Showing posts with label Fisheries Biology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fisheries Biology. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

What everybody needs to know


I stand corrected.

I was intuitively of the opinion that oceanic Sharks are most likely doomed for extinction, a hypothesis that reverberates in some of my posts like this one.
I was obviously influenced by the fact that I live in the South Pacific where fishing for coastal Sharks, compared to the killing of Sharks by the Tuna fleets, appears to be a relatively minor threat. But CJA Bradshaw is of course right when he says that globally, the threats to coastal species are higher as they don't only have to contend with fishing pressure, but with habitat degradation and climate change on top of that, likely most of it anthropogenic (the latter being a comment by me, not him).

The relevant paper he has co-authored is called Susceptibility of Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras to Global Extinction and I invite anybody who wants to talk about Shark conservation with any degree of authority to download it here. Yes you will have to pay for it - but it's a must-read and must-have and the authors need to be compensated for their hard work.

Please, take the time to read it in its entirety.
But for those in a hurry, here's a synopsis on Bradshaw's own excellent conservation blog. The authors have also published the following FOC abstract (highlights in italic are mine).

Abstract Marine biodiversity worldwide is under increasing threat, primarily as a result of over-harvesting, pollution and climate change.
Chondrichthyan fishes (sharks, rays and chimaeras) have a perceived higher intrinsic risk of extinction compared to other fish. Direct fishing mortality has driven many declines, even though some smaller fisheries persist without associated declines. Mixed-species fisheries are of particular concern, as is illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
The lack of specific management and reporting mechanisms for the latter means that many chondrichthyans might already be susceptible to extinction from stochastic processes entirely unrelated to fishing pressure itself.

Chondrichthyans might also suffer relatively more than other marine taxa from the effects of fishing and habitat loss and degradation given coastal habitat use for specific life stages.

The effects of invasive species and pollution are as yet too poorly understood to predict their long-term role in affecting chondrichthyan population sizes.
The spatial distribution of threatened chondrichthyan species under World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List criteria are clustered mainly in (1) south-eastern South America; (2) western Europe and the Mediterranean; (3) western Africa; (4) South China Sea and Southeast Asia and (5) south-eastern Australia. To determine which ecological and life history traits predispose chondrichthyans to being IUCN Red-Listed, and to examine the role of particular human activities in exacerbating threat risk, we correlated extant marine species' Red List categorisation with available ecological (habitat type, temperature preference), life history (body length, range size) and human-relationship (whether commercially or game-fished, considered dangerous to humans) variables. Threat risk correlations were constructed using generalised linear mixed-effect models to account for phylogenetic relatedness. We also contrasted results for chondrichthyans to marine teleosts to test explicitly whether the former group is intrinsically more susceptible to extinction than fishes in general. Around 52% of chondrichthyans have been Red-Listed compared to only 8% of all marine teleosts; however, listed teleosts were in general placed more frequently into the higher-risk categories relative to chondrichthyans. IUCN threat risk in both taxa was positively correlated with body size and negatively correlated albeit weakly, with geographic range size. Even after accounting for the positive influence of size, Red-Listed teleosts were still more likely than chondrichthyans to be classified as threatened.

We suggest that while sharks might not have necessarily experienced the same magnitude of deterministic decline as Red-Listed teleosts, their larger size and lower fecundity (not included in the analysis) predispose chondrichthyans to a higher risk of extinction overall.

Removal of these large predators can elicit trophic cascades and destabilise the relative abundance of smaller species.
Predator depletions can lead to permanent shifts in marine communities and alternate equilibrium states.
Climate change might influence the phenology and physiology of some species, with the most probable response being changes in the timing of migrations and shifts in distribution.

The synergistic effects among harvesting, habitat changes and climate-induced forcings are greatest for coastal chondrichthyans
with specific habitat requirements and these are currently the most likely candidates for extinction.
Management of shark populations must take into account the rate at which drivers of decline affect specific species. Only through the detailed collection of data describing demographic rates, habitat affinities, trophic linkages and geographic ranges, and how environmental stressors modify these, can extinction risk be more precisely estimated and reduced. The estimation of minimum viable population sizes, below which rapid extinction is more likely due to stochastic processes, is an important component of this endeavour and should accompany many of the current approaches used in shark management worldwide.


I find this paper so important that I've taken the liberty of posting its conclusions below.
They tie in beautifully with some of this blog's principal threads, among which the requirement to push for sustainable fisheries. What I however miss is the call for applying the precautionary principle (much called for and rarely heeded, especially in Fisheries management) until the necessary data have been collected and evaluated - but then again, this is a paper dealing with facts and not a conservation manifesto.

Required reading and kudos to the authors for having written an excellent, informative, exhaustive and in so may ways, seminal paper for Shark conservation!

7. Concluding Remarks

We are still in the fortunate situation that
there are no recorded cases of chondrichthyan extinction in modern times.
However, we have identified that the largest, most range-restricted and heavily harvested species might be easily pushed below their MVP sizes, which could be much larger than those estimated under stable environmental conditions.
Fishing, at all scales, represents one of the largest mortality sources for many chondrichthyan species, but there are some examples of small local fisheries that have operated without clear declines in population size of targeted species. However, mixed-species fisheries that harvest poorly measured, but presumably large quantities of chondrichthyans are of particular concern, as is IUU fishing.

The lack of specific management and reporting mechanisms for the latter types means that many species might already be reduced to densities where extinction risk is unacceptably high.
It is almost universally recognised now that so-called ‘sustainable’ fisheries will have to be the norm if they are to survive economically, and that they will have to demonstrate negligible or minimal impacts to ecosystems through careful management and stewardship (Hilborn, 2007). IUU fishing can affect shark populations and community structure, and this might be a far greater challenge to control. Recreational fishing and beach meshing can also contribute to local declines. Climate change and habitat degradation will further erode certain populations to the point where extinction risk rises appreciably.

The idea that chondrichthyans have life history characteristics that might predispose them to extinction in a rapidly changing world (e.g. relatively low reproductive potential, growth and capacity for population recovery; Pratt and Casey, 1990) is generally upheld by our results.
Furthermore, because chondrichthyans tend to occupy the highest trophic levels, it is arguable that degradation of marine communities might limit the prey quality and quantity available to chondrichthyan predators, further exacerbating population reductions. We found no strong evidence, from admittedly simple models with few parameters, that chondrichthyans are intrinsically more susceptible to extinction than other marine fishes in relation to their evolved niches and life history characteristics. However, chondrichthyans tend to be larger than many other marine fish taxa, and large body size generally correlates with slower growth and lower reproductive capacity. As such, it is the rapid pace of environmental change and harvesting that have the greatest potential to impede certain species from maintaining large population sizes. Any species can withstand moderate to even extreme exploitation if it does not outpace intrinsic replacement rates and adaptation potential (Brook et al., 2008).

We were unable to examine all plausible correlates of threat risk due to data paucity.

Many studies have examined age at maturity and growth rates in terms of vulnerability to extinction, with late-maturing and slow-growing species apparently at greater risk (Reynolds et al., 2005). Therefore, a better compilation of data incorporating these and other possible correlates could reveal further subtleties in the drivers of threat risk in this taxon and other marine fishes. Another caveat is that predictors of threat risk indicate a species’ sensitivity to the largely systematic (deterministic) drivers of population decline (declining population paradigm) (Cardillo, 2003; Sodhi et al., 2008a), whereas actual extinction appears to correlate poorly with ecological and life history traits given that the final coup de
grĂ¢ce tends to result from largely stochastic processes that act independently of a species’ evolutionary history (Brook et al., 2006, 2008; Sodhi et al., 2008b; Traill et al., 2007)

There are many examples of how large predators influence communities and ecosystems via top-down (and in some cases, bottom-up) control of species occupying lower trophic levels.
Thus, the removal of large predators can elicit trophic cascades and destabilise the relative abundance of smaller prey and non-prey species. However, these effects are still poorly understood, especially for large, complex trophic webs where interactions are largely unquantified. Specifically, chondrichthyans can alter prey diversity and size distributions, and their mere presence can affect the foraging behaviour of prey that alters ecosystem functions such as nutrient recycling and structural habitat complexity.

Severe predator depletions can lead to permanent shifts in marine communities and alternate equilibria.

Management of shark populations must therefore take into account the rate at which drivers of decline affect specific species.
Only through detailed collection of data describing demographic rates, habitat affinities, trophic linkages and geographic ranges, and how environmental stressors modify these, can extinction risk be estimated and reduced. The estimation of MVP sizes is an essential component of this endeavour and should, in our view, eventually accompany the current approaches used to manage sharks worldwide.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Fingers Crossed!


Great News!

The Fishing Lobby is fuming about the appointment of Jane Lubchenco as the new Head of NOAA. Well all I can say is that I don't really give a rat's ass about whether her policy paper has been "discredited" or not: anything the Fishermen don't like can only be good for the Fish, full stop!

Wanna know what I'm talking about - and you should?
You can find the Executive Summary here or download the Full Report.
Read them, they are just great! Kudos, and Thank You to the Pew Ocean Commission for a Job very well done - propaganda or no propaganda!

Will some of the past mistakes be avoided this time?
I sure hope so - fingers crossed!

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Fisherese!

Good News - or is it?

Whilst we're busy researching the fledgling Shark Finning industry in Fiji (run by Chinese who buy the fins from the crews of foreign flagged vessels - we've taken the above pic last week in Suva), here comes the following message.

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A CONSULTANCY TO DEVELOP A PACIFIC ISLANDS REGIONAL PLAN OF ACTION (PI-RPOA) ON SHARKS

BACKGROUND

At the Third Regular Session of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC3) in Apia, Samoa in December 2006 a Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) for sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was adopted. This measure was subsequently revised at WCPFC5 in Busan, Korea, in December 2008. The Shark CMM has two parts, the first being a non-binding resolution and the second being binding upon Commission members, Cooperating non-members and participating territories (CCMs).

The non-binding part of the Shark CMM resolves that the 'International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks' (IPOA - Sharks), developed by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), should be implemented by CCMs.
The intent of the IPOA - Sharks is to carry out an initial assessment of shark stocks under the jurisdiction of the State to determine if there is a need for national management action to monitor and mitigate the impacts of fisheries on sharks. It is generally accepted that where shark populations may be negatively impacted as a result of fishing activities a National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (NPOA - Sharks) should be developed. The IPOA - Sharks suggests the kind of assessment necessary to determine whether an NPOA - Sharks is required, considering the status of stocks (if known) and the effectiveness of any management arrangements that may be in place. An NPOA - Sharks provides for further monitoring and assessment of fishing impacts on sharks and details the implementation of management arrangements. The Commission should be informed of the implementation of the IPOA - Sharks by CCMs, including their assessment of the need for and/or status of any NPOA - Sharks.

The primary intent of the binding part of the Shark CMM is to prevent 'shark finning', i.e. 'the removal of shark fins at sea and the discarding of the carcass'. The preventative measure applied is to require that the total weight of the fins cannot exceed more than 5% of the total weight of the shark carcasses aboard the vessel. By attempting to minimize resource wastage and incidental fishing mortality through the discarding of shark carcasses, it is intended that overfishing of shark stocks be prevented.

PURPOSE OF THE PACIFIC ISLAND REGIONAL PLAN OF ACTION ON SHARKS (PI-RPOA SHARKS)

The purpose of developing a Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action on Sharks (PI-RPOA Sharks) is to enable Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTS) to address the obligations arising under the Shark CMM by identifying and enacting compatible measures for waters under their jurisdiction. The PI-RPOA also follows from a decision by the SPREP Council to include sharks in its marine species programme and to collaborate with SPC, FFA, and WCPFC on a regional action plan.

The PI-RPOA Sharks will provide a model NPOA developed specifically for the Pacific Islands region, including a range of monitoring, assessment and management arrangements. These may then be incorporated into a NPOA - Sharks and associated legislation as required by the PICT concerned.

The primary obligation under the Shark CMM at this stage is the application of the 5% fin to carcass ratio. However, paragraph 11 of the Shark CMM provides PICTS with the option to adopt alternative management measures to prevent the overfishing of sharks.

As such, it is intended that the PI-RPOA and subsequent NPOAs will provide PICTS with a range of potential management actions, under broader themes and focus areas, that PICTs may prioritise at both national and regional levels. By developing the PI-RPOA in this way it is anticipated that consistent management arrangements for sharks may be adopted, which will assist with implementation and compliance measures, as well as any future assessment of effectiveness.

SCIENCE NEEDS

The WCPFC Scientific Committee (SC) identified the need for a Shark Research Programme (SRP) to improve knowledge and provide assessments for sharks caught in western and central Pacific fisheries. The SRP has yet to receive funding but another WCPFC project on 'Ecological Risk Assessment' (ERA), which covers all non-target associated and dependent species (NTADS), has started to integrate information on biological parameters, catches and other indicators of fishing impacts on sharks.
The WCPFC Regional Observer Programme (ROP) will also be essential to the effective monitoring and management of fishing impacts on sharks, as will the ongoing national observer programmes.

The recently revised Shark CMM now sets timelines for the future assessment of key shark species, with preliminary advice on stock status of key shark species expected in 2010 in addition to the proposed SRP.
CCMs are expected to review the implementation and effectiveness of the Shark CMM and any related management arrangements developed by coastal states, which would include the PI-RPOA Sharks. While it may be difficult to determine the effectiveness of management arrangements in the absence of stock status information, this should not preclude the application of such arrangements by Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) or by the WCPFC based on the 'precautionary principle'. Fishing gear configurations, indicative catches, survivorship of sharks caught and the fin to carcass ratio of landed sharks may all be monitored as indicators of fishing impacts on sharks.

OBJECTIVE

To draft a Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action (PI-RPOA) on Sharks reflecting and promoting best practice in the conservation and management of sharks in the WCPO, and enabling Pacific Island Countries and Territories to develop NPOA - Sharks compatible with the WCPFC Shark CMM.

SCOPE OF THE CONSULTANCY

In collaboration with focal points from regional agencies (FFA, SPC, SPREP, WCPFC):

a) To provide an overview of regional and national measures in place to conserve and manage shark stocks in the WCPO, including a review of any NPOAs developed by WCPFC CCMs and of existing regional action plans for other marine species.

b) To provide advice in relation to cost effective management options to prevent overfishing of shark stocks on a regional and national basis where possible (i.e. as potential alternatives to the fin to carcass ratio).

c) To assess the effectiveness of these measures from multiple perspectives, i.e. sustainability of stocks, utilization of product, compliance with regulations, etc.

d) To provide advice on ways to minimize the incidental mortality of sharks in WCPO tuna fisheries, through avoiding capture and increasing survivorship of captured sharks.

e) To provide advice on mechanisms for effectively applying the 5% fin to carcass ratio through compliance and monitoring measures, as defined in the Shark CMM.

f) To provide advice on mechanisms for promoting the full utilization of sharks that are caught and retained, including from the point of transhipment or first landing.

g) To provide advice on shark species identification and data collection, including fin to carcass ratios of landed catches, for the purpose of improving fisheries monitoring and assessment.

h) To provide advice on the feasibility of stock assessment for sharks (incorporating a review of catch data, biological data and potential indicators of abundance) and on interim indicators for fishing impacts on sharks.

i) To develop a framework for NPOA - Sharks that individual Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) could adopt, consistent with the following aims:
* To ensure that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable
* To assess threats to shark populations, determine and protect critical habitats and implement harvest strategies that ensure biological sustainability and rational long-term economic use
* To identify, and provide special attention to, vulnerable and threatened shark stocks
* To improve or develop frameworks for effective consultation involving all stakeholders in research, management and educational initiatives within, and between, States
* To contribute to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function
* To minimize incidental catches of sharks while targeting other species, e.g. tuna, swordfish.
* To minimize incidental mortality, waste and discards from sharks that are caught, as per the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the WCPFC Convention and CMMs.
* To provide for capacity building in fisheries monitoring, data collection and management, and awareness training in the conservation of sharks as vulnerable marine species.
* To identify the roles of and promote collaboration among regional agencies and PICTS to deliver efficient and sustainable outcomes in the conservation and management of sharks.

WORK TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONSULTANT, INCLUDING TIME SCHEDULE AND
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The consultant shall:

May 2009

* Gather information on NPOA - Sharks implemented by WCPFC CCMs and on existing regional action plans for other marine species.
* Produce an outline for a PI-RPOA Sharks, reflecting the Objective and Scope defined above.

July 2009

* Meet with focal points from FFA, SPC, SPREP and WCPFC, to discuss the outline and potential contents of the PI-RPOA Sharks (potentially at SPC in New Caledonia).
* Visit SPC in New Caledonia, to gather data, information and advice on fisheries monitoring (i.e. shark species identification, catch reporting, etc.) and options for scientific analysis, including catch estimation, the feasibility of shark stock assessment and interim indicators of fishing impacts.

September 2009

* Produce a draft PI-RPOA Sharks for review by focal points from SPC, WCPFC, SPREP and FFA.
* Receive and incorporate comments on the draft PI-RPOA Sharks as directed from the focal points.

October 2009

* Attend a secondary meeting with the formal contacts if required.
* Prepare a final draft of the PI-RPOA Sharks document for presentation by the focal points to FFC, SPREP Governing Council, and SPC Heads of Fisheries.

The consultancy is for a period not exceeding 76 days (i.e. 76 days @ $500 USD a day). Payment for the consultancy will be made consistent with standard FFA contract where 25% is paid in advance and the remainder is paid on completion of the contract.

The work of the consultant will be monitored by all the focal points through the FFA focal point.

BUDGET ($ US)

Professional fees 76 days @ $500 $38,000

Stage 1 - document outline $ 6,000
Stage 2- final regional Shark Plan document $32,000

Travel: flights and in-country expenses for Noumea (to be booked by FFA)
$ 5,000

Total
$43,000

Like the acronyms? Get the gist??
Probably not, right? That's because it's written in Fisherese, the secret lingo of Fisheries bureaucrats.

The way I read it is this:

The Central Pacific Nations have adopted a non-binding Plan of Action for the Conservation and the Management of Sharks and a binding resolution aimed at preventing Shark Finning, the latter being the Good News. What is also Good News is that the problem of sustainable Shark Fisheries has made it into the agenda at all.

The bad news is what is going to happen now: just a lot more blah blah and very likely, no tangible Conservation - at least not fast enough.

Amid all the great sound bites about the need to protect Sharks, the document is rife with the usual vocabulary, as in "gathering data', "initial assessment", "monitoring", "preliminary advice on stocks expected by 2010" and a lot of "may", "could" and similar non-binding fluff.

It's always the same and I admit, one of my pet grievances: inevitably, and often despite the very best of intentions, Fisheries Agencies will discuss, assess, monitor and gather data (=i.e. procrastinate whilst the fishermen reap and pillage) in order to meticulously document the decline of a Fishery or a Species - and only when it's too late will they finally present their findings to the Politicians who can then enact Legislation which may sound great but achieve nothing as anything worth protecting is long gone.

Yes, I know, I'm repeating myself: nowadays when it's amply documented that everything is rapidly going to shit, the right course of action would be to first enact stringent Legislation aimed at stabilizing stocks at present levels. Later on, and once the necessary data have been collected, one could then relax the rules in order to promote a form of sustainable fisheries if so wished.

Will somebody please start learning from past mistakes?
In the present case, that will most likely depend on the recommendations of the Consultant.

Anybody out there who would like step up to the job?

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Finning Ban


Read this:

"2009-03-03

Washington -- The House of Representatives passed the Shark Conservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 81) yesterday. This bill would require sharks to be landed with their fins still naturally attached, which allows for better enforcement and data collection in stock assessments and quota monitoring.
The Shark Conservation Act will improve existing laws that were originally intended to prevent shark finning. This legislation will also allow the U.S. to take action against countries whose shark finning restrictions are not as strenuous, labeling the U.S. as a continued international leader in shark conservation.
Oceana now looks to the Senate for fast action to enact the Shark Conservation Act into law. It is time for the U.S. to end shark finning once and for all.
Background:
Tens of millions of sharks are caught globally for just their fins each year. During the finning process, sharks are typically hauled up on deck, their fins sliced off and the animals thrown back to sea, often still alive."

Whereas this is very good news, for which Oceana needs to be applauded, I cannot help but being angry - again!

First, let's not kid ourselves: "Finning" is merely one -albeit particularly repugnant- technique and killing Sharks remains perfectly legal!
Don't get me wrong, banning it is certainly good Conservation! Not only is it an ethical imperative, it also reduces catches as the ships are now required to land, and thus store the whole carcasses instead of being able to fill their holds with just the much more valuable fins. So far so good, provided that it is intended as a first step towards a comprehensive ban on Shark fishing.

What pisses me off is the wording of the press release.

What's that Shit about "data collection", "stock assessments" and "quota monitoring"???

Guys, that's typical Fisheries lingo. What it means is: we plan to procrastinate until there's nothing left to protect.
What's there to "assess"??? Is there any doubt that Sharks stocks are severely depleted, with Oceanic species critically endangered? Haven't you heard that starting from today's levels, some species will take Centuries to recover - if all fishing stops now? What possible "data" need to be collected, I mean: additionally, in order to document a case that is so blatantly obvious and overwhelmingly documented?

Are those guys ever going to learn from the mistakes of the past? Maybe, for once, issue preventive measures first and if really needed, collect data afterwards?
Atlantic Cod Fisheries anyone? Scallop Fisheries? Orange Roughy?

Friday, September 19, 2008

Quod erat demonstrandum........


I cite.......

"The group is collecting information about the species to help the government of Canada to determine whether or not to list Basking Sharks as endangered off the coast of B.C (my emphasis).

After the sharks clashed with fishing equipment mid-century, the Federal Government embarked on a Basking Shark eradication program from the late 1940s until the 1960s. Blades were attached to the front of boats and driven through the gentle giants and since the 1990s, there have only been sporadic sightings of Basking Sharks on the West Coast of Vancouver Island.

Researchers previously scanned the waters on the West Coast in the spring and last fall and didn't come up with any sightings."

The article I'm citing from is titled "One year and no sightings of Basking Sharks" and describes the futile search for Basking Sharks by some scientists from Canada's Pacific Biological Station. Not having found any at all (in fact, the last sighting of a Basking Shark dates back to two summers ago), the group is planning to go back in October to "hopefully collect more baseline information", undoubtedly at more cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

Beg you - what???

"Baseline information"???
As in: there's no more Sharks???

And I cite again:

"After that, the Federal Government will consider whether or not to add the sharks to the endangered list of species. If they do, McFarlane said, following that decision would be the requirement to develop a recovery program for the species."

I've just blogged about it and here is the case in point: Fisheries Biologists "collecting data", Governments "considering", Conservation being "developed". In the meantime, the species has gone locally extinct and this thanks to, of all things, a Government eradication program.
Bet it didn't take years to ponder about that one, huh?

Enough said.