Summary

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Hoplostethus atlanticus

SPECIES NAME(S)

Orange roughy

Several studies (e.g. Oke et al. 1997Varela et al. 2012) have been conducted using distinct techniques (microsatellites,  allozyme or mtDNA analysis, diet and behaviour, etc.) in different geographic scales (New Zealand, Australia, Namibia, and Chile, North Atlantic). In samples collected from Hebrides (NW Ireland) to Sedlo bank (near the Azores archipelago), a panmitic population was found in the NE Atlantic and significant differences with the Namibian population (White et al. 2009). Genetic studies also found differences among New Zealand and Australian stocks (Branch 2001). But the worldwide stock structure of orange roughy is still currently unknown and a lack of significant differentiation among far geographic samples is revealed (Varela et al. 2012). Main fisheries are conducted in New Zealand, Australia, NE Atlantic and Namibia, where different regional units are considered for assessment and management purposes:

  • Australia: four units are based on regional spawning grounds and migration patterns (Upston et al., 2014): Western Zone (Sandy Cape), Southern Zone (Maatsuyker and Pedra Branca), Southern Remote Zone (Cascade Plateau), Eastern Zone (St. Patricks Head and St. Helens Hill).
  • New Zealand: presumable biological stock structure is based on the spawning grounds identified but the nine assessment/management units here considered according to main fisheries operating in the region, not always coincide with the boundaries of the biological stocks (more details in MPI, 2014a).
    • Within the management unit Northern North Island (ORH 1) there are several biological stocks with unclear boundaries: Mercury-Colville is an assessment unit; there are other stocks that are not assessed
    • Within the management unit Cape Runaway to Banks Peninsula (ORH 2A, 2B, 3A) there are two biological stocks and correspondent assessment units: East Cape (ORH 2A North) and Mid-East Coast (ORH 2A South, 2B, 3A)
    • Within the management unit Chatham Rise and Puysegur (ORH 3B) there are at least two biological stocks with correspondent assessment units: NW Chatham Rise, East and South Rise, Puysegur and the remainder of the sub-Antarctic area
    • Within the management unit Challenger Plateau (ORH 7A) there is a biological stock which includes also the Westpac Bank outside the New Zealand EEZ, managed by the South Pacific RFMO.
    • West coast South Island (ORH 7B)
  • In the NE Atlantic there are 3 units recognized but considered as inadequate according to the species’ biology and sparse information available (ICES 2008OSPAR Commission 2010): Rockall, NW Scotland and North Ireland (Subarea VI), Irish Sea, SW Ireland, Porcupine Bank, English Channel and Bristol Channel, Celtic Sea (Subarea VII) and NE Atlantic includes remaining areas (areas I, II, IIIa, IV, V, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIV). 
  • Off Namibia according to the last stock assessment report (SEAFO 2014; Bensch et al. 2009)

ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • The stock assessment model is considered of high quality.
  • The Harvest Strategy Standard (harvest control rule, HCR) is based on the Maximum Sustainable Yield Fishing mortality.
  • The biomass target range BMSY is being reviewed in result of uncertainties in the estimation. Fishing intensity has been decreasing and is below the target.
  • A ‘time-bound rebuilding plan’ is in place and catch limits were reduced.
  • Scientists and managers work in close relationship in the process of defining catch limits. The options recommended by the Minister/Ministry in the initial and final position papers, and in the letter for stakeholders are in line with the stock assessment developed and with the Harvest Standard Strategy.
  • A Vessel Monitoring System comprises all fleet. A programme of observers’ onboard and a New Zealand Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated & Unreported Fishing are in place. Technical measures are established to minimize and monitor the interaction of the fishery with sharks, seabirds and marine mammals.
  • Both bycatch and discarding have been decreasing.
  • The annual footprint of the fishery (area of seafloor contacted by trawling operations) has been decreasing and in 2009/2010 was a third of the maximum peak of 1998/1999.
Weaknesses
  • A MSC pre-assessment raises that specific choices and uncertainties of the HCR are not clearly understood and that the effectiveness in achieving objectives is not evident.
  • It also highlighted that the biomass target range of 30-40% B0 may not be sufficiently conservative considering orange roughy’s low productivity.
  • The spawning stock has been increasing but is below both MSY and Soft (limit) biomass reference points.
  • Catches were slightly above the limit and there are signs of non-compliance issues.
  • Distinct risk analysis studies determined different levels of impacts of the fishery on the seabed ecosystem and protected corals but both identified the lack of specific data to generate robust conclusions about the interaction.
  • There are concerns about the expansion of trawling operations into new areas, the poor knowledge of corals in unfished areas and the lack of monitoring or management of the interaction of the fishery with the benthic ecosystem, especially in closed areas already established.
  • Bycatch encompass 20% of catches.

SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 6

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

9.9

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

4.2

Future Health:

8.3


RECOMMENDATIONS

CATCHERS & REGULATORS

1. Implement a comprehensive data collection program, including fishery-dependent and fishery-independent methods, to reduce uncertainty in and increase the quantity of data available for stock assessments.
2. Improve bycatch data collection, especially on slow growing deep-sea corals.
3. Expand research on and monitoring of impacts on the seabed ecosystem in both fished and unfished (including closed) areas, and increase Benthic Protected Area coverage in orange roughy habitat.
4. Collect information on potential non-compliance issues such as misreporting of Quota Management Area, species and weights, and fishing in closed areas.
5. Revise the Harvest Control Rule, as has been done in other New Zealand orange roughy fisheries, to better reflect this species’ low productivity.

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN

1. Encourage your suppliers to continue the consultation process, begun with U.S. conservation organizations in October 2013, to identify sustainability concerns and establish a path to resolve these concerns.
2. Contact the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries and encourage them to be highly precautionary in their management of this sensitive fishery (especially by implementing a time-bound rebuilding plan), and request that they improve data collection and reduce uncertainty surrounding both the target species and the ecosystem impacts of harvest.
3. Request that your suppliers provide documentation of their compliance with sub-stock catch limits (this documentation should be available from the Ministry for Primary Industries).


FIPS

  • Orange Roughy MEC:

    Stage 4, Progress Rating C

CERTIFICATIONS

No related MSC fisheries

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
NZ Mid-East Coast NZ Mid-East Coast (ORH 2A South, 2B, 3A) - Industrial New Zealand Bottom trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Strengths
  • The stock assessment model is considered of high quality.
  • The Harvest Strategy Standard (harvest control rule, HCR) is based on the Maximum Sustainable Yield Fishing mortality.
  • The biomass target range BMSY is being reviewed in result of uncertainties in the estimation. Fishing intensity has been decreasing and is below the target.
  • A ‘time-bound rebuilding plan’ is in place and catch limits were reduced.
  • Scientists and managers work in close relationship in the process of defining catch limits. The options recommended by the Minister/Ministry in the initial and final position papers, and in the letter for stakeholders are in line with the stock assessment developed and with the Harvest Standard Strategy.
  • A Vessel Monitoring System comprises all fleet. A programme of observers’ onboard and a New Zealand Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated & Unreported Fishing are in place. Technical measures are established to minimize and monitor the interaction of the fishery with sharks, seabirds and marine mammals.
  • Both bycatch and discarding have been decreasing.
  • The annual footprint of the fishery (area of seafloor contacted by trawling operations) has been decreasing and in 2009/2010 was a third of the maximum peak of 1998/1999.
Weaknesses
  • A MSC pre-assessment raises that specific choices and uncertainties of the HCR are not clearly understood and that the effectiveness in achieving objectives is not evident.
  • It also highlighted that the biomass target range of 30-40% B0 may not be sufficiently conservative considering orange roughy’s low productivity.
  • The spawning stock has been increasing but is below both MSY and Soft (limit) biomass reference points.
  • Catches were slightly above the limit and there are signs of non-compliance issues.
  • Distinct risk analysis studies determined different levels of impacts of the fishery on the seabed ecosystem and protected corals but both identified the lack of specific data to generate robust conclusions about the interaction.
  • There are concerns about the expansion of trawling operations into new areas, the poor knowledge of corals in unfished areas and the lack of monitoring or management of the interaction of the fishery with the benthic ecosystem, especially in closed areas already established.
  • Bycatch encompass 20% of catches.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 11 July 2016

Improvement Recommendations to Catchers & Regulators

1. Implement a comprehensive data collection program, including fishery-dependent and fishery-independent methods, to reduce uncertainty in and increase the quantity of data available for stock assessments.
2. Improve bycatch data collection, especially on slow growing deep-sea corals.
3. Expand research on and monitoring of impacts on the seabed ecosystem in both fished and unfished (including closed) areas, and increase Benthic Protected Area coverage in orange roughy habitat.
4. Collect information on potential non-compliance issues such as misreporting of Quota Management Area, species and weights, and fishing in closed areas.
5. Revise the Harvest Control Rule, as has been done in other New Zealand orange roughy fisheries, to better reflect this species’ low productivity.

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain

1. Encourage your suppliers to continue the consultation process, begun with U.S. conservation organizations in October 2013, to identify sustainability concerns and establish a path to resolve these concerns.
2. Contact the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries and encourage them to be highly precautionary in their management of this sensitive fishery (especially by implementing a time-bound rebuilding plan), and request that they improve data collection and reduce uncertainty surrounding both the target species and the ecosystem impacts of harvest.
3. Request that your suppliers provide documentation of their compliance with sub-stock catch limits (this documentation should be available from the Ministry for Primary Industries).

1.STOCK STATUS

Stock Assessment

Last updated on

Based on allozyme studies, the Mid-East Coast (MEC) stock comprises the Quota Management Areas (QMA) ORH 2A South, 2B (Wairarapa) and 3A (Kaikoura) that, since 1994/95, is separately managed from the East Cape stock that includes QMA ORH 2A North (MPI, 2013a).

Combined spawning biomass (SSB) estimate from an acoustic survey (2013); a trawl-survey time series of relative biomass indices (1992–1994, 2010) with associated length frequencies (1992, 1994), age frequencies and estimates of proportion spawning at age (1993, 2010); length and age frequencies collected from the commercial fisheries, including four spawning-season age frequencies (1989-1991, 2010) were fitted in an Age-structured CASAL model with Bayesian estimation (MPI, 2014a). 
Input data are considered of “high quality”; “low” and “medium” quality data (e.g. catch per unit effort index) were not used. Besides, the assessment meets the New Zealand’s Science and Research Information Standard for New Zealand Fisheries in place since 2011 (MPI, 2014b). Natural mortality (M) was assumed as a constant at 0.045 and a Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment relationship.
Uncertainties relate to the proportion of the stock indexed by the 2013 acoustic survey and patterns of year class strengths that are based only on 5 years of age composition data (MPI, 2014a,b) as well as in the estimation of BMSY, due to uncertainty in steepness and in the form of the stock-recruitment relationship (Cordue, 2014; MPI, 2014d).

Scientific Advice

Last updated on

Stock assessments are conducted by independent researchers contracted by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the results are peer reviewed by the Deepwater Fisheries Assessment Working Group (DFAWG) which is composed by scientists of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), the Ministry and the industry. The DFAWG, under MPI, evaluates the state of the fisheries and stocks and analyze management scenarios, not being responsible by management recommendations or decisions which are taken by the MPI. A final decision is discussed in a multi-stakeholder meeting.

According to the stock status two scenarios were considered: at the current catch limit at 930 tons, SSB is expected to increase in the next 5 years but remaining below the Soft limit. Considering a scenario of zero catches it would take 21 years (Tmin) to reach the lower bound of the biomass target range (30% of B0) with 70% of probability (MPI, 2014a).

Reference Points

Last updated on

Reference points are calculated in relation to B0 which is estimated at 100.000 tons. The management strategy for the stock was based on fluctuation of the stock around the estimated BMSY = 30-40% of B0, between 30.000-40.000 tons (MPI, 2014a). BMSY for orange roughy was reassessed in 2014 at 26% of B0 considering a Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment relationship based mainly on data collected from this fishery, as it had the most data on recruitment at low stock sizes (Cordue, 2014). BMSY for this stock as such is now estimated to be 26,000 tons. The target range was being reviewed and the upper limit (40% of B0) will probably be adopted as the mid-point considering the range between 30-50% of B0 (Cordue, 2014; MPI, 2014d).

Fishing intensity target is currently set between U30%B0–U40%B0 (MPI, 2014a).

Other biological reference points are set:

  • Soft limit is a “biomass level below which a stock is deemed to be “overfished” or depleted and needs to be actively rebuilt”, is 20% of B0= 20.000 tons and considered as Blim
  • Hard limit is a “biomass level below which a stock is deemed to be “collapsed” where fishery closures should be considered in order to rebuild a stock at the fastest possible rate”, is 10% of B0= 10.000 tons.

MSC pre-assessment report considers the Hard limit as Blim and both BMSY and Blim as inadequate for the management of this fishery (Punt et al., 2013).

Current Status

Last updated on

The current biomass level at 14% of B0 = 14.000 tons, Very Unlikely (< 10%) to be at or above the lower end of the management target range, Likely (> 60%) to be below the Soft Limit and Unlikely (< 40%) to be below the Hard Limit. Fishing intensity in 2014 was estimated at U35%B0, meaning that fishing at 35 would cause the SSB to reach deterministic equilibrium at 35% of B0. Overfishing is About as Likely as Not (40-60%) to be occurring. Catches have been following limits trends, decreasing in the last years (MPI, 2014a).

Trends

Last updated on

Following an increasing trend, in the beginning of the 1990s landings reached 10.000 tonnes. Since then decreased to around 0.888 t (the minimum value) in 2004 and have increasing since then. Based on both performed models, the spawning stock has been increasing since 2000 and the fishing intensity has been decreasing recently (MPI, 2014a).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

Managers' Decisions
NZ Mid-East Coast
NZ Mid-East Coast (ORH 2A South, 2B, 3A)

Last updated on

The New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) manages the fishery under a Quota Management System (QMS) since 1986 in order to maintain stock biomass levels that support Maximum Constant Yield (MCY). Sub-Quota Management Areas (QMA) are agreed with the industry; 5% of TAC is assigned to other sources of fishing related mortality, lost fish and discards (MFA, 2011; MPI, 2014a,b).
Scientists and managers work in close relationship in the process of defining catch limits. The options recommended by the Minister/Ministry in the initial and final position papers, and in the letter for stakeholders are in line with the stock assessment developed and with the Harvest Standard Strategy (MoF, 2008).

A Harvest Standard Strategy (HSS; a Harvest Control Rule) is in place, with a management target range biomass (BMSY) at 30-40% of virgin biomass (B0), around which the stock should fluctuate with ‘high probability’. A FMSY management approach is used to calculate catch limits, based on the reference points (MPI, 2012b; MPI, 2013b; MPI, 2014a,b): 

  • When Bcurrent is above the Soft limit, F is set at FMSY (assumed to be M or 4.5% of Bcurrent). 
  • If Bcurrent is below the Soft limit but above the Hard limit a lower catch limit may be considered in a formal time-constrained rebuilding plan to increase the stock size to within the management target range. 
  • If Bcurrent is below the Hard limit then closure of the fishery is considered (F set to zero) or in a catch limit that enables the stock to rebuild in size to the target range in not more than twice the time period it would take in the absence of fishing.

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) pre-assessment raised that specific choices and uncertainties of the HCR are not clearly understood and that the effectiveness in achieving objectives is not evident (Punt et al., 2013). The HCR for stocks under MSC assessment was revised but this stock is not among those (DWG, 2014).

Deterministic estimates of BMSY are not regarded as appropriate to manage the stock because assume an unrealistic management strategy, perfect knowledge of the stock-recruit relationship and the difficulty to keep biomass above the Soft limit with such a low target biomass level (MPI, 2014a,b,c). 

The National Fisheries Plan for Deepwater and Middle-depth Fisheries (NFPDMF), elaborated with stakeholders ‘describes the management objectives that will apply across all deepwater fisheries and will guide their management for the next five years’. The Annual Operational Plan for Deepwater Fisheries for 2013/14 (Part 2 of the NFPDMF) is an internal planning document that ‘provides the management actions scheduled for delivery during the financial year, the management services required to deliver the management actions, and up-to-date management overviews for fisheries’. 

A Discussion Paper from MPI was presented to the Minister, with initial proposals of management measures for the fishery that, under the Fisheries Act 1996, are discussed with stakeholders in a consultation period (MPI, 2014b). The Final Advice Paper (FAP) summarizes recommendations to the Minister who publishes the final decision for the following fishing year (MPI, 2014b,d). 
Separate catch limits are defined for each biological stock - ORH 2A North and Mid-East Coast (ORH 2A South, 2B, 3A), but an overall TAC is assigned to ORH 2A and catch limits are agreed, between MPI and the industry, to each of the sub-stocks (ORH 2A North and South). The stock is below the Soft limit so according to the HSS a ‘time-constrained rebuilding plan’ should be implemented. The MPI, using the stock assessment model, proposed three options considering different catch levels and rebuilding times, and that recruitment will be maintained at near-average levels (Tmin) or that low recruitment level would require a longer Tmin (MPI, 2014b). In the FAP the Minister and in agreement with stakeholders’ consultations, recommends option 2, a decrease in total catch limits from 1.230 tons to 525 tons (288 tons for ORH 2A South + 60 tons for ORH 2B + 177 tons for ORH 3A) for the 2014/2015 fishing year (an intermediate level of Tmin) (MPI, 2014b,c). 

For the 2014/2015 fishing year the Minister set a total catch limit at 525 tons – 288 tons for ORH 2A South (TACC of 488 tons for the whole ORH 2A), 60 tons for ORH 2B and 177 tons for ORH 3A (MPI, 2014d).

Recovery Plans
NZ Mid-East Coast
NZ Mid-East Coast (ORH 2A South, 2B, 3A)

Last updated on

According to the HSS, and once the spawning stock is below the Soft limit a ‘time-bound rebuilding plan’ is in place, considering that the stock would recover to the management target “in less than twice the time it would take to rebuild in the absence of fishing”. Considering option 2 (an intermediate level of Tmin), the timeframe is estimated at 32 years and a reduction in the catch limits was applied for the 2014/2015 fishing year (MPI, 2014c,d).

Compliance
NZ Mid-East Coast
NZ Mid-East Coast (ORH 2A South, 2B, 3A)

Last updated on

Catch limits have been generally overpassed with some exceptions (e.g. 1994/1995, 2001/2002, 2004/2005). Compliance has been compromised by misreporting of QMA, species and weight and fishing in closed areas. Landings generally overpassed the set TAC, due to lost fish and discards: in the early 1980s, catches in the QMA 2A (South and North) were overpassed by 50% and in the QMAs 2B and 3A by 30%; since then this difference has been reducing and is estimated to be currently at 5% in each QMA (MPI, 2014a). 

A Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), comprising the orange roughy fishery fleet, was established in 1994 and requires the use of an Automatic Location Communicator (ALC). A New Zealand Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated & Unreported Fishing is in place since 2004 (MoF, 2004). Other measures such as Licensed Fish Receivers (LFR) and observers onboard contribute to the catch verification and compliance.

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

ETP Species

Last updated on

All deepwater coral species are protected under Schedule 7A of the Wildlife Act 1953 (MPI, 2013a). All seabirds except Southern Black-backed Gull _Larus dominicanus_ are protected as well as all marine mammals and reptiles, some sharks (e.g. great white shark Carcharodon carcharias, basking shark Cetorhinus maximus), rays (e.g. giant manta ray Manta birostris) and groupers (e.g. spotted black grouper Epinephelus daemelii). 

Effects of the orange roughy fishery on ETP species (fish, seabirds, sharks, and marine mammals) are reportedly minimal but the direct and indirect impacts on coral are not yet well understood (Punt et al.,  2013). Solenosmilia variabilis, Madrepora oculata, Enallopsammia rostrate and Goniocorella dumosa occur at the trawling depth range (Clark and Anderson 2013) and are being assessed. 

Boyd (2013), an industry commissioned white paper, considered the  risks of serious or irreversible harm as ‘low to moderate’ on Scleractinian and also gorgonian, golden and black corals (Punt et al., 2013) but some of the assumptions of this ecological risk analysis have been called into question - the geographical scale of QMA used for the habitat assessment; the definition of ‘habitat’ and habitat elements considered for the structure and function analysis; identification of limited data in some of the ecological categories assumed. An assumption that no more than 25% of underwater topographic features (UTF) are impacted was adopted to determine the impacts of each of the fisheries on the habitat, and the accuracy of this assumption was recommended to be checked after the workshop, but no further news on this could be found. A risk analysis developed by Campbell and Gallagher (2007) for the orange roughy fishery in New Zealand found that the fishery represents a “likely” likelihood, “significant” consequence and “extreme” risk to the “Habitat” and “Protected species (corals)”. The same authors considered the results as merely indicative and as an important basis to recommend further scientific research but note that the study “does not represent a true outcome of a risk analysis” or “the current state of NZ fisheries effects on the environment”.

Depending on life cycle characteristics, sharks may be vulnerable to overfishing. In 2015, a formal quantitative analysis will be available for most important species. There is an effort to properly identify ‘shark species’ caught (MPI, 2014b). The risk of interactions at the species level with commercial fisheries, technical measures to minimize the interaction with sharks and seabirds are summarized in the New Zealand National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (NPOA-Sharks; MPI, 2013c), in the National Plan of Action to reduce the incidental catch of seabirds in New Zealand Fisheries and in the report New Zealand marine mammals and commercial fisheries (Berkenbusch et al., 2013; MPI, 2013d; MPI, 2014d). The Conservation Services Programme for 2014/2015 outlines goals, timelines and projects to determine the impact of NZ commercial fisheries (DoC, 2014). The interaction with other species will be monitored considering the increase in fishing effort related with the catch limit increase. Catch of marine mammals and seabirds is not expected to increase taking into account the occasional interaction (MPI, 2014b). 

Several mitigation measures are in place to avoid seabird interactions: warp mitigation is mandatory since 2006, Brady bird bafflers, warp deflectors, offal management (MPI, 2012) and Vessel Management Plans (VMP) setting onboard practices (MFA, 2011; MPI, 2014a). There are research projects underway to improve the efficiency of the mandatory measures (MPI, 2014b).

Other Target and Bycatch Species

Last updated on

Based on Anderson (2011), a report about ‘fish and invertebrate bycatch and discards in orange roughy and oreo fisheries from 1990–91 until 2008–09’, the MPI (2014a) considers that the target species reached around 84% of the total catch. Bycatch decreased from 27.000 t to 4.000 t (2005/2006 and 2008/2009) and non-commercial species are 5-10% of the catch. Discards have also been decreasing from <3.400 t (1990/1991) to around 300 t (2007/2008) and are mostly composed of non-QMS species – rattails (Macrouridae Family), birdbeak dogfish (shovelnose dogfish) Deania calcia and chimaeras (Chimaeridae and Rhinochimaeridae). Squids, corals, echinoderms and crustaceans encompass the portion of invertebrates. Bycatch was considered at 20% of the total catch. Several finfish bycatch species share the same habitat of orange roughy and the most commonly caught are alfonsino Beryx decadactylus and smooth oreo Pseudocyttus maculatus are species under the QMS and represent >5% of the catch. Deepwater sharks, deepsea skates and corals are the ‘low productivity’ discarded species (Boyd, 2013; MPI, 2014a).

The MSC pre-assessment (Punt et al., 2013), based on the ‘Assessment of ecological effects of four New Zealand orange roughy fisheries’ (Boyd, 2013) and other reports, concluded that the risks of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch species identified are ‘low to moderate’. All retained species analyzed are under the QMS, not all are subject to regular stock assessment, but Boyd (2013) considers the risks of serious or irreversible harm as ‘negligible or very low’. The risks of serious or irreversible harm of discarded species are at ‘low to moderate’ (Punt et al., 2013).

Habitat

Last updated on

Trawling for orange roughy, like trawling for other species, is likely to have effects on benthic community structure and function and there may be consequences for benthic productivity (MPI, 2014a). The vulnerability (slow rate regeneration) of the seabed ecosystems and protected coral species is being studied in result of poor current knowledge (Ramm, 2012).

According to Black et al. (2013), there have been no studies investigating whether current trawling frequencies have had adverse effects on the structure and function of benthic communities, or on the productivity of the associated fisheries.

However, according to Baird et al., (2013) the orange roughy fishery was found to be one of the fisheries posing the greatest risk to coral habitats in New Zealand. The annual footprint of the fishery (area of seafloor contacted by trawling operations) has been decreasing and in 2009/2010 was a third of the maximum peak of 1998/1999, however some overlap is still recognized, which poses the risk of biogenic impact (Black et al, 2013).

The MSC pre-assessment raised concerns about the expansion of trawling operations into new areas, the poor knowledge of corals in unfished areas and the lack of monitoring or management of the interaction of the fishery with the benthic ecosystem, especially in closed areas already established (Punt et al., 2013).

Habitats of particular significance for fisheries management (HPSFM) is a policy definition in development regarding the impact of the fishing gears and sensitive coral species (MPI, 2014a). Impacts are minimized if the same towlines are used for fishing (MPI, 2014d) but although this has been a general practice by the fishery it is not a requirement (Punt et al., 2013).

Marine Reserves

Last updated on

Since 2007, 30% (1,200 Km2) of the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) has been closed to bottom trawling (and dredging) to protect the seafloor, through the implementation of 17 benthic protection areas (BPA) (MPI, 2014a). However, 82% of the protected areas were implemented in waters too deep to fish, while only 3%–15% of marine habitats less than 1500 m deep were protected (Rieser et al. 2013).  With respect to the orange roughy species range, only 16% of habitat has been estimated to fall under the protection of BPAs (MPI, 2010). Two trawl closed areas are within the QMA 2A and three of the 17 Benthic Protection Areas (BPA) are in the QMAs 2A and 2B (MoF, 2011).

A network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) is established and includes 38 marine reserves (territorial waters) and 6 marine mammal sanctuaries besides other levels of protection (e.g. marine parks, closures, protection zones). The MPA policy was published in 2006 and the first phase concerned the territorial sea where impacts were more important and considering that BPAs were already providing protection to seabed ecosystems within the EEZ. Implementation of offshore MPAs was postponed to 2013 until when all protected areas and levels, readjustments and proposals were being analyzed (MPI, 2009).

According to Leathwick et al. (2008), the current system of marine protected areas is not very representative and does not provides protection for a large number of fish species. The current BPAs were to be reviewed after 2013 and if existing BPAs were found not to be representative then further closures were to be considered (MPI, 2010).

FishSource Scores

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

The fishery is regulated by quotas and the management of the fishery is based on a Maximum Sustainable Yield approach to allow the stock recovery. There is a Harvest Standard Strategy (harvest control rule, HCR) in place that anticipates dropping F target if biomass drops to the Soft limit (Blim) (MoF, 2008; MPI, 2014a). But the virgin biomass is currently below the soft limit and a rebuilding plan is to be put in place to allow the stock recovery (MPI, 2014a). A MSC pre-assessment raised that specific choices and uncertainties of the HCR are not clearly understood and that the effectiveness in achieving objectives is not evident (Punt et al., 2013). The HCR for stocks under MSC assessment was revised but this stock is not among those.

As calculated for 2015 data.

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

The Set TACC is 0.525 ('000 t). The Advised TACC is 0.530 ('000 t) .

The underlying Set TACC/Advised TACC for this index is 99.1%.

As calculated for 2013 data.

This measures the Catch as a percentage of the Set TACC.

The Catch is 0.935 ('000 t). The Set TACC is 0.930 ('000 t) .

The underlying Catch/Set TACC for this index is 101%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2014 data.

This measures the SSB as a percentage of the 20%B0.

The SSB is 13.9 ('000 t). The 20%B0 is 20.0 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/20%B0 for this index is 69.7%.

As calculated for 2014 data.

This measures the Harvest rate U as a percentage of the F management target.

The Harvest rate U is 65.1 . The F management target is 70.0 .

The underlying Harvest rate U/F management target for this index is 93.0%.

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE RISK

High Medium Low

This indicates the potential risk of human rights abuses within this fishery.

No data available for recruitment
Data notes

1) The fishing season lasts 12 months until the end of September; accordingly, the 2015 data refers to the October 2014 – September 2015 season. The current level of catches was not included because the 2013/2014 fishing year (available in the MPI website) was still open at the time of this update. Score #3 relies on the 2012/2013 fishing year. Only commercial catches are included.
2) The harvest control rule is defined in terms of exploitation rate (%) and not related to Fishing intensity. Score #1 was determined qualitatively and based on the available information (please mouse-over for further details). There is a Harvest Standard Strategy (harvest control rule) in place that anticipates dropping Ftarget if biomass drops to the Soft limit (considered here as Blim). A ‘time-bound rebuilding plan’ will be put in place and catch limits reduced (MPI, 2014).
3) As a single government agency (Ministry for Primary Industries) is responsible for both scientific advice and management of the stock, we are assuming that set TACC = advised TACC to compute score #2. Scientists and managers work in close relationship in the process of defining catch limits. The options recommended by the Minister/Ministry in the initial and final position papers, and in the letter for stakeholders are in line with the stock assessment developed and with the Harvest Standard Strategy (MoF, 2008). 
4) The TAC is set by the Minister for the stock as a whole and catch limits for each sub-stock are agreed with the industry (MPI, 2014a,b,c). Within Quota Management Area 2A there are two fishing areas (2A North and 2A South) that, since 1994/95 and in agreement between the Industry and the Minister, are managed separately. Since this year, the Mid-East Coast (MEC) stock comprises QMA 2A South, 2B and 3A (MPI, 2014a).
5) Fishing mortality (equivalent annual U) is represented through Equilibrium Stock Depletion (ESD), measure fishing intensity in terms of the potential long-term effect on the stock (via 1–ESD). Spawning stock biomass time-series was estimated in relation to the virgin biomass (MPI, 2014a).
6) The soft limit (20% of B0) is considered as Blim and the management target is established at 30-40% of B0 (the lower end was used to compute scores). The target range for fishing intensity was estimated considering the lower end of the target range U30-40% of B0 (30% of B0) which is related to the biomass target: 30-40% of B0 and the Equilibrium Stock Depletion (ESD) (100-30=70) (more details in MPI, 2014a).

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)

SELECT FIP

Access FIP Public Report

Progress Rating: C
Evaluation Start Date: 1 Mar 2014
Type: Fip

Comments:

FIP rating changed from B to C.  Last stage 4 achievements more than 12 months ago; last stage 3 achievements reported more than 12 months ago.

 

1.
FIP Development
Dec 13
2.
FIP Launch
Feb 14
Jul 16
3.
FIP Implementation
Dec 16
4.
Improvements in Fishing Practices and Fishery Management
Dec 15
5.
Improvements on the Water
Verifiable improvement on the water
6.
MSC certification (optional)
MSC certificate made public

Certifications

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

No related MSC certifications

Sources

Credits

Anderson, O. F. 2013. Fish and invertebrate bycatch in New Zealand deepwater fisheries from 1990–91 until 2010–11, New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 113, Ministry for Primary Industries, 57 pp. http://deepwater.hosting.outwide.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Anderson-2013-By-catch-DW-Fisheries-AEBR-113.pdf

Baird, S.J., Tracey, D., Mormede, S., Clark., M., 2013. The distribution of protected corals in New Zealand waters. Prepared for DOC. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd, NIWA, February 2013. DOC12303 / POP2011-06. 96pphttp://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/marine-conservation-services/pop-2011-06-coral-distribution.pdf

Berkenbusch, K., Abraham, E.R., Torres, L.G. 2013. New Zealand marine mammals and commercial fisheries New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 119, 104pp. http://www.deepwater.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Berkenbusch-et-al.-2013-New-Zealand-marine-mammals-and-commercial-fisheries.-New-Zealand-Aquatic-Environment-and-Biodiversity-Report-No.-119.-113p.pdf

Black, J., Wood, R., Berthelsen, T., Tilney, R. 2013. Monitoring New Zealand’s trawl footprint for deepwater fisheries: 1989–90 to 2009–10, New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 110, Ministry for Primary Industries, 57 pp.http://deepwater.hosting.outwide.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Black-et-al-2013-DeepwaterTrawl-Footprint-AEBR-1101.pdf

Boyd, R. O. (2013) Assessment of ecological effects of four New Zealand orange roughy fisheries. Report for Deepwater Group Limited, Wellington (Unpublished report held by Deepwater Group Limited, Nelson) 39p. + Appendices. http://deepwatergroup.org//wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Boyd-2013-Assessment-of-ecological-effects-of-four-New-Zealand-orange-roughy-fisheries-Report.-21Aug-2013.pdf

Campbell, M.L., Gallagher, C. (2007) Assessing the relative effects of fishing on the New Zealand marine environment through risk analysis - ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, pp 256-270 http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/2/256.full.pdf+html

Clark, M. and Anderson, O. 2013. Information on the structure and function of “UTF” habitats, Revised presentation material for Deepwater Group Ltd Orange Roughy AEEF August 2013, 54pp. http://deepwater.hosting.outwide.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Clark-2013-Information-on-the-Structure-and-Function-of-UTF-habitats.pdf

Cordue, P.L. 2014a. A Management Strategy Evaluation for orange roughy, ISL Client Report for Deepwater Group Ltd, 42pp.http://deepwater.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Cordue-2014-A-Management-Strategy-Evaluation-for-Orange-Roughy.-ISL-Re....pdf

Cordue, P.L. 2014b. The 2014 orange roughy stock assessments. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report No. 2014/50. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand 135 pp. http://www.mpi.govt.nz/document-vault/4399

Deepwater Group (DWG), 2014. Summary Paper: Orange Roughy Harvest Strategy. Confidential Proposed Orange Roughy Harvest Strategy, August 2014. 3pp. http://deepwater.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/DWG-2014-Summary-Paper-ORH-Harvest-Strategy.pdf

Department of Conservation (DoC) 2012a. Conservation, Marine & coastal, Marine protected areas, Marine reserves A-Z. [Accessed on 31st August 2012] http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/marine-and-coastal/marine-protected-areas/marine-reserves-a-z/

Department of Conservation (DoC) 2012c. Conservation, Marine & coastal, Marine protected areas, Marine reserve monitoring. [Accessed on 31st August 2012] http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/marine-and-coastal/marine-protected-areas/marine-reserve-monitoring/

Leathwick, J., Moilanen, A., Francis, M., Elith, J., Taylor, P., Julian, K., Hastie, T., Duffy, C., 2008. Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters. Conservation Letters 1: 91–102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00012.x

Minister for Primary Industries (MPI), 2014d. Sustainability measures and other management controls for October 2014, 7pp.2014_Decision_letter_v2.pdf

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2009. Habitat Protection and Research, Benthic protection areas [Accessed 15 August 2014]http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Environmental/Seabed+Protection+and+Research/Benthic+Protection+Areas.htm

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2010. Orange roughy - Fisheries Plan. February 2010. 48pphttp://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/9A1D6630-3B77-4739-82AB-DABCDE6FBE84/0/NFP_Deepwater_and_Middledepth_Fisheries_Part_1B_ORANGEROUGHY.pdf

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2012. Report from the Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2012: stock assessments and yield estimates. Compiled by the Fisheries Science Group, Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand, 1194 p.http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/23011/May%202012%20Plenary%20-%20Volume%202.pdf.ashx

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2013a. Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2013: stock assessments and yield estimates – Volume 2. Compiled by the Fisheries Science Group, Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand, 1357 pp. http://mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/publications.aspx?title=Fisheries%20Assessment%20Plenary%20May%202013

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2013b. Annual Operational Plan for Deepwater Fisheries for 2013/14, MPI Technical Paper No: 2013/52, July, 76 pp. http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/publications.aspx

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2013c. National Plan of Action the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2013, 32pp.http://www.mpi.govt.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=126&id=2126

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2013d. National Plan of Action to reduce the incidental catch of seabirds in New Zealand Fisheries, 59pp. http://www.mpi.govt.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=126&id=1760

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2014a. Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2014: stock assessments and stock status (volume 2: John Dory to Red Gurnard). Compiled by the Fisheries Science Group, Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand. 1381 pp.http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/23540/Fisheries%20Assessment%20Plenary%20May%202014%20Volume%202.pdf.ashx

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2014b. Review of Management Controls for Mid-East Coast Orange Roughy (ORH 2A, 2B, 3A), MPI Discussion Paper No: 2014/21, 15pp. http://www.mpi.govt.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=126&id=2265

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2014c. Review of Sustainability Measures and Other Management Controls for Selected Deepwater Fishstocks, Final Advice and Recommendations for the TAC, TACC, and Allowances and Deemed Value Rates for six fishstocks, 80pp.http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/publications

Ministry of Fisheries (2008). Harvest strategy standard for New Zealand Fisheries. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. 25p.http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Consultations/Archive/2008/Harvest+Strategy+Standard/default.htm?WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished

Ministry of Fisheries (2008a). Harvest strategy standard for New Zealand Fisheries. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. 25p.http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Consultations/Archive/2008/Harvest+Strategy+Standard/default.htm?WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished

Ministry of Fisheries (MoF), 2011. Review of Sustainability Measures and Other Management Controls for Orange Roughy (ORH 2ª, ORH 2B, ORH 3ª), Initial Position Paper, July 2011, New Zealand Government, 13 p. http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/656DE157-3222-49C2-8D60-E8FDB0C750E9/0/IPPORHMEC201112.pdf

Punt, A., Poiner, I., Trumble, R.J., 2013. Pre-assessment Report of four New Zealand Orange Roughy Fisheries. MRAG Americas, December 2013. 100pp http://deepwater.hosting.outwide.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/MRAG-2013-Pre-assessment-Report-of-four-New-Zealand-Orange-Roughy-Fisheries.pdf

Ramm, K. 2012. Conservation Services Programme, Observer Report: 1 July 2010 to 30 June 201, Final Report, Department of Conservation, Ministry for Primary Industries, 121 pp. http://deepwater.hosting.outwide.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Ramm-2012b-CSP-Observer-Report-2010-11.pdf

Rieser, A., Watling, L., Guinotte, J. 2013. Trawl fisheries, catch shares and the protection of benthic marine ecosystems: Has ownership generated incentives for seafloor stewardship? Marine Policy 40: 75–83http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X12002692

References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Orange roughy - NZ Mid-East Coast, NZ Mid-East Coast, NZ Mid-East Coast (ORH 2A South, 2B, 3A), New Zealand, Bottom trawls

    comments powered by Disqus
    ADD COMMENT