HOW FISHERIES AND MARINE
PROTECTION CAN COEXIST
IN THE SOUTHERN OCEAN
October 2016
This report discusses the two current marine protected area (MPA) proposals, for East
Antarctica and for the Ross Sea, and assesses their potential economic impact on
commercial fishing for Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) and Antarctic krill
(Euphausia superba). The report concludes that the proposed MPAs will have minimal
impact on current overall catch limits for the target stocks when new catch spread
scenarios are taken into account. For example, the Ross Sea Antarctic toothfish stock
total catch limit would remain unchanged by the fishing effort being relocated away
from the sensitive continental shelf. The East Antarctic MPA proposal would permit
fishing where the fishing will not impact the specific objectives of the MPA. In both of
these MPAs, biodiversity and scientific gains could be substantial, while having little
impact on current fishing.
Dave Walsh
Jessica Meir
The MPA proposals in waters governed
by the Commission for the Conservation
of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR) have been developed to
protect representative aspects of
biodiversity, for research, and as a
baseline and comparison for monitoring
the impacts of climate change. It is
important to note that the fisheries
currently operating in these waters
represent a small fraction of the total
reported catch by tonnage and value
of the global catch of the participating
CCAMLR Members.
Introduction
Top: Between 50-72% of South Pacific
Weddell seals live year round along the
Ross Sea Shelf, where they depend on
Antarctic toothfish as a food source.
Bottom: The Type C Orca, also known
as the Ross Sea killer whale, is distinct
to the Ross Sea and specialises in
hunting Antarctic toothfish.
One of the main concerns raised by
CCAMLR Members during discussions
about the proposed Ross Sea and East
Antarctic MPAs has been that MPAs
might have a significant impact on
fishing levels. To determine the impact
of the proposed MPAs on fishing, the
Antarctic Ocean Alliance has conducted
an economic analysis. An executive
summary of the conclusions from
this analysis is provided below. The
complete analysis is available as an
attachment.
Possible effects on fishing
from the Ross Sea Region
MPA Proposal
The Ross Sea MPA proposal2 does not
propose to reduce the catch limit in
Subareas 88.1-88.2 A&B. However, it
would relocate the total catch between
the different areas – slope, shelf and
north of the region. This change,
combined with the Special Research
Zone (SRZ) and research fishing in the
north, could mean greater catches in
northern areas and no overall reduction
in the total allowable catch (TAC).
Historically the catches were allocated
between the shelf, slope, and the north
(13 percent, 74 percent and 13 percent
respectively), based on mean historical
catch rates and on the fishable seabed
area (600m to 1800m, the depth where
toothfish were considered most likely
to be found).1 This has allowed for the
geographical spread of the fishery in
the areas where tagging of toothfish is
a key element for assessing the state
of the stock.
For this paper the 2015-16 toothfish
catch limit of 2,870 tonnes, which
is based on the latest stock
assessment, was used in the analysis
of different scenarios for catch
location arrangements if the MPA was
designated.
The analysis of these scenarios
indicates that fishing in the Ross Sea
could continue with a similar catch TAC
limit (i.e. 2870 tonnes). Some relocation
northward to the Mawson and Iselin
Banks and northern seamounts would
be required, but this is expected to
provide some advantages to fisheries
research and fishing itself. The
advantages of relocating the catch
include:
Darci Lombard
Rob King, Australian
Antarctic Division
Top: Antarctic toothfish
Bottom: Krill density in the proposed
East Antarctica MPA areas is
relatively low.
Activities, including
fishing, will be allowed
to take place within
an MPA so long as
such activity will not
adversely impact on
the conservation or
scientific objectives
of that MPA
•Fishing in the northern area means
lower fuel costs and shorter travel
time than to southern fisheries;
•Northern areas are more likely
to be free of ice. Recent analysis
has shown that a later start to the
season assists in making more
ice-free areas available for fishing
and thus spreading the catch effort.
This should also reduce the risk to
vessels;
•Northern areas are away from key
toothfish predators such as the
Weddell seals and Type C Orcas
which are in the West and South of
the Ross Sea, areas included in the
MPA proposal; and
•More fish could be tagged in the
north, which would increase data
available for the spatial population
model for the Ross Sea.
Possible effects on fishing
from the East Antarctic MPA
proposal
Changes to fishing as a result of the
East Antarctic MPA proposal are
expected to be minimal. Currently,
very little fishing takes place in East
Antarctica. Furthermore, the proposed
East Antarctic MPA is multiple-use,
meaning “that activities, including
fishing, will be allowed to take place
within an MPA so long as such activity
will not adversely impact on the
conservation or scientific objectives of
that MPA.”3
No fishing currently takes place within
the proposed MacRobertson MPA
as 58.4.2 Small Scale Research
Unit (SSRU) D is closed to toothfish
fishing and no commercial krill fishing
has occurred in this subarea for over
20 years. Only part of the proposed
Drygalski MPA is open to fishing (58.4.1
SSRU B is closed to toothfish fishing)
while 58.4.3 SSRU B is open, it has
a zero toothfish TAC. Subarea 58.4.1
SSRU C (about half) is open to toothfish
fishing and has a TAC of 203 tonnes.
For the proposed D’Urville Sea-Mertz
MPA the area is open to toothfish fishing
and sub-area 58.4.1 SSRUs G and H
have small toothfish catch limits of 127
and 42 tonnes respectively.
In East Antarctica the density of krill
is low compared to other areas. The
densities are about 20 percent of that
found in the Peninsula and South
Georgia area.4 There has been krill
fishing in this area but not since 198788 in 58.4.2 and 1994-95 in 58.4.1.
Krill fishing notifications for this area
would need to be assessed against the
relevant conservation measures and the
MPA objectives. The East Antarctic MPA
proposal covers less than 20 percent
of the CCAMLR Subareas 58.4.2 and
58.4.1 and therefore there would still be
opportunities to catch krill outside the
MPA even if the area was closed to
krill fishing.
Between 2009-10 and 2014-15,
vessels flagged to four states fished
for toothfish in the East Antarctic
(58.4.1 and 58.4.2). Current SSRU
catch limits and catches are relatively
small and unlikely to be affected by
the proposed MPAs.
Conclusions
The creation of the proposed MPAs
in the Ross Sea and East Antarctica
will provide significant protection
for biodiversity while having minimal
impact on current commercial fishing
activity. In addition, the value of the
toothfish catches in these areas is
small, especially when compared to the
catches of the flag states and the value
of their fish exports.
The impact of the Ross Sea MPAs on
fishing would be minimized by moving
fishing effort from the shelf and parts of
the slope to the northern seamounts,
including 88.1A & B north. One
important benefit of moving fishing from
biodiversity hotspots in the proposed
MPA to the northern slope areas and
northern seamounts is that fishing
vessels will encounter less sea ice.
The impacts on fishing in the East
OUTCOMES OF ROSS SEA MPA
The Ross Sea is one of the most pristine environments in the world.
The proposed Ross Sea MPA will ensure this unique ecosystem
remains protected for generations to come, whilst fishing can
continue in the Special Research Zone and further north.
FISHING ON
NORTHERN
SEAMOUNTS
FUTURE
FISHING
AREA
SEAMOUNTS
KRZ
BALLENY
ISLANDS
SCOTT
ISLAND
Why move?
The relocation of the toothfish fishery away
from the Ross Sea Ice Shelf would provide
significant protection to important predator
species.
ROSS
SEA
SRZ
The benefits
1Key toothfish predators like Weddell
seals and Type C Orcas will not have to
compete.
2More fish could be tagged in the
north, filling critical gaps in the region’s
fisheries data.
3Fishing operators will catch larger
fish in the north, leaving the smaller fish
near the shelf to mature.
4Northern areas are more likely to be
free of ice, reducing the risk to fishing
vessels.
ROSS SEA
ICE SHELF
SRZ: Current areas
fished in the Special
Research Zone would
be reduced by about
a third.
Current fishing
area: Existing fishing
would move from key
biodiversity hotspots
on the shelf and slope
to northern slope
areas and seamounts.
Fishing areas
unaffected
PROPOSED EAST ANTARCTIC MPAs
Current catch limits and catches in East Antarctica are relatively small so the impact
of proposed East Antarctic MPAs on fishing would be minimal.
Drygalski
MacRobertson
58.4.2D
(0t)
58.4.2E
(35t)
58.4.1B
(0t)
58.4.1C
(203t)
58.4.1D
(42t)
D’Urville-Mertz
58.4.1E
(246t)
58.4.1F
(0t)
58.4.2C
(0t)
58.4.1G
(127t)
58.4.2B
(0t)
58.4.1H
(42t)
58.4.2A
(30t)
Proposed East Antarctic
Marine Protected Areas
Antarctic MPA proposal areas
would most likely be minimal. The
MacRobertson area is already closed
to commercial exploratory fishing.
Over half the proposed Drygalski area
is closed to commercial fishing, and
the D’Urville-Mertz is included in two
research fishing blocks for toothfish.
This fishing could continue if it is
consistent with the objectives of
the MPA.
If the potential spillover effects of MPAs
are considered (that is, a situation in
which a fish population increases within
an MPA and some fish subsequently
migrate outside the MPA), these
modest impacts on fishing may be
further reduced. The additional gains
are protection of a range of ecosystem
types and biodiversity, ecosystem
resilience, and the establishment of
scientific baselines for climate change
analysis. In conclusion, it is likely
there would be considerable benefits
for fisheries, fisheries research and
scientific research from the designation
of the MPAs, with minimal reduction in
the current levels of fishing activity. It
Total Allowable Catch in
East Antarctica’s Small
Scale Research Units
should be stressed, however, that the
primary objective of MPAs is to protect
marine biodiversity.
Acknowledgments
Author: Barry Weeber
Reference Group and Editors: Claire
Christian, Rob Nicoll, Mike Walker
and Elsa Evers
Design: Hilbert Ho
Photos: Photos generously provided
by Rob King, Darci Lombard, Jessica
Meir, John B. Weller, Dave Walsh (front
cover), Bruno Marie (back cover).
Antarctic Ocean Alliance acknowledges
the MPA proposals by New Zealand
and the United States, and Australia,
EU and France, and the many scientists
involved in the published information
referred to in this report.
©The Antarctic Ocean Alliance 2016.
Ministry of Primary Industry (2015)
Toothfish. In Fisheries Assessment
Plenary, May 2016: stock
assessments and stock status.
Compiled by the Fisheries Science
Group, Ministry for Primary Industries,
Wellington, New Zealand.
2
Delegations of N.Z and U.S
Governments (2015) A proposal for
the establishment of a Ross Sea
Region Marine Protected CCAMLRXXXIV/29 Rev. 1 29 October 2015
Accessed at https://mfat.govt.nz/
en/environment/antarctica/rosssea-region-marine-protected-areaproposal/ 20 November 2015
3
Australian Government (2013) A
proposal for a representative system
of Marine Protected Areas in the East
Antarctic planning domain. Accessed
21 Nov 2013 from http://www.
antarctica.gov.au/law-and-treaty/
ccamlr/marine-protected-areas.
4
Nicol, S., A.J. Constable and T. Pauly.
(2000) Estimates of circumpolar
abundance of Antarctic krill based on
recent acoustic density measurements.
CCAMLR Science, 7: 87–99.
1
The Antarctic Ocean Alliance is a coalition of environmental and
conservation organisations working to support the creation of a network of
marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica.
antarcticocean.org
FOLLOW THE CAMPAIGN