CMM Evaluation WCPFC6-2009/IP17 WCPFC6-2009/IP18 SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme Noumea, New Caledonia

Objective of the Analysis To conduct an evaluation of CMM 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 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 or 2004 No increase in fishing mortality for yellowfin tuna beyond the annual average during the period average or 2004

Approach Estimate levels of catch and/or effort allowed under CMM Estimate the impact of allowed catch and effort on bigeye and yellowfin stocks Evaluate impacts against the CMM objectives – F/F MSY and SB/SB MSY 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 (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 ( , 2004) level of effort Flag States to individually limit effort on the high seas to max( , 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 effortEffort (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 average and International waters, maximum of 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

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 average Effect of HSP closures depends on whether effort is relocated or removed FAD effort at best equal to average

Purse Seine Effort

Longline Catch Phased reduction in longline bigeye catch, such that a 30% reduction is achieved from 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 catches assumed. Does not apply to SIDS catches assumed. Archipelagic waters excluded. This affects in particular Indonesia catches assumed. China may maintain 2004 catches until US has a limit equal to 90% of 2004 catch (“fresh fish exemption”)

Projected Longline 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

Projections 10 year projection Alternative models with high and standard purse seine catch Future recruitment according to stock recruitment relationship or average recruitment Compute F 2018 /F MSY and SB 2018 /SB MSY for all scenarios Compare to F /F MSY

Projection Scenarios 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

Bigeye F 2018 /F MSY Standard purse seine catches Spill-sample purse seine catches

Bigeye SB 2018 /SB MSY Standard purse seine catches Spill-sample purse seine catches

Conclusions – Bigeye CMM 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 average levels – The exclusion of archipelagic waters quarantines a large amount of juvenile F

Conclusions – Yellowfin F 2018 could increase by as much as 15% above the average level, depending on assumptions SB 2018 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 CMM ; – Examination of the predicted impacts of additions/ changes to CMM provisions – Evaluate the effect of the CMM on skipjack catches

Stock Trajectories Long-term average recruitmentRecent average recruitment

Specific Scenarios Option Projected F/F msy Long-term av recruit. Projected F/F msy Recent recruit. Full Implementation No Exemptions1.54 ( 32%)1.49 (55%) Complete High Seas Closure1.79 ( 1%)2.05 ( 4%) No Foreign Vessel FAD Sets1.74 ( 7%)1.95 (13%) No FAD Sets by Large LL Members1.74 ( 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.