Aspects of Zonal Attachment for
Sharing Fish Stocks
Jan Arge Jacobsen
Not to be used in presentations/publications without
permission from the author. Please note that the numbers
and percentages in the presentation were examples as
memorized by the author, and not exact figures.
EEZs in the Northeast Atlantic
The establishment of the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in the
mid 1970s lead to extended rights of ownership and management
responsibilities to the coastal states
Zonal attachment principle
•
Zonal attachment principle seems intuitive
•
•
ICES suggested in 1978 the following criteria for sharing
•
•
•
•
Historical fisheries
The occurrence and migration of the fishable part of the stock
The occurrence of juvenile fish, spawning areas, distribution of eggs and larvae
The capelin model in 1983 (Iceland-Greenland-Jan Mayen)
•
•
“Rights to fish a stock that feeds in one’s zone”
Distribution of stock biomass times the length of the period a year-class, on
average, occurred in the respective zone during its lifespan
Hamre 1993 introduced recruitment and mortality rates
•
Assuming that the sum of the indices of a year-class throughout its lifespan
equals the sum of the corresponding indices of all year-classes in one year
Proxies for zonal attachment
Direct methods of zonal attachment calculation:
•
Area*Biomass*Time (ABT) – Surveys
•
•
•
•
ABT – Fisheries by zones
•
•
•
•
•
•
Demands extensive spatio-temporal survey coverage
Usually in internationally co-ordinated settings
Problems with incomplete spatial and temporal coverage
Problematic since fisheries not necessarily represent the stock distribution
Fishery limited by access to other EEZs
Quota limitations
Seasonal fisheries due to interannual trends in fish price
Misreporting
Historic fisheries (total catches)
•
Problematic since fisheries not necessarily represent the stock distribution
Proxies for zonal attachment
•
Area*Production*Time (APT)
•
•
•
Spawning locations and nursery areas
•
•
•
•
•
Grazing fee principle, weight increase in the feeding phase
Weight decrease in wintering and spawning areas (negative production?)
How to include and weight these parameters in a sharing arrangement?
Cannot use traditional Biomass*Time measures
Extra “rights” for spawning site?
Spawning and nursery areas is included in ABT from surveys
Accessibility or availability
•
•
•
•
“Fishable and valuable” hot-spot areas
Accessible and in high density
High quality (high price)
Favourable logistics in time and space (close to auctions/markets)
ABT estimation – how to
•
ABT from surveys (preferred source)
•
•
If complete temporal and spatial coverage
Can it be used as an "objective" allocation criteria for sharing joint fish stocks?
•
If ABT from surveys is incomplete
•
Sit down and make a quasi-scientific ABT by consensus
•
•
•
•
Combine surveys with fisheries and “expert knowledge”
Produce “best knowledge based” ATB
WG ToR: “quantify the distribution by zones... all life stages... If incomplete
data the WG should estimate the data by zones” ... “tabulate catches by zones”
Examples of ATB Working Group reports
•
•
•
NSSH 1995 (CS) Reykjavík Report (1950-1970 fisheries and “year classes”)
BW 1999 NEAFC Tórshavn WS Report (1977-1997 fisheries)
Two recent follow-ups: BW 2013 NEAFC Report and NSSH 2014 CS Report
Blue whiting ABT – examples
Surveys: Only one survey, in the spawning area (EU waters mainly)
not sufficient to be used as ABT
Average 20092013
Average 20042013
Average 19982013
Greenland
Faroes
Special
area
EU/FO
Inter.
west
Inter. Bar.
Sea
Inter.
Norw.
Sea
Russia
Special
area
Bar.Sea
EU
Norway
Iceland
Svalbard
Jan
Mayen
82.1
-
0.0
-
-
-
11.8
4.1
2.0
-
-
-
-
78.0
-
0.1
-
-
-
11.3
3.2
7.4
-
-
-
-
78.8
-
0.0
-
-
-
12.2
3.3
5.6
-
-
-
-
Fisheries by zones:
Proxy for ABT, as surveys are incomplete
1
Faroes
Inter.
west
Inter. Bar.
Sea
Inter.
Norw. Sea
Russia
Special
area
Bar.Sea
EU
Norway
Iceland
Svalbard
Average 1977-2005
43.1
10.5
4.0
0.5
1.0
0.1
19.9
3.3
9.9
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
Average 2006-2012
46.7
4.2
1.7
0.3
0.0
0.1
17.7
7.0
18.1
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
These two periods are before and after the coastal states came to a quota agreement
Greenland
Special
area
EU/FO
Jan
Mayen
NSSH ABT – examples
Fishery by zones: Due to access limitations and quota exchanges
the fisheries do not reflect the distribution of the stock
Years
EU
Faroes
Iceland
1995-2012
0.7
3.7
5.1
Int. North Jan Mayen
10.2
3.3
Norway
Svalbard
Russia
73.4
3.6
0
Surveys: Proxy for ABT, sufficient temporal coverage
Mar
Years
1995-2008
Years
May 1996-2013
July
Dec
Norway
100
EU Faroes
0.9
Years
2009-10; 12-13
Years
1995-2008
10.4
B. Sea, juveniles
Iceland Int. North Svalbard JanMayen Norway
7.1
EU
Faroes
2
23.8
Norway
100
32.4
1.6
4.8
Iceland IInt. North
30.9
9.3
42.7
Years
1998-2013
Svalbard Jan Mayen
4.3
14.4
Norway Russia
81.8
18.2
Norway Greenland
15.1
0.3
NSSH ABT dependent on migration
Historic (pre 1970)
Today
Different overwintering areas have immense effect on the
seasonal migration pattern and thus the zonal attachment
Key criteria for zonal attachment model
Criteria used previously
1. Surveys ABT
2. Fisheries ABT
Suggested criteria to add
3. Dependency
4. Accessibility
5. Scientific contribution
Finally associated weights to
each criterion will be added
Dependency
Economic dependency on the fishery, -on the species
Example from the blue whiting 1999 negotiations
Average catch in
zones 1977-97
Zones
(tonnes)
EU-6
299,452
Norway
65,613
Faroe Islands
128,839
Iceland
5,597
Greenland
1,359
Total
500,859
Value of BWBlue whiting
landings 1000 Total value of
landings
Dkk per tonne
landings relative to total
(mDkk)
(mDkk) landings (%)
299
33,932
0.88
66
9,249
0.71
129
1,608
8.01
6
5,590
0.10
1
1,348
0.10
501
51,727
0.97
Weight
0.09
0.07
0.82
0.01
0.01
1.00
Accessibility or availability
•
This parameter cannot be calculated explicitly, rather through
expert judgment by consensus
•
Quota exchanges and historic fisheries point to "hot spot" areas
where and when the species is most "fishable and valuable”
•
•
•
BW fishery in spawning and post-spawning area (EU, FO)
NSSH fishery on spawning and pre-spawning fish (NO)
Mac fishery in autumn (EU/NO)
Examples of accessibility vector (%) for blue whiting in 1999:
EU 50, FO 35, NO 10, IC 5, rest 0
Scientific contribution
•
This parameter cannot be calculated explicitly, rather through
expert judgment by consensus
•
Scientific contribution is mentioned in the UN laws
Examples of scientific contribution vector (%) for blue whiting in 1999:
EU 0, FO 20, NO 40, RU 20, rest 0
Model – Input data for the criteria
Criteria
Country
EU
Faroes
Norway
Iceland
Int. N
Int. W
Jan Mayen
Greenland
Svalbard
Russia
1
2
3
4
5
1a
2a
ABT Fisheries Dependency Accessibility Scientific NOabt EUfish
35
48
20
50
0
30
66
29
21
47
35
20
18
17
21
11
20
10
40
37
8
7
1
7
5
0
6
0
5
12
0
0
0
4
1
2
6
0
0
0
4
8
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
40
0
0
Blue whiting 1999 negotiation example
These vectors were decided by consensus through several
Working Groups of scientists and managers
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Russia
Sval…
Gree…
Jan…
Int. W
Int. N
Iceland
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Dependency
Blue whiting 1999 negotiation example
Russia
Sval…
Sval…
Russia
Gree…
Gree…
Int. W
Int. N
Iceland
Jan…
EUfish
Jan…
Int. W
Int. N
Iceland
Nor…
Faroes
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Nor…
Faroes
Scientific
EU
Russia
Sval…
Gree…
Jan…
Int. W
Int. N
Iceland
Accessibility
EU
Russia
Sval…
Gree…
Jan…
Int. W
Int. N
Iceland
Nor…
Faroes
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Nor…
Faroes
Fisheries
EU
Russia
Sval…
Gree…
Jan…
Int. W
Int. N
Iceland
Nor…
Faroes
EU
ABT
EU
Russia
Sval…
Gree…
Jan…
Int. W
Int. N
Iceland
Nor…
Faroes
EU
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Nor…
Faroes
EU
Model – Input data for the 5 criteria
NOabt
Weighting factor for each criterion
•
These are open for negotiations!
•
Could be set to 0 if missing/incomplete data (for a criterion)
Criteria
Weights
ABT
0.4
Fisheries
0.4
Dependency
0.05
Accessibility
0.1
Scientific
0.05
From the 1999 blue whiting “case”
The model
Weights
1
ABT
35
29
21
7
5
2
1
0
0
0
2
Fisheries
48
21
11
1
12
6
2
0
1
0
3
Dependency
20
47
20
7
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
Accessibility
50
35
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Scientific
0
20
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0.4
0.4
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Share
Weights
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
ABT
Fisheries
Depende…
Accessib…
Scientific
Criteria
Zone
EU
Faroes
Norway
Iceland
Int. N
Int. W
Jan Mayen
Greenland
Svalbard
Russia
Zone
EU
Faroes
Norway
Iceland
Int. N
Int. W
Jan Mayen
Greenland
Svalbard
Russia
Share
39
27
16
4
7
3
1
0
0
2
Sharing examples: blue whiting 1999
ABT
0.40
0.20
0.00
Fish+ABT
0.40
0.20
0.00
ABT+Fish-rest
Weights
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.60
0.60
0.20
0.00
ABT>Fish+Access-rest
Weights
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Weights
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.40
ABT
Fisheries
Depende…
Accessib…
Scientific
0.00
ABT
Fisheries
Depende…
Accessib…
Scientific
0.00
0.20
Weights
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
ABT
Fisheries
Depende…
Accessib…
Scientific
0.20
Weights
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.40
ABT
Fisheries
Depende…
Accessib…
Scientific
0.40
ABT>Fish
0.60
ABT
Fisheries
Depende…
Accessib…
Scientific
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.60
0.60
Weights
ABT
Fisheries
Depende…
Accessib…
Scientific
Fishery
Suggestions for a unified allocation model
•
It is proposed that the States should agree on a “fixed set” of key
criteria to be included
•
Agree on associated weighting factors
This way it might be possible to shift the focus from the deadlock
situations where each party claim their rights seemingly "out of thin
air" or historic fisheries alone, rather than base their claims on a set
of weighting factors on pre-agreed sharing criteria
Long-term agreements in a changing world
Mackerel
distribution
2010-13
2006-09
-2005
-2005
Long-term agreements in a changing world
•
Need to define a "management rule" to handle ecosystem changes
and shifts in distributions:
•
Running share: Re-allocate every 5th year (or other stock-specific
fixed period)
•
Re-allocate when stock size changes more than a fixed percentage
(perhaps over a 5 yr period)
•
Perhaps define two allocation schemes, one for “high stock” and
one for “low stock” situations