease. Such interannual fluctuations are typical of small pelagic species. Furthermore it can be noticed that the BI of both species change antagonistically: when one species is abundant, the other is nearly absent. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 51 Figure 25: Biomass Indices for lampara target species obtained from MEDIAS 1.7 Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) Data 1.7.1 Evolution of CPUE Trends CPUE estimates provide a relative index of stock abundance; an increase in CPUE can be interpreted as a positive sign showing that species are not yet subjected to overfishing. However, inter-annual changes in CPUE can also be due to changes in fishing technology, stock abundance due to natural fluctuations in population productivity, and changes in the species targetted by fishers. All these aspects need to be taken into consideration when interpreting CPUE as an indicator. Moreover, particular caution needs to be applied in relation to stocks of small pelagic fish like chub mackerel and round sardinella. Due to the schooling behaviour of these species catch rates can remain steady for a considerable period of time even though the overall population size is is actually declining. A CPUE analysis was nevertheless carried out for the two key target species Scomber japonicus and Sardinella aurita based on kW*fishing days and GT*fishing days. Results showed increasing trends in CPUE for both species during 2006 2012; GT*fishing days and KW*fishing days give virtually identical patterns. Due to the nature of the data series and the strong inter-annual variations, linear regression analysis on the whole gave low values with regards to goodness of fit. Overall, the data seem to suggest that neither Chub Mackerel nor Round Sardinella are currently overfished. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 CPUE (kg/kW*Fishing Days) Scomber japonicus 7 6 5 4 3 y = 0.6555x - 1314.1 2 R = 0.4174 2 1 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year Figure 26: Catch per unit effort (as kg/kW*Fishing Days) for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) recorded in the Maltese lampara fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. Scomber japonicus CPUE (kg/GT*Fishing Days) 52 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2005 y = 4.3218x - 8664.3 2 R = 0.4452 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year Figure 27: Catch per unit effort (as kg/GT*Fishing Days) for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) recorded in the Maltese lampara fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 53 CPUE (kg/GT*Fishing Days) Sardinella aurita 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2005 y = 3.2678x - 6557.5 2 R = 0.7899 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year Figure 29: Catch per unit effort (as kg/GT*Fishing Days) for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) recorded in the Maltese lampara fishery for the period 2006-2012, with fitted regression line. 1.7.2 CPUE Thresholds In the absence of biomass target reference points such as ‘maximum sustainable yield’ from stock assessments, CPUE effort thresholds can be used as an alternative until sufficient biological data has been collected to carry out a full stock assessment. Since the lampara fishery is targeting small pelagic species, the limitations of the CPUE as a relative index of stock size need to be kept in mind, and lower threshold levels need to be set than would be required for demersal species. CPUE thresholds were calculated for the two main target species, chub mackerel and round sardinella. The thresholds were only calculated for CPUE trends in kW*fishing days since effort data based on engine strength and gross vessel tonnage seem to be closely correlated for vessels in the Maltese lampara fishery. Annual CPUE thresholds as well as monthly CPUE were calculated; the latter was deemed necessary due to the observed seasonal fluctuations in catch volumes. The CPUEs corresponding to the 25% percentile of the datasets are indicated in Table 21: Cumulative frequency of annual CPUE data in kg/ kW*fishing days for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold. to Table 27: Monthly CPUE threshold limits for the Maltese lampara fleet based on 25th percentile of monthly CPUE recorded during 2006-2012. below, these can be used as minimum reference points for CPUE trends recorded for the lampara fleet. In the case of annual thresholds, catches should not be allowed to fall under such reference points for three consecutive years, or any other time period deemed appropriate by policy makers. In the case of monthly thresholds, catches should be monitored on a quarter by quarter basis and if catches fall below the reference CPUE threshold, catch / effort restrictions as deemed 54 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 appropriate by policy makers should be applied in the following quarter. Unless the CPUE subsequently recovers to above threshold levels, catch / effort restrictions should be continued during the following quarter. The annual 25% threshold for chub mackerel and round sardinella catches lie at a CPUE of 3.09 and 2.15 kg/kW*fishing days, respectively. Table 21: Cumulative frequency of annual CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold. CPUE Year Cum. Freq. 0.73 2007 3.72 0.74 2006 7.46 0.77 2008 11.34 3.09 2010 27.00 3.67 2012 45.60 4.35 2011 67.61 6.40 2009 100.00 Table 22: Cumulative frequency of annual CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold. CPUE Year Cum. Freq. 0.13 2007 1.59 0.14 2009 3.35 0.20 2006 5.89 0.28 2008 9.39 2.16 2011 36.41 2.23 2010 64.32 2.85 2012 100.00 The months during which over 80% of landings of the two key target species chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) were recorded during 2006-2012 were identified in order to determine the respective species’ main fishing seasons (Table 21: Cumulative frequency of annual CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold. and Table 22: Cumulative frequency of annual CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold.). Monthly CPUE thresholds were calculated for the relevant months (Table 25 and Table 26: IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 55 Cumulative frequency of monthly CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during the months of May-August 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold.); for Scomber japonicus, on average 87% of landings were made in April – August, whilst for Sardinella aurita on average 95% of landings were made in May – August. A summary of the monthly 25% threshold CPUE thresholds for chub mackerel and round sardinella catches which could be used as the basis of monthly safety thresholds to maintain the long term sustainability of catches are shown in Table 28. Table 23: Percentage monthly contribution to total annual landings for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 2006-2012. The months which represent the main fishing season of the species are marked in bold. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mean Jan 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 Feb 17 3 13 0 1 0 0 5 Mar 11 1 0 4 15 5 4 6 Apr 3 45 12 1 2 13 14 13 May 12 5 1 11 6 8 23 9 Jun 16 7 18 7 26 27 17 17 Jul 29 9 23 69 48 29 25 33 Aug 11 15 34 8 1 17 17 15 Sep 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 Oct 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 Nov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 24: Percentage monthly contribution to total annual landings for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during 20062012. The months which represent the main fishing season of the species are marked in bold. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mean Jan 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Feb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 May 88 9 4 6 2 0 3 16 Jun 3 8 10 1 2 14 20 8 Jul 4 6 9 7 77 45 38 27 Aug 5 56 77 86 17 41 28 44 56 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 Oct 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 3 Nov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 25: Cumulative frequency of monthly CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during the months of April-August 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold. Season CPUE Apr06 0.47 Apr08 Cum. Freq. Cum. Freq. Season CPUE 2.28 Jul07 0.32 1.54 1.01 7.17 Jul08 0.53 4.08 Apr09 1.22 13.12 Jul06 0.81 8.00 Apr07 2.88 27.09 Jul10 2.66 20.86 Apr11 4.06 46.77 Jul11 3.46 37.57 Apr10 4.27 67.47 Jul12 3.98 56.78 Apr12 6.70 100.00 Jul09 8.95 100.00 May08 0.08 0.40 Aug10 0.21 0.40 May07 0.21 1.53 Aug07 0.95 1.53 May06 0.46 3.96 Aug08 1.05 3.96 May10 2.65 18.04 Aug06 1.31 18.04 May09 4.20 40.32 Aug12 3.76 40.32 May12 5.42 69.10 Aug11 4.67 69.10 May11 5.82 100.00 Aug09 5.72 100.00 Jun07 0.40 2.07 Jun06 0.54 4.83 Jun08 0.66 8.19 Jun09 3.13 24.22 Jun12 3.31 41.16 Jun10 4.83 65.90 Jun11 6.66 100.00 Table 26: Cumulative frequency of monthly CPUE data in kg/kW*fishing days for round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) landed by the Maltese lampara fleet during the months of May-August 2006-2012. The 25th percentile of the CPUE data is highlighted in bold. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS Season CPUE May09 May07 May11 May08 May12 May10 May06 Jun09 Jun06 Jun07 Jun08 Jun10 Jun11 Jun12 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.57 0.59 0.96 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.14 0.25 1.66 3.14 Cum. Freq. 2.01 4.79 9.14 15.80 38.45 61.87 100.00 0.18 0.67 2.22 4.79 9.50 40.79 100.00 [ S.L.425.09 Season CPUE Jul09 Jul06 Jul07 Jul08 Jul11 Jul10 Jul12 Aug06 Aug07 Aug08 Aug09 Aug10 Aug12 Aug11 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.08 2.62 3.06 4.61 0.17 0.60 0.88 1.38 4.37 4.70 5.74 57 Cum. Freq. 0.20 0.48 0.85 1.59 26.68 55.94 100.00 0.94 4.32 9.24 16.98 41.47 67.82 100.00 Table 27: Monthly CPUE threshold limits for the Maltese lampara fleet based on 25th percentile of monthly CPUE recorded during 2006-2012. Species Month Round Sardinella Chub Mackerel April 1.8 CPUE Threshold 2.88 May 4.2 June 3.31 July 3.46 August 3.76 May 0.57 June 1.66 July 2.62 August 4.37 Stock Assessments All stocks targeted by the Maltese lampara fishery are stocks shared with Sicily due to the population distribution over the Malta Bank, which connects the Maltese Islands with Sicily. Stock assessments of the relevant species will thus have to be carried out in collaboration with Italy. 58 [ S.L.425.09 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS Stock assessment information for the Central Mediterranean is at present not available for chub mackerel (S. japonicus) and round sardinella (S. aurita). Malta’s relative contributions to the landings of the main species caught with the lampara in the Central Mediterranean are presented in Table 28: Central Mediterranean landings (
  2. t)of species targeted by the lampara fishery. Malta’s values include landings from all of the Maltese fleet and not only from the lampara fishery. Source: GFCM Production Statistics; reference year 2010. below. Malta’s contributions towards catches of these species are below 10 % for the majority of the species except for Sardinella aurita which is slightly higher (24.9%). This slightly higher percentage can be attributed to the grouping of clupeoids under one name for the Maltese landings data. Table 28: Central Mediterranean landings (
  3. t)of species targeted by the lampara fishery. Malta’s values include landings from all of the Maltese fleet and not only from the lampara fishery. Source: GFCM Production Statistics; reference year 2010. English Name Scientific Name Italy Malta % Contribution Chub Mackerel Scomber japonicus 594 61 9.3 Round Sardinella Sardinella aurita 130 43 24.9 Jack Mackerel Trachurus spp 1708 13 0.8 Anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus 13898 5 0.0 Bogue Boops boops 1160 39 3.3 Sardine Sardina pilchardus 2435 0 0.0 An attempt at performing a surplus production model was made by the Maltese Authorities, however, the model fit to the data was very poor, rendering use of the model for fisheries management purposes scientifically unjustifiable. The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture identified the following reasons why the available data are not suitable for such an analysis: 1. The available time series of catch and effort data is very short. 2. Discard data are not available for this fishery. 3. Due to the assumptions made by the surplus production model, results can only be reliable if all catches taken from a population are included; in the present case, both Maltese and Italian catch and effort data would need to be included in the analysis, especially since the Maltese catch is very small compared to the Italian catch and the same stock is targeted by both fishing fleets. 4. No estimates of how catchability changed over time are available. 1.9 Impact on the By-Catch Species and the Environment By-catch species which have been recorded in landings in 2006-2011 are: Sarda sarda, Sphyraena sphyraena, Loligo vulgaris, Oblada melanura, Auxis thazard, A. rochei, Sarpa salpa, Euthynnus alletteratus, Seriola dumerili, Trachinus spp, Caranx crysos, Serranus cabrilla, Dentex spp, Phycis spp, IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS [ S.L.425.09 59 Sepia officinalis, Pagrus pagrus. The Maltese Authorities are in the process of obtaining more statistical information on the above. However, this is not expected to have any bearing on the management plan, as these species will only form a very insignificant percentage of the catches in the Central Mediterranean. 1.10 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Fishery The economic performance of the vessels using the ‘lampara’ gear is based on a set of variables and indicators which were calculated using the economic data collected annually for the purpose of the EU Data Collection Programme by means of a sample survey. Due to the small scale nature of this fishery, the majority of the fishers surveyed do not have any accounting practices and thus values obtained cannot be considered as precise. It is very important to note that vessels using the lampara gear adopt a multiple-fisheries approach throughout the year. Economic variables specifically related to the lampara fishery started being collected only since 2011 (reference year), for use in the management plans, since the EU Data Collection Framework only targets indicators by vessel. The sampled population is defined as the entire commercial Maltese fishing fleet which includes the entire full-time commercial (MFA) and part-time commercial (MFB) fishing vessels. Both inactive and active vessels were considered. In order to obtain an approximation of economic indicators specifically for the lampara gear, energy costs, repair and maintenance costs, variable costs, wages and salaries were divided by the proportion of hours worked with this gear (there was no data of previous years so the proportion in 2011 was used on data of all years). Economic indicators that are not directly related to the fishing gear in question were removed for clarity. The different regulations upon which the National data collection was based that is, DCR (Data Collection Regulation) and DCF (Data Collection Framework) introduced differences in the type of data collected and consequently the variables available. Data collected for the reference years 2006 and 2007 is based on the DCR, while data collected for

🔗 Għas-sors uffiċjali

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.