FISH QUESTIONNAIRE

Deep-sea fisheries commission France Rponse Matthew DUNN (NIWA, NZ) (11/03/2010)

FOR ALL 1. Could you please send us a short bio (less than 20 lines)? Dr Matthew Dunn. I received my PhD in fisheries stock assessment from the University of Portsmouth UK in 1999. After Portsmouth University I worked at CEFAS (UK) on the stock assessment of various inshore species, including substantial time spent at sea on research and commercial fishing vessels. In 2003 I moved to the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in New Zealand, to work on deepwater fisheries. My main focus for the last 7 years has been stock assessments for several different deepwater fishes (orange roughy, oreos, cardinalfish, and others). My current research includes studying deep sea fish biology and population dynamics, describing and understanding the fisheries, and conducting quantitative stock assessment modelling, including the provision of management advice to the NZ Government. I am also involved in research planning processes in New Zealand, and spend some time studying the ecosystem interactions of deep-sea fisheries. I have been the manager of the deepwater fisheries group at NIWA since 2004, and lead NIWAs deepwater stock assessment research. Do you know of anyone having compiled or in the process of doing so all the existing (and precise) data on the vulnerability of deep-sea fish? No. There are special sets of questions targeting local expertise, but if you could also try to answer as many questions from the general questionnaire, it would be much appreciated.

GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE What do you consider the deep sea? In New Zealand we have a lot of sea, so we consider deep-sea to be >800 m. How many fish species are known from the deep sea? I do not know the total number, but we regularly catch ~150 in research trawl surveys. How many species are targeted and how many are caught as bycatch? Four main target species in New Zealand. By-catch tends to be relatively low, but might include another ~100 species on an intermittent basis.

How well are deep-sea fishes monitored? On the whole quite poorly. This is largely because of scientific problems. How much is known about the life history of both targeted and untargeted species? For the target species the basic biology is known, but details are often lacking (e.g., connectivity between areas). The biology of most by-catch species is poorly known, and often includes little more than species identification and depth or spatial distribution from trawl catches. How much is known about the fecundity, egg production and spawning frequency of deep-sea fishes? Only known for target species, but generally from 1 or 2 studies a decade or more ago. How much is known about the food and habitat requirements for deep-sea species? Basics are known for the target species. Otherwise poor knowledge. Are some deep-sea fish endangered? Which ones? Where? As a result of what? I doubt any fish are endangered as a species, but I dont think anyone really knows for deep-sea fishes. Some stocks are heavily depleted, but this does not necessarily classify them as endangered. Are there deep-sea fish that can be exploited sustainably? Specifically, what about black scabbardfish, blue ling, or grenadiers? In principle all fish could be exploited sustainably, but I dont know for these particular species. What proportion of known deep-sea fish species could support a fishery? All could support some form of fishery. The question is how big will the fishery be? A catch of 1 tonne per year would be no problem but 1 t per year would not be an economic possibility! It is a balance between sustainability, taking a precautionary approach, and the economics of harvesting. Do we know enough about deep-sea fishes in general to manage them rationally? Yes, we can manage them rationally. But I am not sure we know enough to manage them in a way that can be scientifically demonstrated to be sustainable. For the science, finding n cost-effective monitoring tool is the main problem. I dont know of any deepwater fisheries that would, at present, pass Marine Stewardship Certification. What indicators might be used to show possible decline of fish populations?

Biomass survey estimates are the main tool. These can be acoustic or trawl (or both). Surveys would be better than using commercial catch rates (catch rates can be very biased for some species). Length frequencies and age structure can be used to monitor future production (recruitment), but would probably require research surveys (to go to the areas where juveniles may be found, which are often not the commercial fishery areas). Can the same approach that is used to manage shallow water fisheries be used to manage deep-water fisheries? In principle, yes. Are some fishing gears worse than others for vulnerable fish populations? Trawling is the worst. Most deepwater fishing uses trawls. What is the likelihood that release from fishing pressure will allow fish populations to recover? And ecosystems to recover? A high likelihood, given a long enough timespan - a closed orange roughy fishery in New Zealand has recently shown signs of recovery after 10 years. Ecosystem damage from trawling can be substantial, and is likely to take longer to recover. Is it likely that the depletion of deep-sea fish populations will have an effect on the deep-sea ecosystem? Almost certainly, but there is no scientific proof of this yet (as far as I am aware). I have heard some emotive speeches from scientists about the terrible impact of deep-sea fishing on ecosystems, but I think from a true scientific point of view many of these comments cannot be supported (the truth is there isnt enough research yet, and so we simply dont know). Would the establishment of deepwater marine protected areas (MPAs) be a useful step? Yes, if carefully designed and implemented. MPAs are probably more important for biodiversity than for sustainable fisheries. It also depends on the effectiveness of other management tools (e.g., catch quotas, net designs etc). Would more science help management? How much science? At what cost? Does the landing value of deep-sea fishes justify the deployment of scientific programs in your view? Deepwater fisheries research is very expensive, because of the extensive need for deep-water research vessels. New Zealand has spent over 50 million euro on deepwater scientific research over 20 years and although great progress has been made, New Zealand has still not been able to answer all of the questions necessary to demonstrate sustainable deep-sea fisheries. Even reliable stock monitoring tools have proven very difficult to find, and this research is ongoing. Certainly, the food

resource that comes from deep-sea fishing does not, in my view, justify the scientific research and costs. In some cases the economic value may justify the cost. The New Zealand deep-sea orange roughy fisheries are the largest in the world, and I doubt many smaller fisheries elsewhere would be able to justify the level of scientific research required. Will science be able to find out enough about deep-sea fish and ecosystems in time, considering current exploitation rates? This is hard to know. I want to say yes, but I suspect the true answer may be no. How do you envisage the future of deep-sea fisheries, by the year 2015 for example? By 2015 I dont think things will be that different. But perhaps by 2020, I can envisage large-scale fisheries will be finished, and any remaining fisheries are likely to be boutique fisheries. Public consumer pressure is likely to stop many fisheries, and only those that can demonstrate some level of sustainability (e.g., using Marine Stewardship Certification) are likely to prosper. I believe most deepwater fisheries will not be able to achieve this level of certification.

Telmo MORATO About the monitoring of trawl ban and its effects on fisheries: When was the trawl ban decided and then implemented? What drove that decision? What has been the impact of the trawl ban on fisheries? How many boats did it concern? Is it experienced as a positive or negative thing by fishermen? Scientists? Politicians? The public? What kind of deep-sea fisheries go on in the Azores? Since when? Size & amount of boats ? Amount of fishermen ? Where do they work (far from land ? Close?) and how (technique + gear used) ? How many fishermen lost or gained to the trawl ban? What landing volume of deep-sea fish?

What targeted species? Are they mainly for local consumption or exports? Who assesses the status of the targeted deep-sea stocks? Are fishing objectives or quotas set for this type of fisheries and species (same as E.U quotas?)

Shark special : Bernard SERET & Sarah FOWLER What are the main targeted / untargeted shark species caught by bottom trawlers working in the deep sea? What are the main targeted / untargeted shark species caught by longliners working in the deep sea? What is known about the decline of deep-sea shark species because of fishing? What markets exist for deep-sea sharks (% for meat vs % for other products)?

New Zealand Special What deep-sea fish species are NZ deep-sea fisheries made of? and for what corresponding landings since the beginning of each fishery ? (Its interesting for our commission to have a global view of the evolution since the beginning of fishing). Details of the history of the New Zealand fisheries are available from the NZ Ministry of Fisheries website. Briefly: Orange roughy. The fishery for orange roughy started in the late 1970s. During the 1980s large aggregations of spawning fish were found to the east, and west of New Zealand, and a fishery rapidly developed. There was then a period of fishing down the stocks to a size estimated to give MSY. Catches peaked at about 50,000 t per year in the mid to late 1980s. Catch quotas were then reduced, and catches decreased. Since the mid 1990s catches have been about 15,000 t per year. There are now 8 management stocks around New Zealand, of which 3 are effectively closed at present after the stocks were estimated to be over-exploited. Orange roughy has always been the primary target species for deep-sea fishing in New Zealand. Black oreo. Oreos are also known as deep-sea dories. Black oreo was first fished in the early 1970s, and catches peaked in the early 1980s at about 10,000 t per year. Quotas were introduced and catches were reduced in the late 1980s. In recent years catches have been about 5,000 t per year. Both black and smooth oreo are found and targeted primarily to the centre and south of New Zealand, whereas orange roughy are more northern.

Smooth oreo. Like black oreo, smooth oreo was first fished in the early 1970s, and catches peaked in the early 1980s at about 10,000 t per year. Quotas were introduced and catches reduced in the late 1980s. In recent years annual catches have been about 8,000 t per year. There is an indication that biomass levels are currently increasing the largest stock, following a period of good recruitment. Black cardinalfish. Black cardinalfish are occasionally targeted, but are a secondary catch to orange roughy. Catches peaked at about 4,000 t in the mid-1990s. Catches have generally not been restricted by the quotas. Recent catches have been about 2,000 t per year. A stock assessment in 2008 estimated the main stock to be substantially depleted, and catch quotas are being now reduced to ~1500 t (for the main stock, the quota reduction is from about 2200 to 500 t). NZ deep-sea fisheries are sometimes referred to (by some at least, not all) as a potential model of sustainability, can one say that deep-sea fisheries in NZ are sustainable? No, at present it is not possible to prove scientifically that they are sustainable. Note here that I am referring to deep sea (>800 m) fishes. The science has shown that some of the stocks we refer to as middle-depths (200-800 m), which might be called deep-water in other countries, are being managed sustainably. By which standards? New Zealand harvest strategy rules. Do these standards aim for MSY as well as the conduct of fisheries according to an Ecosystem-Based approach? Yes, they aim for MSY. The MSY has been estimated to be about 30-40% of virgin biomass. There is a soft limit when current biomass reaches 20% of virgin biomass (= rebuilding plan), and a hard limit at 10% virgin biomass (= closure). The ecosystem approach in NZ currently primarily concerns by-catch of seabirds and cetaceans, and these impacts are well managed and have been minimised. Whilst there is some research on other ecosystem effects (e.g., benthic impacts of trawling), considering these is, at present, not clearly influencing fisheries behaviour or management. What is the % of biomass taken on each targeted stock? This is often poorly known, and not often reported because the management system does not require it. However, the new harvest paradigm for orange roughy has the catch set to the current estimate of mature biomass multiplied by natural mortality (4.5%), i.e., fishing mortality equals natural mortality. How do you estimate the stock?

Either through Bayesian stock assessment models, which integrate information from catches, fishery-independent biomass indices or absolute biomass estimates, commercial catch rate indices, age and length information etc. Alternatively, directly using acoustic estimates of absolute biomass, with catches set as 4.5% of the current estimated mature biomass. The latter approach only works well under limited circumstances (large and stable single-species aggregations on flat seabeds under other circumstances the acoustic method does not work well). Have the models used since the beginning proven to be solid? No. The stock assessment model for the east and south Chatham Rise orange roughy, the largest stock in NZ, was rejected in 2008. There is now no stock assessment model for this stock. This was because the model could not explain the observations. Also, the model predicted a biomass rebuild which was not being seen in the real world. This problem is being seen across most of the other stocks as well. The stock assessment model miss-fit was the stimulus for changing the management paradigm, moving to a harvest rule of catch = 4.5% of current mature biomass, where current biomass is estimated from acoustic surveys. This approach is now being considered for all orange roughy stocks, basically because the current stock assessment models dont work. The observational data for orange roughy, oreos, and cardinalfish, all show similar patterns that the current models cannot explain a number of assumptions have been made to make these problems go away, but the solutions are unsatisfactory, and as a result, all of the models lack credibility. Research to try and make the stock assessment models work, and explain the observational data, is an ongoing research topic. How can we know the future of a fishery and the behaviour of a stock for species with high longevity and unknown fecundity rates ? Difficult. The best option might be to use Management Strategy Evaluation to determine harvest rules that are robust to the life history patterns of long-lived species, robust to the uncertainties in our understanding of the stock dynamics, and robust to uncertainties in our stock monitoring and stock assessment tools. In the face of all of the uncertainties, the best harvest rules are likely to be indicate very conservative catch levels indeed (i.e., very small catches are the only way to have a safe fishery). How can NZ fisheries prevent impact on habitats and untargeted species? (Since NZ closures analysis shows the vast majority of them are beyond fishable depths.) This note is correct, in that the benthic protected areas currently do not impact or protect any of the fisheries. The industry and government would argue that they were not meant to they were intended to protect non-impacted areas. The only way to prevent impacts is to remove the impact. In NZ, this is currently not done. The benthic protected areas agreement is due for review next year, but it

remains to be seen whether MPAs to protect fish stocks will be considered. How do you envisage the future of NZ deep-sea fisheries? Has a trend become clear? Consumer choice is having an increasing impact on the fishing industry, with many overseas markets now refuse to buy deep-sea fishes from New Zealand. The current response in New Zealand seems to be to reduce the orange roughy fisheries considerably, and try and develop harvest strategies that will be able to satisfy independent schemes such as Marine Stewardship Certification. This would allow the industry to say their fish are certified, and so ok to eat. But the likely result of this is a deep-sea fishing industry that is smaller than at present, and very much smaller than it has been in the past. The fishery would then be more of a boutique species, hopefully commanding a high market price. If this cannot be done, then I envisage that the industry will not exist. How has the fishing industry coped or retargeted its fishing effort if theres been major decreases in certain fisheries? The fishing industry has obviously resisted catch quota reduction in some cases, including legal challenges to the scientists and ministry of fisheries to try and reject the stock assessment results. But now I believe the industry recognises the inherent problems with deep-sea species, and is slowly recognising that they will not be the important fisheries they were in the past. The excess fishing effort has relocated to other New Zealand fisheries, or the vessels have been sold overseas. Some of the vessels were chartered from overseas originally (effectively flag ships), and so reducing the catches and effort simply meant the New Zealand companies did not renew their charter arrangements. The New Zealand government has not provided any subsidies (as far as I know) for the removal or reallocation of fishing vessels or crews.

Specific for Tracey SUTTON & Jeff DRAZEN Do pelagic fishes show different resilience or vulnerability than demersal fishes? How much known about their life cycle etc (see questions below) Do you know of fisheries targeting deep-sea pelagic fishes? Which ones? Where? For food, for fishmeal or for oil? (Like Myctophids in South Africa). Do you have a recommendation of a (few) name(s) we could send a specific questionnaire about midwater fisheries to?