Last updated on 21 September 2016

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Merluccius paradoxus

SPECIES NAME(s)

Deep-water Cape hake

The distribution of Deep-water Merluccius paradoxus and shallow-water Merluccius capensis Cape hakes overlap along the continental shelf and upper slope of South Africa; both species occupy different depths but coincide between 150 and 300m (DAFF 2012).

The relation between this and the neighboring Namibian population is as yet unclear. The most recently available data on the stock structure was discussed in a workshop on the subject, held in November 2014 (OLRAC SPS 2014). According to the workshop report, for M. paradoxus there are “two 2-stock hypotheses (differing in the area of overlap of the two stocks), and a single stock hypothesis”. In South African waters M. paradoxus is currently treated as a single stock for assessment purposes, but discussions on the stock structure will continue.


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • The spawning stock is well above the limit reference point.
  • Industry has taken a proactive interest in hake conservation, improving catch accounting and tightening effort controls.
  • Rebuilding goals are in place for this stock.
  • Deep-water and shallow-water stocks are now distinguished in the assessment and on-board observers were placed on the boats to distinguish the two species in catches. Assessments are peer reviewed periodically by a high level panel of international scientists, particularly in the buildup to Operational Management Procedure revisions; a harvest control rule is defined as well as limit and target reference points for biomass.
  • Based on the status of the stocks and analysis of the Catch per Unit Effort estimates, a partial catch limit is set annually for deep-water Cape hake (and distinct catch limit for the shallow-water Cape hake). The aggregated approach for the management of both Cape hake species is considered as appropriate and in accordance with the Precautionary Approach. The two hakes are managed as distinct entities within an aggregated TAC which is limited by the weaker condition of deep-water Cape hake.
  • Bycatch species are being monitored from observers and landing records; precautionary catch limits for horse mackerel, monk and kingklip are in place. Tori lines have substantially reduced the interaction with seabirds and are mandatory as part of fishing permit conditions. The National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries launched in 2008 addresses the interactions of the fishery.
  • The trawl fishing distribution is known as well as benthic habitats and ‘focus areas’ with biodiversity importance. The ‘ring-fencing initiative’ has been successfully implemented. The design and implementation of a closed area (Childs Bank) is being tested in early stages to determine the impacts of trawling in the seabed ecosystem.
  • An ecologically representative offshore MPA network is being gradually established.There is no reported evidence that hake directed operations are significantly impacting on diversity or endangered species.
  • Most of the MSC Conditions are on target or closed.
Weaknesses
  • The spawning stock is estimated to have decreased and in 2015 was below target MSY levels.
  • The distinction of both species is difficult in operational terms.
  • There are still some concerns over the potential impact of the fishery on some protected species such as picked dogfish and black-browed Albatross; seabirds have been a group of concern due to trawl and longline interactions, and information on bycatch mortalities is still considered limited in terms of the inshore fleet.
  • Bycatch represents around 20% of total catches. Observers’ coverage improved but still not optimal.
  • There is still some uncertainty surrounding how effective are the current measures to manage long-term impacts on sea floor habitats.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 8

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

≥ 8

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

7.9

Future Health:

≥ 6


RECOMMENDATIONS

CATCHERS & REGULATORS
  • Reinstate the government led independent observer program.
  • Continue to explore further methods of reducing bycatch and discards, especially of vulnerable species of sharks, skates, and seabirds.
  • Continue research on sea-bed impacts, and support work to identify and establish an ecologically representative offshore marine protected area network.
RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Encourage the government to reinstate their independent observer program.
  • Encourage your supply chain to explore further methods of reducing bycatch and discards, especially of vulnerable species of sharks, skates, and seabirds.
  • Encourage the industry and government to continue research on sea-bed impacts, and support work to identify and establish an ecologically representative offshore marine protected area network.

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • South Africa hake trawl:

    MSC Recertified

Fisheries

Within FishSource, the term "fishery" is used to indicate each unique combination of a flag country with a fishing gear, operating within a particular management unit, upon a resource. That resource may have a known biological stock structure and/or may be assessed at another level for practical or jurisdictional reasons. A fishery is the finest scale of resolution captured in FishSource profiles, as it is generally the scale at which sustainability can most fairly and practically be evaluated.

ASSESSMENT UNIT MANAGEMENT UNIT FLAG COUNTRY FISHING GEAR
South Africa South Africa South Africa Longlines
Single boat bottom otter trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 20 January 2016

Strengths
  • The spawning stock is well above the limit reference point.
  • Industry has taken a proactive interest in hake conservation, improving catch accounting and tightening effort controls.
  • Rebuilding goals are in place for this stock.
  • Deep-water and shallow-water stocks are now distinguished in the assessment and on-board observers were placed on the boats to distinguish the two species in catches. Assessments are peer reviewed periodically by a high level panel of international scientists, particularly in the buildup to Operational Management Procedure revisions; a harvest control rule is defined as well as limit and target reference points for biomass.
  • Based on the status of the stocks and analysis of the Catch per Unit Effort estimates, a partial catch limit is set annually for deep-water Cape hake (and distinct catch limit for the shallow-water Cape hake). The aggregated approach for the management of both Cape hake species is considered as appropriate and in accordance with the Precautionary Approach. The two hakes are managed as distinct entities within an aggregated TAC which is limited by the weaker condition of deep-water Cape hake.
  • Bycatch species are being monitored from observers and landing records; precautionary catch limits for horse mackerel, monk and kingklip are in place. Tori lines have substantially reduced the interaction with seabirds and are mandatory as part of fishing permit conditions. The National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries launched in 2008 addresses the interactions of the fishery.
  • The trawl fishing distribution is known as well as benthic habitats and ‘focus areas’ with biodiversity importance. The ‘ring-fencing initiative’ has been successfully implemented. The design and implementation of a closed area (Childs Bank) is being tested in early stages to determine the impacts of trawling in the seabed ecosystem.
  • An ecologically representative offshore MPA network is being gradually established.There is no reported evidence that hake directed operations are significantly impacting on diversity or endangered species.
  • Most of the MSC Conditions are on target or closed.
Weaknesses
  • The spawning stock is estimated to have decreased and in 2015 was below target MSY levels.
  • The distinction of both species is difficult in operational terms.
  • There are still some concerns over the potential impact of the fishery on some protected species such as picked dogfish and black-browed Albatross; seabirds have been a group of concern due to trawl and longline interactions, and information on bycatch mortalities is still considered limited in terms of the inshore fleet.
  • Bycatch represents around 20% of total catches. Observers’ coverage improved but still not optimal.
  • There is still some uncertainty surrounding how effective are the current measures to manage long-term impacts on sea floor habitats.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 20 September 2016

Improvement Recommendations to Catchers & Regulators
  • Reinstate the government led independent observer program.
  • Continue to explore further methods of reducing bycatch and discards, especially of vulnerable species of sharks, skates, and seabirds.
  • Continue research on sea-bed impacts, and support work to identify and establish an ecologically representative offshore marine protected area network.
Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Encourage the government to reinstate their independent observer program.
  • Encourage your supply chain to explore further methods of reducing bycatch and discards, especially of vulnerable species of sharks, skates, and seabirds.
  • Encourage the industry and government to continue research on sea-bed impacts, and support work to identify and establish an ecologically representative offshore marine protected area network.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 20 January 2016

Until 2000, scientists treated the shallow-water and deep-water as a single population. When the species disaggregation was eventually fully accomplished in 2006, it suggested a somewhat higher level for shallow-water, and lower level for deep-water hake, than perhaps expected from earlier predominantly species-combined assessments. Currently, the stock assessment is conducted by the Marine Resource Assessment and Management (MARAM) Group at the University of Cape Town using an sex-disaggregated Age-Structured Production Model (ASPM). For the first time in 2008, the assessment incorporated catch-at-length data instead of using proxy data that was potentially problematic and biased (Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2008a). The assessments are peer reviewed periodically by a high level panel of international scientists (Andrews et al. 2015).

The most recent assessment includes revised and updated data sets (catches, length distribution and Catch Per Unit Effort) as well as new longline catch-at-length data from 2000. Demersal scientific surveys have been conducted with a commercial hake trawler (MV Andromeda) since 2013. However, the use of the new survey results in the stock assessment is pending further gear calibration (to standardize the results with the historical data from the previous research vessel, Africana) (Rademeyer and Butterworth 2015).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 20 January 2016

Scientists annually recommend a Total Allowable Catch (TAC). The TAC calculation is based on the current Operational Management Procedure (OMP-2014) algorithm, which combines the most recent survey biomass abundance estimates and CPUE series compared to those anticipated in the OMP-2014. When recent CPUE drops below a threshold level, a penalty is applied in the next year's TAC recommendation (DAFF 2015).

According to the OMP-2014, the combined TAC for 2015 and 2016 was to be set at 147,500 t. The results from the latest stock assessment suggest that although the most recent abundance indices for shallow-water cape hake (Merluccius capensis) (the south coast component in particular) fall below the bound levels, this change was not considered sufficient to trigger an immediate revision of the anticipated by the OMP-2014; the combined TAC for 2016 is thus to be set at 147,500 t (i.e., at the same as for 2015). The partial TAC for Deep-water Cape hake is then assumed to remain the same, at 115,822 t, based on ratio of catches by species estimated for 2014 (Rademeyer 2014). However, if abundance indices for M. capensis continue to be low in the future, such a revision to the TAC might be considered (DAFF 2015).

Reference Points

Last updated on 20 Jan 2016

“The current OMP approach (MSE) focuses on trade-offs between conflicting objectives, which incorporates the same concepts as underlie biological reference points, such as an MSY-related target and low probability of unintended depletion below limit-reference-point-like levels” (Doug Butterworth and Rebecca Rademeyer, personal communication). According to the latest OMP, the 2007 female spawning biomass, most recently estimated at 99,000 t, has been assumed as the limit reference point for the fishery (Blim). BMSY is estimated at 181,000 t (Rademeyer and Butterworth 2015). No fishing mortality reference points are defined.

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 20 January 2016

According to the latest reference case assessment, performed in 2015, the stock is considered to have rebuilt sooner than anticipated in the OMP, and is currently fluctuating around BMSY levels. Spawning Stock Biomass was estimated at 177,000 tonnes in 2015, i.e., 98% of the target reference level BMSY (= 181,000 t), and almost twice the biomass reference limit Blim (B2007= 99,000 t) (Rademeyer and Butterworth 2015). No current harvest rates (F proxy; ratio of catch in weight/biomass estimate) are available; the latest available estimate is for 2009, at 0.72.

Trends

Last updated on 20 Jan 2016

Historic high biomass estimates occurred from 1920 through 1960s, at levels now estimated to have been above 1 million tonnes. An increase in the fishing pressure due to the incursion of foreign fleets during the 1960s, resulted in historical peak catches, and was probably related to the sharp decline in biomass observed from the mid-60s to a historical low in 1977. After the definition of the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Fishing Zone (EFZ) in 1977, the government implemented a relatively conservative management strategy (in effect from 1983) in order to reduce fishing pressure and catches. Since then catches have remained relatively stable, ranging between 120 and 160 thousand tonnes per year (M. paradoxus and M. capensis combined) (Andrews et al. 2015; DAFF 2015). The stock showed then some signs of recovery, increasing from around 77 thousand tons in 1997 to around 200 thousand tons in 1993. After a period of decline from the late 90s to mid-2000s, biomass has been in an increasing trend since 2007 and is currently fluctuating around MSY levels. The recent poor recruitments are likely to result in a decrease in biomass over the next few years; after this period biomass is expected to start increasing again and return to BMSY levels by 2023 (DAFF 2015; Rademeyer and Butterworth 2015).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 20 January 2016

The hake fishery splits in 4 main sectors: deep-sea and inshore hake trawl, hake longline and hake handline. Of these, deep-water hake is only captured by the deep-sea trawl and longline fleets, which operate on both the West and South coasts (DAFF 2015. The fishery capacity is regulated by fishing rights and permissions, vessel licenses, effort control and TACs, in place since 2005 due to the overexploitation situation of the stock (Siyema 2010). The two hakes are managed as distinct entities within an aggregated TAC, which is limited by the weaker condition of deep-water Cape hake. Local scientists and external reviewers consider the aggregated approach for the management of both Cape hakes species as appropriate and in accordance with the Precautionary Approach (Andrews et al. 2013).

An Operational Management Procedure (OMP), designed as an operational framework to implement the Precautionary Principle, is in place for this fishery and is reviewed every four years. In the most recent OMP (OMP-2014), a set of alternative candidate management procedures, combining both TAC constraints (inter-annual increases in TAC may not exceed 10%, and decreases may not exceed 5%, except in specific circumstances) and alternative restrictions, is tested with respect to trends in the stock's risk of depletion and recovery rates, in order to provide the final TAC recommendations, and meet management objectives. For the deep-water cape hake in particular, the main management objectives are: (1) to reverse the downward trend in stock size (projected to occur given recent poor recruitment), and return spawning biomass (SSB) to BMSY levels by 2023; and (2) prevent SSB from dropping to below the 2007 level (used as a proxy of Blim). An additional objective, applicable to both species combined, is to achieve average annual catches of 135,000 t over the next decade . The OMP-2014 also includes other general specifications such as an upper cap of 150,000 tonnes on the TAC, and the aggregated TAC for 2015 and 2016 to be fixed at 147,500 tonnes (DAFF 2015).

Managers have been following scientific advice by setting the TACs at recommended levels. For 2016, the aggregated TAC was set in line with that anticipated by the OMP-2014, i.e., at 147,500 tonnes (DAFF 2015). The partial TAC for Deep-water Cape hake is then assumed to remain the same, at 115,822 t, based on the ratio of catches by species estimated for 2014 (Rademeyer 2014).

Recovery Plans

Last updated on 20 Jan 2016

The current hake Operational Management Procedure (OMP-2014) includes a set of management measures aiming at the rebuilding of the deep-water cape hake stock: TACs are defined in relation to recent trends in abundance indices (survey biomass and CPUE) compared to pre-specified target levels. A an upper cap of 150,000 tonnes / year is also in place for the aggregated TAC over the period 2015 -2018 (DAFF 2015).

South Africa
South Africa
Single boat bottom otter trawls

The trawl fishery is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) since 2004. MSC Condition 1 required the implementation of a rebuilding plan in accordance with the OMP. There is evidence that stock rebuilding measures continue being implemented and that the stock has been rebuilding thus the assessment team noted the condition should be closed. MSC Condition 4 concerns the need for an external review of the management system, which has been carried out. The condition was closed in 2013 (Andrews et al, 2013).
The two species of hake are assessed as a single management unit what can be inconsistent with the Precautionary Approach. MSC Condition 5 aims to develop separate assessments and management for each of the species. After deep analysis the OMP is considered to be Precautionary; different assessments regard each of the species and the stocks are managed as distinct entities within an aggregated TAC. The condition was also closed in 2013 (Andrews et al, 2013).
The definition of an appropriate target and limit reference points for biomass and/or fishing mortality led to MSC Condition 7, but it was closed by the first surveillance audit of the re-certification; the OMP is going to be monitored during the remaining process (Andrews et al, 2013).
In the second surveillance audit of the re-certification, MSC Conditions 8 and 9 were raised, regarding operational procedures and observers’ programme to support the fishery management objectives and gather relevant data to monitor the stock and interactions with the environment (bycatch, protected species). The level of observer coverage increased as well as the enforcement capabilities on land and at sea, thus both conditions were closed in 2013 (Andrews et al, 2013).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 20 January 2016

Managers have taken steps to ensure compliance: the DAFF has a compliance and auditing plan in place; VMS has been implemented and is fully operational in this fishery; the enforcement system in place has also improved (with more officers, patrol vessels and at sea inspections) and is considered appropriate. The MSC assessment team considered overall compliance with the management system is strong (Andrews et al. 2015).

A single aggregated TAC is set for the mixed fishery due to the impossibility of distinguishing both species in operational terms (Andrews et al. 2013). Since TACs have been in place, total cape hake catches (both species combined) have generally been below the TAC. In 2014, total cape hakes catches (143,926 t) (DAFF 2015) were 7% below the aggregated TAC of 155,279 t. However, specific Deep-water Cape hake catches (129,836 t) (DAFF 2015) were 8.6% above the anticipated contribution of the species for the 2014 TAC (119,549 t) (Rademeyer 2013).

South Africa
South Africa
Single boat bottom otter trawls

MSC Condition 10 and 11, raised by the second surveillance audit of the re-certification, comprised the need to ameliorate compliance and develop measures to control Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and misreporting. VMS was upgraded, more staff was hired, data is now available; compliance was enhanced, thus conditions were closed in 2013 (Andrews et al, 2013, 2014).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 20 January 2016

According to the latest MSC assessment, there is no reported evidence that hake directed operations are causing adverse impacts on the ecosystem overall function or specifically on  Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP) species (Andrews et al. 2015). The only group for which there has been some concern are seabirds (Andrews et al. 2015; DAFF 2015). Several mitigation measures were put in place in the meantime, and considered to have substantially reduced interactions with seabirds (Anderson et al., 2011; Maree et al. 2014). A recent study noted for albatrosses (e.g., the most affected species of seabirds) there was a drop of more than 95% in terms of mean bycatch related mortalities; this was considered to be linked to both bird-scaring lines effectiveness and a reduction in annual fishing effort (Maree et al. 2014). Current mitigation measures include bird scaring devices (BSD or tori lines), prohibitions on the use of 'sticky' warps, and restrictions of offal discharge (DAFF 2015). 

Industry has implemented its own monitoring program to systematically gather information on any captures of ETP species. A government independent observer program was also in place, but was suspended in 2012 and has not yet been reinstated. In response to this lapse, the fishing industry increased the level of observer coverage, resulting in observer coverage levels higher than the previously achieved under the government program (Andrews et al. 2015). However, NGOs still have some concerns related with the limited information on seabird bycatch mortalities, specifically for the inshore trawl fishery, and this was raised as a condition upon the recent MSC recertification of the fishery (Andrews et al. 2015).

Other Species

Last updated on 20 January 2016

Recent data demonstrate that hake (Merluccius spp.) represents over 79% of the total catch. The species that make up more 1% of the catch are devil anglerfish Lophius upsicephalus (Monkfish), kingklip Genypterus capensis, ribbonfish Lepidopus caudatus, snoek Thyrsites atun, jackopever Helicolenus dactylopterus, and Cape horse mackerel Trachurus capensis. Among the most important bycatch species, Precautionary Upper Catch Limits (PUCLs) are already in place for horse mackerel, monkfish and kingklip, in both inshore and offshore trawl fleets. The inclusion of PUCLs for more species has also been recently proposed.

For the silver kob Argyrosomus inodorus, whose population has been decreasing in the last 40 years, the inshore trawling fishing industry voluntarily imposed a PUCL of 200 tonnes per year; other specific protection measures to protect the species include a ‘move on’ rule’ (only applicable to the inshore trawl fisheries): when the catch is more than 2% in portion of the hake catch (directed hake fisheries), vessels are required to move on a distance of at least 5 nautical miles (Andrews et al. 2015). The ‘move on’ rule is also in place for snoek and kingklip (DAFF 2015). Spatial protection measures to reduce bycatch are also being implemented; a kingklip closed area is established off Cape St Francis between September and November each year, to protect spawning aggregations. Of the four additional closed areas (off De Hoop, Stilbaai, Tsitsikamma and Algoa Bay) that had been proposed to protect bycatch species, the Tsitsikamma and De Hoop MPA have been already established as no-trawl areas (Andrews et al. 2015).

Bycatch of seabirds in the longline fishery has been of concern. The National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries launched in 2008 addresses the interactions of the fishery. Tori lines, as part of fishing permit conditions, are mandatory (DEA, 2008). Measures such as prohibitions on the use of ‘sticky’ warps and restrictions on the amount of fish waste (‘offal’) discarded at sea have been also implemented in order to reduce the fishery-seabird interaction (Andrews et al. 2015).

Several vulnerable species of sharks and skates can also potentially be taken as bycatch by the trawl and longline fisheries, most of which are generally discarded (Petersen et al., 2008a,b; Watkins et al., 2008; Petersen et al., 2009). Although some concerns still persist over the bycatch management scheme, the available information suggests discards are minimal and the bycatch is not significantly impacting any of the non-target species (Andrews et al. 2015).

HABITAT

Last updated on 20 January 2016

Historically, trawling for hake has remained on mostly soft substrate types using standard otter trawl gear. There has been some progress in identifying hard and soft substrate habitats, developing an approach to define MPAs incorporating habitat and some species. In the meantime a number of initiatives are already in place to manage impacts on benthic habitats, such as limiting trawling to known fishing grounds (‘ring-fencing initiative’). Although this started as a self-imposed measure by the fishing industry, since 2015 the regulations officially restrict trawling to inside the designated footprint and ring-fenced area (Andrews et al. 2015; DAFF 2015). In 2014, an additional inshore area of over 1,300 km was also closed to trawling (Andrews et al., 2013, 2014). The design and implementation of a closed area (Childs Bank) is being tested in early stages to determine the impacts of trawling in the seabed ecosystem.

Nonetheless, there are still gaps in the mapping of vulnerable habitats, and in testing the effectiveness of the current measures to control the long-term disturbance over the seabed – one of the conditions raised in the second MSC reassessment (Andrews et al. 2015).

Marine Reserves

Last updated on 20 Jan 2016

South Africa has a comprehensive network of [inshore] Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which encompass approximately 23% of the coastline (9% consisting of fully protected MPAs). Although the 20 MPAs currently known only represent 0.16% of the South African Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), a project involving the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), government and stakeholders from the industry is underway to identify and establish an ecologically representative offshore MPA network. The MPA system will be based on the best available scientific information and aims to contribute to the long-term persistence of offshore biodiversity and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources (Sink and Attwood, 2008).

A network of key benthic areas for protection has been already identified and included in a recent report (Sink et al., 2011). In parallel, the “ring-fencing initiative” to restrict trawling to the existing grounds (i.e., not to extend the trawl footprint) has been agreed and is already established (Andrews et al. 2015). Several other no-trawl areas (e.g., the De Hoop and Tsitsikamma MPAs) have also been established in the meantime (Andrews et al. 2015).

FishSource Scores

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is ≥ 8.

There is a precautionary Harvest Control Rule (HCR) in place for this stock: if the combination of CPUE and biomass estimates of a given year drops below a certain level, there will be a penalty applied to the TAC formula for the next year (Rademeyer et al. 2010; DAFF 2015).

As calculated for 2016 data.

The score is 10.0.

This measures the Set TAC as a percentage of the Advised TAC.

The Set TAC is 116 ('000 t). The Advised TAC is 116 ('000 t) .

The underlying Set TAC/Advised TAC for this index is 100%.

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is ≥ 8.

A single aggregated TAC is set for the mixed fishery due to the impossibility to distinguish both species in operational terms (Andrews et al. 2013). In 2014, total cape hakes catches (143.926 t) (DAFF 2015) were below the aggregated TAC of 155.279 t. Deep-water Cape hake catches in 2014 (129,836 t) (DAFF 2015) were 8.6% above the anticipated contribution for the TAC 2014 TAC for the species (119,549 t) (Rademeyer 2013).

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is 7.9.

This measures the SSB as a percentage of the SSBmsy.

The SSB is 177 ('000 t). The SSBmsy is 181 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/SSBmsy for this index is 97.8%.

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

The sustainability of the current levels of fishing cannot be fully evaluated in terms of future health of the stock, given harvest rates (ratio of catch/total biomass: a proxy of fishing mortality) are only available to 2009, and no fishing mortality reference points are defined. The stock is considered to have rebuilt sooner than anticipated in the Operational Management Procedure (OMP), and to be currently fluctuating around BMSY levels (SSB was estimated in 2015 at 98% of BMSY) (Rademeyer and Butterworth 2015).

To see data for biomass, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for catch and tac, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for fishing mortality, please view this site on a desktop.
No data available for recruitment
No data available for recruitment
To see data for management quality, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for stock status, please view this site on a desktop.
DATA NOTES
  1. All spawning stock biomass estimates are from the updated Reference case (“data to 2015, ratio=1”) (source: Table 1, Rademeyer and Butterworth 2015). BMSY, inferred from the latest Reference Case Assessment, is used as Btrp. Values are approximate values, extracted with WebPlotDigitizer.
  2. BMSY, at 181,000 t, is used as Btrp. As per the latest Operational Management Procedure (OMP), spawning biomass of 2007 – (B2007, last estimated at 99,000 t – is assumed as the limit reference point for this fishery (Rademeyer and Butterworth 2015; DAFF 2015)
  3. As a single government agency is responsible for both scientific advice and management of the stock, we are assuming that Set TACC = Advised TACC. A single aggregated TAC is set for the mixed fishery, but partial catch limits for each species are anticipated for each of the species based on a precautionary assessment model (Andrews et al, 2013; DAFF 2015). Score #3 was assigned qualitatively to reflect this issue (please mouse-over for further details). The aggregated TAC for 2016 is the same as for 2015 (i.e., 147,500 t) (DAFF 2015), with the partial TAC for deep-water Cape hake also assumed to remain the same, at 115,822 t.
  4. Harvest rates (ratio of catch in weight/biomass estimate) are used as an F proxy and obtained through the median of the overall runs performed in the 2011 stock assessment. Fishing mortality reference points are not set thus scores #1 and #5 were based on the available information and determined qualitatively (please mouse-over for further details).
  5. Catch and TAC data apply to all fishing gears used in the fishery of deep-water Cape hake: West Coast (WC) and South Coast (SC) offshore trawl, and WC and SC longline (Rademeyer and Butterworth 2015; DAFF 2015).

Download Source Data

Registered users can download the original data file for calculating the scores after logging in. If you wish, you can Register now.

Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs)

No related FIPs

Certifications

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

SELECT MSC

NAME

South Africa hake trawl

STATUS

MSC Recertified on 1 March 2010

SCORES

Principle Level Scores:

Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species - M. paradoxus 92.1
Principle 1 – Target Species - M. capensis 98.8
Principle 2 – Ecosystem - M. paradoxus 84.0
Principle 2 – Ecosystem - M. capensis 84.0
Principle 3 – Management - M. paradoxus 94.5
Principle 3 – Management - M. capensis 94.5

Certification Type: Silver

Sources

Credits

SFP is thankful to Rebecca Rademeyer and Doug Butterworth (University of Cape Town – work carried out under contract to Marine and Coastal Management, South Africa) who provided information for this fishery profile.

SFP is also grateful to David Wiedenfeld of the American Bird Conservancy for contributing to this profile’s content.

Additional References and Sources

Rademeyer, R.A. 2014. Output from the South African Hake OMP-2014 for the 2015 TAC recommendation. FISHERIES/2014/OCT/SWG-DEM/58. October 2014. 4 pp.

  1. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department. 2010. Recommendation of the Demersal Scientific Working group for the sustainable management of hake resources for the 2011 season. November 2010. Forestry and Fisheries Department Agriculture. 11 pp. 2010-SWG-DEM-60_2011_Hake_TAC_recommendation.pdf
  2. Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Croxall, J.P., Dunn, E.K., Sullivan, B.J., Yates, O. and Black, A., 2011. Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endangered Species Research, 14, 2: 91-106.http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v14/n2/p91-106/
  3. Andrews, J., de Rozarieux, N., Powers, J. and Tingley, G., 2012. Surveillance Report: South African Hake Trawl Fishery. Intertek Moody Marine Ltd. July 2012. 71 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/south-africa-hake-trawl-fishery/south-african-hake-reassessment-documents/20120712_SR.pdf
  4. Andrews, J., Groeneveld, J. and Pawson, M., 2014. Surveillance Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery. Intertek Moody Marine Ltd, April 2014. 105 pp. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/south-africa-hake-trawl-fishery/south-african-hake-reassessment-documents/20140429_SR_HAK108.pdf
  5. Andrews, J., J. Groeneveld, and M. Pawson. 2015. Second MSC Reassessment Public Certification Report for the South Africa Hake Trawl Fishery. Intertek Fisheries Certification (IFC). Derby, UK.https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/south-africa-hake-trawl-fishery/south-african-hake-second-reassessment-documents/20150526_PCR_HAK108.pdf
  6. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), 2012. Status of the South African Marine Fishery Resources 2012, Republic of South Africa, 75 pp.http://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/fisheries/indexpage_DOCS/STATUS%20REPORT%202012FINAL%20DRAFT.pdf
  7. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). 2015. Recommendations of the Demersal Scientific Working Group for the sustainable management of hake resources for the 2016 season. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), Pretoria.DSWG_2016_Hake_TAC_recommendation.doc
  8. Maree, B. A., R. M. Wanless, T. P. Fairweather, B. J. Sullivan, and O. Yates. 2014. Significant reductions in mortality of threatened seabirds in a South African trawl fishery. Animal Conservation 17(6):520-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acv.12126
  9. OLRAC SPS. 2014. Estimating the Andromeda catchability compared to the Africana for South African hake in an update of the Reference Case assessment. MARAM/IWS/DEC14/Hake/P6. OLRAC SPS, Cape Town, South Africa.http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/maram/workshop/2014/MARAM_IWS_DEC14_Hake_P6.pdf
  10. Petersen, S.L., Honig, M.B., Ryan, P.G., Underhill, L.G. and Compagno, L.J.V., 2008a. Chondrichtyan bycatch in demersal longline and trawl fisheries off southern Africa. In: S.L. Petersen, D.C. Nel, P.G. Ryan & L.G. Underhill (eds.) Understanding and Mitigating Vulnerable Bycatch in southern African Trawl and Longline Fisheries. WWF South Africa Report Series - 2008/Marine/002. p. 101-125.http://assets.panda.org/downloads/53_understanding_and_mitigating_vulnerable_bycatch_in_southern_african_trawl_and_longlin.pdf#page=100
  11. Petersen, S.L., Honig, M.B., Ryan, P.G., Underhill, L.G. and Goren, M., 2008b. Seabird bycatch in the demersal longline fishery off southern Africa. In: S.L. Petersen, D.C. Nel, P.G. Ryan & L.G. Underhill (eds.) Understanding and Mitigating Vulnerable Bycatch in southern African Trawl and Longline Fisheries. WWF South Africa Report Series - 2008/Marine/002. p. 80-100.http://assets.panda.org/downloads/53_understanding_and_mitigating_vulnerable_bycatch_in_southern_african_trawl_and_longlin.pdf#page=100
  12. Petersen, S. L., Honig, M. B., Ryan, P. G., Underhill, L. G. and Goren, M., 2009. Seabird bycatch in the demersal longline fishery off southern Africa. African Journal of Marine Science, 31, 2: 205-214.http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/AJMS.2009.31.2.8.880#preview
  13. Powers, J., G. Tingley, D. Japp, J. Combes & A. Hough, 2010. MSC Reassessment Report for South African Hake Trawl Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/south-africa-hake-trawl-fishery/south-african-hake-reassessment-documents/17.03.2010-sa-hake-trawl-pcr-v5.pdf
  14. Powers, J. Tingley, G.; Combes, J., 2011. First Surveillance Report for the South African Hake Trawl Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd. March 2011. 49 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/south-africa-hake-trawl-fishery/south-african-hake-reassessment-documents/Surv1_82007_Sth_African_Hake_final.pdf
  15. Rademeyer, R.A., 2011a. 2011 Routine Update of the South African Hake Base Reference Case Assessment. August 2011. 7 pp.FISHERIES_2011_AUG_SWG-DEM_39_09_Hake_routine_update_final.doc
  16. Rademeyer, R.A., 2011b. Output from the South African Hake OMP-2010 for the 2012 TAC recommendation. FISHERIES/2011/AUGUST/SWG-DEM/40. August 2011. 4 pp.DEM_40_FISHERIES_2011_AUG_SWG-DEM-40-2012_OMP_output.doc
  17. Rademeyer, R.A., 2012a. 2012 Routine Update of the South African Hake Reference Case Assessment. FISHERIES/2012/OCT/SWG-DEM/22. October 2012. 14 pp.FISHERIES_2012_SWG-DEM_22_hake_update_fin.doc
  18. Rademeyer, R.A., 2012b. Output from the South African Hake OMP-2010 for the 2013 TAC recommendation. FISHERIES/2012/SEPT/SWG-DEM/21. August 2011. 4 pp.FISHERIES_2012_OCT_SWG-DEM_21_OMP_output_for_2013.doc
  19. Rademeyer, R.A. 2013. Output from the South African Hake OMP-2010 for the 2014 TAC recommendation, FISHERIES/2013/OCT/SWG-DEM/55, 4 pp.http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/maram/pub/2013/FISHERIES_2013_OCT_SWG-DEM_55.pdf
  20. Rademeyer, R.A. and Butterworth, D.S. 2008a. Development of a new Baseline Assessment for the South African Hake resource, Incorporating catch-at-length information. 21 p. Development_of_a_new_Baseline_Assessment_for_the_South_African_Hake_resource__Incorporating_catch-at-length_information.pdf
  21. Rademeyer, R.A. and Butterworth, D.S. 2008b. Output from the South African Hake OMP-2006 for the 2009 TAC recommendation. 4 p.Output_from_the_South_African_Hake_OMP-2006_for_the_2009_TAC_recommendation.pdf
  22. Rademeyer, R.A. and Butterworth, D.S. 2010a. Proposed Reference Set for the South African hake resource to be used in OMP-2010 testing. MCM/2010/FEB/SWG-DEM/05. February 2010. 68 pp. 2010-SWG-DEM-05-RS_paper_with_addendum.pdf
  23. Rademeyer, R.A. and Butterworth, D.S. 2010b. A Note on the Sensitivity of Hake Assessments to the Choice of the Central Year for the Shift from a Primarily M. capensis to Primarily M. paradoxus Fishery. MCM/2010/FEB/SWG-DEM/10. February 2010. 4 pp. 2010-SWG-DEM-10-Shift_year_Sensitivity.pdf
  24. Rademeyer, R.A. and Butterworth, D.S. 2010c. Final Set of Candidate Management Procedures for the South African hake resource. FISHERIES/2010/October/SWG-DEM/53. October 2010. 26 pp. 2010-SWG-DEM-53-Final_CMP_fin.pdf
  25. Rademeyer, R.A. and Butterworth, D. S. 2013. 2013 Update of the South African Hake Reference Case Assessment, FISHERIES/2013/NOV/SWG-DEM67, MARAM IWS/DEC13/Hake/P2, 56 pp.http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/maram/workshop/2013/MARAM_IWS_DEC13_Hake_P2.pdf
  26. Rademeyer, R.A. and Butterworth, D.S., 2014a. Results leading to a proposal for the reference set of operating models for testing the 2014 OMP revision for the South African hake resource. DAFF Branch Fisheries document: FISHERIES/2014/JUN/SWG-DEM/14. May 2014. 14pp.http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/maram/pub/2014/FISHERIES_2014_JUN_SWG-DEM_14.pdf
  27. Rademeyer, R.A. and Butterworth, D.S., 2014b. Specifications of the South African hake 2014 Reference case assessment. MARAM/IWS/DEC14/Hake/P2. November 2014. 26 pp.http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/maram/workshop/2014/MARAM_IWS_DEC14_Hake_P2.pdf
  28. Rademeyer, R. A., and D. S. Butterworth. 2015. Estimating the Andromeda catchability compared to the Africana for South African hake in an update of the Reference Case assessment. FISHERIES/2015/AUG/SWG-DEM/16.16_FISHERIES_2015_AUG_SWG-DEM_16_Andromeda_q_final_to_2015.docx.zip
  29. Rademeyer, R.A. , Fairweather, T., Glazer, J.P., Leslie, R.L. and Butterworth, D.S. 2010. The 2010 Operational Management Procedure for the South African Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis Resources. FISHERIES/2010/OCTOBER/SWG-DEM/59. October 2010. 36 pp. 2010-SWG-DEM-59_OMP_specifications.pdf
  30. Sink, K. and Attwood, C. 2008. Guidelines for Offshore Marine Protected Areas in South Africa. SANBI Biodiversity Series 9. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 25 pp.http://www.sanbi.org/sites/default/files/documents/documents/biodiversity9.pdf
  31. Sink, K.J., Attwood, C.G., Lombard, A.T., Grantham, H., Leslie, R., Samaai, T., Kerwath, S., Majiedt, P., Fairweather, T., Hutchings, L., Van der Lingen, C., Atkinson, L.J., Wilkinson, S., Holness, S., Wolf, T. 2011. Spatial planning to identify focus areas for offshore biodiversity protection in South Africa. Final Report for the Offshore Marine Protected Area Project. Cape Town: South African National Biodiversity Institute. 66 pp.http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/ebsa-sio-01/other/ebsa-sio-01-southafrica-04-en.pdf
  32. Siyema, T. 2010. Overcapacity in the South African Hake Deep Sea Trawl Fishery, South Africa. Master's Degree Thesis in International Fisheries Management, Norwegian College of Fisheries Science, University of Tromsø, 97 pp.http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/2496/thesis.pdf?sequence=2
  33. Tingley, G., J. Powers, D. Japp, A. Hough, and J. Combs (Moody Marine Ltd.). 2008. South African Hake Trawl Fishery: Surveillance Report 4 2008. 19 p.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/south-africa-hake-trawl-fishery/south-african-hake-reassessment-documents/SA_Hake_SurveillanceReport4_July08.pdf
  34. Tingley, G., J. Powers, D. Japp, and A. Hough (Moody Marine Ltd.). 2007. South African Hake Trawl Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007. 21 p. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/south-africa-hake-trawl-fishery/south-african-hake-assessment-documents/Surv_Report_Oct2007.pdf
  35. Watkins, B.P., Petersen, S.L. and Ryan, P.G., 2008. Interactions between seabirds and deep-water hake trawl gear: an assessment of impacts in south African waters. In: S.L. Petersen, D.C. Nel, P.G. Ryan & L.G. Underhill (eds.) Understanding and Mitigating Vulnerable Bycatch in southern African Trawl and Longline Fisheries. WWF South Africa Report Series - 2008/Marine/002. p. 126-139.http://assets.panda.org/downloads/53_understanding_and_mitigating_vulnerable_bycatch_in_southern_african_trawl_and_longlin.pdf#page=100
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Deep-water Cape hake - South Africa, South Africa, South Africa, Single boat bottom otter trawls

    comments powered by Disqus