(i) the primary regionalisation for the pelagic environment can be regarded as useful for application by CCAMLR and CEP; and the initial regionalisation for the benthic environment should be reviewed and optimised for use by these two bodies;

(ii) refinements to this bioregionalisation could be made in the future as methods are improved and further data are acquired and analysed. However, additional finer-scale bioregionalisation work could be undertaken in a number of areas using existing data;

(iii) future work could include efforts to delineate fine-scale provinces, where possible with the assistance of WG-SAM, in considering approaches to fine-scale regionalisation, including use of statistical methods and other potential data sources;

(iv) the inclusion of process and species information could be considered further, particularly in the context of systematic conservation planning, and in developing a spatial decision-making framework;

(v) a procedure should be established for identifying areas for protection and to further the conservation objectives of CCAMLR.

3.4 The Scientific Committee agreed to consider issues relating to observer coverage.

3.5 The Scientific Committee noted with interest WG-EMM’s deliberations on the issue of data collection by scientific observers which focused on previously agreed priorities (SC-CAMLR-XXV, paragraph 2.15).

3.6 The Scientific Committee endorsed WG-SAM’s advice which identified a need for high-quality length-frequency data from the fishery from several years in advance of implementing an integrated assessment, and recommended that the fishery start providing length-frequency data now, given that the coverage by research surveys is not likely to be sufficient for all regions (Annex 7, paragraph 3.13).

3.7 The Scientific Committee based its deliberations on the following two strategic objectives for scientific observations of the krill fishery:

(i) to understand the overall behaviour and impact of the fishery

(ii) to undertake routine monitoring of the fishery to inform population and ecosystem models.

3.8 The rationale behind this two-stage approach is that fisheries monitoring effort does not necessarily have to have indefinite maximum coverage if a reduced observation effort is sufficient to fulfil management requirements. There is, however, an expectation that there will be a long-term need for systematic data collection from the fishery.

3.9 The Scientific Committee agreed that it will only be possible to design the spatial and temporal level of observer coverage required for objective (ii) once objective (i) has been completed. A full investigation of (i) would require systematic spatial and temporal coverage by scientific observers across SSMUs, seasons, vessels and fishing methods.

3.10 The Scientific Committee agreed that there are a number of ways to collect the required scientific data from the krill fishery. For example, for both first and second stages the most comprehensive coverage, and the most rapid way to achieve objective (i), could be either of the following alternatives:

• 100% coverage by international scientific observers

• 100% coverage by international scientific and/or national observers.

3.11 The Scientific Committee noted that reduced levels of observational effort could delay the achievement of objective (i) in paragraph 3.7, and may also introduce bias into the data if the observational effort is not reduced appropriately. This reduced effort could include:

(i) systematic but <100% coverage by observers;

(ii) different levels of coverage for different fleets, for example, 100% coverage for new vessels with unknown characteristics and a lesser level of coverage on established vessels for which data are already available;

(iii) random systematic allocation of observers plus regular quality checks, and systematic coverage by scientific observers until the fishery is established to fulfil suitable data for management requirements.

3.12 It was clarified that:

(i) ‘systematic coverage’ means coverage that ensures data collection across all areas, seasons, vessels and fishing methods, which leads to the provision of consistent high-quality data for assessments in multi-vessel, multi-nation fisheries (Annex 7, paragraph 4.16);

(ii) to obtain the required information, either international or national scientific observers would be acceptable, provided the data and reports are consistent with the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation and are of a sufficiently high quality to be of use for the proposed analyses;

(iii) levels of initial observation coverage to understand the overall behaviour and impact of the krill fishery might be higher than that of the eventual long-term observation coverage.

3.13 The Scientific Committee encouraged interested Parties to submit plans to achieve systematic and consistent collection of the required scientific data from the fishery to the next WG-EMM, WG-SAM and ad hoc WG-IMAF meetings for scrutiny. These plans would include those that proposed 100% observer coverage and those that could demonstrate adequate data collection using lower levels of coverage. This work is essential in order that Members can agree on the level of coverage that enables collection of the data necessary to achieve the stated objectives.

3.14 The Scientific Committee agreed that the working groups should carry out an assessment of the consequences to the data collection effort of the different approaches suggested, and recommend the required level of observer coverage to the Scientific Committee in 2008.

3.15 The Scientific Committee acknowledged that each of the options for obtaining the priority data required would have consequential issues of implementation and the timescale of delivery. Risks associated with reduced coverage need to be thoroughly addressed by relevant experts before agreeing on an observer coverage plan.

3.16 The Scientific Committee further urged Members and Contracting Parties fishing for krill to send their experts to WG-EMM and WG-SAM to be fully engaged in the process.

Orderly development of the krill fishery

3.17 The Scientific Committee agreed that a strategic approach to the orderly development of the krill fishery would allow the Commission to better control and mitigate the level of impact by the krill fishery on the krill stocks and on predator populations (Annex 4, paragraphs 4.73 to 4.76). This approach would also make the krill fishery consistent with other CCAMLR-managed fisheries.

10.9 Dr Gilbert welcomed the proposal for a joint meeting in 2009 and offered that CEP would come forward to the next meeting of WG-EMM and the Scientific Committee with some firm suggestions for agenda items.

17.2 While also thanking the Panel for its hard work, Argentina noted that the important debate on the criteria which should be taken into account for the Panel’s work had an important consequence on the efficiency of its work.

17.3 The Commission noted that it would base its discussion of the Performance Review Panel Report on the full body of the report. In noting that the report summary was useful, the Commission agreed that its contents were confusing in that there appeared to be eight items addressed while the actual report only comprised seven chapters. In that respect, it was agreed that issues relating to the Chairman’s Statement, which appeared in Item 8 of the summary, were more appropriately covered in Chapter 3.5.5 of CCAMLR-XXVII/8.

Advice from SCIC

17.4 The Chair of SCIC informed the Commission that the Committee had focused on Chapter 4 of CCAMLR-XXVII/8 (Compliance and Enforcement) and had identified the following priority items (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.5):

(i) Flag State duties (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 4.1), especially consideration of reciprocal and cooperative arrangements to enhance the effectiveness of Conservation Measure 10-08 (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 4.1.1.1b);

(ii) Port State measures (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 4.2), especially the requirement for minimum standards for the format, content and submission of inspection reports (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 4.2.1.1), as well as defining fishing vessels to include reefer and support vessels (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 4.2.1.2);

(iii) Monitoring control and surveillance (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 4.3), especially formally linking the CDS with daily catch reports (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 4.3.1.1) and real-time C-VMS reporting (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 4.3.1.2).

17.5 The Commission also noted that the following recommendations from other chapters of the report were identified by SCIC Members as priority items (Annex 5, paragraph 7.6):

(i) trends in the status of marine living resources (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Criterion 3.1.2) especially in relation to the introduction of mechanisms to ensure that all Contracting Parties comply with the provisions of all measures and the use of all legal avenues to ensure that non-Contracting Parties also comply with such measures, as well as the development of further mechanisms for enhanced surveillance and enforcement in order to control IUU fishing (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 3.1.2.1);

(ii) addressing any gaps in the collection and sharing of data (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Criterion 3.3.4);

(iii) application of uniform principles and practices to all species inside the Convention Area (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Criterion 3.5.3);

(iv) market-related measures (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 4.6);

(v) CCAMLR’s relationships with non-cooperating non-Contracting Parties (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Criterion 6.3.1);

(vi) cooperation with other international organisations (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 6.4).

Advice from SCAF

17.6 The Vice-Chair of SCAF informed the Commission that SCAF considered the recommendations pertaining to Chapter 7 of the Report ‘Financial and Administrative Issues’ (Annex 4, paragraphs 33 to 37). She emphasised that:

(i) SCAF noted the Review Panel’s recommendation to expand the Commission’s financial base by identifying the full cost of services provided for all commercial fishing operations, particularly for krill fishing. This could require development of a cost-recovery process and charging accordingly for services, as well as setting up a process to develop a cost-recovery strategy for CCAMLR in general (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraphs 7.2.1.1 and 7.2.1.2);

(ii) SCAF recommended that the Commission continue its current practice of authorising increases in Members’ Contributions beyond zero real growth to allocate funds for specific priority tasks (e.g. the 2007 CCAMLR Performance Review and CCAMLR-IWC Workshop) as they arise (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraphs 7.2.1.1 and 7.2.1.2);

(iii) SCAF had already implicitly supported the Review Panel recommendation that a Secretariat succession plan be developed to address loss of institutional knowledge and provide continuity of function when long-serving staff leave the organisation (Annex 4, paragraph 22). The outcomes of this activity will be reviewed by SCAF in 2009;

(iv) in relation to a Review Panel recommendation on institutional resources (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 7.2.2.1), SCAF discussed the question of inadequate Secretariat capacity to translate working papers in particular, and other papers in general, to guarantee equality, transparency and widest participation in all the Commission’s official languages (Annex 4, paragraphs 15 to 19 and 38).

Advice from the Scientific Committee

17.7 The Commission noted that the Scientific Committee had indicated that failure to read the entire Review Panel Report would result in the reader failing to become aware of the report’s many positive appraisals of CCAMLR’s performance (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 10.5).

17.8 The Scientific Committee had noted that almost every aspect of the report had indicated a need for additional work (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 10.6).

17.9 The Commission further noted that the Scientific Committee had considered the report’s 10 general recommendations made by the Panel. The latter had agreed that recommendations relating to CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Items 2.4 (Protected Areas), 3.1 (Status of Living Resources) and 3.2 (Ecosystem Approach) should be reviewed during the coming intersessional period and that the additional recommendations should be taken up on a longer-term basis (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 10.10).

17.10 The Commission appreciated that the Scientific Committee had requested its incoming Chair to form a Steering Committee to develop a ‘road map’ (plan of action) to tackle the Review Panel’s recommendation during the forthcoming intersessional period. This would provide direction to various subsidiary bodies of the Scientific Committee on how the three highest-priority recommendations above can be addressed and how the remaining recommendation might be addressed in the future. The objective of this work is to ensure the Scientific Committee is able to provide advice to the Commission on these topics at its 2009 meeting (SC-CAMLR-XXVII, paragraph 10.11).

Consideration of the Commission

17.11 The Commission welcomed the comments from the SCIC, SCAF and Scientific Committee Chairs. It very much appreciated that the Review Panel and standing committees had met all the deadlines and requirements outlined in paragraph 10 of CCAMLR-XXVI, Annex 7. The fact that the Panel had completed a significant amount of work in the time available was greatly commended.

17.12 The Commission agreed that it was now the responsibility of the Commission to act on the Review Panel’s recommendations. It appreciated that addressing some of the Panel’s recommendations may be straightforward, whereas others are likely to be more difficult. However, the latter should not be seen to provide a reason for inaction.

17.13 The Commission noted that CCAMLR was the first organisation of its type to undertake and respond to such a Performance Review in the context of the Convention’s objectives relating to both the conservation and rational utilisation of marine living resources. As a consequence, it was imperative to address the various priority items raised by SCIC, SCAF and the Scientific Committee during the intersessional period to advance discussion of the Review’s outcomes at the next meeting of the Commission.

17.14 The Commission generally endorsed the Performance Review Panel’s view (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 2.1) on the relationship between CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty. It noted in particular the need to reinforce the obligation set out in Articles III and V (and IV.1) of the Convention. The Commission also noted that implementing these recommendations into actual Commission decisions would require formal presentation of detailed proposals by Members.

17.15 In the latter regard, Australia as Depository, undertook to develop text to address the Panel recommendation given in CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 2.1.1.1a, and thereby bring to the attention of an Acceding State, or a State seeking accession, the particular Convention articles linking the Convention with the Antarctic Treaty. The Secretariat was also requested to prepare an information pack on CCAMLR and its links to the Antarctic Treaty to be made available to Acceding States, and other States indicating an interest in CCAMLR.

17.16 Japan noted that the Review had identified effectively combating IUU as a priority cross-cutting issue and this would include the rôle to be played by market-related and Port State measures. Furthermore, it noted that while the CCAMLR Performance Review had been conducted in accordance with the criteria agreed by CCAMLR, when these were compared with those of other RFMOs (i.e. ICCAT, IOTC and CCSBT) several elements were missing. For example, the CCAMLR criteria do not include compatibility of measures as reflected in Article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries or in Article 7 of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Therefore, CCAMLR should first examine the Performance Review Panel Report to identify missing elements, such as the compatibility of conservation measures, and then it should address these. Regarding the audit of the action taken against each recommendation in the Performance Review Panel Report, Japan drew attention to the suggestion included in the letter from the Panel Chair accompanying CCAMLR-XXVII/8 that the Performance Review should be conducted on a regular basis and that taking this into account, an audit of Commission actions should be conducted two or three years from now so as to fall midway between the current and the next review.

17.17 Some Members noted that unlike the organisations mentioned by Japan, CCAMLR is not an RFMO and recalled that it is a conservation organisation, where conservation includes rational use. It further noted that it is essential for any potential new entrants to CCAMLR to be fully aware of this distinction.

17.18 The Commission recognised that consideration of the Performance Review Panel Report at its meeting this year represented the first stage in a process to address the priority issues that had been identified. It further clarified that all relevant issues remained open for consideration at future meetings.

(i) SCAF noted the Review Panel’s recommendation to expand the Commission’s financial base by identifying the full cost of services provided for all commercial fishing operations, particularly for krill fishing. This could require development of a cost-recovery process and charging accordingly for services, as well as setting up a process to develop a cost-recovery strategy for CCAMLR in general (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraphs 7.2.1.1 and 7.2.1.2);

(ii) SCAF recommended that the Commission continue its current practice of authorising increases in Members’ Contributions beyond zero real growth to allocate funds for specific priority tasks (e.g. the 2007 CCAMLR Performance Review and CCAMLR-IWC Workshop) as they arise (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraphs 7.2.1.1 and 7.2.1.2);

(iii) SCAF had already implicitly supported the Review Panel recommendation that a Secretariat succession plan be developed to address loss of institutional knowledge and provide continuity of function when long-serving staff leave the organisation (Annex 4, paragraph 22). The outcomes of this activity will be reviewed by SCAF in 2009;

(iv) in relation to a Review Panel recommendation on institutional resources (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 7.2.2.1), SCAF discussed the question of inadequate Secretariat capacity to translate working papers in particular, and other papers in general, to guarantee equality, transparency and widest participation in all the Commission’s official languages (Annex 4, paragraphs 15 to 19 and 38).

17.14 The Commission generally endorsed the Performance Review Panel’s view (CCAMLR-XXVII/8, Item 2.1) on the relationship between CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty. It noted in particular the need to reinforce the obligation set out in Articles III and V (and IV.1) of the Convention. The Commission also noted that implementing these recommendations into actual Commission decisions would require formal presentation of detailed proposals by Members.

17.15 In the latter regard, Australia as Depository, undertook to develop text to address the Panel recommendation given in CCAMLR-XXVII/8, paragraph 2.1.1.1a, and thereby bring to the attention of an Acceding State, or a State seeking accession, the particular Convention articles linking the Convention with the Antarctic Treaty. The Secretariat was also requested to prepare an information pack on CCAMLR and its links to the Antarctic Treaty to be made available to Acceding States, and other States indicating an interest in CCAMLR.

17.16 Japan noted that the Review had identified effectively combating IUU as a priority cross-cutting issue and this would include the rôle to be played by market-related and Port State measures. Furthermore, it noted that while the CCAMLR Performance Review had been conducted in accordance with the criteria agreed by CCAMLR, when these were compared with those of other RFMOs (i.e. ICCAT, IOTC and CCSBT) several elements were missing. For example, the CCAMLR criteria do not include compatibility of measures as reflected in Article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries or in Article 7 of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Therefore, CCAMLR should first examine the Performance Review Panel Report to identify missing elements, such as the compatibility of conservation measures, and then it should address these. Regarding the audit of the action taken against each recommendation in the Performance Review Panel Report, Japan drew attention to the suggestion included in the letter from the Panel Chair accompanying CCAMLR-XXVII/8 that the Performance Review should be conducted on a regular basis and that taking this into account, an audit of Commission actions should be conducted two or three years from now so as to fall midway between the current and the next review.

17.17 Some Members noted that unlike the organisations mentioned by Japan, CCAMLR is not an RFMO and recalled that it is a conservation organisation, where conservation includes rational use. It further noted that it is essential for any potential new entrants to CCAMLR to be fully aware of this distinction.

7.5 All Members were invited to convey their preferences for priority items to SCIC. Members generally agreed to focus on the section of the Performance Review Panel Report dealing with Compliance (Chapter 4). Recommendations of Chapter 4 of the report which were identified by SCIC Members as priority items were:

(i) Flag State duties (Item 4.1), especially consideration to making reciprocal and cooperative arrangements to enhance the effectiveness of Conservation Measure 10-08 (paragraph 4.1.1.1b);

(ii) Port State measures (Item 4.2), especially the requirement for minimum standards for the format, content and submission of inspection reports (paragraph 4.2.1.1) and defining fishing vessels to include reefer and support vessels (paragraph 4.2.1.2);

(iii) Monitoring control and surveillance (Item 4.3), especially formally linking the CDS with daily catch reports (paragraph 4.3.1.1) and real-time C-VMS reporting (paragraph 4.3.1.2).

(i) Flag State duties (Item 4.1), especially consideration to making reciprocal and cooperative arrangements to enhance the effectiveness of Conservation Measure 10-08 (paragraph 4.1.1.1b);

(ii) Port State measures (Item 4.2), especially the requirement for minimum standards for the format, content and submission of inspection reports (paragraph 4.2.1.1) and defining fishing vessels to include reefer and support vessels (paragraph 4.2.1.2);

(iii) Monitoring control and surveillance (Item 4.3), especially formally linking the CDS with daily catch reports (paragraph 4.3.1.1) and real-time C-VMS reporting (paragraph 4.3.1.2).

(i) trends in the status of marine living resources (Criterion 3.1.2) especially in relation to the introduction of mechanisms to ensure that all Contracting Parties comply with the provisions of all measures and the use of all legal avenues to ensure that non-Contracting Parties also comply with such measures, as well as the development of further mechanisms for enhanced surveillance and enforcement in order to control IUU fishing (paragraph 3.1.2.1);

(ii) addressing any gaps in the collection and sharing of data (Criterion 3.3.4);

(iii) application of uniform principles and practices to all species inside the Convention Area (Criterion 3.5.3);

(iv) market-related measures (Item 4.6);

(v) CCAMLR’s relationships with non-cooperating non-Contracting Parties (Criterion 6.3.1);

(vi) cooperation with other international organisations (Item 6.4).

10.10 The Scientific Committee agreed that all aspects of the 10 general recommendations (Table 5) made by the PRP, as well as those found in the subitems, should be considered. The Scientific Committee further agreed that three recommendations should be reviewed during the coming intersessional year and that the additional recommendations should be taken up on a longer-term basis. The three recommendations to be considered during this coming year are Items 2.4 (Protected Areas), 3.1 (Status of Living Resources) and 3.2 (Ecosystem Approach).

10.9 The Scientific Committee endorsed the proposal that a way to ensure that critical information reaches the Scientific Committee and its working groups was to invite submission of relevant papers (e.g. VME/benthos, climate change etc.) from non-Member scientists. These papers could be submitted with long lead times, maybe two months prior to the start of a working group meeting. The Chair of the Scientific Committee and the conveners of the working groups could then decide which papers were relevant to its agenda and then distribute appropriate papers. This would not result in additional travel costs or time associated with attending the meeting.

3.14 The Commission supported SCAF’s request that the Secretariat consult informally with Members requiring translation to or from each of the four languages to determine their specific needs and for SCAF to consider the outcomes of the Secretariat’s consultations at its 2010 meeting (Annex 4, paragraph 22).

16.3 The Chair of the Scientific Committee provided a summary of the Committee’s discussion on how to address the highest-priority recommendations of the Performance Review Panel Report (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraphs 10.1 to 10.25). This included establishment of a Science Capacity Fund and an ‘Ad hoc Correspondence Group to Develop Options to Build SC-CAMLR Capacity in Science to Support CCAMLR’ (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraphs 10.22 and 10.23) (see also paragraphs 16.7 to 16.11 below).

16.4 The Chair of SCIC reported the Committee’s deliberations on implementing various Performance Review Report recommendations (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.6). Issues discussed included monitoring, control and surveillance (Annex 5, paragraph 7.2(i)) and market-related measures (Annex 5, paragraph 7.2(ii)). SCIC will continue consideration of such matters, along with any other relevant recommendations arising from the above report that affect the Committee’s work. Regular updates will be provided to the Commission.

16.5 The Acting Chair of SCAF advised the Commission that there were no issues relevant to the Performance Review arising from that Committee’s deliberations.

16.6 The Commission thanked the Scientific Committee for identifying specific issues and deficiencies especially with respect to the constraints on resources available to provide the Commission with high-quality scientific advice on the conduct of CCAMLR fisheries consistent with Article II of the Convention. The Commission endorsed the need to develop the capacity to address the priority issues identified by the Scientific Committee as outlined in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 10.1.

16.7 Norway noted that there was a need for the Commission to make specific suggestions on, and commitments to, addressing the issue of scientific capacity. It welcomed the Scientific Committee proposal to establish a fund to address this issue and to develop the procedures to identify how such a fund should be used. Norway informed the Commission that it would seek to take a lead and that it wished to contribute A$100 000 to the above fund. It encouraged other Members and the fishing industry to also make contributions.

16.8 Noting with appreciation, the generous offer by Norway to provide A$100 000, the Commission established a ‘General Science Capacity Special Fund’ under Financial Regulation 6.2.

16.9 The Fund’s primary purpose is to secure wider participation, not least from young scientists, in the work of the Scientific Committee, to promote burden sharing and build capacity within the Scientific Committee, assisting with the collection, study and exchange of information relating to the marine living resources to which the Convention applies. It will also serve to encourage and promote the conduct of cooperative and collaborative research in order to extend knowledge of the marine living resources of the Antarctic marine ecosystem and in the provision of the best scientific information available to the Commission.

16.10 Recalling the Scientific Committee’s deliberation on the above, the Commission noted that the ‘Ad Hoc Correspondence Group to Develop Options to Build SC-CAMLR Capacity in Science Support to CCAMLR’ would address the objective, rules of operation and administrative mechanisms of the fund, and the criteria whereby funds should be allocated to tasks and projects (SC CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 10.23). The outcomes from this work will be considered by the Scientific Committee and Commission at their 2010 meetings.

16.11 The Commission agreed that there is some urgency in providing for wider scientific capacity development during the 2009/10 intersessional period. Therefore, and as an interim arrangement, applications for financial support from the above Fund should be communicated to the Secretariat. Any requested monies will only be released after consultation with all Commission Members, including consideration of the deliberations of the Scientific Committee’s Ad Hoc Correspondence Group. This interim procedure will be reconsidered at CCAMLR-XXIX along with the outcomes of the Scientific Committee’s work on this subject.

16.12 COLTO commended Norway for its generous contribution to increasing CCAMLR’s science capacity, stating that its membership is committed to collecting and providing CCAMLR with high-quality fisheries data, to ensure the sustainable management of Antarctic fisheries. COLTO further stated that as legal commercial fishers, it has a vested interest to ensure CCAMLR has the capacity to analyse those data and report results back to the Commission. COLTO members pledged to contribute A$10 000 towards the General Science Capacity Special Fund.

16.13 The Commission thanked COLTO for its support of the fund.

16.14 New Zealand proposed that funds forfeited from the withdrawal of two New Zealand notifications from new and exploratory fisheries in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 in 2009 be paid into the General Science Capacity Special Fund to give it further momentum. Several Members supported this approach.

16.15 The Commission noted that such forfeited funds create an annual surplus that forms part of the income in next year’s CCAMLR budget and agreed that the financial implications of the diversion of any such funds would need to be considered. Some Members expressed concern and noted that any diversion of such funds from the CCAMLR budget income would need to be balanced by increases in Members’ annual contributions. The Commission referred the matter to SCAF for discussion at its 2010 meeting. It requested the Secretariat to prepare a background paper on the matter.

16.16 The Commission noted that many organisations look to CCAMLR for a lead, not only in having undertaken a Performance Review but how to actively implement its recommendations. It recognised that this is an ongoing and evolving process.

16.17 The UK recalled that there was a minority of Members providing the majority of scientific advice (paragraphs 4.49 to 4.51). It noted the potential approaches to addressing this issue, outlined in CCAMLR-XXVIII/31 and that these should be considered by the Scientific Committee’s Ad Hoc Correspondence Group (paragraph 16.3).

16.18 France noted its concern about the Performance Review Panel’s discussion of the implementation of CCAMLR conservation measures in EEZs within the Convention Area. France recalled that the existence of an EEZ places numerous responsibilities on a coastal State and that there was no inconsistency in the measures implemented by France and CCAMLR conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXVIII/34). France further stated that the notion of an EEZ enables standards to be set more rigorously than in international waters, as exemplified by France’s actions in respect of IUU fishing.

16.19 The European Community stated that it always looked to CCAMLR as an example of how to best address the challenges posed by marine living resources management and conservation, including rational use. It expressed concern at a lack of progress on certain key issues (CCAMLR-XXVIII/28). Therefore, the Community hoped that the response(s) stimulated by the Performance Review Report would engender action on priority issues. Such issues included adoption of a market-related measure in order to improve compliance with CCAMLR conservation measures, development of CEMP, capacity building and the orderly development of the krill fishery. The European Community noted that as part of the orderly development of the krill fishery, it was essential that the data reporting requirements and other measures related to the management of this fishery should be consistent with those of other CCAMLR fisheries.

16.20 Australia thanked Norway for its contribution and made the following statement:

‘This agenda item is an important one for us to reflect on the objectives that bring us together. Like all Members, Australia has a great appreciation of the strength of the bonds in the Antarctic Treaty System, in science, operations and in the common objective of achieving the conservation, including rational utilisation, of the region. These bonds are a strength of our system.

Ten years ago, CCAMLR was set to embark on the greatest collaborative research effort in its history, the CCAMLR-2000 Survey of krill biomass in the southwest Atlantic, the B0 survey that was used to set catch limits in the area. This was a great initiative to further enhance its precautionary approach.

But, at the same time, CCAMLR was being brought to its knees by IUU fishing. CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty System more broadly, forged a path, together, to ensure that IUU fishing was not a destructive force in the region. CCAMLR is a barometer of the strength of the Treaty System. It has long been regarded that if CCAMLR fails to meet its objectives, then the Antarctic Treaty System as whole would be failing.

IUU fishing is changing its face, using gillnets and other strategies to avoid detection. We need to be vigilant to ensure that activities in the CCAMLR area do not erode the capacity of CCAMLR to achieve its objectives. We need to increasingly take steps to remove IUU vessels and activities from the global seas and to penalise those activities. We need to control their activities at sea, in port and in the markets. CCAMLR has led the way in doing this. But the fight is not over.

Australia is committed to CCAMLR and to implementing the key recommendations of the Performance Review. We have invested millions of dollars in providing on-the-water patrols in CCAMLR waters beyond national jurisdiction. We have undertaken surveys and research efforts to support CCAMLR on BANZARE Bank and in eastern Antarctica. We are about to undertake two weeks of research in Subarea 58.4 using our research and resupply vessel, Aurora Australis, to provide data to underpin discussions on the management of bottom fisheries in CCAMLR.

Australia reminds all Members of CCAMLR’s roots in the Antarctic Treaty System and that our primary objective is conservation including rationale use. It is in the best interest of all Members around the table to work productively together to achieve this.’

16.21 China recalled paragraph 16.1 of the report of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII) noting that the mutual understanding and cooperation were of primary importance to the Commission. It was therefore essential to provide for equality of involvement and influence in all parts of the Commission, particularly from Members for which English was not their first language.

16.22 The Commission agreed that, given the importance of the issues being addressed by CCAMLR debates, these might at times be complex and difficult. However, the Convention’s objectives should not be neglected and the equality of expression and involvement by all Members should be promoted and preserved.

16.23 The Commission noted the Secretariat-prepared information pack (CCAMLR-XXVIII/BG/16), and the covering note prepared by Australia (as Depositary) (CCAMLR-XXVIII/BG/38) in response to the Commission’s request last year (CCAMLR-XXVII, paragraphs 17.14 and 17.15). These highlighted connections between the CAMLR Convention and the Antarctic Treaty. They also outlined obligations arising from such connections, along with other information, to be provided to States wishing to accede to the Convention, as well as to Acceding States wishing to become Members of the Commission. The Commission agreed that the Secretariat should liaise with Australia to ensure consistency and remove duplication in these documents.

16.24 The Commission requested the Secretariat to provide a progress report on the Performance Review Report. This should list papers and activities, as well as actions taken by the Commission, to address issues arising from the report and should be delivered sufficiently ahead of CCAMLR-XXIX to provide guidance to Members in developing future meeting documents.

16.25 ASOC presented CCAMLR-XXVIII/BG/29 urging the Commission to create an effective mechanism to ensure that the actions arising from the Performance Review Panel are maintained, noting the challenge of turning the Panel’s recommendations into policy and monitoring their progress to determine whether actual changes are being achieved.

16.4 The Chair of SCIC reported the Committee’s deliberations on implementing various Performance Review Report recommendations (Annex 5, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.6). Issues discussed included monitoring, control and surveillance (Annex 5, paragraph 7.2(i)) and market-related measures (Annex 5, paragraph 7.2(ii)). SCIC will continue consideration of such matters, along with any other relevant recommendations arising from the above report that affect the Committee’s work. Regular updates will be provided to the Commission.

16.5 The Acting Chair of SCAF advised the Commission that there were no issues relevant to the Performance Review arising from that Committee’s deliberations.

16.7 Norway noted that there was a need for the Commission to make specific suggestions on, and commitments to, addressing the issue of scientific capacity. It welcomed the Scientific Committee proposal to establish a fund to address this issue and to develop the procedures to identify how such a fund should be used. Norway informed the Commission that it would seek to take a lead and that it wished to contribute A$100 000 to the above fund. It encouraged other Members and the fishing industry to also make contributions.

16.8 Noting with appreciation, the generous offer by Norway to provide A$100 000, the Commission established a ‘General Science Capacity Special Fund’ under Financial Regulation 6.2.

16.9 The Fund’s primary purpose is to secure wider participation, not least from young scientists, in the work of the Scientific Committee, to promote burden sharing and build capacity within the Scientific Committee, assisting with the collection, study and exchange of information relating to the marine living resources to which the Convention applies. It will also serve to encourage and promote the conduct of cooperative and collaborative research in order to extend knowledge of the marine living resources of the Antarctic marine ecosystem and in the provision of the best scientific information available to the Commission.

16.10 Recalling the Scientific Committee’s deliberation on the above, the Commission noted that the ‘Ad Hoc Correspondence Group to Develop Options to Build SC-CAMLR Capacity in Science Support to CCAMLR’ would address the objective, rules of operation and administrative mechanisms of the fund, and the criteria whereby funds should be allocated to tasks and projects (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 10.23). The outcomes from this work will be considered by the Scientific Committee and Commission at their 2010 meetings.

16.11 The Commission agreed that there is some urgency in providing for wider scientific capacity development during the 2009/10 intersessional period. Therefore, and as an interim arrangement, applications for financial support from the above Fund should be communicated to the Secretariat. Any requested monies will only be released after consultation with all Commission Members, including consideration of the deliberations of the Scientific Committee’s Ad Hoc Correspondence Group. This interim procedure will be reconsidered at CCAMLR-XXIX along with the outcomes of the Scientific Committee’s work on this subject.

16.12 COLTO commended Norway for its generous contribution to increasing CCAMLR’s science capacity, stating that its membership is committed to collecting and providing CCAMLR with high-quality fisheries data, to ensure the sustainable management of Antarctic fisheries. COLTO further stated that as legal commercial fishers, it has a vested interest to ensure CCAMLR has the capacity to analyse those data and report results back to the Commission. COLTO members pledged to contribute A$10 000 towards the General Science Capacity Special Fund.

16.13 The Commission thanked COLTO for its support of the fund.

16.17 The UK recalled that there was a minority of Members providing the majority of scientific advice (paragraphs 4.49 to 4.51). It noted the potential approaches to addressing this issue, outlined in CCAMLR-XXVIII/31 and that these should be considered by the Scientific Committee’s Ad Hoc Correspondence Group (paragraph 16.3). 21

16.8 Noting with appreciation, the generous offer by Norway to provide A$100 000, the Commission established a ‘General Science Capacity Special Fund’ under Financial Regulation 6.2.

16.12 COLTO commended Norway for its generous contribution to increasing CCAMLR’s science capacity, stating that its membership is committed to collecting and providing CCAMLR with high-quality fisheries data, to ensure the sustainable management of Antarctic fisheries. COLTO further stated that as legal commercial fishers, it has a vested interest to ensure CCAMLR has the capacity to analyse those data and report results back to the Commission. COLTO members pledged to contribute A$10 000 towards the General Science Capacity Special Fund.

16.18 France noted its concern about the Performance Review Panel’s discussion of the implementation of CCAMLR conservation measures in EEZs within the Convention Area. France recalled that the existence of an EEZ places numerous responsibilities on a coastal State and that there was no inconsistency in the measures implemented by France and CCAMLR conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXVIII/34). France further stated that the notion of an EEZ enables standards to be set more rigorously than in international waters, as exemplified by France’s actions in respect of IUU fishing.

16.19 The European Community stated that it always looked to CCAMLR as an example of how to best address the challenges posed by marine living resources management and conservation, including rational use. It expressed concern at a lack of progress on certain key issues (CCAMLR-XXVIII/28). Therefore, the Community hoped that the response(s) stimulated by the Performance Review Report would engender action on priority issues. Such issues included adoption of a market-related measure in order to improve compliance with CCAMLR conservation measures, development of CEMP, capacity building and the orderly development of the krill fishery. The European Community noted that as part of the orderly development of the krill fishery, it was essential that the data reporting requirements and other measures related to the management of this fishery should be consistent with those of other CCAMLR fisheries.

16.20 Australia thanked Norway for its contribution and made the following statement:

‘This agenda item is an important one for us to reflect on the objectives that bring us together. Like all Members, Australia has a great appreciation of the strength of the bonds in the Antarctic Treaty System, in science, operations and in the common objective of achieving the conservation, including rational utilisation, of the region. These bonds are a strength of our system.

Ten years ago, CCAMLR was set to embark on the greatest collaborative research effort in its history, the CCAMLR-2000 Survey of krill biomass in the southwest Atlantic, the B0 survey that was used to set catch limits in the area. This was a great initiative to further enhance its precautionary approach.

But, at the same time, CCAMLR was being brought to its knees by IUU fishing. CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty System more broadly, forged a path, together, to ensure that IUU fishing was not a destructive force in the region. CCAMLR is a barometer of the strength of the Treaty System. It has long been regarded that if CCAMLR fails to meet its objectives, then the Antarctic Treaty System as whole would be failing.

IUU fishing is changing its face, using gillnets and other strategies to avoid detection. We need to be vigilant to ensure that activities in the CCAMLR area do not erode the capacity of CCAMLR to achieve its objectives. We need to increasingly take steps to remove IUU vessels and activities from the global seas and to penalise those activities. We need to control their activities at sea, in port and in the markets. CCAMLR has led the way in doing this. But the fight is not over.

Australia is committed to CCAMLR and to implementing the key recommendations of the Performance Review. We have invested millions of dollars in providing on-the-water patrols in CCAMLR waters beyond national jurisdiction. We have undertaken surveys and research efforts to support CCAMLR on BANZARE Bank and in eastern Antarctica. We are about to undertake two weeks of research in Subarea 58.4 using our research and resupply vessel, Aurora Australis, to provide data to underpin discussions on the management of bottom fisheries in CCAMLR.

Australia reminds all Members of CCAMLR’s roots in the Antarctic Treaty System and that our primary objective is conservation including rationale use. It is in the best interest of all Members around the table to work productively together to achieve this.’

16.21 China recalled paragraph 16.1 of the report of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII) noting that the mutual understanding and cooperation were of primary importance to the Commission. It was therefore essential to provide for equality of involvement and influence in all parts of the Commission, particularly from Members for which English was not their first language.

12. SCAF noted the incumbent Executive Secretary’s specific suggestions made in CCAMLR-XXVIII/8, namely: (i) Some of the Communication Officer’s more routine tasks could be delegated to the Publications Officer (formerly the Publication and Website Assistant). The Communications Officer should also liaise directly with the incoming Executive Secretary on a number of CCAMLR activities.

(ii) A part-time Publications and Website Assistant could be appointed to assume the former Publications and Website assistant’s more routine tasks.

(iii) The Data Administration Officer could be provided with a part-time understudy to assist her in the execution of her current tasks, as well as provide the necessary expertise to ensure the succession of functions in the future.

(iv) The WISO should be encouraged to complete all currently outstanding tasks prior to leaving the Secretariat. Recruitment of a replacement should focus on a candidate with the necessary technical skills with induction developing essential workplace and organisational competencies.

13. SCAF advised that these suggestions should be provided to the new Executive Secretary for future consideration, recognising that any recommendations with budgetary implications will need to be referred to SCAF.

20. Therefore, SCAF noted the various suggestions provided in the above paper as well as other ideas for reducing the cost of translations. These included:

• limiting the number of document pages;

• reducing the number of documents;

• reducing bottlenecks in available time for translation by setting earlier paper submission deadlines;

• limiting translation of working papers to specific sections such as the abstract, summary, conclusions and recommendations etc.;

• condensing translated reports to salient points only;

• utilising computerised translation support (CCAMLR-XXVIII/10 Rev. 1, paragraph 41);

• requiring authors to indicate which sections of submitted papers they wished translated;

• using only English as a medium for certain categories of papers that are not currently translated.

21. SCAF stressed that all possible options for reducing translation requirements should be investigated before any proposal for additional translation staff be considered. It also recognised the need for language parity across all four of the official CCAMLR languages while acknowledging the highly specialised nature of some reports.

22. SCAF therefore agreed that a ‘blanket’ approach to translation needs was not appropriate. SCAF reiterated its request from the 2008 SCAF meeting to the Secretariat to consult informally with Members requiring translation to or from each of the four languages to determine their specific needs. In addition, potentially specialised needs of the CCAMLR scientific community and individual authors should be taken into consideration. SCAF also requested the Secretariat to come up with concrete proposals for how to reduce the amount of translation required. The outcomes of these requests will be considered at SCAF’s 2010 meeting.

(i) Monitoring Control and Surveillance (PRP Report, paragraph 4.3), especially formally linking the CDS with daily catch reports (PRP Report, paragraph 4.3.1(1)) and real-time C-VMS reporting (PRP Report, paragraph 4.3.1(2)):

(a) SCIC adopted a proposal to implement daily catch reporting in several CCAMLR exploratory fisheries.

(ii) Market-related measures (PRP Report, paragraph 4.6), especially the E-CDS becoming mandatory with immediate effect (PRP Report, paragraph 4.6.1(1)):

(a) SCIC adopted a proposal to amend Conservation Measure 10-05 to adopt the E-CDS format as a mandatory requirement.

¹ Available on the CCAMLR website – archive.ccamlr.org/pu/E/revpanrep.htm.

(ii) Market-related measures (PRP Report, paragraph 4.6), especially the E-CDS becoming mandatory with immediate effect (PRP Report, paragraph 4.6.1(1)):

(a) SCIC adopted a proposal to amend Conservation Measure 10-05 to adopt the E-CDS format as a mandatory requirement.

(a) SCIC endorsed two proposals in support of the Cooperation Enhancement Program for a regional training and capacity-building project in southern Africa in 2010 and the development of key CDS-related training materials and a toothfish identification poster and fact sheet designed to assist non-Contracting Parties.

(a) SCIC noted that in 2009, CCAMLR had invited ACAP, CCSBT, CEP, CITES, CPPS, FAO, FFA, IATTC, ICCAT, IOC, IUCN, IWC, SCAR, SCOR, SEAFO, SPC and WCPFC to attend CCAMLR-XXVIII as observers. CCAMLR had also sent observers to the meetings of ICCAT, NAFO and SEAFO. The CCAMLR Secretariat had also cooperated with the Secretariats of other organisations on an ongoing basis as appropriate.

7.5 In regard to Chapter 8 of the executive summary report of the Performance Review, France drew the attention of SCIC to the paper presented by France relating to the evaluation of the conformity of French law and practice with CCAMLR conservation measures (CCAMLR-XXVIII/34).

6.7 The Scientific Committee noted that with respect to the training of observers, experience in domestic fisheries and initial supervision by more experienced observers (Annex 9, paragraph 4.5(x)), although highly desirable, was not always possible. The Scientific Committee urged that such training of observers occur wherever possible.

6.8 The Scientific Committee recommended that the development of standards for all participants in the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation via an accreditation scheme should be pursued as a core component of the work plan of ad hoc TASO (Annex 9, paragraph 5.2).

6.9 The Scientific Committee thanked the Co-conveners of ad hoc TASO for preparing SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/BG/9 on the development and implementation of an accreditation framework for participation in the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation.

6.10 The Scientific Committee noted that the further development of an accreditation framework for participation in the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation should consider:

(i) the timing of the submission of documents in support of accreditation so as to ensure Members are able to maintain flexibility in rapid training and deployment of observers;

(ii) an initial focus on accreditation of programs rather than individuals;

(iii) an initial focus on the development of baseline requirements to accredit programs.

6.11 The Scientific Committee recommended that the development of baseline requirements to accredit observer programs be undertaken by ad hoc TASO and reported back to the Scientific Committee in 2010. On this basis, and subject to the adoption of the baseline requirements to accredit programs in 2010, ad hoc TASO would be tasked with reviewing observer programs against the baseline requirements in 2011, with a view to the Scientific Committee providing detailed advice on this matter to the Commission in 2011.

6.12 The Scientific Committee urged all Members to ensure that their technical coordinators provide the Secretariat with the detailed information required to achieve the work identified in paragraph 6.11 by May 2010 at the latest.

9.3 The Scientific Committee recalled the terms of reference of the Joint Workshop (contained in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/6) and noted that the discussions were focused on the following six topics:

• key objectives, priorities and challenges for the CEP and SC-CAMLR

• climate change and the Antarctic marine environment

• biodiversity and non-native species in the Antarctic marine environment

• Antarctic species requiring special protection

• spatial marine management and protected areas

• ecosystem and environmental monitoring.

9.4 As a first meeting between the two committees, Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop had been most successful in achieving its objectives. Dr Gilbert summarised the following outcomes from the discussions:

(i) on climate change, the Joint Workshop recognised the significance of a changing Antarctic climate to the respective management interests of the two committees and made several recommendations with regard to ongoing cooperation on the matter. In this regard, the CEP Observer drew the Scientific Committee’s attention to the ATME on Climate Change planned to be held in Norway (6 to 9 April 2010) (ATCM Decision 1 (2009) refers), and suggested that SC-CAMLR may wish to give consideration as to its involvement in that Meeting of Experts;

(ii) on non-native species, the Joint Workshop had recommended that the CEP take the lead on the matter keeping the Scientific Committee informed of progress;

(iii) on species requiring special protection, the Joint Workshop recognised the common interest of the two committees in the conservation status of seals, penguins and seabirds south of 60°S termed ‘overlap species’ by the Joint Workshop. The Joint Workshop made a number of observations and recommendations on the importance of sharing data and information on the status and trends of such overlap species as well as on management actions that may be taken by the respective bodies;

(iv) on spatial marine management, the Joint Workshop recommended that the Scientific Committee would generally take the lead in addressing the issue with the CEP continuing to examine options for using protected and managed area provisions of the Environmental Protocol as appropriate. Dr Gilbert noted in this regard that on the recommendation of the Joint Workshop, the CEP had considered, and subsequently endorsed, the 11 priority marine areas of the Southern Ocean that had been identified by the Scientific Committee as being worthy of primary attention for spatial management action;

(v) on ecosystem monitoring, the Joint Workshop had recognised the need for further cooperation to ensure monitoring effort is harmonised to the extent possible and that this matter might form the basis of a future joint meeting between the two committees.

9.5 Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop report had been considered by the CEP at its 12th meeting and that the CEP had welcomed the report, endorsed the recommendations and commended the report to the Scientific Committee. In doing so, the CEP had stressed the importance of maintaining momentum on the issues identified by the Joint Workshop.

9.6 As Convener of WG-EMM, Dr Watters thanked the CEP Observer for introducing the Joint Workshop report and noted that WG-EMM had also considered the report and endorsed the recommendations it contained. With reference to the ATME on Climate Change (paragraph 9.4(i)), Dr Watters suggested that improved ways need to be found for coordinating intersessional meetings between CCAMLR and the ATCM in order to facilitate attendance at those meetings.

9.7 The Scientific Committee thanked those involved in organising what was a very successful and productive workshop and agreed that recommendations from the workshop be considered by the Scientific Committee under the relevant agenda items and that consideration also be given to ensuring that momentum is maintained in cooperating with the CEP, including the consideration of when future meetings might occur.

9.8 The Scientific Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Joint SC-CAMLR–CEP Workshop report.

9.9 The Scientific Committee recommended that the Chairs of the respective committees should liaise during the intersessional period in order to consider and suggest to their respective committees:

• options for making progress on the various recommendations from the Joint Workshop;

• options for further joint meetings and workshops, and possible timing of such meetings;

• how to improve coordination on other intersessional meetings and workshops that may be of common interest;

• in doing so, take into account the recommendations from the CCAMLR Performance Review Panel on how to improve coordination with the Antarctic Treaty System.

CEP

9.10 Dr Gilbert drew the Scientific Committee’s attention to SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/BG/16 that contained the CEP’s annual report to the Scientific Committee. Dr Gilbert noted that the report had been shortened this year to focus only on the topics of common interest that had been recommended by the Joint Workshop.

9.11 The Scientific Committee thanked the CEP Observer for the annual CEP report and agreed that its format provided a useful means for exchanging information on the topics of common interest.

9.4 As a first meeting between the two committees, Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop had been most successful in achieving its objectives. Dr Gilbert summarised the following outcomes from the discussions:

(i) on climate change, the Joint Workshop recognised the significance of a changing Antarctic climate to the respective management interests of the two committees and made several recommendations with regard to ongoing cooperation on the matter. In this regard, the CEP Observer drew the Scientific Committee’s attention to the ATME on Climate Change planned to be held in Norway (6 to 9 April 2010) (ATCM Decision 1 (2009) refers), and suggested that SC-CAMLR may wish to give consideration as to its involvement in that Meeting of Experts;

(ii) on non-native species, the Joint Workshop had recommended that the CEP take the lead on the matter keeping the Scientific Committee informed of progress;

(iii) on species requiring special protection, the Joint Workshop recognised the common interest of the two committees in the conservation status of seals, penguins and seabirds south of 60°S termed ‘overlap species’ by the Joint Workshop. The Joint Workshop made a number of observations and recommendations on the importance of sharing data and information on the status and trends of such overlap species as well as on management actions that may be taken by the respective bodies;

(iv) on spatial marine management, the Joint Workshop recommended that the Scientific Committee would generally take the lead in addressing the issue with the CEP continuing to examine options for using protected and managed area provisions of the Environmental Protocol as appropriate. Dr Gilbert noted in this regard that on the recommendation of the Joint Workshop, the CEP had considered, and subsequently endorsed, the 11 priority marine areas of the Southern Ocean that had been identified by the Scientific Committee as being worthy of primary attention for spatial management action;

(v) on ecosystem monitoring, the Joint Workshop had recognised the need for further cooperation to ensure monitoring effort is harmonised to the extent possible and that this matter might form the basis of a future joint meeting between the two committees.

9.5 Dr Gilbert noted that the Joint Workshop report had been considered by the CEP at its 12th meeting and that the CEP had welcomed the report, endorsed the recommendations and commended the report to the Scientific Committee. In doing so, the CEP had stressed the importance of maintaining momentum on the issues identified by the Joint Workshop.

9.6 As Convener of WG-EMM, Dr Watters thanked the CEP Observer for introducing the Joint Workshop report and noted that WG-EMM had also considered the report and endorsed the recommendations it contained. With reference to the ATME on Climate Change (paragraph 9.4(i)), Dr Watters suggested that improved ways need to be found for coordinating intersessional meetings between CCAMLR and the ATCM in order to facilitate attendance at those meetings.

9.7 The Scientific Committee thanked those involved in organising what was a very successful and productive workshop and agreed that recommendations from the workshop be considered by the Scientific Committee under the relevant agenda items and that consideration also be given to ensuring that momentum is maintained in cooperating with the CEP, including the consideration of when future meetings might occur.

9.8 The Scientific Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Joint SC-CAMLR–CEP Workshop report.

9.9 The Scientific Committee recommended that the Chairs of the respective committees should liaise during the intersessional period in order to consider and suggest to their respective committees:

• options for making progress on the various recommendations from the Joint Workshop;

• options for further joint meetings and workshops, and possible timing of such meetings;

• how to improve coordination on other intersessional meetings and workshops that may be of common interest;

• in doing so, take into account the recommendations from the CCAMLR Performance Review Panel on how to improve coordination with the Antarctic Treaty System.

(i) spatial management and area protection;

(ii) monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species;

(iii) integration of status and trend data into management;

(iv) management requirements for CCAMLR fisheries categories, as well as for the transition between categories;

(v) requirements for the orderly development of the krill fishery.

10.6 In respect of item (i), the Scientific Committee agreed that all recommendations relating to MPAs were being adequately addressed in its work program on MPAs (paragraphs 3.14 to 3.33).

(i) spatial management and area protection;

(ii) monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species;

(iii) integration of status and trend data into management;

(iv) management requirements for CCAMLR fisheries categories, as well as for the transition between categories;

(v) requirements for the orderly development of the krill fishery.

10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:

(i) how CEMP may be expanded to satisfy the needs of feedback management of the fisheries;

(ii) developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, undertaking coordinated activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs;

(iii) given the ecosystem modelling being developed in support of CCAMLR, developing recovery targets and recovery plans for depleted stocks using available tools;

(iv) monitoring and assessments of depleted stocks, including non-target species. It is recommended that a risk assessment be undertaken for depleted stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks;

(v) how such a risk assessment of the impacts of fishing may be undertaken and how a long-term program for monitoring status might be developed;

(vi) a review being undertaken to identify whether the Scientific Committee has the facilities and mechanisms to provide advice to initiate actions on emerging issues before problems arise.

(i) spatial management and area protection;

(ii) monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species;

(iii) integration of status and trend data into management;

(iv) management requirements for CCAMLR fisheries categories, as well as for the transition between categories;

(v) requirements for the orderly development of the krill fishery.

10.6 In respect of item (i), the Scientific Committee agreed that all recommendations relating to MPAs were being adequately addressed in its work program on MPAs (paragraphs 3.14 to 3.33).

10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:

(i) how CEMP may be expanded to satisfy the needs of feedback management of the fisheries;

(ii) developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, undertaking coordinated activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs;

(iii) given the ecosystem modelling being developed in support of CCAMLR, developing recovery targets and recovery plans for depleted stocks using available tools;

(iv) monitoring and assessments of depleted stocks, including non-target species. It is recommended that a risk assessment be undertaken for depleted stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks;

(v) how such a risk assessment of the impacts of fishing may be undertaken and how a long-term program for monitoring status might be developed;

(vi) a review being undertaken to identify whether the Scientific Committee has the facilities and mechanisms to provide advice to initiate actions on emerging issues before problems arise.

10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM:

Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA):

Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.

Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):

(i) develop candidate feedback management systems for the krill fishery;

(ii) advise on what development of the CEMP system will be required to satisfy the needs of each feedback management candidate;

(iii) advise on the most appropriate system to practically develop, and mechanisms to support it.

Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):

(i) develop a list of species which appear to be depleted;

(ii) identify factors that may have contributed to their current status, including changes to ecosystem dynamics and productivity, through observation, analysis of historical data and modelling;

(iii) develop a risk assessment of these stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks and will not inhibit their recovery.

10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM:

Task 4 (WG-SAM):

Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR.

10.10 In respect of CCAMLR fishery categories, the Scientific Committee agreed that this was primarily a matter for the Commission, but considered that the Commission’s debate could be informed by some advice from the Scientific Committee. Accordingly, it defined the following task:

Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA):

Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II.

(i) spatial management and area protection;

(ii) monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species;

(iii) integration of status and trend data into management;

(iv) management requirements for CCAMLR fisheries categories, as well as for the transition between categories;

(v) requirements for the orderly development of the krill fishery.

10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:

(i) how CEMP may be expanded to satisfy the needs of feedback management of the fisheries;

(ii) developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, undertaking coordinated activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs;

(iii) given the ecosystem modelling being developed in support of CCAMLR, developing recovery targets and recovery plans for depleted stocks using available tools;

(iv) monitoring and assessments of depleted stocks, including non-target species. It is recommended that a risk assessment be undertaken for depleted stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks;

(v) how such a risk assessment of the impacts of fishing may be undertaken and how a long-term program for monitoring status might be developed;

(vi) a review being undertaken to identify whether the Scientific Committee has the facilities and mechanisms to provide advice to initiate actions on emerging issues before problems arise.

10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM:

Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA):

Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.

Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):

(i) develop candidate feedback management systems for the krill fishery;

(ii) advise on what development of the CEMP system will be required to satisfy the needs of each feedback management candidate;

(iii) advise on the most appropriate system to practically develop, and mechanisms to support it.

Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):

(i) develop a list of species which appear to be depleted;

(ii) identify factors that may have contributed to their current status, including changes to ecosystem dynamics and productivity, through observation, analysis of historical data and modelling;

(iii) develop a risk assessment of these stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks and will not inhibit their recovery.

(i) spatial management and area protection;

(ii) monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species;

(iii) integration of status and trend data into management;

(iv) management requirements for CCAMLR fisheries categories, as well as for the transition between categories;

(v) requirements for the orderly development of the krill fishery.

10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:

(i) how CEMP may be expanded to satisfy the needs of feedback management of the fisheries;

(ii) developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, undertaking coordinated activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs;

(iii) given the ecosystem modelling being developed in support of CCAMLR, developing recovery targets and recovery plans for depleted stocks using available tools;

(iv) monitoring and assessments of depleted stocks, including non-target species. It is recommended that a risk assessment be undertaken for depleted stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks;

(v) how such a risk assessment of the impacts of fishing may be undertaken and how a long-term program for monitoring status might be developed;

(vi) a review being undertaken to identify whether the Scientific Committee has the facilities and mechanisms to provide advice to initiate actions on emerging issues before problems arise.

10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM:

Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA):

Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.

Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):

(i) develop candidate feedback management systems for the krill fishery;

(ii) advise on what development of the CEMP system will be required to satisfy the needs of each feedback management candidate;

(iii) advise on the most appropriate system to practically develop, and mechanisms to support it.

Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):

(i) develop a list of species which appear to be depleted;

(ii) identify factors that may have contributed to their current status, including changes to ecosystem dynamics and productivity, through observation, analysis of historical data and modelling;

(iii) develop a risk assessment of these stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks and will not inhibit their recovery.

10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM:

Task 4 (WG-SAM):

Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR.

(i) spatial management and area protection;

(ii) monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species;

(iii) integration of status and trend data into management;

(iv) management requirements for CCAMLR fisheries categories, as well as for the transition between categories;

(v) requirements for the orderly development of the krill fishery.

10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:

(i) how CEMP may be expanded to satisfy the needs of feedback management of the fisheries;

(ii) developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, undertaking coordinated activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs;

(iii) given the ecosystem modelling being developed in support of CCAMLR, developing recovery targets and recovery plans for depleted stocks using available tools;

(iv) monitoring and assessments of depleted stocks, including non-target species. It is recommended that a risk assessment be undertaken for depleted stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks;

(v) how such a risk assessment of the impacts of fishing may be undertaken and how a long-term program for monitoring status might be developed;

(vi) a review being undertaken to identify whether the Scientific Committee has the facilities and mechanisms to provide advice to initiate actions on emerging issues before problems arise.

10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM:

Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA):

Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.

Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):

(i) develop candidate feedback management systems for the krill fishery;

(ii) advise on what development of the CEMP system will be required to satisfy the needs of each feedback management candidate;

(iii) advise on the most appropriate system to practically develop, and mechanisms to support it.

Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):

(i) develop a list of species which appear to be depleted;

(ii) identify factors that may have contributed to their current status, including changes to ecosystem dynamics and productivity, through observation, analysis of historical data and modelling;

(iii) develop a risk assessment of these stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks and will not inhibit their recovery.

10.11 In respect of the orderly development of the krill fishery, the Scientific Committee noted that the recommendations of the PRP are consistent with the work plan of the Scientific Committee. Although some of the recommendations are not currently implemented by CCAMLR – for instance, data reporting requirements from the krill fishery, feedback management strategies, and an increased frequency of fishery-independent surveys – all recommendations of the PRP are currently being considered by WG-EMM, or will be satisfied in the execution of Task 2 above.

(i) spatial management and area protection;

(ii) monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species;

(iii) integration of status and trend data into management;

(iv) management requirements for CCAMLR fisheries categories, as well as for the transition between categories;

(v) requirements for the orderly development of the krill fishery.

10.7 In respect of monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species, the Scientific Committee agreed that consideration should be given to:

(i) how CEMP may be expanded to satisfy the needs of feedback management of the fisheries;

(ii) developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, undertaking coordinated activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs;

(iii) given the ecosystem modelling being developed in support of CCAMLR, developing recovery targets and recovery plans for depleted stocks using available tools;

(iv) monitoring and assessments of depleted stocks, including non-target species. It is recommended that a risk assessment be undertaken for depleted stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks;

(v) how such a risk assessment of the impacts of fishing may be undertaken and how a long-term program for monitoring status might be developed;

(vi) a review being undertaken to identify whether the Scientific Committee has the facilities and mechanisms to provide advice to initiate actions on emerging issues before problems arise.

10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM:

Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA):

Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.

Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):

(i) develop candidate feedback management systems for the krill fishery;

(ii) advise on what development of the CEMP system will be required to satisfy the needs of each feedback management candidate;

(iii) advise on the most appropriate system to practically develop, and mechanisms to support it.

Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):

(i) develop a list of species which appear to be depleted;

(ii) identify factors that may have contributed to their current status, including changes to ecosystem dynamics and productivity, through observation, analysis of historical data and modelling;

(iii) develop a risk assessment of these stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks and will not inhibit their recovery.

10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM:

Task 4 (WG-SAM):

Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR.

10.10 In respect of CCAMLR fishery categories, the Scientific Committee agreed that this was primarily a matter for the Commission, but considered that the Commission’s debate could be informed by some advice from the Scientific Committee. Accordingly, it defined the following task:

Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA):

Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II.

(i) spatial management and area protection;

(ii) monitoring of the status and trends of harvested, dependent and related species;

(iii) integration of status and trend data into management;

(iv) management requirements for CCAMLR fisheries categories, as well as for the transition between categories;

(v) requirements for the orderly development of the krill fishery.

10.10 In respect of CCAMLR fishery categories, the Scientific Committee agreed that this was primarily a matter for the Commission, but considered that the Commission’s debate could be informed by some advice from the Scientific Committee. Accordingly, it defined the following task:

Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA):

Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II.

10.11 In respect of the orderly development of the krill fishery, the Scientific Committee noted that the recommendations of the PRP are consistent with the work plan of the Scientific Committee. Although some of the recommendations are not currently implemented by CCAMLR – for instance, data reporting requirements from the krill fishery, feedback management strategies, and an increased frequency of fishery-independent surveys – all recommendations of the PRP are currently being considered by WG-EMM, or will be satisfied in the execution of Task 2 above.

(i) how CEMP may be expanded to satisfy the needs of feedback management of the fisheries;

(ii) developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, undertaking coordinated activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs;

(iii) given the ecosystem modelling being developed in support of CCAMLR, developing recovery targets and recovery plans for depleted stocks using available tools;

(iv) monitoring and assessments of depleted stocks, including non-target species. It is recommended that a risk assessment be undertaken for depleted stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks;

(v) how such a risk assessment of the impacts of fishing may be undertaken and how a long-term program for monitoring status might be developed;

(vi) a review being undertaken to identify whether the Scientific Committee has the facilities and mechanisms to provide advice to initiate actions on emerging issues before problems arise.

10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM:

Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA):

Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.

Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):

(i) develop candidate feedback management systems for the krill fishery;

(ii) advise on what development of the CEMP system will be required to satisfy the needs of each feedback management candidate;

(iii) advise on the most appropriate system to practically develop, and mechanisms to support it.

Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):

(i) develop a list of species which appear to be depleted;

(ii) identify factors that may have contributed to their current status, including changes to ecosystem dynamics and productivity, through observation, analysis of historical data and modelling;

(iii) develop a risk assessment of these stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks and will not inhibit their recovery.

(i) how CEMP may be expanded to satisfy the needs of feedback management of the fisheries;

(ii) developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, undertaking coordinated activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs;

(iii) given the ecosystem modelling being developed in support of CCAMLR, developing recovery targets and recovery plans for depleted stocks using available tools;

(iv) monitoring and assessments of depleted stocks, including non-target species. It is recommended that a risk assessment be undertaken for depleted stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks;

(v) how such a risk assessment of the impacts of fishing may be undertaken and how a long-term program for monitoring status might be developed;

(vi) a review being undertaken to identify whether the Scientific Committee has the facilities and mechanisms to provide advice to initiate actions on emerging issues before problems arise.

10.8 Accordingly, the Scientific Committee formulated the following tasks for WG-EMM, WG-FSA and WG-SAM:

Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA):

Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.

Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):

(i) develop candidate feedback management systems for the krill fishery;

(ii) advise on what development of the CEMP system will be required to satisfy the needs of each feedback management candidate;

(iii) advise on the most appropriate system to practically develop, and mechanisms to support it.

Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):

(i) develop a list of species which appear to be depleted;

(ii) identify factors that may have contributed to their current status, including changes to ecosystem dynamics and productivity, through observation, analysis of historical data and modelling;

(iii) develop a risk assessment of these stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks and will not inhibit their recovery.

10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM:

Task 4 (WG-SAM):

Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR.

10.10 In respect of CCAMLR fishery categories, the Scientific Committee agreed that this was primarily a matter for the Commission, but considered that the Commission’s debate could be informed by some advice from the Scientific Committee. Accordingly, it defined the following task:

Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA):

Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II.

Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA):

Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.
Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):

(i) develop candidate feedback management systems for the krill fishery;

(ii) advise on what development of the CEMP system will be required to satisfy the needs of each feedback management candidate;

(iii) advise on the most appropriate system to practically develop, and mechanisms to support it.

Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):

(i) develop a list of species which appear to be depleted;

(ii) identify factors that may have contributed to their current status, including changes to ecosystem dynamics and productivity, through observation, analysis of historical data and modelling;

(iii) develop a risk assessment of these stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks and will not inhibit their recovery.

10.9 In relation to the integration of status and trend data into management, the Scientific Committee asked the following question of WG-SAM:

Task 4 (WG-SAM):

Consider how risk-based assessments of status and trends of target and non-target species, habitat and ecosystems could be regularly made and reported to SC-CAMLR.

Task 1 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA):

Identify standard status and trend indicators that could be developed and be of use to SC-CAMLR, including those utilising data from other programs such as SCAR and ACAP.
Task 2 (WG-EMM, WG-SAM and WG-FSA in respect of larval fish by-catch):

(i) develop candidate feedback management systems for the krill fishery;

(ii) advise on what development of the CEMP system will be required to satisfy the needs of each feedback management candidate;

(iii) advise on the most appropriate system to practically develop, and mechanisms to support it.

Task 3 (WG-FSA, WG-EMM and WG-SAM as appropriate):

(i) develop a list of species which appear to be depleted;

(ii) identify factors that may have contributed to their current status, including changes to ecosystem dynamics and productivity, through observation, analysis of historical data and modelling;

(iii) develop a risk assessment of these stocks to ensure that current management practices, including fishing, do not negatively impact on such stocks and will not inhibit their recovery.

10.11 In respect of the orderly development of the krill fishery, the Scientific Committee noted that the recommendations of the PRP are consistent with the work plan of the Scientific Committee. Although some of the recommendations are not currently implemented by CCAMLR – for instance, data reporting requirements from the krill fishery, feedback management strategies, and an increased frequency of fishery-independent surveys – all recommendations of the PRP are currently being considered by WG-EMM, or will be satisfied in the execution of Task 2 above.

Task 5 (WG-EMM and WG-FSA):

Provide advice on whether the current classification and transition system for CCAMLR fisheries compromises the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide advice on, and CCAMLR to manage, fisheries according to the requirements of Article II.

10.13 The Scientific Committee noted the need to continue developing its positive relationship with the CEP, as had occurred at the Joint Workshop in April 2009, which provided a major advance in establishing a joint understanding of how these two bodies might work together in the future. In the work of developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, CCAMLR should coordinate the activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs as appropriate.

10.13 The Scientific Committee noted the need to continue developing its positive relationship with the CEP, as had occurred at the Joint Workshop in April 2009, which provided a major advance in establishing a joint understanding of how these two bodies might work together in the future. In the work of developing indicators for assessing status and trends in different components of the ecosystem, CCAMLR should coordinate the activities with the CEP, SCAR and other international research programs as appropriate.

10.14 Enhanced coordination with ICED, SOOS and Sentinel would also be useful to the Scientific Committee’s work.

(i) identify difficulties that Members may have in contributing to the scientific process;

(ii) identify potential mechanisms to facilitate burden sharing amongst Members;

(iii) building capacity amongst Members to participate in the work of SC-CAMLR.

10.16 One approach that has a precedent in CCAMLR is to establish a Scientific Capacity Fund, payment into which could either be voluntary or pro rata with catches, to be utilised to address Scientific Committee priority science to be undertaken by cross-Member consortia.

10.17 The Scientific Committee further considered the proposals for burden sharing and capacity building in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/12, CCAMLR-XXVIII/31 and BG/29. The key issues to be overcome are presented below:

(i) understanding and communication of the work of SC-CAMLR amongst scientists within SC-CAMLR and its working groups;

(ii) participation by scientists in the work of SC-CAMLR;

(iii) achieving tasks of SC-CAMLR.

10.18 Understanding and communication of the work of SC-CAMLR amongst scientists within SC-CAMLR could be addressed by:

(i) inclusion on the website under Understanding CCAMLR’s Approach to Management of details of the tasks and procedures of the SC-CAMLR working groups and other groups;

(ii) consideration of how to present reports to SC-CAMLR, including:

(a) during its meeting, projecting document numbers and working group report paragraphs pertaining to an agenda item being considered by SC-CAMLR;

(b) mechanisms for presenting concepts/decisions/recommendations during discussions of working group reports.

10.19 Regarding enhanced participation by Member scientists at workshops and working groups, a number of things could be implemented immediately to build capacity:

(i) meeting support, including training in managing meetings and preparing reports

(ii) mentoring (Annex 4, paragraph 8.8)

(iii) co-facilitation of small groups

(iv) co-rapporteuring

(v) tutorials at working group meetings

(vi) more time for small group discussions.

10.20 A number of longer-term capacity building suggestions were also made:

(i) New Zealand has offered to run an intensive training course for users of CASAL and SPM in 2010;

(ii) scholarship schemes (Annex 4, paragraph 8.7);

(iii) sharing/exchange of readers/manuals within the CON, rather than just otoliths;

(iv) exchange of scientists in field programs, analytical and modelling work.

(i) identify difficulties that Members may have in contributing to the scientific process;

(ii) identify potential mechanisms to facilitate burden sharing amongst Members;

(iii) building capacity amongst Members to participate in the work of SC-CAMLR.

10.16 One approach that has a precedent in CCAMLR is to establish a Scientific Capacity Fund, payment into which could either be voluntary or pro rata with catches, to be utilised to address Scientific Committee priority science to be undertaken by cross-Member consortia.

10.17 The Scientific Committee further considered the proposals for burden sharing and capacity building in SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/12, CCAMLR-XXVIII/31 and BG/29. The key issues to be overcome are presented below:

(i) understanding and communication of the work of SC-CAMLR amongst scientists within SC-CAMLR and its working groups;

(ii) participation by scientists in the work of SC-CAMLR;

(iii) achieving tasks of SC-CAMLR.

10.18 Understanding and communication of the work of SC-CAMLR amongst scientists within SC-CAMLR could be addressed by:

(i) inclusion on the website under Understanding CCAMLR’s Approach to Management of details of the tasks and procedures of the SC-CAMLR working groups and other groups;

(ii) consideration of how to present reports to SC-CAMLR, including:

(a) during its meeting, projecting document numbers and working group report paragraphs pertaining to an agenda item being considered by SC-CAMLR;

(b) mechanisms for presenting concepts/decisions/recommendations during discussions of working group reports.

10.19 Regarding enhanced participation by Member scientists at workshops and working groups, a number of things could be implemented immediately to build capacity:

(i) meeting support, including training in managing meetings and preparing reports

(ii) mentoring (Annex 4, paragraph 8.8)

(iii) co-facilitation of small groups

(iv) co-rapporteuring

(v) tutorials at working group meetings

(vi) more time for small group discussions.

10.20 A number of longer-term capacity building suggestions were also made:

(i) New Zealand has offered to run an intensive training course for users of CASAL and SPM in 2010;

(ii) scholarship schemes (Annex 4, paragraph 8.7);

(iii) sharing/exchange of readers/manuals within the CON, rather than just otoliths;

(iv) exchange of scientists in field programs, analytical and modelling work.

10.21 SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/7 included a proposal for a Scientific Capacity Fund, which would contribute to burden sharing and capacity building, and could be used for a variety of purposes, such as those considered in paragraphs 10.19 and 10.20.

10.22 The Scientific Committee endorsed the concept of this fund, and agreed that the mechanism in which contributions are made to such a fund should be discussed by the Commission.

10.23 To take these issues further, the Scientific Committee created an ad hoc correspondence group to develop options to build SC-CAMLR capacity in science to support CCAMLR. It was agreed that this group, which should have a wide membership, would make use of web-based communication systems and two telephone conferences over the forthcoming intersessional period (May and August), and would work to the following terms of reference:

To develop options for consideration by SC-CAMLR on approaches and mechanisms for:

(i) increasing participation in the work of SC-CAMLR working groups and developing an increased awareness and understanding of the work of SC-CAMLR;

(ii) resourcing and delivering scientific activities, including field programs, needed for providing advice by SC-CAMLR to the Commission;

(iii) improving the flow and availability of information in the work of SC-CAMLR and its working groups, including the manner in which information may be presented in meetings;

(iv) the objective, rules of operation and administrative mechanisms of the Scientific Capacity Fund, and the criteria whereby funds should be allocated to tasks and projects;

(v) the proposal for a focus discussion, to be held during the Scientific Committee meeting in 2010, on the intersessional working group timetable and priorities.

Methods of estimating green-weight removals in krill trawl fisheries

3.1 TASO-09/6 provided details of the procedures used by krill vessels in Subarea 48.3 to estimate green weight of krill, this included product-specific conversion factors that were regularly measured on board the vessel, as well as fixed conversion factors supplied by the Flag State. This analysis suggests that, for krill fisheries in Subarea 48.3, the uncertainty in catch arising from uncertainty in the use of conversion factors may not be as large as suggested in WG-EMM-08/46.

3.2 Dr M. Kiyota (Japan) informed the Technical Group that the operator of the Fukuei Maru (formerly the Niitaka Maru) considered that the use of a fixed conversion factor was the most appropriate means of estimating green weight. Estimation of catch from measurements from the fish ponds were problematic because there were three product-specific fish ponds. In one pond, catches were often mixed from consecutive hauls. The fish ponds also often held relatively little krill and access to the fish ponds for the purposes of sampling krill to calculate volume-to-mass conversions may be problematic.

3.3 The Technical Group noted that when green weight of krill was estimated without the use of conversion factors, this was achieved by visual codend mass estimation as well as from measurement of the depth of the krill in the fish pond.

3.4 The Technical Group noted that many vessels estimate the volume of krill in the fish pond and used a scaling factor to produce an estimate of weight of krill. However, no details of such volume-to-mass scaling was available.

3.5 The Technical Group agreed that the current protocol for observers to estimate conversion factors, involving taking a subsample of 500 kg of krill through processing on board a vessel, is unworkable and that a different approach to gaining a better understanding of actual green weight of krill caught is required.

3.6 The UK agreed to implement a trial procedure involving the collection of volume-to-mass data for krill samples from the krill fishery and to report on this to ad hoc TASO and WG-EMM next year.

3.7 The Technical Group suggested that WG-EMM take note of:

(i) the findings of TASO-09/6, noting that further analysis of the implications of using variable and fixed conversion factors should be evaluated;

(ii) the plans for future implementation of an accurate, repeatable volume-to-mass conversion for krill where volumetric measures are used.

Taxonomic resolution of invertebrate by-catch

3.8 Conservation Measure 22-07 requires that longline by-catch be monitored for VME indicator taxa. The 2008/09 fishing season was the first season during which this monitoring was required, and work presented in TASO-09/8 evaluated the ability of observers to record information related to VMEs and classify VME indicator taxa at sea. The evaluation was conducted by comparing classifications made by observers (who were untrained with respect to invertebrate taxonomy) with those made by trained taxonomists. The observers worked on four New Zealand and one South African longliners fishing in the Ross Sea. The observers collected benthic invertebrate by-catch specimens and classified them on the basis of the Benthic Invertebrate Classification Guide. The specimens were returned to New Zealand and subsequently reclassified by taxonomists.

3.9 The results in TASO-09/8 demonstrated that the observers were generally able to provide very good classifications of VME indicator taxa. Misclassifications were largely taxa-specific, and most inaccuracies were due to classifying stylasterids as stony corals. Other inaccuracies included mis-classifications of gorgonians as stony corals, hydroids as gorgonians, and ascidians as sponges. There were also some difficulties classifying organisms that were found attached to other organisms. Regardless of these mis-classifications, over 60% of 708 specimens were correctly classified.

3.10 Despite some mis-classifications, the Technical Group agreed that the results of the work were encouraging because the observers very rarely classified non-VME taxa as VME indicator taxa, and thus there appears to be little risk that ‘false positives’ could cause more VME Risk Areas than should have been.

3.11 The Technical Group noted a number of conclusions from TASO-09/8:
Observer training –

(i) Update the Benthic Invertebrate Classification Guide to include better photos, clearer descriptions of organisms, and more detail to help separate confusing taxa (e.g. stlyasterids and stony corals).

(ii) Use previously collected organisms to provide hands-on identification training and testing opportunities prior to deployment on a fishing trip.

Data recording procedures –

(iii) Record longline segments that do not catch VME indicator taxa as zeros.

(iv) Record the identification of everything retained in aggregate samples.

(v) Record the total weight of animals retained in all sample buckets (and translate  volumetric measurements to kg).

(vi) Use consistent segment numbering when recording data (e.g. do not use number 1 to identify the first sampled segment if data collection is started in middle of a haul).

(vii) If Conservation Measure 22-07 is revised, avoid using the term ‘trigger’ for both the >5 and >10 VME-indicator-unit thresholds.

3.12 The Technical Group thanked New Zealand for conducting the work and agreed it usefully demonstrated that observers can collect significant information on the by-catch of VME taxa and other benthic organisms. It was noted that the new sampling required of Conservation Measure 22-07 (as well as work conducted as part of the Year-of-the-Skate) had caused the observers to collect less biological information on toothfish and other by-catch species (e.g. macrourids). Nevertheless, the new data were considered to be a substantial improvement over that previously held in the CCAMLR database, which have been shown to be of limited use for describing and quantifying by-catch of benthic invertebrates (CCAMLR-XXVII/26).

3.13 The Technical Group recommended that TASO-09/8 and the discussion here be tabled to the VME Workshop and that the workshop should use the information in the paper to re evaluate, among other issues, which invertebrate taxa should be monitored in the future. The Technical Group requested that WG-FSA consider how data on invertebrate by-catch can be used to facilitate precautionary approaches to by-catch mitigation of benthic invertebrates not considered in discussions on conserving VMEs.

Revision of the Scientific Observers Manual

3.14 The Secretariat presented the proposed changes to the Scientific Observers Manual (TASO-09/4). These changes reflect the current advice from the Scientific Committee and its working groups. The revision contains general updates of material which had become out of date, with a track-change version provided in Appendix 1 of the paper. In addition, two proposals were also presented to the Technical Group for its consideration:

(i) a revised method for recording krill feeding observations

(ii) an updated revised fish sampling protocol for krill fisheries.

3.15 The Technical Group thanked the Secretariat for preparing the draft review of the manual.

3.16 The Technical Group noted that the current proposal for the fish sampling protocol would require observers to take a total of six 50 kg samples and keep only one. It was felt that this was unnecessarily time-consuming. The Technical Group proposed an alternative approach, which would be to collect one 50 kg random sample and ask the crew to retain all of the remaining large fish from the haul.

3.17 The Technical Group made the following recommendations for the Scientific Observers Manual:

(i) inclusion of photographic maturity stage guide for toothfish

(ii) add a reference to the Benthic Invertebrate Classification Guide

(iii) include a section of gear identification, as discussed in paragraph 2.25

(iv) include a mechanism to help prioritise the data collection requirements of observers.

3.18 The Technical Group noted that the section in the manual relating to the collection of fish scales for ageing purposes may no longer be needed, and recommended that WG-FSA consider removing this section from the manual.

3.19 The Technical Group also noted that the updates to the Scientific Observers Manual would benefit from review by observers. It therefore recommended that technical coordinators provide the proposed changes to their observers and submit comments to the Secretariat in time for the manual to be updated for WG-FSA (no later than 15 September 2009).

3.20 It was identified that there is a need for specific advice from the working groups on the minimum observer data collection requirements needed for them to carry out their work. The Technical Group proposed that a list of observer priorities be included in the Fishery Reports, and requested WG-FSA and WG-IMAF to consider implementing this over time.

3.21 The Technical Group also recommended that the sections of this report dealing with the revision of the Scientific Observers Manual and other observer matters be circulated to Members for information.

Data collection workloads

3.22 Dr Hanchet presented information on the New Zealand training program and instructions to their international and national observers (TASO-09/9).

3.23 The Technical Group noted that in situations where both national and international observers are on board vessels, it is important that their respective responsibilities are well understood. The primary responsibility of an international observer must be to collect CCAMLR data, while the national observers will often have additional tasks specified by their national program.

3.24 The Technical Group also noted New Zealand’s efforts to streamline and improve the quality of data collected by observers; this included the development of new tools such as waterproof touch-screen laptops, otolith label scanners and an improved VME taxa identification guide (TASO-09/9).

3.25 The Technical Group noted that WG-SAM raised concern over the possible delay in the submission of observer data and its impact on assessments. Two issues that contribute to this and their solutions were discussed:

(i) Observers are sometimes delayed between the end of the trip and their return to their home port. In this case, observer coordinators should examine ways of acquiring observer datasets electronically prior to vessels returning to port. Most vessels now have satellite broadband, which should be capable of transmitting observer datasets which are usually no more than 2–3 Mb in size.

(ii) Technical coordinators may not be submitting data to the Secretariat within the one-month deadline. This matter should be brought to the attention of SCIC, and technical coordinators should be reminded of their responsibilities in adhering to the data submission deadlines.

(i) health and safety, including first-aid and survival-at-sea certification;

(ii) the sampling and data collection procedures specified in the Scientific Observers Manual;

(iii) familiarisation with target and by-catch species in the CAMLR Convention Area;

(iv) the CCAMLR process, data needs and conservation measures;

(v) vessel operations and layout;

(vi) use of sampling equipment;

(vii) use of on-board electronic communications;

(viii) sensitivity to the host vessel culture;

(ix) the observer Code of Conduct, data rules and commercial confidentiality concerns;

(x) experience in domestic fisheries and initial supervision by more experienced observers.

4.10 The Technical Group reiterated that a benchmark for the accreditation of observers must be established (SC-CAMLR-XXVII/BG/6, paragraph 4.6). The Technical Group recommended that the Scientific Committee consider how this should be achieved, which could include:

(i) the creation of a CCAMLR training manual, in addition to the existing Scientific Observers Manual. Such a training manual would include the appropriate options for delivering training as well as exercises that could be used;

(ii) the establishment of a process for all observers to be accredited through assessment via a common testing process (e.g. a standard final exam) and the provision of an individual capability statement.

(i) an open-ended informal group, appointed by SCAF, acting via correspondence in the 2010/11 intersessional period (SCAF-CG), will consider, in consultation with the Executive Secretary, the matters before it. These matters include, inter alia:

(a) undertaking a comprehensive review of the CCAMLR Financial Regulations and, where appropriate, developing draft amendments to the Financial Regulations;

(b) drafting investment principles that are consistent with the Financial Regulations to guide the Secretariat in the management of the existing CCAMLR investment portfolio and the management of future investments giving consideration to the relationship between these principles and the Financial Regulations;

(c) considering the frequency and content of Secretariat communications to Members regarding investments;

(ii) SCAF review a report of these considerations and proposed amendments to the Financial Regulations at CCAMLR-XXX;

(iii) the group be convened by Australia.