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

CMM-2008-01 Evaluation

WCPFC6-2009/IP17WCPFC6-2009/IP18

SPC Oceanic Fisheries ProgrammeNoumea, 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 AllowedCategory 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 US-flagged vessels)

27,954

Allowance for archipelagic waters (AW) in PNG and Solomon Islands (based on 2007 effort)

5,508

Other FFA EEZs (excluding US-flagged vessels), maximum of 2001-2004 average and 2004

23

International waters, maximum of 2001-2004 average and 2004, by flag (excluding US-flagged vessels)

9,647

TOTAL (domestic ID, PH purse seine fisheries not considered)

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

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Purs

e se

ine

effor

t (da

ys fi

shed

)

Unassociated sets

Associated sets

2001-2004 average TOTAL purse seine effort

2001-2004 average purse seine FAD effort

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

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Long

line b

igey

e tu

na ca

tch

(ton

nes)

?70% of average 2001-2004 catch

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

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Catc

h of

smal

l big

eye

tuna

(mt)

Indonesia

Philippines

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 Scenarios0. 2007 effort continued for all fisheries1. CMM purse seine effort2. CMM longline catch3. HSP closure

a. Effort disappearsb. Effort relocated

4. FAD closure5. HSP closure + FAD closure

a. Effort disappearsb. Effort relocated

6. HSP closure + FAD closure + longline catch limita. Effort disappearsb. Effort relocated

Bigeye F2018/FMSY

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

F/F M

SY

0 1 2 3a 3b 4 5a 5b 6a 6b

Projection scenario - 2018 outcomes

SRR recruit

AV recruit

2001-2004 average

30% reduction objective

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

F/F M

SY

0 1 2 3a 3b 4 5a 5b 6a 6b

Projection scenario - 2018 outcomes

SRR recruit

AV recruit

2001-2004 average

30% reduction objective

Standard purse seine catches

Spill-sample purse seine catches

Bigeye SB2018/SBMSY

Standard purse seine catches

Spill-sample purse seine catches

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6

SB/S

B MSY

0 1 2 3a 3b 4 5a 5b 6a 6b

Projection scenario - 2018 outcomes

SRR recruit

AV recruit

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

SB/S

B MSY

0 1 2 3a 3b 4 5a 5b 6a 6b

Projection scenario - 2018 outcomes

SRR recruit

AV recruit

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

OptionProjected F/Fmsy

Long-term av recruit.

Projected F/Fmsy

Recent recruit.

Full Implementation 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.