RISK ASSESSMENT FOR INDIAN MACKEREL ... - Seafdec

Assumptions:• for the purpose of the assessment,the Indian mackerel present in theAndaman Sea is considered to be asingle stock.

The PSA approach examines attributes ofeach species that contribute to or reflect itsproductivity or susceptibility, in order toprovide a relative measure of the risk to thescoring element from fishing activities.The PSA is then used in order to determinethe overall risk to the stock.

• The seven PRODUCTIVITY ATTRIBUTES are specificto the species and determined according to speciesgrowth and maturity characteristics, trophic level andfecundity.• The productivity attributes and scores as definedby MSC methodology are presented in Table 1Generally speaking quicker growing, fast maturing,low trophic level smaller species are more productivethan slower growing species with large maximumsize and age, which are typically high trophic level,are deemed to be low productivity.

Table 1: Productivity attributes and scoresProductivityattributesLow productivity(high risk)Med productivity(medium risk)High productivity(low riskAvg. age atmaturity>15 years 5-15 years 25 years 10-25 years 300 cm 100-300 cm 200 cm 40-200 cm 3.25 2.75-3.25

• The scores will be consistent across asingle stock, regardless of whichcountries or gears are targeting thefishery.• Low productivity species are potentiallyeasier to over exploit so fisheries forthese stocks (all other things beingequal) are higher risk.• However in order to finally determinethe level of risk, productivity scores mustbe combined with information about thesusceptibility to be capture.

• The susceptibility analysis considers attributesthat are specific to the gear that is targeting thefishery and assessed according to the overlap of thefishing area compared with the species range(geographical spread and depth / habitat overlap),selectivity of the gear and the likelihood of postcapture survival.• when considering the risk based scores as targetspecies (under P1) important to recognize that areaoverlap considerations are for all fishing activities on thestock , not just the vessels belonging to the unit ofassessment• The susceptibility attributes and scores as defined by MSC methodology arepresented in Table 2 in the next slide

Table 2: Susceptibility attributes and scoresSusceptibilityattributeLowsusceptibility(low risk)Mediumsusceptibility(medium risk)Highsusceptibility(High risk)Availability –overlap ofspecies range withfishery30% overlapEncounterability –Habitatand depth checkLow overlap withfishinggearMedium overlapwithfishing gearHigh overlap withfishing gearSelectivity (variesper gear type)< mesh size, or>5m in length1-2 times meshsize, or4-5m in length>2 times meshsize or up to 4m inlengthPost capturemortalityEvidence of postcapture releaseand survivalReleased aliveRetained spp. ormajority deadwhen released

The performance can be viewed as weak (scored as 0and red), intermediate (scored as 1 and amber), orgood (scored as 2 and green). Indicators plus simplecolour‐coded scoring system, allows for easy identificationof both the strengths and the weaknesses in the status,impacts and management of these fisheries.The Principles and related performance indicators (PIs)used in the assessments are presented in the three tablesbelow (Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5). For each indicator, itshow the key issues examined when assessing/scoringperformance.

Principle 1• A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does notlead to overfishing or depletion of the exploitedpopulations and, for those populations that aredepleted, the fishery must be conducted in a mannerthat demonstrably leads to their recovery..• The principle ensure productive capacities ofresources be maintain at high levels of abundance,with safety margin for error, and restore to retain theircapacities for a long term

Principle 1 Indicators (Stock Status)IndicatornumberPrinciple 1: Stock StatusIndicatortitle1.1.1 Stock status1.1.2 Reference points1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding1.2.1 Harvest control strategy1.2.2 Harvest control tools and rules1.2.3 Information and monitoring1.2.4 Assessment of stock status_Principle 1 (Stock Status) Indicators Used to Assess Indian mackerel fisheries.docx

Principle 2• Fishing operations should allow maintenance ofstructure, productivity, function and diversity ofecosystem( including habitat and associateddependent and ecologically related species) on whichthe fishery depends.• The intent of this principle is to encourage themanagement of fisheries from an ecosystemperspective under a system designed to assess andrestrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

PRINCIPLE 2 INDICATORS (ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS)Indicator number Indicator titleTable 4_Principle 2 (Ecosystems Impacts) Indicators Used to Assess.docx2.1.1 Retained species status / outcome2.1.2 Retained species management2.1.3 Retained species information and monitoring2.2.1 Discarded species status/ outcome2.2.1 Discarded species management2.3.1 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species status / outcome2.3.2 ETP species management2.3.3 ETP species information and monitoring2.4.1 Critical habitat status/outcome2.4.2 Critical habitat management2.4.3 Critical habitat information and monitoring2.51 Ecosystem status/outcome2.52 Ecosystem management2.53 Ecosystem information and monitoring

Principle 3• The fishery is subjected to an effective managementsystem that respects local, national, internationl lawsand standards and incorporates institutional andoperational frameworks that require the use ofresources to be responsible and sustainable• The principle ensure tht there is an institutional andoperational framework for implementing Principle 1and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

PRINCIPLE 3 INDICATORS (MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK)Indicator numberIndicator titleTable 5_Principle 3 (Management Frameworks) Indicators Used to AssessIndian mackerel Fisheries.docx3.1.1 Legal and/or customary framework3.1.2 Consultation roles and responsibilities3.1.3 Long term objectives3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives3.2.2 Decision-making processes3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement3.2.4 Research Plan3.2.5 Monitoring and management performance evaluation

PSA AND ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Results and conclusions of ProductivitySusceptibility Analysis (PSA) on IM across geartypes and countries1. Indian mackerel scores highly on sixproductivity attributes (i.e is a highlyproductive species) and intermediately fortrophic level (Table 8). Table 8 key productivity attributes of IndianMackerel.docx2. IM has a minimum population doubling time ofless than 15 months, thus considered a highlyproductive species with a high resilience andlow vulnerability. (in terms of its physiologyand reproductive strategy)

Cont’d Results of PSA and conclusions of Indianmackerel (IM)Table 9.docx3. IM is highly susceptible to being caught by the purse seineand trawl fleets4. These gears are likely to overlap > 30% of the naturaldistribution of Indian mackerel, also a high overlap with thehabitat and depth range inhabited by this species.5. Due to the mesh sizes of these gears, they have a lowselectivity in that most fish encountered will be captured.6. From a stock status perspective both purse seine and trawlfisheries are considered to be high risk to Indian mackerel.7. The gillnet fisheries in Indonesia and Malaysia have a lower riskscore based on availability and encounterability attributes.8. Whist selectivity scores poorly due to the small mesh sizescompared to the fish length, overall the impact of this gillnetfishery on the stock is considered low risk.

Results of PSA undertaken for the main retained species in each of the gear types targeting IM(table 10 psa on retained species.docx)PURSE-SEINES1. Purse seine vessels present a high risk to the majority of small and large pelagic species with theexception of three species assessed as medium risk: overall retained species within the purse seine fleetachieves an intermediate performance level due to :-a) high productivity of IM, skipjack and Bigeye tuna on account of their distribution throughout tropical andwarm‐temperate watersb. despite the small pelagic species falling within the high risk category, due to the medium trophic levels(>3.25) and high overlap between fishing gear and species range, they all are understood to have ahigh resilience with a minimum population doubling time of 15 monthsBOTTOM OTTER TRAWL1. On account of excellent productivity the shrimp and Indo‐Pacific mackerel are considered at mediumrisk, as are squid which has a medium encounter-ability due to its depth range.2. All other main retained species are at high risk from trawling due to high trophic status and highoverlap with species range, as well as habitat and depth distributions. Due to the diversity and quantitiesof demersal fish species taken by this gear, together with the fact that a higher proportion of juvenilesacross all species are likely to be captured as a consequence of the indiscriminate nature of this gear,the overall performance is assessed as weak for all countries.GILL NET1. No verification or information on the species associated with the gill net fisheries targeting a rangeof demersal species in Indonesia and Malaysia were available Hutomo et al (2009) reported overexploitationof demersal species in the Malacca Straits and Andaman Sea, therefore the overallperformance is considered weak.

WEAKNESS OF PRINCIPLE 1 (STOCK STATUS ) ASSESSMENT• Lack of knowledge on many aspects of stock status including distinctstock• No recent reference points have been defined and there is noharvest strategy or harvest control rules and tools in place to managethe fishery• Patchy/incomplete landing statistics• ad-hoc research on pelagic resources rather than on regularassessment• no harvest strategy or harvest control rules and tools in place tomanage the fishery• Principle 1 Msia Idnsia Thai Myanmar.docxSummary table for Assessment of IM against P1.docx

WEAKNESS OF PRINCIPLE 2 ( Ecosystem Impacts) ASSESSMENTPrinciple 2.doc Summary Scores of Indian Mackerel Against Principle 2.docx• Key problems across all gear types relate to the status and management of retained species. The currentmesh size for purse seine and trawl gear (and some gill nets) is 1 mesh which results in high catch rates ofjuveniles. This is likely to have implications for recruitments and is likely to lead to growth overfishing andpossibly ecosystem overfishing.• lack of discarding within these fisheries is considered a key strength; however this is primarily due to thelanding of all fish including juveniles which itself is a lack of retained species management• Little is known about the extent of interaction with ETP species and no measures exist to manage• Habitat impacts are predominately by the trawling fleet, although lost gear from the gill net fleet may alsodamage corals• little information on the ecological role of Indian mackerel, its response to natural fluctuations and theimpact of its removal from the ecosystem• Regulations have been developed to reduce fisheries impacts on species and habitats, but these are yet tobe fully applied or enforced• In the case of ETP species, the use of TEDs and JTEDs has not yet occurred, citing practicalities ofmanaging grids with net drums.• the major weakness for the trawl gear is associated with habitat and ETP interactions.• The small mesh size of 25 mm for purse seine and trawl gear (and some gill nets can results in high catchrates of juveniles

The Specific Goals for Fisheries Managementof Indian Mackerel Rastreliger kanagurtain the Andaman Sea of Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand andMyanmarWith the objective :• “To ensure the long term livelihood of fishers through sustainable resourcemanagement for the Andaman Sea and Straits of Malacca Indian Mackerelfishery, and supporting preservation of allied ecosystems from which theseresources depend” to realise this objective, the results from the PSA andfisheries RBF assessment were translated into a logframe to identifyactivities to be undertaken to achieve the necessary goals outlined from theassessment.The Specific Goals for R kanagurta in andaman Sea and Straits of Malacca.doc

GOAL 1: TO STRENGTHEN THE CAPACITY OF FISHERIES BODIES TO UNDERTAKERESEARCHOutcome 1.1: Fisheries stock assessment processes strengthenedACTIVITES• Strengthen capacity of the regional institutions to undertake research.• Establish scientific partnerships with other Research centre of excellence• Prepare a research plan• DNA research to confirm interdependent or independent stocks• Identify target and Limit Reference Points for the scad fisheryOutcome 1.2: Harvest control strategies adopted in line with the precautionary principle offisheries managementACTIVITY• Implement Harvest Control StrategyOutcome 1.3: Harvest control tools adoptedACTIVITIES• Harvest control tools reformed or established based on Limit Reference point• Ongoing training and awareness programmeOutcome 1.4 : Improve information systems and data collection in all member countriesACTIVITIES• Data collection templates to include retained and by-catch• Methodologies, sampling procedures agreed• Database systems operating

GOAL 2: TO ESTABLISH ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO FISHERIESMANAGEMENT AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE Indian MackerelMANAGEMENT SYSTEMOutcome 2.1: Ecosystem approach to fisheries management appliedACTIVITIES• Collect information on fishery interactions.•• Assess potential risks to retained species, Endangered, Threatened and Protected animalsand habitats• Conduct ecosystem research•• Determine mitigation actions (e.g. temporal and permanent closed areas supported byparticipatory support by community organizations)• Provide training to avoid interaction with ETP species

GOAL 3:TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING PROCESSOutcome 3.1: Governance systems strengthenedACTIVITIES• Governance policy objectives strengthened with priority given to implementing internationalconventions and sustainability and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management• Preparing templates for fishery management plans which take account of the need for collaborativeactions• Setting up appropriate co management consultative systems to support co management• Regional management bodies promoting joint management initiatives•• Regional Advisory Councils createdOutcome 3.2:Fisheries management capacity and co-management system establishedACTIVITY• Strengthen the capacity of the fisheries administration to service the Management Council

GOAL 4: TO DEVELOP AND PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE AND SUSTAINABLE FISHERIESPRACTICESOutcome 4.1: Responsible and sustainable fisheries systems in place• Establish appropriate input and output management systems• Establish technical measure• Closed seasons•• Evaluate the effectiveness of the management•• Introduce ongoing training and awareness programmes•• Review of fishery subsidy schemeOutcome 4.2: Co-management systems strengthened• Establish stakeholder associations• Co-management responsibilities determined based on above and provided for in legislationOutcome 4.3: Fishery compliance systems strengthened• MCS systems applied• VMS and other control measures applied• Strengthening Legislation to support compliance actions• Compliance training – Fisheries administrations and fisher groups

GOAL 5: TO IMPLEMENT A MONITORING AND EVALUATIONSYSTEMOutcome 5.1: Monitoring and evaluation systems applied effectivelyACTIVITIES• Develop/document a Monitoring and Evaluation plan• Agree on monitoring and evaluation practices/processes that ensure credibility,impartiality, transparency, and usefulness

•THANK YOU & TERIMA KASIH