1 / 29

CMM-2008-01 Evaluation WCPFC6-2009/IP17 WCPFC6-2009/IP18

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

lis
Download Presentation

CMM-2008-01 Evaluation WCPFC6-2009/IP17 WCPFC6-2009/IP18

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CMM-2008-01 EvaluationWCPFC6-2009/IP17WCPFC6-2009/IP18 SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme Noumea, New Caledonia

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. Purse Seine Effort Allowed

  9. High-Seas Pockets Closure

  10. 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

  11. 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 !

  12. 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

  13. Purse Seine Effort

  14. 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

  15. 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”)

  16. Projected Longline Catch

  17. 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

  18. Indonesian and Philippines

  19. 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

  20. Projection Scenarios 0. 2007 effort continued for all fisheries 1. CMM purse seine effort 2. CMM longline catch 3. 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

  21. Bigeye F2018/FMSY Standard purse seine catches Spill-sample purse seine catches

  22. Bigeye SB2018/SBMSY Standard purse seine catches Spill-sample purse seine catches

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. Stock Trajectories Long-term average recruitment Recent average recruitment

  27. Specific Scenarios

  28. Range of Reductions

  29. 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.

More Related