Transcript Assessment of the potential implications of application of

CMM-2008-01 Evaluation
WCPFC6-2009/IP17
WCPFC6-2009/IP18
SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme
Noumea, New Caledonia
Objective of the Analysis
• To conduct an evaluation of CMM 2008-01 to
see if the measures it specifies are capable of
achieving the stated objectives of the CMM
• Not necessarily what will happen, but what
the CMM could allow, and how that relates to
the CMM objectives
CMM-2008-01 Objectives
• Bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks are
maintained at levels capable of producing
their maximum sustainable yield
• A minimum 30% reduction in bigeye tuna
fishing mortality from the annual average
during the period 2001-2004 or 2004
• No increase in fishing mortality for yellowfin
tuna beyond the annual average during the
period 2001-2004 average or 2004
Approach
• Estimate levels of catch and/or effort allowed
under CMM 2008-01
• Estimate the impact of allowed catch and
effort on bigeye and yellowfin stocks
• Evaluate impacts against the CMM objectives
– F/FMSY and SB/SBMSY indicators
Effort and Catch Allowed by CMM
• Purse seine
– Limits on vessel days for EEZs and high seas 20N – 20S
– FAD closure of 2 months in 2009, 3 months 2010,
2011
– High seas pockets closure
• Longline
– Reduce catch to 70% of 2001-2004 (or 2004 for US,
CH, ID) levels
• Various exemptions or exclusions for both
measures
Purse Seine Effort
• PNA EEZs collectively limited to 2004 effort
– Excludes archipelagic waters (PNG, Solomons)
– Assumed to include domestic, FSMA, bilateral effort
• Non-PNA members to take “compatible
measures” for their EEZs
– Interpreted as max (2001-2004, 2004) level of effort
• Flag States to individually limit effort on the high
seas to max(2001-2004, 2004) level
Purse Seine Exemptions/Exclusions
• Archipelagic waters not included in EEZ, PNG, SB, ID,
PH
– assume continuation of 2007 effort
• High seas limits – do not apply to SIDS
– assume continuation of 2007 effort
• “2004 level of effort” – includes rights in place under
registered regional or bilateral fisheries agreements
– US Treaty is the most important
– Only 4,194 days in 2004
– 40 full-time vessels require 9,172 days
Purse Seine Effort Allowed
Category of purse seine effort
Effort (days
fishing)
Allocation for 40 US vessels at 229 days fishing per year
(average for full-time US vessels in 2004)
9,172
PNA EEZs 2004 (excluding archipelagic waters and USflagged vessels)
27,954
Allowance for archipelagic waters (AW) in PNG and
Solomon Islands (based on 2007 effort)
Other FFA EEZs (excluding US-flagged vessels), maximum
of 2001-2004 average and 2004
International waters, maximum of 2001-2004 average and
2004, by flag (excluding US-flagged vessels)
TOTAL (domestic ID, PH purse seine fisheries not
considered)
5,508
23
9,647
52,304
High-Seas Pockets Closure
High-Seas Pockets Closure
• Effort occurring in HS pockets at the expanded
total purse seine effort – 7,439 days
• Effort removed from the fishery?
• Or relocated to other high seas areas to the
east?
– area of higher bigeye tuna catch-ability, so could
result in an increase in fishing mortality
FAD Closure
• Aug-Sep 2009, Jul-Sep 2010 (and onwards)
• If effort distributions by quarter remain as per
historical average, FAD closure would result in
approximately 20% reduction in PS FAD effort
(outside of the domestic fisheries of Indonesia
and Philippines) from 2010
• The % of FAD sets in total purse seine effort
during the remaining 9 months of the year is a
key uncertainty !
Summary of Purse Seine Measures
• Increase in effort to 52,304 days possible
– 12% increase over previous record
– ~30% in excess of 2001-2004 average
• Effect of HSP closures depends on whether
effort is relocated or removed
• FAD effort at best equal to 2001-2004 average
Purse Seine Effort
Purse seine effort (days fished)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2001-2004 average TOTAL
purse seine effort
2001-2004 average
purse seine FAD effort
Unassociated sets
Associated sets
Longline Catch
• Phased reduction in longline bigeye catch,
such that a 30% reduction is achieved from
2001-2004 levels (2004 for US, China and
Indonesia) by 2011
• Reducing longline catch is not necessarily the
same as reducing fishing mortality!!
– If stock is reduced to a low level, longline catch
may not be limiting and effort and fishing
mortality could rise
Longline Exemptions
• Does not apply to CCMs catching <2,000 t of
bigeye in 2004. 2007 catches assumed.
• Does not apply to SIDS. 2007 catches
assumed.
• Archipelagic waters excluded. This affects in
particular Indonesia. 2007 catches assumed.
• China may maintain 2004 catches until 2011.
• US has a limit equal to 90% of 2004 catch
(“fresh fish exemption”)
Projected Longline Catch
Longline bigeye tuna catch
(tonnes)
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
?
Average 20012004 catch
70% of average
2001-2004
catch
Other Commercial Fisheries
• All except miscellaneous domestic fisheries in
PH and ID have catches of bigeye < 2,000 t
• PH and ID domestic fisheries occur in
archipelagic waters (?) and therefore excluded
• 2007 levels of fishing effort assumed
Indonesian and Philippines
Catch of small bigeye tuna (mt)
25,000
20,000
15,000
Indonesia
10,000
Philippines
5,000
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Projections
• 10 year projection 2009-2018
• Alternative models with high and standard
purse seine catch
• Future recruitment according to stock
recruitment relationship or 1998-2007
average recruitment
• Compute F2018/FMSY and SB2018/SBMSY for all
scenarios
• Compare to F2001-2004/FMSY
Projection Scenarios
0.
1.
2.
3.
2007 effort continued for all fisheries
CMM purse seine effort
CMM longline catch
HSP closure
a. Effort disappears
b. Effort relocated
4. FAD closure
5. HSP closure + FAD closure
a. Effort disappears
b. Effort relocated
6. HSP closure + FAD closure + longline catch limit
a. Effort disappears
b. Effort relocated
Bigeye F2018/FMSY
2.5
Standard purse seine catches
F/FMSY
2.0
2001-2004
average
1.5
1.0
30% reduction
objective
0.5
SRR recruit
0.0
AV recruit
0
1
2
3a 3b
4
5a 5b 6a 6b
Projection scenario - 2018 outcomes
2.5
Spill-sample purse seine catches
F/FMSY
2.0
1.5
2001-2004
average
1.0
30% reduction
objective
0.5
SRR recruit
0.0
AV recruit
0
1
2
3a 3b
4
5a 5b 6a 6b
Projection scenario - 2018 outcomes
Bigeye SB2018/SBMSY
Standard purse seine catches
1.6
1.4
SB/SBMSY
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
SRR recruit
0.2
AV recruit
0.0
0
1
2
3a 3b
4
5a 5b 6a 6b
Projection scenario - 2018 outcomes
Spill-sample purse seine catches
1.4
SB/SBMSY
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
SRR recruit
0.0
AV recruit
0
1
2
3a 3b
4
5a 5b 6a 6b
Projection scenario - 2018 outcomes
Conclusions – Bigeye
• CMM 2008-01 will not achieve its objective of a 30%
reduction in F, and will not maintain SB at or above
MSY levels
• The CMM fails because:
– Longline catch reductions do not result in the required
reduction in F for adult bigeye
– The increase in purse seine effort potentially allowed
under the CMM and increase in catch-ability since 2001 is
not sufficiently offset by FAD and HSP closures to result in
a reduction in F below 2001-2004 average levels
– The exclusion of archipelagic waters quarantines a large
amount of juvenile F
Conclusions – Yellowfin
• F2018 could increase by as much as 15% above
the 2001-2004 average level, depending on
assumptions
• SB2018 remains above or approaches MSY
levels, depending on assumptions
Post-SC5 Evaluations
• SC5 request SPC-OFP:
– Further presentation of the outputs of the
projections, in particular spawning biomass
trajectories and predicted catches;
– Examination of the impacts of various exemptions
and ‘special’ provisions in CMM2008-01;
– Examination of the predicted impacts of
additions/ changes to CMM-2008-01 provisions
– Evaluate the effect of the CMM on skipjack
catches
Stock Trajectories
Long-term average recruitment
Recent average recruitment
Specific Scenarios
Option
Full Implementation
Projected F/Fmsy
Projected F/Fmsy
Long-term av
Recent recruit.
recruit.
1.80
2.09
No Exemptions
1.54 ( 32%)
1.49 (55%)
Complete High Seas Closure
1.79 ( 1%)
2.05 ( 4%)
No Foreign Vessel FAD Sets
1.74 ( 7%)
1.95 (13%)
No FAD Sets by Large LL Members
1.74 ( 7%)
2.01 ( 7%)
80% FAD Effort Reduction, 50% LL
Catch & ID/PH Effort Reduction
1.00 (100%)
1.01 (99%)
Range of Reductions
Apparent Lack of Impact of PS
Measures?
• ID/PH fisheries – If these are not limited, a
component of PS reductions flow through to
ID/PH
• LL fishery – for many projections, LL catch limit
cannot be taken, and needs very high effort to
get close. Therefore, gains from PS reductions
will tend to get “sucked into” the LL fishery as
it attempts to take its catch limit.