Jumbo squid Dosidicus gigas - The Safina Center
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Jumbo squid
Dosidicus gigas
Image ©Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook/ www.scandfish.com
Chile, Peru
Jig
December 3, 2015
Max McClure, Independent Research Analyst
Disclaimer: Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by
external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and 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.
2 About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States 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. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides 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 conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out 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 regularly 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. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. 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.
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.
Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating
wild-catch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:
• How does fishing affect the species under assessment?
• How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species?
• How effective is the fishery’s management?
• How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?
Each criterion includes:
• Factors to evaluate and score
• Guidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating
Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation.
Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color coded to correspond to the
categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and the Safina Center’s online guide:
Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught 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.
Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that
harm other marine life or the environment.
ry scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).
1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.
4
Summary
This report provides recommendations for the South American stock of Humboldt squid (Dosidicus
gigas). The analysis only includes the Chilean and Peruvian fisheries. In Chile, the majority of the stock is
reserved for artisanal fishermen, with jigging (with or without lights) as the primary method in most
regions. In Peru, the stock is almost exclusively exploited by artisanal light jiggers. Artisanal jigging is
therefore the only gear reviewed in this report. A number of other nations, most notably China, exploit
the same D. gigas stock on the high seas, thus affecting the assessment.
D. gigas has low inherent vulnerability, but its abundance is highly variable and appears linked to
environmental conditions. The stock is not considered depleted and fishing effort in Chile and Peru does
not exceed recommended levels. The unavailability of Chinese fishing statistics makes true fishing
mortality difficult to evaluate.
Discard rates and bycatch information for the fishery are not available, but jigging with or without lights
(the most common gear type used in the Chilean and Peruvian artisanal fisheries) is highly selective for
squid. Less selective gears, including trawling, contribute negligibly to U.S. imports.
Management of the stock is moderately effective, but both Chile and Peru lack biological control points
and accurate biomass predictions. Chile lacks explicit limits on license holders and quantitative
population assessment, while Peru has more direct and regular methods of biomass evaluation. The
Chinese effect on stock is not monitored.
Scientific advice is largely followed in both countries, and enforcement has been effective, although
Chilean in-person monitoring of the artisanal fishery is limited. The fishery is too recent to have a clear
track record. Artisanal fishers have official recognition in both countries, but are not fully included in
management decisions.
Jigging has minimal impact on marine ecosystems, while the ecological role of D. gigas and the potential
effects of its depletion are poorly understood.
Both the Chilean and the Peruvian fisheries are ranked as Good Alternatives.
Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations
Stock / Fishery Impacts on Impacts on Management Habitat and Overall
the Stock other Spp. Ecosystem Recommendation
Jumbo squid Yellow Green (5.00) Red (2.00) Green (3.87) Good Alternative
Chile Southeast Pacific - Jig (2.64) (3.181)
Jumbo squid Yellow Green (5.00) Red (2.00) Green (3.87) Good Alternative
Peru Southeast Pacific - Jig (2.64) (3.181)
5
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 >2.2-3.2, 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
• Avoid/Red = Final Score6 Table of Contents About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 2 Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation..................................................................... 14 Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species .................................................................................................... 18 Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ................................................................................................. 20 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem................................................................................ 29 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 33 References .................................................................................................................................................. 34
7 Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report provides recommendations for the South American stock of Humboldt squid (Dosidicus gigas), a major commercially imported squid species in the United States. The analysis only includes the Chilean and Peruvian Humboldt squid fisheries. In Chile, the majority of the stock is reserved for artisanal fishermen, with jigging (with or without lights) as the primary method in most regions. In Peru, the stock is almost exclusively exploited by artisanal light jiggers. Overview of the species and management bodies Dosidicus gigas is an ommastrephid squid, subfamily Ommastrephinae. The species is restricted to the Eastern Pacific, historically ranging between subtropical North and South America with temporary excursions to the north and south (Nigmatullin, et al. 2001). In the past few decades, it has also become a common presence off the coast of southern Chile and the West Coast of the United States, extending as far north as Alaska (Keyl et al. 2008) (Zeidberg and Robison 2007). The species is capable of traveling ≈30 km/day and undergoes daily vertical migrations, spending the day below 250 m and ascending nearly to the surface at dusk, while periodically diving below 300 m (Gilly et al 2006). As with other ommastrephids, D. gigas has a lifespan of 1–2 years (Argüelles, et al. 2001). Rapidly reaching mantle lengths of 1.2 m and weights of 50 kg, it is the largest nektonic squid, though individuals vary in size (Nigmatullin, et al. 2001). The species is semelparous and highly fertile, with year-round reproduction typically producing two cohorts a year (autumn/winter and spring/summer hatchings) (Argüelles, et al 2001), but little else is known about its reproductive biology. Environmental conditions appear to have a large influence on recruitment (Rodhouse 2001). D. gigas feeds on a variety of small pelagic and demersal fishes, crustaceans, and squids, and in some cases also targeting larger, economically important species such as hake (Alarcón-Muñoz, et al. 2008) (Field, et al. 2007) (Markaida and Sosa-Nishizaki 2003). Primary predators are tuna, billfish, sharks, pinnipeds, and toothed whales (Nigmatullin, et al. 2001) (Field, et al. 2007). Cannibalism is widely observed but likely overreported (Ibáñez, et al. 2008). Globally, D. gigas constitutes the world’s largest cephalopod fishery (FAO 2014), supporting major fisheries off the coast of Chile and Peru and in the Gulf of California, an occasional fishery off the Costa Rica dome, and a sport fishery on the West Coast of the United States. The North and South American stocks constitute genetically distinct subpopulations (Sandoval-Castellanos et al. 2007) (Staaf, et al. 2010). Squid caught in Peruvian and Chilean waters are not genetically differentiable (Ibáñez et al. 2011). Chilean management As of 2012, Chile was the world’s eighth-largest fishing nation (FAO 2014). Fisheries are under the aegis of the Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura, adopted in 1989 and most recently updated in 2013 (Subpesca 2014d). The executive policymaking branch of Chilean fisheries governance is Subpesca,
8 under the Ministry of Economy, Development and Reconstruction, which incorporates national, zonal, and regional fisheries councils. The separate Sernapesca acts as a control and enforcement body. The Instituto de Fomento Pesquero (IFOP) is a nonprofit corporation, founded both by the Ministry and by the private sector organization Sonapesca, which provides fisheries analysis. The Fondo de Investigación Pesquero (FIP), under the umbrella of Subpesca, also funds fisheries research. Chilean fishery managers make use of quotas (global, individual, and, in some cases, individual transferable), gear restrictions, seasonal/area closures, establishment of bycatch limits, and size limitations. Regular stock assessments are conducted and management measures set in place by Subpesca according to recommendations made by IFOP and the regional scientific committees. Artisanal fishers have formal recognition: all are officially registered by Sernapesca, are apportioned separate quotas, and have exclusive access to the 5 miles adjacent to the coastline. Chile is a signatory to most major international treaties and a member of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) (FAO 2010b) (OECD 2009). Recent overexploitation in multiple fisheries and weak monitoring of bycatch, discards, and unreported fishing (OECD 2009) (Perez 2005) are beginning to be addressed by stricter scientific monitoring, as required by Ley 20.625. Vessel monitoring systems are currently mandatory on all large-scale fishing vessels (FAO 2010) (FAO 2010b). Peruvian management As of 2012, Peru was the world’s fourth-largest fishing nation (FAO, 2014). Fisheries are governed by the General Law on Fisheries (Decreto No. 25977) and managed by the office of the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, a branch of the Ministry of Production (PRODUCE). The Minister is responsible for developing and managing national fisheries policies, and oversees the Instituto del Mar del Perú (IMARPE), which conducts fisheries research, and the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Pesquero (FONDEPES), which is responsible for developing artisanal fisheries (FAO, 2010a). Peruvian fishery managers make use of seasonal/area closures, reductions in the permitted fishing fleet, size limitations, gear restrictions, and establishment of bycatch limits. Regular stock assessments are conducted and management measures set in place by the Minister according to recommendations made by IMARPE and its regional branches. IMARPE has a well-established onboard observer program to monitor discards and bycatch (PRODUCE 2012a). Peru is a signatory to most major treaties and a cooperating non-member of the SPRFMO. Production Statistics Dosidicus gigas capture has expanded dramatically in recent years, due both to increased fishing effort and to the species’ population growth and range expansion, potentially tied to climate change and/or the decline of finfish competitors (Gilly, et al. 2013) (Keyl et al., 2008) (Zeidberg & Robison, 2007). Based on catch data from the FAO’s FishStatJ, the recent catch primarily derives from Peru, China, and Chile, with negligible captures by other nations.
9 Fishery in Chilean waters Humboldt squid have been caught incidentally off the Chilean coast since at least 1957, and were caught sporadically at low levels until the 1990s (Rocha & Vega, 2003). The Chilean artisanal jig fishery was initially centered in Coquimbo (Region IV), beginning in the late 1990s or early 2000s (Cortés, 2012) (pers. comm., Patricio Galvez, IFOP2015), and slowly expanded into Regions V and VIII after the 2002 spike in squid landings (Keyl et al., 2008) (Subpesca, 2012a). Primary fishing grounds are nearshore between 36°–38.5°S and 29°–34°S. Japanese, Korean, and Chinese vessels also operate in international waters off the Chilean coast (Arkhipkin, et al. 2015). Purse seining remains popular in the Region VIII artisanal fishery, but is likely a minor contributor (Arancibia et al., 2007) (pers. comm., Patricio Galvez) (pers. comm., Pablo Lizana, SeaTec). Artisanal fishers also conducted trawls until gear used in the fishery was regulated in 2013 (pers. comm., Liesbeth van der Meer). Although industrial hake trawlers had opportunistically pursued squid in the past, the directed industrial trawl fishery began in 2011, with the first global quota established in 2012 (Subpesca, 2012a). These efforts are primarily focused in the south (Regions VIII–XII), and constitute midwater trawls conducted in short trips with low storage volumes (pers. comm., Patricio Galvez) (pers. comm., Pablo Lizana). Currently (for the period 2014–2019), 80% of the global quota is reserved for the artisanal fleet (Subpesca 2013a) (Subpesca 2014b). According to landings by sector reported to Sernapesca in previous years, artisanal catch has exceeded 80% of the total for every year since 2001 except 2007 (when artisanal catch constituted 67% of the total) and 2010 (33% of total) (Subpesca 2012a, Sernapesca 2014). Figure 1. Humboldt squid capture in Chile by sector (Subpesca 2012a, Sernapesca 2014).
10 Fishery in Peruvian waters USSR trawlers reported Humboldt squid as bycatch off the coast of Peru in the late 1980s, but the species was of low economic importance until the industrial fishery, comprised of Japanese and Korean mechanized jigging fleets, began in 1991 (IMARPE, 1996). Japanese and Korean ships have since operated continuously in the Peruvian EEZ from 3–7°S (Waluda, et al. 2006), except for 1996 (Mariátegui, et al. 1997). Japanese, Korean, and Chinese vessels also operate in international waters off the Peruvian coast (Arkhipkin, et al. 2015). Catches by the Peruvian artisanal fleet, which is active primarily in the southern half of the country, were not significant before 1996 (Estrella Arellano & Swartzman, 2010). The number of artisanal jigging vessels has increased since 1998, exceeding 4,000 in 1998, while the number of participating industrial vessels has concurrently decreased. The artisanal fleet has taken approximately 90% of the catch from 2004–2012 (Arkhipkin, et al. 2015). While the IMARPE webpage on Humboldt squid describes the artisanal fishery as using both gill nets and hand-line jigging (IMARPE, 2008), Estrella Arellano & Swartzman found that 97% of catches from 1996– 2006 came from jigging with lights (Estrella Arellano & Swartzman, 2010). Figure 2. Humboldt squid capture in Peru by sector (sector-specific fishing data unavailable prior to 2002) (IMARPE 1995, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2013).
11 Other A number of other nations exploit South American D. gigas stock. Japanese and Korean fleets are permitted to fish within Peruvian waters. Taiwan has also operated a smaller high-seas mechanized jigging fleet in the southeast Pacific since 2002 (SPRFMO 2013a), with an average annual catch around 21,000 tonnes (Arkhipkin, et al. 2015). Ecuador’s official D. gigas fishery was authorized in 2014, allowing for 30 artisanal and 6 industrial vessels (Subsecretario de Recursos Pesqueros 2014). Most prominently, the Chinese distant-water mechanized jigging fleet, redistributing after declines in Illex argentinus stock, has been operating outside the Chilean and Peruvian EEZs from 7–20°S since 2001 (Chen, et al 2008). From 2005–2010, the Chinese catch stayed below 140,000 tonnes, increasing to 220,000–250,000 tonnes in 2011 and 2012 (Arkhipkin, et al. 2015). Figure 3. Humboldt squid capture in the South Pacific and Central Eastern Pacific by fishing nation (FAO 2014b). Importance to the U.S./North American market Complete data on Humboldt squid imports into the U.S. are not available: the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) identifies commercial U.S. squid imports as either “Loligo NSPF” or “squid NSPF,” where NSPF stands for “not specifically provided for.”
12 According to NMFS data, “squid NSPF” imports are overwhelmingly Chinese in origin. But China’s fishing statistics are complicated by historical underreporting of catches in its distant-water fleet (Pauly et al., 2013) and the failure to distinguish D. gigas captures from often significant catches of other squids. Chinese trade statistics are similarly complicated by the importation, processing, and re-exports of other squid species (see Seafood Watch report on California market squid). This report will not evaluate the Chinese Humboldt squid fishery. According to Chilean customs statistics, approximately 80% of Humboldt squid exported from Chile in 2013 was shipped by SeaTec. Owner Pablo Lizana states that SeaTec exclusively buys from artisanal suppliers because industrially trawled squid are of lower quality (pers. comm., Pablo Lizana, SeaTec Chile; see Chilean customs data provided by Lizana under his name in bibliography). Damage to squid skin and mantle during trawls generally leads to reduced value for trawled catches (Arkhipkin et al., 2015). Figure 4. U.S. imports of “Squid NSPF” (squid of unspecified species) by exporting nation (NMFS 2014).
13 Common and market names Humboldt squid, jumbo squid, jumbo flying squid, calamar gigante, pota (Peru), jibia (Chile). May also be sold in the U.S. simply as squid or calamari. Primary product forms The majority of squid products for human consumption are imported frozen, either whole or in fillets or rings. Humboldt squid is also sold boiled, pickled, as jerky (or “sakiika”), salted and fermented (“shiokara”), and mixed with other seafood, although these forms are less common in North American markets.
14 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
15
• 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 (>25 years),
late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator).
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.
Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig
Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig
Low
Average age at maturity: < 1 year (Seafood Watch score: 3)
Average maximum age: 1–2 years (Seafood Watch score: 3)
Reproductive strategy: pelagic egg mass (Seafood Watch score: 2)
Density dependence: no compensatory or depensatory dynamics at low population density (Seafood
Watch score: 2)
Mean score: 2.5 = low inherent vulnerability
Rationale:
Dosidicus gigas is short-lived and semelparous (i.e., reproduces only once before death) (Nigmatullin et
al. 2001). Both its potential fecundity and its pelagic egg masses are the largest among the
cephalopods (Nigmatullin and Markaida 2008) (Staaf, et al. 2008), but little else is known about its
reproductive biology. The species’ labile population dynamics are likely more dependent on
environmental variability than population density (Pierce and Guerra 1994) (Rodhouse 2001), with the El
Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) acting as a particularly strong influence (Morales-Bojórquez et al.
2001) (Waluda et al. 2006).
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
• 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium
inherent vulnerability to fishing.16
• 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.
Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig
Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig
Moderate Concern
Information is generally unavailable about the stock status of Dosidicus gigas off the coast of South
America. IMARPE evaluates biomass off the coast of Peru with hydroacoustic methods (Argüelles and
Tafur 2010), with values ranging between 2.51 and 2.96 mt for the period 2001–2011 (Arkhipken, et al.
2015). Estimates of Chilean biomass have been made using both hydroacoustic surveys (ranging
between ≈40,400 and ≈682,600 within the period 2001–2006) (Alarcón-Muñoz, et al. 2008) and Ecopath
modeling (≈400,000 tonnes in 2005) (Arancibia and Neira 2008). But the accuracy of these methods in
the case of D. gigas is unclear (Morales-Bojórquez, et al. 2001). Abundance has been highly variable, and
recruitment appears to be linked to environmental conditions. Chile’s Subpesca has declined to define
biological reference points with respect to the Humboldt Current population (CCT-RDZCS 2013) (CCT-
RDZCS 2014), and current reference points and biomass estimates from IMARPE are not available.
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.17
• 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place
to curtail overfishing.
Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig
Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig
Moderate Concern
Humboldt squid is the target of the largest global invertebrate fishery in the world by volume (Rosa, R et
al. 2013). Global catches have increased from 210,000 mt in 2000 to 847,000 mt in 2013, with the
highest catch (950,000 mt) in 2012 (FAO 2014b). In 2013, 847,292 mt were caught; all but 11,132 mt off
Chile and Peru (the remainder was caught by Mexico) (FAO 2014b). Of this 836,160 mt, approximately
54% (over 450,000 mt) was caught by Peru and nearly 13% (106,271 mt) by Chile. Virtually all of the
remaining 32% (264,000 mt) was caught by China (FAO 2014b).
Chile and Peru both conduct assessments of the stock (see Detailed Rationale below), but China does
not. Thus, there is no way of knowing whether total mortality is sustainable, leading to a score of
“moderate” concern for this factor.
Rationale:
The agency currently uses historical yields to calculate maximum constant yield (MCY) and assign a
global quota or total allowable catch (TAC) for the species across all fishery regions (Subpesca 2012a).
Catch has stayed well below this MCY for both 2012 and 2013 (Sernapesca 2014). Subpesca has since
commissioned a study to evaluate new management methods (see Proyecto 2013-18 in (FIP 2013)).
Fisheries documents refer to the stock as “fully exploited” (Subpesca 2014a). IMARPE sets an initial
global quota at less than 2/3 MSY, which is then altered over the course of the season in accordance
with midseason biomass estimates. Catch has stayed below or at the recommended catch from 2008–
2012 with the exception of 2009, when total allowable catch, but not FMSY, was exceeded (Argüelles
2012) (Carbajal-Villalta 2009) (IMARPE 2010) (PRODUCE 2012b). PRODUCE described the stock as
underexploited in its last publicly available statement on the fishery (PRODUCE 2012b).
See Factor 3.1, Harvest Strategy, for details on the definition of MCY.18 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 >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and
19 Criterion 2 Assessment Factor 2.4–Discard Rate Chile/Southeast Pacific, Jig < 20% Discard rates are largely unavailable, but jig fisheries are typically highly selective (Boyle and Rodhouse 2005), with a discard rate of 0.1% (Kelleher 2005). Rationale In accordance with its 2012 fisheries discards law, Chile is currently introducing an onboard observer program in its industrial fisheries (Cocas 2014)(Subpesca 2012d), with the D. gigas trawl fishery to be included within the next two years (Patricio Galvez, IFOP, pers comm). Factor 2.4–Discard Rate Peru/Southeast Pacific, Jig < 20% Discard rates are largely unavailable, but jig fisheries are typically highly selective (Boyle and Rodhouse 2005), with a discard rate of 0.1% (Kelleher 2005). Rationale In Peru, IMARPE places scientific observers aboard foreign industrial squid jiggers within its EEZ (PRODUCE 2011), but artisanal landings are evaluated at port (IMARPE 2013a).
20 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 >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and
21
• 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
Chile Southeast Pacific Moderately N/A Ineffective Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately
Jig Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
Peru Southeast Pacific Moderately N/A Ineffective Highly Highly Moderately Moderately
Jig Effective 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.
Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig
Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig
Moderately Effective
Chile and Peru are both deemed to have moderately effective management strategies and
implementation programs. Both catch Humboldt squid only within their EEZs, and both have
implemented management measures since 2012 (see below). The effectiveness of each country’s
strategy is as yet untested (given that each has only been in place for a few fishing seasons), but both
policies still have weaknesses in terms of regulation during years of low abundance (i.e., they do not
define a minimum biomass below which fishing should not occur) and the ability to estimate each year’s
exploitable biomass through annual pre-fishing season surveys (as strongly recommended for
cephalopod fisheries by researchers, e.g., (Rodhouse et al. 2014)). Furthermore, the overall
management strategies are weakened by the considerable catch made by China (especially) on the high
seas.
Chile
Management of the squid fishery in Chile started in 2012. Fisheries legislation demonstrates concern for22 scientific advice and the precautionary principle: legislation specifically cites input of local scientific committees, and the squid fishery has recently been closed to new permitholders because the resource is no longer deemed underexploited (Subpesca 2014e). But there are no explicit limits on the number of artisanal permitholders (Subpesca 2013a). No reference points have been developed for the fishery, so Subpesca currently sets the fishery’s modifiable TAC using a maximum constant yield based on the historical catch from 2004–2010 (Subpesca 2013a). Peru IMARPE estimates an initial MSY using historic CPUE/landings data and adjusts according to direct hydroacoustic stock assessments. This MSY is used to generate a global quota at < 2/3 of MSY (PRODUCE 2012d). Production statistics for the artisanal fishery are collected by dockside observers and reported to PRODUCE, while the foreign industrial fleet is monitored by onboard observers and vessel monitoring systems. A permit is required to participate in the fishery. Rationale: Chile The 2012 TAC, which has set the template for the following years’ quotas, analyzes the annual catch from 2004–2010 using Annala’s maximum constant yield method: MCY = cYav (cited in Subpesca, 2012a as (Francis 1992)), where Yav is the average catch over a period of time, and c is the natural variability in the biomass of the stock. For 2012, Yav over the period of interest equalled ≈167,000 tonnes. Subpesca assigned c a value near or equal to 1 based on D. gigas’ presumed “resilience and productivity,” resulting in the highest possible calculated MCY. Additionally, the final TAC was set at 200,000 tonnes, above this MCY, on the assumption that the stock was underexploited. Of this quota, 4,000 tonnes are reserved for research. Of the remaining 196,000, 80% is reserved for artisanal fishers and 20% for industrial vessels. In the artisanal sector, an additional percentage can be captured as bycatch in other fisheries. Although this fractioning plan was suspended in 2014 (Subpesca 2014c), it has been reapproved for the years 2014–2019 (Subpesca 2014b). Fisheries legislation demonstrates concern for scientific advice and the precautionary principle: legislation specifically cites input of local scientific committees, and the squid fishery has recently been closed to new permitholders because the resource is no longer deemed underexploited (Subpesca 2014e). But there are no explicit limits on the number of artisanal permitholders (Subpesca 2013a), and Chile has been criticized for its historic response to overfishing and environmental change (Kalikoski, et al. 2006b). Reported catch has never exceeded the TAC (Sernapesca 2014). The lack of abundance data suggests that the quota, set above the perceived capacity of the artisanal fleet in 2012, is likely to increase as the artisanal fleet expands (pers. comm., Liesbeth van der Meer, Oceana Chile 2015). Overlap of the Chilean stock with that pursued by the (primarily Chinese) high-seas fishery in the same region complicates stock assessment and management. Resource management consulting firm MRAG suggests that Chinese high seas jiggers may be taking 7,000 tonnes of squid a month (MRAG 2005)). Catch from vessels that operate in international waters is not included in Chile’s TAC.
23 Peru Since 2010, the MSY has been calculated using the Schaefer Biomass Dynamic Model, with the assumption that catch varies with sea surface temperature (Argüelles 2012) (for D. gigas population parameters from the Schaefer model, see Arkhipkin, et al. 2015). MSY from 2001–2011 has been estimated at around 991,514 tonnes. In 2012, this MSY was calculated as 854,859 tonnes, which led to the establishment of a global quota of 500,000 tonnes (PRODUCE 2012d). This quota may be adjusted over the course of the season based on monthly fisheries reports and midseason hydroacoustic surveys (IMARPE 2013b). Earlier in the fishery’s history, global quotas were set using CPUE values from 1991– 1998 and hydroacoustic surveys from 1999–2009, coupled with Schaefer and Fox production models (Arkhipkin, et al. 2015). Fisheries legislation demonstrates concern for scientific advice and the precautionary principle: the Ley General de la Pesca specifically requires that IMARPE recommend annual quotas for stocks and conduct research to validate its recommendations (PRODUCE 2014). There has been criticism of Peru’s historically slow response to overfishing, but praise for management’s response to environmental change (notably, IMARPE explicitly includes sea-surface temperature monitoring when evaluating the squid fishery) (Kalikoski, et al. 2006a) (Argüelles 2012). There are no explicit limits on the number of artisanal permitholders, and the TAC has been exceeded once, in 2009 (IMARPE 2010). If established quotas are exceeded in the course of the season, the Ley General de la Pesca requires that all “extractive activities” be suspended (PRODUCE 2014). Overlap of stock with the squid pursued by the (primarily Chinese) high-seas fishery in the same region complicates stock assessment and management (MRAG suggests that Chinese high seas jiggers may be taking 7,000 tonnes of squid a month (MRAG 2005)). Catch from vessels that operate in international waters is not included in Peru’s TAC. 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. Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig
24 N/A Jumbo squid are the only main species landed (or even caught) in the fishery and are not thought to have been overfished historically. 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. Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig Ineffective Scientific research and monitoring is scored “ineffective” for the Humboldt squid fishery because there is no monitoring or research conducted on the component on the high seas fished by China (which accounted for about 1/3 of the catch in 2013 (FAO 2014b)). This is unfortunate, because Chile and especially Peru do have some research and monitoring measures in place. It is unclear whether these measures include pre-season surveys as recommended by scientists (e.g., (Rodhouse et al 2014)). Chile Although IFOP has begun or is planning to conduct studies on assessment of D. gigas stock, assessments have thus far been sporadic and incomplete. Methods used include hydroacoustic surveys (Alarcón- Muñoz, et al. 2008), Ecopath modeling (Arancibia and Neira 2008), and incidental sampling from hake research trawl bycatch. Peru IMARPE conducts regular hydroacoustic stock assessments in addition to delivering monthly reports on the state of the fishery. These are based on CPUE and size-age structure of landings (IMARPE 2013b), although the accuracy of these methods in the case of D. gigas is unclear (Morales-Bojórquez, et al. 2001). Environmental data (such as surface temperature) are also monitored (Argüelles 2012). 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.
25 Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig Moderately Effective Chile has a robust fisheries science institution in IFOP and in the Subpesca regional scientific committees, most relevantly the Comité Científico de Recursos Demersales Zona Centro-Sur (CCT- RDZCS) and Zona Sur Austral (CCT-RDZSA). Recent quotas are within the bounds of scientific advice, but these bounds are not fully rooted in quantitative stock assessments. Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig Highly Effective IMARPE is a robust fisheries science institution, and there is no evidence that management does not heed its advice in relation to the D. gigas fishery. 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. Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig Moderately Effective Weak enforcement of laws pertaining to bycatch, discards, and unreported fishing (Perez 2005) (OECD 2009) (Pramod, et al. 2014) is beginning to be addressed by stricter scientific monitoring, as required by Ley 20.625 ((Subpesca 2012d), explained here: (Cocas 2014)). Fishing licenses are required and assigned by fishery and area, and vessel monitoring systems (VMS) are currently mandatory on all large-scale fishing vessels (FAO 2010b), with enforcement of registration effected by the Chilean Navy. This designation includes artisanal vessels in the 12–18 m size range. Reporting of production statistics is mandatory and enforced in both industrial and artisanal sectors (NFS 2004). But in-person port monitoring of the artisanal sector is limited, with only 7% of artisanal landings inspected in 2012 (Sernapesca 2013b). Reported catch has remained below the TAC for both 2012 and 2013 (Sernapesca 2014). Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig Highly Effective
26 Licensing, onboard observers and vessel monitoring systems (the satellite surveillance system SISESTAT) are required in the industrial fisheries. Catch in the artisanal fisheries is monitored by IMARPE onshore (e.g., see (IMARPE 2013a)). Reporting of production statistics is mandatory and enforced in both industrial and artisanal sectors. Captures have largely stayed below or at the recommended catch in recent years. Rationale: Specific information on the vessel monitoring system is available from (FAO 2010c). Resolución Ministerial No 415-2001-PE establishes the system of data collection for artisanal fisheries (PRODUCE 2001). See Fishing Mortality for details on adherence to recommended catch limits.The industrial fishery is restricted to dedicated jigging vessels that operate within 30–200 miles of the Peruvian coast. Specimens must have a minimum mantle length of 320 mm, and small squid must not make up more than 20% of total catch (Arkhipkin, et al. 2015). 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. Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig Moderately Effective Though the D. gigas fishery itself is too young to have a clear track record, Chilean fisheries in general have a mixed history. In recent decades, overfishing has led to several major stock collapses. But the country is a member of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO). The SPFRMO includes a jumbo squid working group, although it does not appear to be regularly active. Chile has also demonstrated a commitment to innovative near-shore management with the establishment of territorial use rights in fisheries (TURFs) in the loco fishery (San Martín, Parma and Orensanz 2010). The use of global quotas (as currently seen in the jumbo squid fishery) in lieu of catch shares has been associated with increased competition and consequent overfishing (Costello, Gaines and Lynham 2008), but there is no evidence that this is currently occurring in the Chilean D. gigas stock. Rationale: A 2006 evaluation of Chilean fisheries’ compliance with the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing gave Chile generally passing grades, except in the category of “stocks, fleets and gear,” which includes the management of fleet capacity; gear usage; discards, bycatch, and juveniles; and stock rebuilding. Notably, the authors mentioned weaknesses in ecosystem-based management and contingency plans in the event of environmental change (Kalikoski, et al. 2006b) (Kalikoski, et al. base their evaluation
27 primarily on (Zuleta 2004)). Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig Moderately Effective The Peruvian D. gigas fishery is too recently established to have a clear history. Of concern is the fact that one stock—the Peruvian anchoveta—has undergone collapse or near-collapse twice, in 1970 and in 1998. In a well-regarded decision, Peru responded to the stock’s continued instability in 2008 by establishing maximum catch levels per vessel in place of a global quota (Aranda 2009). The use of global quotas (as currently seen in the jumbo squid fishery) in lieu of catch shares has been associated with increased competition and consequent overfishing (Costello, Gaines and Lynham 2008), but there is no evidence that this is currently occurring in the Peruvian D. gigas stock. Rationale: A 2006 evaluation of Peruvian fisheries’ compliance with the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing gave Peru generally passing grades, except in the category of application of the “precautionary approach.” Notably, the authors mentioned weaknesses in the historical response to excess fishing, although they praised the response to environmental change, such as that seen in unusual El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) regimes (Kalikoski, et al 2006a). 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. Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig Moderately Effective Artisanal fishers have formal recognition, are officially and non-transferably registered by Sernapesca, and have protected quotas and a 5-mile exclusive fishing zone near shore. But artisanal and industrial fisheries have clashed in recent years over alleged inequities in the allocation of quotas (Nelsen 2013). Recent adoption of measures such as TURFs (Áreas de Manejo y Explotación de Recursos Bentónicos) in some fisheries appears more stakeholder-inclusive (Gelcich, et al 2010). Catch statistics are published.
28 Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig Moderately Effective Artisanal fishers are officially recognized, and their development is provided for by fishery development fund FONDEPES. The 5-mile zone near shore is reserved for artisanal fisheries using low-impact gear types. A 2006 evaluation of Peru’s adherence to the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries found that individual fisheries allowed for stakeholder participation, but there was no specific requirement for a stakeholder-inclusive decision-making process (Kalikoski 2006). Catch statistics are published. Bycatch Strategy Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species Region / Method All Kept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce Chile Southeast Pacific Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A Jig Peru Southeast Pacific Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A Jig No bycatch species have been identified for the jumbo squid jig fisheries, so no assessment of bycatch management is necessary.
29 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. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management 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 Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows: • Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and
30
• 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.
Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig
Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig
None
Jigging is a low-impact gear type with no bottom contact (Arkhipkin, et al. 2015).
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.
Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig
Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig
Not Applicable31
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.
• 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.
Chile Southeast Pacific, Jig
Peru Southeast Pacific, Jig
Moderate Concern
Since 2002, Chile and Peru have been collaborating on the Global Environment Facility-funded joint
management of the Humboldt Current Large Marine Ecosystem (HCLME) (UNDP 2015), which includes
establishment of international Marine Protected Areas (Kalikoski 2006). A 2009 evaluation of fisheries in
the context of ecosystem-based management gave Peru just above a passing grade, and Chile a failing
grade (Pitcher, et al 2009), but D. gigas is an active area of research in both countries (Alegre et al.
2014) (and see detailed rationale) and is therefore deemed of “moderate” concern.
Rationale:
D. gigas acts as both a major predator of a variety of small mesopelagic organisms (Alarcón-Muñoz, et
al. 2008) (Field, et al. 2007) (Markaida and Sosa-Nishizaki 2003), and a major forage species for top
vertebrate predators (Nigmatullin, et al. 2001) (Field, et al. 2007), placing it in a bridging mesopredator32 position and granting it exceptional importance. Though much of the ecology of D. gigas is unknown, its sheer biomass also grants it a significant, if annually variable, trophic role. The species’ recent population growth and range expansion, along with that of other cephalopods, has been attributed to reduced competition as a result of overexploitation of groundfish stocks (Caddy and Rodhouse 1998), top-down forcing as a result of tuna and billfish population declines (Zeidberg and Robison 2007), and to climate change (potentially as a result of an expanding oxygen minimum layer or unusual El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) regime) (Field, et al. 2007) (Gilly, et al. 2013) (Keyl, et al. 2008). The apparent coincidence of D. gigas’ expansion and the decline of the Chilean hake fishery has also led to a widespread belief among fishers that squid predation has caused a decline in hake populations (pers. comm., Patricio Galvez, IFOP 2015), but this is not generally supported by models (Arancibia and Neira 2008) (Ibáñez 2013). Political pressure stemming from this viewpoint may lead to insufficiently cautious management approaches. Fisheries are urged to avoid this temptation: estimates suggest that global predation on squid exceeds current fishing mortality (FAO 2005), which means that overfishing could trigger significant cascading effects. In its evaluation of ecosystem-based fisheries management in Chilean fisheries, Kalikoski et al. specifically noted a lack of recognition of human impacts on fishery habitat and fisheries’ effects on “species linked through the ecosystem to the target [species]” (Kalikoski, et al. 2006b).
You can also read
