Orange Roughy New Zealand

Transcription

Orange Roughy
Hoplostethus atlanticus
Image ©Monterey Bay Aquarium
New Zealand
Bottom Trawl
July 21, 2014
Andy Woolmer and Jess Woo, Consulting Researcher
2
About Seafood Watch®
The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wildcaught and farmed seafood commonly found in the North American marketplace. Seafood Watch
defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can
maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of
affected ecosystems. The program’s mission is to engage and empower consumers and businesses to
purchase environmentally responsible seafood fished or farmed in ways that minimize their impact on
the environment or are in a credible improvement project with the same goal.
Each sustainability recommendation is supported by a seafood report. Each report synthesizes and
analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this
information against the program’s Sustainability Criteria to arrive at a recommendation of “Best
Choice,” “Good Alternative,” or “Avoid.” In producing the seafood reports, Seafood Watch utilizes
research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of
information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting
documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch research analysts
also communicate with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and
conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and
aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood
Watch’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying seafood reports will be updated to reflect
these changes. Both the detailed evaluation methodology and the scientific reports, are available on
seafoodwatch.org.
For more information about Seafood Watch and seafood reports, please contact the Seafood Watch
program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990 or visit online at seafoodwatch.org.
Disclaimer
Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all its seafood reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate
and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer-reviewed for
accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture.
Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its
recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions
reached in this report. The program welcomes additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision.
Seafood Watch and seafood reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation.
3
Guiding Principles
Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished 1 or
farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the
structure or function of affected ecosystems.
The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be
considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stocks are healthy and abundant.
Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any
marine life.
The fishery minimizes bycatch.
The fishery is managed to sustain long-term productivity of all impacted species.
The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the
ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained.
Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished
species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts, or reduction
of genetic diversity.
Based on these guiding principles, Seafood Watch has developed a set of four sustainability
criteria to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation
for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Impacts on the species under assessment
Impacts on other species
Effectiveness of management
Habitat and ecosystem impacts
Each criterion includes:
• Factors to evaluate and score
• Evaluation guidelines to synthesize these factors and to produce a numerical score
• A resulting numerical score and rating for that criterion
Once a score and rating has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood
recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ratings and the
overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood
Watch pocket guide:
1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.
4
Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in ways that cause little harm to
habitats or other wildlife.
Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or
farmed.
Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in
ways that harm other marine life or the environment.
5
Summary
This report assesses the orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) fishery taken by bottom trawl
in the New Zealand exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Criterion 1— Impacts of the fishery on stock
The species has a high vulnerability due to slow growth, long lifespan and time taken to mature
in excess of 20 years, which leaves it susceptible to overfishing. Stocks are currently below
target levels, with many also below limit reference points. Fishing mortality is generally at
appropriate levels, but has not been assessed for some of the depleted stocks.
Criterion 2—Impacts on bycatch and retained species
The principal bycatch species in the orange roughy fishery are black and smooth oreos. Like
orange roughy, these are vulnerable species in terms of their growth rate. The status of many
populations of these species is unknown, but mortality of oreos in the orange roughy fishery is
low (less than 10% of the total allowable catch for these species). Other bycatch species include
black cardinalfish (which is considered a key species and is managed alongside orange roughy,
although present in small quantities as a proportion of the orange roughy catch) and benthic
bycatch (including deepwater corals and sponges). The discard rate is very low, with 94% of the
catch retained. Coral bycatch is the most significant bycatch concern in the fishery, and is
considered a High Concern.
Criterion 3—Effectiveness of fishery management (harvest and bycatch strategies)
The orange roughy fishery is managed under New Zealand's Quota Management System.
Research feeds directly into management measures, and there is good enforcement and
compliance monitoring, along with stakeholder engagement in most aspects of the system. The
long-term effectiveness of the harvest strategy for orange roughy is not currently clear, as the
fishery is adjusting from a "fishing down" period (where surplus biomass is taken and fishing
mortality is high and relatively unchecked) and is now operating at or near maximum
sustainable yield, having initially overshot the management target with most stocks still
recovering from overfishing,. The monitoring of ETP bycatch is good, as are the mitigation
measures in place, and there is ongoing effort into research and evaluation to further the
efficacy of bycatch reduction in the fishery. However, there are ongoing concerns with coral
bycatch and there is some controversy around whether the habitat protection measures in
place effectively protect corals from the fishery.
6
Criterion 4—Impacts on habitat and ecosystem
The orange roughy fishery scored low on this criterion due to its impact on sensitive habitats,
specifically seamounts and associated deep-sea corals. There is, however, some mitigation of
benthic impacts, both in the form of benthic protection areas—which cover 30% of the EEZ—
and the closure of seamounts to bottom trawling under a management strategy, with
compliance monitoring via vessel monitoring systems (VMS). However, the benthic protection
areas do not cover a large percentage of orange roughy habitat, and much of the protected
areas are below fishable depths. More information is needed on ecosystem effects, but there is
research both underway and being planned, which will be incorporated into management of
the fishery.
Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations
Stock / Fishery
Impacts on Impacts on Management Habitat and Overall
the Stock other Spp.
Ecosystem Recommendation
Red (2.16) Red (1.41) Yellow (3.00) Red (1.00) Avoid (1.740)
Orange Roughy
New Zealand: ORH1
Mercury-Colville Southwest
Pacific - Trawl, Bottom
Orange Roughy
Red (2.16) Red (1.41)
New Zealand: ORH1
Northern North Island
Southwest Pacific - Trawl,
Bottom
Orange Roughy
Yellow
Red (1.41)
New Zealand: ORH2A North (3.05)
- East Cape Southwest
Pacific - Trawl, Bottom
Orange Roughy
Yellow
Red (1.41)
New Zealand: ORH2A South, (2.71)
ORH2B, ORH3A - Mid East
Coast Southwest Pacific Trawl, Bottom
Orange Roughy
Green (3.83) Red (1.41)
New Zealand: ORH3B East
and South Chatham Rise
Bottom
Orange Roughy
Yellow
Red (1.41)
New Zealand: ORH3B
(2.71)
Northwest Chatham Rise
Bottom
Yellow (3.00) Red (1.00)
Avoid (1.740)
Yellow (3.00) Red (1.00)
Avoid (1.897)
Yellow (3.00) Red (1.00)
Avoid (1.841)
Yellow (3.00) Red (1.00)
Avoid (2.008)
Yellow (3.00) Red (1.00)
Avoid (1.841)
7
Orange Roughy
Red (2.16)
New Zealand: ORH3B Other
Bottom
Orange Roughy
Yellow
New Zealand: ORH3B
(2.71)
Puysegur Southwest Pacific Trawl, Bottom
Orange Roughy
Yellow
New Zealand: ORH7A
(3.16)
Challenger Plateau
Bottom
Orange Roughy
Yellow
New Zealand: ORH7B West (3.16)
Coast South Island
Bottom
Red (1.41)
Yellow (3.00) Red (1.00)
Avoid (1.740)
Red (1.41)
Yellow (3.00) Red (1.00)
Avoid (1.841)
Red (1.41)
Yellow (3.00) Red (1.00)
Avoid (1.914)
Red (1.41)
Yellow (3.00) Red (1.00)
Avoid (1.914)
Scoring Guide
Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates
the fishing operations have no significant impact.
Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion
4).
•
Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores
•
Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor
Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern 2, and no more than one
Red Criterion, and no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)
•
Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch
Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern 2, or two or more Red Criteria, or
one or more Critical scores.
2
Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid
recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).
8
Table of Contents
About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 2
Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation..................................................................... 15
Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species .................................................................................................... 23
Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ................................................................................................. 42
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem................................................................................ 56
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 62
References .................................................................................................................................................. 63
Appendix A: Five year plan.......................................................................................................................... 68
Appendix B: Rationale for main species selection ...................................................................................... 70
Appendix C: Review schedule ..................................................................................................................... 71
9
Introduction
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation
This analysis and recommendation covers the New Zealand Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus
atlanticus) fishery, taken by bottom trawl in the New Zealand exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in
the southwestern Pacific.
Overview of the species and management bodies
Orange roughy is a slow-growing, long-lived species of fish that lives at depths of between 700
and 1500 m (and perhaps deeper). The New Zealand stocks have been estimated to mature at
23-31 years old and the fish can live to ages in excess of 120 years. Spawning takes place
between June and August; fecundity is low. The orange roughy fishery in New Zealand is
relatively new, having developed in the first instance on the Chatham Rise in 1979, before
successive grounds were discovered over the subsequent fifteen years. There are now nine
separate fisheries, with each managed as an independent stock with its own catch limits under
the Quota Management System (MFish 2010).
The principal management body for the fishery is the New Zealand Ministry for Primary
Industries (formerly the Ministry of Fisheries), which collaborates with industry stakeholders via
the Deepwater Group (DWG) under a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This comanagement framework is responsible for the delivery of the National Deepwater Plan for
orange roughy, which has the Fisheries Act 1996 and the Fisheries 2030 strategy as key guiding
principles. Fisheries management and research is funded by a cost recovery scheme via levies
on landings (MFish 2010).
10
Production Statistics
Figure 1: Global distribution of Orange Roughy (FAO 2013a).
Orange roughy has been fished commercially in New Zealand since 1979, with other major fisheries
developing in Australia (1985) and in Namibia, the Faroe Islands and Chile in the 1990s (SPRFMO 2007),
(Stevens 2003). There have also been fisheries in the southern Indian Ocean, off Madagascar (Stevens
2003), and some effort targeting the species in the northwest Atlantic by vessels from Russia, the UK,
Ireland, Spain, Norway and France in the early 1990s (Foley et al. 2011), (Stevens 2003). The majority of
global catches originate from the South Pacific region (SPRFMO 2007).
11
Figure 2: Global production trends for orange roughy, 1977 to 2011 (FAO 2013).
FAO data (FAO 2013) show a rise in global production of orange roughy capture fisheries from
the initial landings in 1977 to a peak of over 90,000 tonnes in 1990. Since then, catches have
fallen continually to current levels of below 10,000 tonnes.
New Zealand remains the largest global producer; Australia’s production is currently negligible,
as the fishery is under management measures to recover the stock. The fish is not targeted, but
there is a very small quota for orange roughy bycatch in some fisheries (AFMA 2012). Namibia is
the second largest producer, although production levels are now substantially lower than that
fishery’s peak of 18,000 ton in 1997 as the stock was quickly fished down and lower quotas
have been introduced (Foley et al. 2011).
There are ten distinct stock management units in New Zealand's orange roughy fishery (though
some are temporarily closed to fishing). The percent of recent landings from each management
unit is given alongside their respective stock status (2013) below.
12
Figure 3: Stock status table for orange roughy (from 2013 QMS information (NZMPI 2013), modified to show
percentage of total landings by area/stock to illustrate origin of landings from (NZMPI 2013a) with reference to stock
status.
13
Importance to the US/North American Market
Figure 4: This chart shows the origin of orange roughy imports to the US market between 2003 and 2012. Countries
contributing less than 1% of imports over the ten-year period are grouped as "other." The black trendline indicates
change over time in the percentage of imports originating from New Zealand.
Imports of frozen orange roughy fillets have fallen over the last ten years, from just over 7,000
tonnes (metric) in 2003 to approximately 1,700 tonnes in 2012. While New Zealand has been
the major source of orange roughy throughout that period, it has become increasingly
dominant and, by last year, originated around 70% (by weight) of fish imported to the US
(NOAA 2013).
The next largest source of imports of orange roughy is China, with approximately 30% of
imports averaged over the ten year period. However, as demonstrated in Figure 2, China is not
a key producer of orange roughy, and it is probable that a significant proportion of these
imports are processed product originating in New Zealand; this is in keeping with FAO
data (FAO 2013) that show New Zealand production levels as the dominant contributor of
global orange roughy production.
14
Namibia, Australia, Chile and Thailand together account for around 10% of imports over the
same ten year period, but their contributions have been declining (NOAA 2013).
Figure 5: Orange roughy US import figures (weight in kilos) by country of origin, 2003-2012. Key contributors (over
20%) highlighted in darker blue, countries originating more than 1% highlighted in lighter blue; all other countries
(which comprise the "other" category in the chart above) in beige.
Common and market names
Common name: orange roughy. Acceptable market name: roughy, orange. Vernacular name:
red roughy. (FDA 2012)
Primary product forms
Fillets — primarily frozen (Seafood Source 2013).
15
Assessment
This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria
for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.
Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation
This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current
abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored,
when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric
mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as
follows:
•
•
•
Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.
Criterion 1 Summary
ORANGE ROUGHY
Region / Method
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
New Zealand: ORH1 MercuryColville Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH1 Northern North 1.00:High
Island Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A North - East 1.00:High
Cape Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A South,
1.00:High
ORH2B, ORH3A - Mid East Coast
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B East and
1.00:High
South Chatham Rise Southwest
Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B Northwest
1.00:High
Chatham Rise Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
1.00:High
Fishing
Subscore
Mortality
2.33:Moderate Red (2.159)
Concern
2.00:High
Concern
Concern
4.00:Low
Concern
2.33:Moderate Yellow (3.053)
Concern
2.00:High
Concern
3.67:Low
Concern
Yellow (2.709)
4.00:Low
Concern
3.67:Low
Concern
Green (3.831)
2.00:High
Concern
3.67:Low
Concern
Yellow (2.709)
2.00:High
16
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B Puysegur
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7A Challenger
Plateau Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7B West Coast
South Island Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
Concern
Concern
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
3.67:Low
Concern
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
5.00:Very Low Yellow (3.162)
Concern
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
5.00:Very Low Yellow (3.162)
Concern
Yellow (2.709)
Reference points are defined by management (NZMPI 2013) as:
Target reference point = B30%, which is a model-based estimate of BMSY.
"Soft" limit = B20%.
"Hard" limit = B10%.
Stocks below the soft limit are considered overfished, so this is taken as the limit reference
point for the purposes of this analysis.
Recently, the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries and the Deepwater Group agreed on
a new target range of between 30% and 40% B0 (Deepwater Group 2013). From a practical
consideration, it is difficult to apply this in the context of an assessment, although in this case, it
does not affect the scoring as none of the stocks are above the lower (B30%) end of this range.
Criterion 1 Assessment
ORANGE ROUGHY
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history
characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing)
Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life
history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing,
(e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25
years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain).
High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life
history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived
17
(>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and toppredator).
Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine
fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity,
longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g.,
schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for
feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.
New Zealand: ORH1 Mercury-Colville Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH1 Northern North Island Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A North - East Cape Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A South, ORH2B, ORH3A - Mid East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B East and South Chatham Rise Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B Northwest Chatham Rise Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B Other Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B Puysegur Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7A Challenger Plateau Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7B West Coast South Island Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
High
Orange roughy has high inherent vulnerability, with a FishBase score of 73 (Froese, R & D Pauly 2013).
Orange roughy can live to be over 100 years old and may not reach maturity until 20-40 years of age.
They also have low fecundity, slow growth and exceptionally low natural mortality (Branch 2001).
Finally, they aggregate around seamount habitat, which increases their susceptibility to fishing.
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target
abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin
biomass.
4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered
not overfished
18
•
•
•
3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or
medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.
2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR
abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.
1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.
High Concern
Biomass of orange roughy from management area ORH1 Mercury-Colville is "likely" (>60% chance)
below both the "soft limit" (B20%) and the "hard limit" (B10%, defined as the point of fisheries collapse);
hence, it is depleted and scored as a "high concern" (NZMPI 2013).
High Concern
The orange roughy stock in management area ORH1 Northern North Island is unassessed. As the
abundance relative to reference points is unknown, but the species is highly vulnerable to overfishing
due to its life history traits, it is considered a "high concern."
New Zealand: ORH2A north - East Cape Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Low Concern
According to the latest stock update, orange roughy in management area ORH2A north - East Cape is
unlikely to be above target levels, but likely above the "soft limit". The "soft limit" (B20%) is the
threshold beyond which the stock is considered to be depleted or overfished. As such, this stock is
considered "not overfished" and a "low concern."
New Zealand: ORH2A south, ORH2B, ORH3A - Mid East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
High Concern
The biomass of orange roughy in management areas ORH2A south, ORH2B, and ORH3A – Mid East Coast
is assessed and the stock assessment states that it is considered to be "as likely as not" (defined as 40%–
60% chance) below the "soft limit" that corresponds to a limit reference point of B20%, (NZMPI 2013);
therefore, it is considered unknown whether or not the stock is above the reference point. Because the
species is highly vulnerable due to its life history, this results in a score of "high concern" for this
19
criterion.
Low Concern
Abundance of the ORH3B East and South Chatham Rise population is unlikely to be above target levels,
but also unlikely to be below the "soft" limit reference point (NZMPI 2013). The stock is considered "not
overfished" and a "low concern."
High Concern
The ORH3B Northwest Chatham Rise stock is "very likely" to be below the "soft" limit, which serves as a
limit reference point and threshold for an overfished stock, and "as a likely as not" below the "hard
limit" considered to be the threshold of a collapsed stock (NZMPI 2013). This is considered a "high
concern" according to Seafood Watch.
High Concern
The "ORH 3B Other" stock of orange roughy is unassessed. As the stock status is unknown, but the
species is highly vulnerable to overfishing due to its life history traits, it is considered a "high concern."
High Concern
The ORH3B Puysegur stock is "likely" to be below both the "hard limit" and "soft limit" defined by
the Harvest Strategy Standard for New Zealand Fisheries. Because the "soft limit" (B20%) is equivalent
to 1/2 BMSY and is used as the overfished threshold, this stock is considered overfished, and is rated a
“high concern” (NZMPI 2013).
High Concern
20
The biomass of orange roughy in management areas of the ORH7A Challenger Plateau is assessed and
considered to be "as likely as not" below the "soft limit" (B20%) that corresponds to a limit reference
point of approximately 50% of BMSY (NZMPI 2013); therefore, it is considered unknown whether or not
the stock is above the reference point. Because the species is highly vulnerable due to its life history,
this results in a score of "high concern" for this criterion.
High Concern
The ORH7B West Coast South Island stock is "likely" below the "soft limit" (set at B20% and used as the
overfished threshold) (NZMPI 2013). This corresponds to a score of "high concern."
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines
• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level
(e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not
target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a
sustainable level of fishing mortality).
• 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a
sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and
does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR
fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low
susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).
• 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR
fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the
fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place.
• 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail
overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is
in place.
• 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in
place to curtail overfishing.
Moderate Concern
21
Fishing mortality for orange roughy from management area ORH 1 Mercury-Colville is unknown. The
population is depleted, but management actions have been taken to constrain fishing mortality for this
stock. Catch was restricted to a bycatch limit of 30 t in 2001, although there were no reported landings
from this stock in 2010-2012 (NZMPI 2013). This falls into the category "moderate concern" according to
Seafood Watch.
Moderate Concern
The ORH1 Northern North Island stock is unassessed, so fishing mortality is unknown, and it is also
unknown whether the stock is depleted (NZMPI 2013). Therefore, fishing mortality is a "moderate
concern."
Moderate Concern
Fishing mortality in management area ORH2A north–East Cape is unassessed and unknown (NZMPI
2013). The abundance of the stock, however, has been assessed. The stock is not depleted, so unknown
fishing mortality results in a score of "moderate concern."
Low Concern
It is "unlikely" (<40% chance) that overfishing is occurring on this stock according to the latest stock
update, but it does not reach the threshold for a "very unlikely" (<10%) chance of overfishing, as defined
by the Harvest Strategy Standard for New Zealand Fisheries (NZMPI 2013). According to Seafood Watch
Criteria, because the probability that overfishing is occurring is less than 50%, but not necessarily less
than 30%, the fishing mortality of this stock is a "low concern."
Moderate Concern
22
Fishing mortality is a "moderate concern" as the stock is unassessed and therefore fishing mortality
rates are unknown.
Very Low Concern
According to the latest stock assessment it is "very unlikely" that overfishing is occurring (<10% chance),
corresponding to a score of "very low concern" for fishing mortality (NZMPI 2013).
23
Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species
All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the
species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all
fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include
discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final
Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the
discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch
(discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as
follows:
• Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
• Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.
•
Criterion 2 Summary
Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2
section; a full list and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix B.
Orange Roughy: New Zealand: ORH1 Mercury-Colville Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Subscore: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate: 1.414
Species
CORALS AND OTHER BIOGENIC
HABITATS
ORANGE ROUGHY
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
BLACK CARDINALFISH
High
BLACK OREO DORY
High
SMOOTH OREO DORY
High
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
4.00: Low
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
1.414
2.159
2.709
3.162
3.831
Orange roughy: New Zealand: ORH1 Northern North Island Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Subscore: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate: 1.414
Species
Inherent
Stock Status Fishing
Vulnerability
Mortality
Subscore
24
HABITATS
ORANGE ROUGHY
High
BLACK CARDINALFISH
High
BLACK OREO DORY
High
SMOOTH OREO DORY
High
High
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
4.00: Low
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
1.414
2.159
2.709
3.162
3.831
Orange Roughy: New Zealand: ORH2A North-East Cape Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Subscore: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate: 1.414
Species
HABITATS
BLACK CARDINALFISH
ORANGE ROUGHY
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
4.00: Low
Concern
BLACK OREO DORY
High
SMOOTH OREO DORY
High
2.00: High
Concern
4.00: Low
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
1.414
2.709
3.053
3.162
3.831
Orange Roughy: New Zealand: ORH2A South, ORH2B, ORH3A— Mid-East Coast Southwest Pacific,
Trawl, Bottom
Subscore: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate: 1.414
Species
HABITATS
BLACK CARDINALFISH
ORANGE ROUGHY
BLACK OREO DORY
SMOOTH OREO DORY
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
4.00: Low
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
1.414
2.709
2.709
3.162
3.831
25
Orange Roughy: New Zealand: ORH3B East and South Chatham Rise Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Subscore: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate: 1.414
Species
HABITATS
BLACK CARDINALFISH
BLACK OREO DORY
ORANGE ROUGHY
SMOOTH OREO DORY
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
4.00: Low
Concern
High
4.00: Low
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
1.414
2.709
3.162
3.831
3.831
Orange Roughy: New Zealand: ORH3B Northwest Chatham Rise Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Subscore:: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate: 1.414
Species
HABITATS
BLACK CARDINALFISH
ORANGE ROUGHY
BLACK OREO DORY
SMOOTH OREO DORY
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
4.00: Low
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
1.414
2.709
2.709
3.162
3.831
Orange Roughy: New Zealand: ORH3B Other Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Subscore: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate: 1.414
Species
HABITATS
ORANGE ROUGHY
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
BLACK CARDINALFISH
High
BLACK OREO DORY
High
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Subscore
1.414
2.159
2.709
3.162
26
SMOOTH OREO DORY
High
Concern
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
3.67: Low
3.831
Concern
Orange Roughy: New Zealand: ORH3B Puysegur Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Subscore: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate: 1.414
Species
HABITATS
BLACK CARDINALFISH
ORANGE ROUGHY
BLACK OREO DORY
SMOOTH OREO DORY
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
4.00: Low
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
1.414
2.709
2.709
3.162
3.831
Orange Roughy: New Zealand: ORH7A Challenger Plateau Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Subscore: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate: 1.414
Species
HABITATS
BLACK CARDINALFISH
BLACK OREO DORY
ORANGE ROUGHY
SMOOTH OREO DORY
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
4.00: Low
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
1.414
2.709
3.162
3.162
3.831
Orange Roughy: New Zealand: ORH7B West Coast South Island Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Subscore: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate: 1.414
Species
HABITATS
BLACK CARDINALFISH
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Subscore
1.414
2.709
27
BLACK OREO DORY
High
ORANGE ROUGHY
High
SMOOTH OREO DORY
High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
4.00: Low
Concern
Concern
5.00: Very
3.162
Low Concern
5.00: Very
3.162
Low Concern
3.67: Low
3.831
Concern
The black cardinalfish is included, as it is considered a key bycatch species and is managed
within the National Deepwater Plan for orange roughy (MFish 2010), although in practice, the
two species are not targeted together and there is limited vertical overlap.
Smooth oreo and black oreo are both bycatch species in the orange roughy fisheries, and
comprise 10% and 1.5% respectively of retained catches. Both species are also highly vulnerable
to fishing pressure, although oreo catches (as a proportion of total oreo landings) in the orange
roughy fishery are low.
Corals are part of the bycatch in orange roughy fisheries, comprising approximately 0.4% of the
catch and occurring in 10% of observed trawls. They are included due to the vulnerability of
coral species to benthic trawling, although due to a lack of detailed information at a species
level they are assessed here under the Seafood Watch unknown bycatch matrix.
Corals and Biogenic Habitats score lowest in the assessment (1.414), due to their high
vulnerability to bottom towed gear such as that used in the orange roughy fishery, and because
of the lack of a management plan that might ensure that fishery impacts do not have
population level effects.
Criterion 2 Assessment
BLACK CARDINALFISH
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
New Zealand: ORH2A North – East Cape Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A south, ORH2B, ORH3A – Mid-East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
28
High
Black cardinalfish are highly vulnerable, with a FishBase vulnerability score of 70 (Froese, R & D Pauly
2013). They are very long-lived (up to 100 years), do not reach maturity until about 35 years old, and are
slow-growing (Froese, R & D Pauly 2013).
New Zealand: ORH2A south, ORH2B, ORH3A – Mid-East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
High Concern
Stock status is listed as "virtually certain" to be below the target biomass, "likely" to be overfished and
below the "soft limit" and "about as likely as not" (defined as a 40%–60% chance) below the "hard limit"
29
that signifies the stock is collapsed (NZMPI 2013). This status warrants a score of "high concern."
New Zealand: ORH2A South, ORH2B, ORH3A – Mid-East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Low Concern
The percentage of black cardinalfish as a proportion of the orange roughy catch is low— recent
estimates suggest that less than 0.3% of catches in the orange roughy target fishery are cardinalfish
(Anderson, O.F. 2011). However, there are no clear data available on the contribution of the orange
roughy fishery to black cardinalfish total fishing mortality. The two fisheries overlap and the black
cardinalfish is considered a key bycatch species and is managed within the National Deepwater Plan for
orange roughy (MFish 2010); however, the two species are not targeted together. Management has
identified the species as overfished and has sought to reduce fishing mortality, with the total allowable
catch (TAC) being reduced in recent years. TAC for black cardinal fish includes and accounts for
incidental bycatch within the orange roughy fishery. Although overfishing is likely occurring on this
stock (NZMPI 2013), the orange roughy fishery's contribution to mortality of black cardinalfish is likely
low and not believed to be adversely impacting the population, hence it is considered a "low concern."
Rationale
The black cardinalfish population is depleted according to the most recent assessment (NZMPI 2013),
but management is in place. Susceptibility to the orange roughy fishery is low, as the two species have
30
different behaviors which affect how they are targeted (Dr. P Mace, pers. comm.). The main region with
some interaction between both fisheries is the northeast of North Island, but although the two species
co-occur they do not fully overlap as they favor different depth ranges; this allows fishermen to target
relatively selectively (Dr. M. Clark, pers. comm.).
This suggests that the orange roughy fishery does not adversely affect the species, although it is unclear
if the contribution is "negligible," which informs a scoring of "low concern.”
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
New Zealand: ORH2A North-East Cape Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A South, ORH2B, ORH3A – Mid-East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
< 20%
The bycatch discard rate of the orange roughy fishery is very low; 94% of the greenweight catch is
retained (MFish 2010).
BLACK OREO DORY
31
New Zealand: ORH2A south, ORH2B, ORH3A – Mid East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
High
Black oreo dory are highly vulnerable, with a FishBase score of 69 (Paulin et al. 1989). They are very
long-lived (100 years or more), do not reach maturity until over 20 years of age, and are slowgrowing (Paulin et al. 1989).
New Zealand: ORH2A South, ORH2B, ORH3A — Mid East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
High Concern
32
According to the most recent stock status table (NZMPI 2013), the abundance of black oreo stocks
relative to reference points is unknown. Based on the scoring criteria, the following statement is
applicable: "There is no evidence to suggest that stock is either above or below reference points;
unknown and stock inherent vulnerability is high” (as scored in Factor 1.1), which necessitates scoring as
"high concern."
New Zealand: ORH2A South, ORH2B, ORH3A — Mid East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
Very Low Concern
Fishing mortality for black oreos, relative to reference points, is unknown (NZMPI 2013). However,
fishing mortality of black oreos due to the orange roughy fishery (MFish 2010) is "negligible" (<5%), as a
proportion of the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) (NZMPI 2012b). (The TACC is the proportion
of the total allowable catch, or TAC, which is available to commercial fisheries.)
Black oreos comprise approximately 1.5% of catches in the orange roughy fishery. There are no data
provided on the proportion of total oreo catches taken by the orange roughy fishery.
However, by combining the figures given in the Orange Roughy National Deepwater Plan (MFish 2010)
and the section of the May 2012 Plenary Report (NZMPI 2012b) concerning oreos, it has been possible
to calculate the percentage of the “estimated total catches” for smooth and black oreos taken as part of
33
the target fishery for orange roughy for the years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 only (these were the only
years where the corresponding data was available). For 2006/2007, 0.4% black oreo catches were taken
as part of the orange roughy fishery. For 2007/2008 the figure is 2.0%.
Since catches are below 5% (as a proportion of the total catch of black oreos), the fishing mortality for
black oreos within the orange roughy fishery is deemed to be "negligible," which predicates a scoring of
“very low concern.”
New Zealand: ORH2A South, ORH2B, ORH3A – Mid East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
< 20%
CORALS AND OTHER BIOGENIC HABITATS
34
New Zealand: ORH2A South, ORH2B, ORH3A – Mid East Coast Southwest Pacific, Trawl, Bottom
High
The impact of bottom trawl fisheries on deepwater coral and sponge habitat is scored according to the
Seafood Watch “unknown bycatch” matrix, based on a synthesis of peer-reviewed literature and expert
opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type. More information on the Seafood Watch Criteria is
available in Appendix 3.
Deepwater biogenic habitats are considered to be of high inherent vulnerability according to the
Seafood Watch Criteria.
35
High Concern
Seafood Watch “unknown bycatch” matrix, which is based on a synthesis of peer-reviewed literature
and expert opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type. More information is available in Appendix
3 of the Seafood Watch Criteria.
There are a variety of coral species that may be impacted by the fishery. According to data from both
research trawls and observer data from commercial trawls, corals that may be impacted are composed
of stony corals (56 genera from 15 families in the Order Scleractinia), gorgonians (57 genera from 8
families in Order Alcyonacea), hydrocorals (16 genera from one family in Order Anthoathecata), and
black corals (26 families from 7 genera in Order Antipatharia) (Baird et al. 2012). Species level data are
not generally recorded and the status of these corals are unknown, though all corals are protected in
New Zealand.
"Unknown species" with high vulnerability, such as deepwater coral and sponges, are deemed a "high
concern" according to Seafood Watch.
Rationale
The scoring in this case has been led by the framework guidance; however, in support of the outcome, it
is appropriate to provide relevant information on the ability of corals to recover from fishing. A
study (Williams et al. 2010) looking at seamounts pre- and post-closure to trawling showed that there
was not any discernable change (recovery) detected over the 5–10 year timeframe, with corals and
biogenic benthic fauna not recolonizing. This indicates the vulnerability of these species to the activity.
36
High Concern
Seafood Watch “unknown bycatch” matrix, and based on a synthesis of peer-reviewed literature and
expert opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type. More information is available in Appendix 3 of
the Seafood Watch Criteria. According to the criteria, the impact of bottom trawls on deepwater corals
and sponges is considered a "high concern" when the population level impacts on the corals are
unknown if there is management in place (otherwise a "critical concern"). While Seafood Watch Criteria
4 considers the indirect effects of habitat damage on the fish communities and ecosystems that depend
on seamount and coral habitat, Criteria 2 is focused on the direct population level impacts on corals
caught as bycatch. These impacts are not fully known because there is usually little to no information on
which species are caught, their abundance, catch rates, and the population impact of the catch.
However, data demonstrate that coral bycatch regularly occurs in the fishery, as one of the most
common types of invertebrate bycatch (second only to squid), making up about 0.4% of the catch and
occurring in about 10% of total observed tows (with a much higher proportion of tows in northern
waters including coral bycatch) (NZMPI 2013a). Given the high vulnerability of species that may be
caught and the lack of assessment or a management plan to ensure these impacts do not have
population level effects, this is considered a “high concern.” This fishery is scored as "high" rather than
"critical" as there are some efforts to manage the impacts by spatial management and area closures.
Rationale
The scoring depends in part on whether there are "some" efforts in place to reduce impacts of the
fishery on corals and biogenic benthic species that are "believed to be effective." The main management
measure in place is an avoidance of fishing pressure on corals through spatial management through
benthic protection areas. These close a range of benthic habitats to bottom trawling, including
seamounts and other underwater topological features with which corals and other biogenic habitats are
associated. Although the closures are effective, at least to a degree, it should be acknowledged that they
do not specifically target areas of coral coverage, nor do they specifically coincide with orange roughy
fishery areas.
The coincidence of the fishery's footprint with the distribution of coral sample distributions was
37
analyzed, and the fishery footprint continues to overlap with known coral distribution to some extent
(Baird, S. and Clark, M. 2013). Even a few trawl passes per year over coral habitat can cause significant
damage. Although the fishery operates across a number of deepwater habitats, some of which are less
vulnerable, it is strongly associated with seamounts, which have previously been assessed to originate
about 60% of orange roughy and oreo catches (Clark & O Driscoll 2003). There is evidence of sensitive
habitats including deep-sea corals associated with seamounts in the area, with a decline in abundance of
such habitats observed in comparisons of fished versus unfished seamounts (Clark and Rowden 2009).
The orange roughy fishery was found to be one of the fisheries posing the greatest risk to coral habitats
in New Zealand (Baird 2012). Campbell and Gallagher 2007 (Campbell and Gallagher 2007) found the
risk ranking of this fishery to be "extreme" due to the combination of the likelihood of impacting
protected corals and the significance of that impact.
While there is evidence that suggests the current footprint of the orange roughy fishery does not
overlap to a high degree with recorded coral distribution (Baird, S. and Clark, M. 2013), and no new,
additional impact is likely in already fished areas, the orange roughy fishery still has some overlap with
these habitats, which poses the risk of impacting biogenic habitat. Even with a low amount of effort
directed at new coral and seamount habitats each year, the effect may be very significant. Clark et al.
(Clark et al. 2010) found that coral cover was 90% lower on trawled seamounts compared to similar
untrawled seamounts, and further found that impacts of this magnitude resulted after as few as tens of
trawl passes. Corals are very long-lived and slow-growing, and there is evidence that corals do not begin
to recover from these impacts, at least on the scale of 5-10 years (Williams et al. 2010). Given that the
impacts on coral populations are not reversible on a timescale of years to decades, while the orange
roughy fishery continues to target areas with live coral, the cumulative impact on the population is
growing. The full extent of this impact is unknown, but using a risk-based approach, the risk to protected
corals posed by this fishery was considered to be "extreme" in a recent analysis (Campbell and Gallagher
2007). Based on accumulated scientific information from fisheries around the world showing that trawl
fishing can have a serious detrimental impact to deepwater coral and sponge species, this impact is
considered to be a “high concern,” according to the Seafood Watch Criteria,
38
< 20%
SMOOTH OREO DORY
High
Smooth oreo dory are highly vulnerable, with a FishBase score of 72. They reach a maximum length of
about 68 cm, grow slowly, reach maturity at about 10 years of age and reach a maximum age of about
40 years (Heemstra 1990).
39
Low Concern
"Biomass is above the limit reference point, but may be below a target reference point."
Based on the most recent stock status (NZMPI 2013), smooth oreo stocks are unlikely or very unlikely to
be below soft and hard limit reference points, but may not be at target levels (based on probabilities of
40%–60% for 2/4 plenary stocks, and <40% for 1/4). One of the four plenary stocks had unknown status.
40
Low Concern
Overall fishing mortality rates for smooth oreos varies depending on the stock. The OEO 3A Smooth
stock is "unlikely" experiencing overfishing, while the OEO 1/OEO 3A Southland Smooth Oreo stock is
"likely" experiencing overfishing (NZMPI 2013). However, fishing mortality for smooth oreos in the
orange roughy fishery (MFish 2010) is not quite "negligible" (<5%) as a proportion of the overall TAC for
smooth oreos (NZMPI 2012b), but it is low. See detailed rationale for supporting information.
Rationale
Smooth oreos comprise approximately 10% of catches in the orange roughy fishery. There are no data
provided on the proportion of total oreo catches taken by the orange roughy fishery.
However, by combining the figures given in the Orange Roughy National Deepwater Plan (MFish 2010)
and the section of the May 2012 Plenary Report (NZMPI 2012b) concerning oreos, it has been possible
to calculate the percentage of the “estimated total catches” for smooth and black oreos taken as part of
the target fishery for orange roughy for the years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 (these were the only years
where the corresponding data were available). For 2006/2007, 2.4% smooth oreo catches were taken as
part of the orange roughy fishery. For 2007/2008 the figures is 9.0%.
Since catches have exceeded 5%, the fishing mortality for smooth oreos within the orange roughy
fishery is greater than "negligible," but is low enough that it is not believed to be adversely impacting
the species. This merits a scoring of “low concern.”
41
< 20%
42
Criterion 3: Management effectiveness
Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and
management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).
The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is
determined as follows:
• Score <=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy
(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management
Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical.
•
Criterion 3 Summary
Region / Method
Management
of
Retained
Species
3.000
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH1 Northern North 3.000
Island Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A North - East 3.000
Trawl, Bottom
3.000
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
3.000
Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
3.000
Trawl, Bottom
3.000
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
3.000
Southwest Pacific
Management Overall
of
Recommendation
Non-Retained
Species
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
43
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7A Challenger
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7B West Coast
Trawl, Bottom
3.000
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy
Scoring Guidelines
Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern,
Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations,
Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’
‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’
•
•
•
•
•
•
5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered.
4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated
‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’
3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’
2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for
Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other
subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’
1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery
of Species of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’
0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e.,
fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level
of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.
Factor 3.1 Summary
Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species
Region / Method
Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track
Inclusion
New Zealand: ORH1 Mercury- Moderately Moderately Highly Highly Highly Moderately Highly
Colville Southwest Pacific
Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH1 Northern Moderately Moderately Highly Highly Highly Moderately Highly
North Island Southwest Pacific Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A North - Moderately Moderately Highly Highly Highly Moderately Highly
East Cape Southwest Pacific
Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
44
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A South, Moderately Moderately Highly
ORH2B, ORH3A - Mid East
Effective Effective Effective
Coast Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B East and Moderately Moderately Highly
South Chatham Rise Southwest Effective Effective Effective
Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B
Moderately Moderately Highly
Northwest Chatham Rise
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B Puysegur Moderately Moderately Highly
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7A
Challenger Plateau Southwest Effective Effective Effective
Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7B West
Coast South Island Southwest Effective Effective Effective
Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
Highly Highly Moderately Highly
Effective Effective Effective Effective
Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation
Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate
management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a
“highly effective” rating, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the
measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.
45
Moderately Effective
The fishery employs some effective strategies. For example, target fishing mortality decreases with
biomass below the target reference range (between B30%, equivalent to BMSY, and B40% (Deepwater
Group 2013)), with no fishing allowed if the biomass reaches a "hard" limit of B10% (NZMPI 2012). It is
not clear if there are sufficient buffers in the TAC to account for uncertainty, although there is mention
of an "assessment of risk" by the Minister in setting TAC levels (NZMPI 2007). The approach to setting
TAC for each stock has recently been developed within a "Harvest Strategy Standard," with total
allowable commercial catch (TACC) limits set either at a FMSY proxy (if the stock is within the target
range, or >=B30%) or below FMSY if below the target reference range (Deepwater Group 2013).
Orange roughy are highly vulnerable to overfishing and the sustainability of the harvest strategy
depends on accurate stock assessments that appropriately account for the species' life history. Early
stock assessments severely underestimated the vulnerability of the species, allowing overfishing to
occur and most stocks were severely depleted as a result. There are still many uncertainties in the stock
assessments, and it remains to be seen whether the current harvest strategy is precautionary enough to
allow it to recover, given the vulnerability of the species (Clark 2001)(Francis & Clark 2005). Some stocks
or sub-stocks previously closed have recently been re-opened to fishing (MFish 2010), indicating a
presumed level of success at rebuilding, but there is no clear quantitative information currently available
to demonstrate the extent to which this is the case.
Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern
Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to
rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species
and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding
strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place
when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any
overfished/threatened/endangered species.
46
Management is set up to react to depleted stocks so that fishing ceases once stocks fall below limit
reference points, and reduces once below target reference points (NZMPI 2012b). However, the success
of these measures in rebuilding stocks is "probable" rather than “likely” or “high likely”; the mechanics
of the orange roughy stock (in terms of its reaction to changes in fishing pressure) are not fully known,
and different measures of abundance (using CPUE and survey data) are not in full agreement (NZMPI
2012b).
Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring
Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the
population and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating,
population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to
reliably determine the population status.
47
Highly Effective
Stock assessments of both fishery dependent, (commercial catch per unit effort (CPUE)) and
independent (research survey) data and abundance indices are contracted out by the Ministry for
Primary Industries (MPI) (New Zealand government) to government-owned research institute NIWA
(National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research). Other survey work is contracted out to NIWA
and other qualified providers. All work is overseen by MPI scientists, who provide technical guidance
and peer review through MPI technical working groups.
Research and assessments are updated regularly to feed into TACC management (NZMPI 2012b). The
research and monitoring program is modern, its contribution to management processes transparent,
and public reports on stock status are published regularly (NZMPI 2012).
Rationale
Research and stock assessment approaches have been adaptive. As previous approaches to stock
assessment using stochastic and deterministic modelling approaches were deemed inadequate, a new,
modified age-structure approach has recently been adopted. Not all nine stocks are monitored with
equal frequency—those stocks which are most heavily targeted by fisheries, or those which are
depleted, are most regularly assessed—but new assessments are rolling out this modified approach.
Data used include age and maturity data (from trawl surveys), age frequencies (from spawning fishery
surveys), fisheries data from commercial catches and observer records, and biomass data from research
surveys. These data are used to model the stock and estimate stock status against reference points.
Depending on the stock's status, TACC is set at or below FMSY (which, for orange roughy, is 4.5% of the
current stock size) (Deepwater Group 2013).
Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice
Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow
scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A
Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.
48
Highly Effective
Management is directly informed by scientific advice in setting TACs. This adherence to limits based
around maintaining stocks at BMSY is a requirement under national legislation (the 1996 and amended
1983 Fisheries Acts) (NZMPI 2007).
Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations
Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a
Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of
compliance.
49
Highly Effective
Catch returns and logbooks are completed; catch and effort returns are submitted for target and nonfishery/protected species bycatch. Enforcement and monitoring measures include vessel monitoring
systems (VMS), aerial patrols and patrol boats (Ministry of Fisheries 2009), (Ministry of Fisheries 2011).
The fishery is generally at or below TAC, where quota overruns occur at sea (due to burst nets, for
example). This is factored with a precautionary allowance in future TACs (NZMPI 2012b). Landing of
quota overruns is discouraged through financial penalties.
Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record
Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at
sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly
Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the
long-term maintenance of species overtime.
There is a robust management system in place, however given the life history of the target species and
the transition from a "fishing down" phase into implementing a MSY-based management of quota, the
long-term success of the measures in place is uncertain.
50
Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion
Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process?
Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that
may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.).
A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes
stakeholder input.
Highly Effective
There is strong ethos of stakeholder engagement in fisheries management in New Zealand, with
involvement in decision-making and the setting of management measures (OECD 2005), as well as in
technical working groups. The fishing industry is a proactive partner (via the Deepwater Group) in the
management of the orange roughy fishery and there is a specific provision to further increase
stakeholder involvement through the species plan (MFish 2010).
51
Bycatch Strategy
Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species
Region / Method
All Kept Critical
Strategy Research
New Zealand: ORH1 MercuryNo
No
Moderately Highly
Colville Southwest Pacific
Effective Effective
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH1 Northern
No
No
Moderately Highly
North Island Southwest Pacific
Effective Effective
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A North - East No
No
Moderately Highly
Effective Effective
Trawl, Bottom
No
No
Moderately Highly
Effective Effective
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
No
No
Moderately Highly
Effective Effective
Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
No
No
Moderately Highly
Effective Effective
Trawl, Bottom
No
No
Moderately Highly
Southwest Pacific
Effective Effective
Trawl, Bottom
No
No
Moderately Highly
Southwest Pacific
Effective Effective
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7A Challenger No
No
Moderately Highly
Effective Effective
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7B West Coast No
No
Moderately Highly
Effective Effective
Trawl, Bottom
Advice
Enforce
Highly
Highly
Effective Effective
Highly
Highly
Effective Effective
Highly
Highly
Effective Effective
Highly
Highly
Effective Effective
Highly
Highly
Effective Effective
Highly
Highly
Effective Effective
Highly
Highly
Effective Effective
Highly
Highly
Effective Effective
Highly
Highly
Effective Effective
Highly
Highly
Effective Effective
Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation
Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the
impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures?
To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must
be clear goals and measures in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch
limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).
52
The bycatch of non-target species in the orange roughy fishery is low (approximately 6%). Incidental
bycatch (including seabirds and shark species) is monitored through the fishery's plan and via observer
reporting, and there is effort dedicated to further bycatch reduction. Vulnerable species including fur
seals, sea lions and seabirds are occasionally caught, but there is clear mitigation and reduction
measures in place via Marine Mammal Operating Procedure and (for seabirds) vessel management plans
(VMP) individually tailored for each vessel (covering offal management, tori lines and other measures),
with observer coverage to monitor bycatch (average 27% of observer coverage 2002/03 and 2011/12,
(NZMPI 2013a)) (MFish 2010). There is some benthic bycatch of coral species (both protected and nonprotected), echinoderms and sponges. Management measures to reduce impacts on benthic organisms
have focused on seamount closures and spatial management through benthic protection areas (BPAs),
although this is not a fishery-specific strategy. However, monitoring of the swept area or footprint of
orange roughy fisheries has taken place since 1989/90 (Black et al. 2013); analysis of recent tracks has
shown some overlap with reef building coral species in the areas studied (Baird, S. and Clark, M. 2013).
While the BPAs are generally cited as evidence of strong mitigation of bycatch impacts on corals, the
effectiveness of these closed areas for coral protection from the orange roughy fishery is questioned.
For example, Rieser (Rieser et al. 2013) found that 82% of the protected areas were in waters too deep
to fish, while only 3%–15% of marine habitats less than 1500 m deep were protected. Overall given the
high level of concern associated with coral bycatch, this strategy is considered moderately effective.
53
Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring
Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate
monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly
Effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on
species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure
bycatch management goals are being met.
Highly Effective
Observer coverage to monitor bycatch (in particular seabirds) averaged 27% from 2002/03 to 2011/12;
benthic protection areas are monitored via VMS (MFish 2010), which ensures that vessels do not fish in
closed areas. There is ongoing research into mitigation of bycatch built into the fishery plan (MFish
2010), and driven by the Fisheries 2030 strategy (NZMPI 2011).
Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice
Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow
scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A
Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.
54
Highly Effective
See 3.1.4
Subfactor 3.2.4 – Enforcement of Management Regulations
Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow
management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To
achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and
verification of compliance.
55
Highly Effective
See 3.1.5
56
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem
This criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base
score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the
ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem based fisheries management (EBFM)
principles is also evaluated. EBFM aims to consider the interconnections among species and all
natural and human stressors on the environment.
The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the
mitigation of gear impacts score) and the EBFM score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as
follows:
• Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.
•
Criterion 4 Summary
Region / Method
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH1 Northern
North Island Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH2A North East Cape Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
Trawl, Bottom
Gear Type Mitigation of EBFM
and
Gear Impacts
Substrate
0.00:Very
0.25:Minimal 4.00:Low
High Concern Mitigation Concern
Overall Recomm.
0.00:Very
Red (1.000)
0.00:Very
Red (1.000)
0.00:Very
Red (1.000)
0.00:Very
Red (1.000)
0.00:Very
Red (1.000)
0.00:Very
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
57
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH3B Puysegur 0.00:Very
Southwest Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7A Challenger 0.00:Very
Trawl, Bottom
New Zealand: ORH7B West
0.00:Very
Coast South Island Southwest
Pacific
Trawl, Bottom
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Justification of Ranking
Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate
Scoring Guidelines
• 5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom
• 4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear
• 3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g.
gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on
resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom
occasionally
• 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand
habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef
habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand
• 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive
habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)
• 0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals,
eelgrass and maerl)
Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat
classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat
type.
58
Very High Concern
Although the fishery operates across a number of deepwater habitats, some of which are less
vulnerable, it is strongly associated with seamounts, which have previously been assessed to originate
about 60% of orange roughy and oreo catches (Clark & O Driscoll 2003). There is evidence of sensitive
habitats including deep-sea corals associated with seamounts in the area, with a decline in abundance of
such habitats observed in comparisons of fished versus unfished seamounts (Clark and Rowden 2009).
The orange roughy fishery was found to be one of the fisheries posing the greatest risk to coral habitats
in New Zealand (Baird 2012). Campbell and Gallagher 2007 (Campbell and Gallagher 2007) found the
risk ranking of this fishery to be "extreme" due to the combination of the likelihood of impacting
protected corals and the significance of that impact.
While there is evidence that suggests the current footprint of the orange roughy fishery does not
overlap to a high degree with recorded coral distribution (Baird, S. and Clark, M. 2013), and no new,
additional impact is likely in already fished areas, the orange roughy fishery still has some overlap with
these habitats, which poses the risk of impacting biogenic habitat. Even with a low amount of effort
directed at new coral and seamount habitats each year, the effect may be very significant. Clark et al.
(Clark et al. 2010) found that coral cover was 90% lower on trawled seamounts compared to similar
untrawled seamounts, and further found that impacts of this extent resulted after as few as ten trawl
passes. These impacts may have important ecosystem effects and are irreversible after being fished 510 years or longer, because areas fished and previously containing reef building species have been
shown to not recolonize readily even when left unfished for several years (Williams et al. 2010). As such,
the Seafood Watch framework mandates a score of "very high" concern.
While the population level impacts on coral species caught as bycatch are considered under Criteria 2,
corals are also important structure-forming organisms that form one of the most important habitats in
ocean environments. Like any other structural habitat (e.g., rocky reefs), damaging these structures has
significant, cascading effects on fish communities and the ecosystem as a whole. It is this indirect,
community-wide impact that is considered under Criterion 4, as this impact is distinct from the direct
population impact on coral the organism.
59
Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
+1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from
fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to
reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage,
or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.
+0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other
measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of
damage caused from fishing.
+0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected
but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but
not actively being reduced.
0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats.
Minimal Mitigation
A substantial proportion (32%) of the EEZ (MFish 2010a), covering a range of representative habitats is
closed to bottom trawling within benthic protection areas, originally proposed by the fishing industry
and legally implemented in 2007. Additionally, the Seamount Management Strategy, actioned in 2001,
has closed 17 seamounts to bottom trawling (Clark & O Driscoll 2003), (NZMPI 2012a). Between the two
regimes, 52% of seamounts above 1000 m in height (and 28% of all underwater topographic features,
including smaller seamounts, pinnacles etc.) are closed to trawling (Ministry of Fisheries 2010). There is
good compliance monitoring (VMS) of spatial closures (Ministry of Fisheries 2010).
60
With respect to the orange roughy species range, 16% of habitat has been estimated to fall under the
protection of BPAs (MFish 2010), which is not a "substantial proportion" as defined within the
assessment criteria. As part of the agreement under which BPAs were established, no further spatial
protection will be added in the EEZ (between 12 nm and 200 nm limits) until after 2013 (MFish 2010a),
although monitoring of the trawl footprint of the fishery is ongoing.
There is work underway and ongoing development of a marine protected area network through MPA
Policy, which was scheduled to be implemented after 2013 outside the territorial (0-12 nm) seas (MPI
2013). At this point, the government is set to review the classification and level of protection in
deepwater areas (MFish 2010a). However, this does not constitute an ongoing reduction of fishing
effort, intensity or spatial footprint and the implementation of any measures resulting from the review
would "likely extend beyond the initial five year period" (ending 2015/16) of the current plan (MFish
2010a) (i.e., there are no immediate or active measures or a means to bring any in, if needed.)
As such, the mitigation does not qualify under the assessment framework as Moderate and
has therefore been scored as "minimal."
Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological
roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large
proportion of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is
maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators).
4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and
measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an
exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially
negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs)
are used.
3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large
role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the
ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery
supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these
impacts.
2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the
ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into
management.
61
•
1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices
(FADs) in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR
fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.
Low Concern
There is scientific research underway into deepwater benthic environments and fisheries interactions, in
addition to wider biodiversity research and an incorporation of the ecosystem-based approach within
management of fisheries and the environment. (NZMPI 2012a). This is guided at a policy level by the
Fisheries 2030 strategy (NZMPI 2011). However, at this stage there is not a depth of understanding of
ecosystem effects or of the role of this fishery to allow specific management measures (NZMPI 2012b),
so it does not warrant a score of "very low"; likewise, it is not apparent that the species is of
"exceptional importance" to the ecosystem, so it has been judged not to warrant the higher "moderate"
score, and thus receives a score of “low concern.”
A recent report for the Deepwater Group and the Ministry of Primary Industries (Boyd, R. O.
2013) discusses the ecological effects of four orange roughy fisheries, as assessed by an expert panel.
This report has the objective to inform appropriate management so that, in the future, specific
management measures might be put in place.
62
Acknowledgements
Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its
seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely
responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch® would like to thank Katrina Subedar of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection
Society of New Zealand and four anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for
scientific accuracy.
63
References
AFMA (2012) Research expedition shows orange roughy bouncing back. Internet article, with
information on current orange roughy management. Australian Fisheries Management
Authority, 2012. Available online at: http://www.afma.gov.au/2012/08/research-expeditionshows-orange-roughy-bouncing-back/ Accessed May 2013.
Anderson, O.F. (2011) Fish and invertebrate bycatch and discards in orange roughy and oreo
fisheries from 1990-91 until 2008-09. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity
Report No. 67.
Baird, S.J., Tracey, D., Mormede, S., Clark, M (2012) The distribution of protected corals in New
Zealand waters. Report prepared for DOC by NIWA, New Zealand.
Baird, S., Clark, M. (2013) Additional notes on Coral distribution and orange roughy fisheries.
Presentation. NIWA.
Black, J., Wood, R., Berhelsen, T., Tilney, R. (2013) Monitoring New Zealand's trawl footprint for
deepwater fisheries: 1989-90 to 2009-10. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity
Report No. 110. Report for Ministry of Primary Industries.
Boyd, R.O. (2013) Assessment of ecological effects of four New Zealand orange roughy fisheries.
Report for Deepwater Group Limited, Wellington (Unpublished report held by Deepwater
Group Limited, Nelson) 39p.
Branch, T.A. (2001) A review of orange rough Hoplostethus atlanticus fisheries, estimation
methods, biology and stock structure. South African Journal of Marine Science. 23 (1), pp 181203.
Campbell, M.L., Gallagher, C. (2007) Assessing the relative effects of fishing on the New Zealand
marine environment through risk analysis - ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, pp 256-270.
Clark, M.R., Bowden, D.A., Baird, S.J., Steward, R. (2010) Effects of fishing on the benthic
biodiversity of seamounts of the "Graveyard" complex, northern Chatham Rise. New Zealand
Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 46. ISSN 1176-9440. 41pp.
Clark, M. (2001) Are deepwater fisheries sustainable? The example of orange roughy
(Hoplostethus atlanticus) in New Zealand. Fisheries Research 51 (2-3), pp123-135.
Clark, M. and O Driscoll, R. (2003) Deepwater fisheries and aspects of their impact on seamount
habitat in New Zealand. Journal of Northwestern Atlantic Fisheries Science. Vol 31: pp441-458
Accessed April 2013.
64
Clark, M.R. and Rowden, A.A. (2009) Effect of deepwater trawling on the macro-invertebrate
assemblages of seamounts on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand. Deep Sea Research Part 1:
Oceanographic Research papers; 56 (9): 1540-54
Clement, I.T., Garguilo, S., Irving, A. Tilney, R. (2013) New Zealand Deepwater Fisheries
Management Practices: Orange Roughy (Deepwater Group Ltd Publication Series 2013/03,
dated November 2013). Wellington, New Zealand: Deepwater Group Ltd.
FAO (2013) Species Fact Sheet - Hoplostethus atlanticus. (Includes data portal which is the
source of global production data for this report.) Available online at:
http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2249/en Accessed: May 2013.
FAO (2013a) Species Distribution Map - Orange roughy. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations. Created via online application and available to view at:
http://www.fao.org/figis/geoserver/factsheets/species.html?species=ORY-mextent=90.611027,-94.727015,194.154598,98.63236zoom=0prj=4326 Accessed: 5th May 2013.
Foley, N., Rensburg, T., Armstrong, C. (2011) The rise and fall of the Irish orange roughy fishery:
An economic analysis. Marine Policy 35:6, 756-763. Available online at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X11000042 Working version
accessed at:
http://vmserver14.nuigalway.ie/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10379/1445/paper_0156.pdf?sequen
ce=1 April 2013.
Frances, C.R.I.C., Clark, M.R. (2005) Sustainability Issues for Orange Roughy Fisheries. Bulletin of
Marine Science 76 (2), pp 337-352.
Maul, G.E., 1986. Hoplostethus atlanticus (FishBase.org). Trachichthyidae. p. 749-752. In P.J.P.
Heemstra, P.C. (1990) Oreosomatidae. p. 226-228. In O. Gon and P.C. Heemstra (eds.) Fishes of
the Southern Ocean. J.L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa. Cited in:
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2011.FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.
www.fishbase.org - Pseudocyttus maculatus - smooth oreo dory. Available at:
http://fishbase.org/summary/Pseudocyttus-maculatus.html Accessed: April 2013.
Ministry of Fisheries (2011) New Zealand's Sustainable Fisheries (factsheet). Available online at:
http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/FDA16ECD-CF21-40DB-9748F2942C0EFEF2/0/General2011v3.pdf Accessed: April 2013.
Ministry of Fisheries (2010) Compliance Information Sheet - Benthic protection areas and
seamount closures http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/06F3676E-BD74-4137-AE7E57A0BDDCE819/0/Complianceinfosheet07.pdf. Accessed online April 2013.
65
New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (as MFish) (2010) National Deepwater Plan orange roughy. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. Available online at:
http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/9A1D6630-3B77-4739-82ABDABCDE6FBE84/0/NFP_Deepwater_and_Middledepth_Fisheries_Part_1B_ORANGEROUGHY.pd
f Accessed: April 2013.
New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (as MFish) (2010) National Fisheries Plan for
Deepwater and Middle-depth Fisheries. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand.
Available online at: http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4BF8C905-0893-4CF5-94E7F20751729F70/0/NFP_Deepwate_and_Middledepth_Fisheries_Part1A.pdf
Ministry of Fisheries (2009) Compliance information sheet: Compliance benchmarking for New
Zealand Fisheries. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. Available online at:
http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/8650E562-D1D6-46D6-B95599EA20921CB0/0/Complianceinfosheet02.pdf Accessed: April 2013.
MPA Questions and Answers. New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries. Available online at:
http://www.fish.govt.nz/ennz/Environmental/Seabed+Protection+and+Research/MPA/QandA.htm Accessed: September
2013. See "What is the management plan for deepwater areas?"
Ministry for Primary Industries (2013) Report from the Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2013:
stock assessments and yield estimates (part 2). Compiled by Ministry for Primary Industries
Fisheries Science Group, Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand. 474p.
Accessed: May 2014.
New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries. 2013. Stock status for Quota Management System
species (last updated October 2013).
Ministry for Primary Industries (2012) Stock status - sustainability. A summary of the QMS,
target and reference levels. Ministry for Primary Industries, 2012. Available online at:
http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=16tk=478 Accessed: April 2013.
Ministry for Primary Industries (2012) Report from the Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2012:
stock assessments and yield estimates (part 2). Compiled by Ministry for Primary Industries
Fisheries Science Group, Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand. 1194p.
Available online at: http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=113dk=23097 Accessed: April 2013.
Ministry for Primary Industries (2012). Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Annual Review
2012. Compiled by the Fisheries Management Science Team, Ministry for Primary Industries,
Wellington, New Zealand. 388 p.
66
New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries. 2012. Stock status for Quota Management System
species (last updated November 2012).
Fisheries 2030: New Zealanders maximising benefits from the use of fisheries within
environmental limits (landing page). New Zealand MPI, 2011. Online at:
http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Fisheries+2030/default.htm Accessed: April 2013. (The Fisheries
2030 document itself is available to download from this page/)
Ministry for Primary Industries (2007) Quota Management System - Chapter 2: Setting catch
levels to ensure sustainability. Ministry for Primary Industries, 2007. Available online from:
http://www.fish.govt.nz/ennz/Commercial/Quota+Management+System/Full+QMS+Details/default.htm Accessed: April
2013.
NOAA (2013) United States Department of Trade Cumulative trade data by product (Orange
roughy). Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/foreigntrade/applications/trade-by-product Accessed May 2013.
NOAA (2011) Imports and Exports of Fishery Products Annual Summary, 2011. Department of
Commerce, United States of America. Available online at:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/commercial/trade/TRADE2011.pdf Accessed: May 2013.
OECD (2005) Country note on national fisheries management systems - New Zealand.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2005. Available online at:
http://www.oecd.org/tad/fisheries/fisheriesmanagementsystemsinoecdcountries.htm
Accessed: April 2013
Paulin, C., A. Stewart, C. Roberts and P. McMillan, (1989) New Zealand fish: a complete guide.
National Museum of New Zealand Miscellaneous Series No. 19. 279 p. Cited in: Froese, R. and
D. Pauly. Editors. 2011.FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org:
Allocyttus niger - Black oreo Available at: http://fishbase.org/summary/Allocyttus-niger.html
Accessed: April 2013
Rieser, A., Watling, L., Guinotte, J. (2013) Trawl fisheries, catch shares and the protection of
benthic marine ecosystems: Has ownership generated incentives for seafloor stewardship?
Marine Policy 40, pp 75-83.
Seafood Source (2013) Seafood Handbook - Orange Roughy. Available online at:
http://www.seafoodsource.com/seafoodhandbook.aspx?id=10737418923 Accessed: May 2013.
SPRFMO (2007) Information describing orange roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus fisheries relating
to the South Pacific Regional Fishery Management Organisation. South Pacific Regional Fishery
67
Management Organisation, Wellington, New Zealand (24pp). Available online at:
http://www.southpacificrfmo.org/assets/Species-ProfilesFinal/orange%20roughy%20species%20profile%20040507.pdf Accessed: April 2013.
Stevens, M. (2003) Seafood Watch Seafood Report: Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus).
Monterey Bay Aquarium. Available online at:
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWa
tch_OrangeRoughyReport.pdf Accessed: April 2013.
2012 FDA Seafood List. Accessed April 2013.
Williams, A., Schlacher, T.A. Rowden, A.A., Franziska, A., Clark, M.R,Bowden, D.A., Stewart, R.,
Bax, N.J., Consalvey, M., Kloser, R.J. (2010) Seamount megabenthic assemblages fail to recover
from trawling impacts. Marine Ecology 31 pp183-199
Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen and E. Tortonese (eds.) Fishes of the northeastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. UNESCO, Paris. Vol. 2. Accessed 17th April 2013.
68
Appendix A: Five year plan
69
Taken from Ministry of Fisheries National Deepwater Plan for orange roughy {MFish 2010}.
70
Appendix B: Rationale for main species selection
In choosing the main bycatch species for the purposes of the assessment, the guidelines were
followed as closely as possible. Strictly speaking, smooth oreo are the only other species
represented in >5% of the catch, at 10% (averaged 06-09 (MFish 2010)). Black oreo represent
1.5% of the catch in that data range; however, the species is managed alongside smooth oreo
and was included as the third of the "top three species by volume of catch" as per the Seafood
Watch guidelines.
Black cardinalfish are included in the orange roughy Deepwater Plan (MFish 2010) as the fishery
overlaps with that of orange roughy. They were originally scoped out here because they
represent a very small proportion (0.2%) of the total catch, but have since been added under
the rationale that the species are managed together and it is likely that the orange roughy
fishery is responsible for a reasonable proportion of fishing mortality of black cardinalfish
(although the contribution is not known from available data).
A number of deepwater shark species together comprise 1.8% of the catch, however, none are
ETP species and individual species' proportions in the catch are negligible so they were not
considered significant.
There is a very low (<0.01 per tow) bycatch of seabirds for the fishery (MFish 2010), a fraction
of which are species of concern, including albatrosses. However, the interaction is minimal—in
the period 2005-2008, a total of 3 individuals from ETP species (1 Gibson's and 2 Buller's
albatrosses) were recorded as incidental bycatch (MFish 2010). This was thought to be
negligible in the context of deaths across all fisheries.
Scoping (for main species) notwithstanding, the management of all bycatch species is
considered under Criterion 3 (bycatch management), including mitigation for seabird
interaction and general efforts to reduce bycatch.
71
Appendix C: Review schedule
The Deepwater Plan for orange roughy (available online here:
http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/9A1D6630-3B77-4739-82ABDABCDE6FBE84/0/NFP_Deepwater_and_Middledepth_Fisheries_Part_1B_ORANGEROUGHY.pd
f
or see references) includes comprehensive information about long-term objectives and target
dates for completion. There is a five year plan with actions across every aspect of the fishery
(stock and bycatch management, monitoring and compliance, ecosystem and habitat effects)
that, at the time of this writing, was aiming to be delivered by 2015. Full details of the
objectives are in the report itself (reference as above) – Appendix 1 consists of two pages from
the report showing the summary of the five year actions.
The relevant contact to obtain updates on progress would be the New Zealand Ministry for
Primary Industries (into which the Ministry of Fisheries was recently amalgamated):
Ministry for Primary Industries
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
P O Box 2526
Wellington 6140
New Zealand
Phone: 0800 00 83 33
Fax: +64 4 894 0720
http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/info/contactus/default.htm

Orange Roughy New Zealand

Transcription

Similar documents

13503 Pumice St. Norwalk, CA 90650 tel: 562.802.2199 fax

SUSTAINABLE PACIFIC GROVE APRIL MEETING

MTV Latinos - Southwest Solutions

Home +Design - Sandra Nunnerley Inc.

ruL0!?-=:~u

Isaac Drought - Scholastic New Zealand

Garden bird guide - Landcare Research

Now, 11 years on…

New Solar Systems

Feeling good