Last updated on 8 September 2016

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Hoplostethus atlanticus

SPECIES NAME(s)

Orange roughy

Several studies (e.g. (Oke et al. 1997)(Varela 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.
  • A Harvest Strategy (harvest control rule, HCR) is in place.
  • The biomass target range and the harvest control rule were revised due to concerns raised by a MSC pre-assessment as to their appropriateness. According to the HSS the stock is considered to be fully rebuilt; has been increasing and is currently close to the upper limit of the previously defined target range. Overfishing is Exceptionally Unlikely to be occurring.
  • 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 covers the entire fleet. A programme of observers onboard and a New Zealand Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated & Unreported Fishing is 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
  • 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 areas already closed to fishing.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 8

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

8.9

Future Health:

10


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.

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, 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 compliance with sub-stock catch limits (this documentation should be available from the Ministry for Primary Industries).


FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • New Zealand orange roughy:

    MSC Certified

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
NW Chatham Rise NZ Chatham Rise and Puysegur (ORH 3B) - Industrial New Zealand Bottom trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Strengths
  • The stock assessment model is considered of high quality.
  • A Harvest Strategy (harvest control rule, HCR) is in place.
  • The biomass target range and the harvest control rule were revised due to concerns raised by a MSC pre-assessment as to their appropriateness. According to the HSS the stock is considered to be fully rebuilt; has been increasing and is currently close to the upper limit of the previously defined target range. Overfishing is Exceptionally Unlikely to be occurring.
  • 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 covers the entire fleet. A programme of observers onboard and a New Zealand Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated & Unreported Fishing is 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
  • 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 areas already closed to fishing.
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.

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, 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 compliance with sub-stock catch limits (this documentation should be available from the Ministry for Primary Industries).

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

The Quota Management Area (QMA) 3B includes three main biological stocks – East and South Chatham Rise, Northwestern Chatham Rise and Puysegur – that are assessed separately (MPI, 2014a).

The last assessment for the NW Chatham Rise stock was performed in 2006 and considered as ‘discredited’. In 2014 a Bayesian stock assessment was conducted using age-structured population model fitted to acoustic-survey estimates of spawning biomass (Graveyard and Morgue spawning grounds), a trawl-survey estimate of proportion-at-age and proportion-spawning-at-age (1994), and a limited number of length frequencies from the commercial fishery (17 years). 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 that is indexed by the acoustic survey in each year, patterns of year class strengths that are based only on 1 year of age composition data, and short time-series of abundance and restricted to the period in a low stock status (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). The ‘Morgue’ seamount closure, an important source of catches in former years, is inaccessible (MPI, 2014b).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

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 and based on five years projections, two scenarios were considered: the current catch limit at 750 tons, and the current estimated yield (assuming fishing intensity U35% B0) at 1.400 tons. Both are expected to lead to a SSB increase in the next 5 years and the probability of reduction below the previously defined “soft” and “hard” limits is close to zero (MPI, 2014a).

Reference Points

BMSY was reassessed in 2014 at 26% of B0 considering a Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment relationship (DWG, 2014c), which for this stock corresponds to 17,160 tons.

The management target range was also revised from 30-40% of B0 to 30-50% of B0 = 19.800 – 33.000 tons in order to cope with variability in recruitment and its effects on biomass (DWG, 2014c).

The fishing intensity target range was revised to U30%B0–U50%B0 and Fmid, defined at 4.5% of the current vulnerable biomass, set as the target at 40% B0 (DWG, 2014c; Cordue, 2014).

The reference point previously called the “soft limit”: 20% of B0 = 13.200 tons, has now been explicitly defined as Blim, “the point at which catch limits should be significantly reduced to prevent serious impairment of recruitment" (DWG, 2014c).

The previous “hard limit”, 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’, and defined as 10% of B0 = 6.600 tons (MPI, 2014a,b) has been considered by the MSC pre-assessment report to be Blim and was considered to be inadequate for the management of this fishery (Punt et al., 2013).

CURRENT STATUS

According to the HSS the stock is considered to be fully rebuilt. B0 is estimated at around 66.000 tons (average of the 64.000-68.000 tons estimated range) and the current stock at 37% of B0, at around 24.000 tons, close to the upper limit of the previously defined target range. It is Likely (> 60%) to be at or above the lower end of the management target range, Very Unlikely (< 10%) to be below Blim and Exceptionally Unlikely (< 1%) to be below the previous “hard limit”. Fishing intensity in 2014 was estimated at U89% of B0, meaning that fishing at the intensity of 89 will cause the SSB to reach deterministic equilibrium at 89% of B0; overfishing is Exceptionally Unlikely (< 1%) to be occurring. Catches were at 110 tons in the 2012/2013 fishing year, representing 4% of the overall catch for ORH 3B (MPI, 2014a,b).

Trends

Catches have been diminishing progressively in result of a TAC reduction since 1992/1993 and from 2005/2006, when the stock was below the Soft limit. The fishing ground does not support previous catch levels (important in the late 1980s) unless sporadically. In order to allow the stock recovery towards BMSY, from 2011/2012 to the 2013/14 fishing seasons, catches were avoided by quota owners in the NW Chatham Rise sub-area, and were at 70 tons in 2011/2012. Biomass decreased gradually between 1980s and 2006, and was below Blim in 2003 and 2004 when the lowest level was attained; the stock has been increasing slowly in the last 10 years (MPI, 2014a,b). Catch limits are intended to allow the stock recovery towards BMSY (MFA, 2011; MPI, 2013a). Fishing intensity decreased in the last years and is well below the target (MPI, 2014a).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT
Recovery Plans

Not applicable.

NW Chatham Rise
NZ Chatham Rise and Puysegur (ORH 3B)

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 the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). 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 Strategy is in place, and the Harvest Control Rule (HCR) was revised in 2014 to a dynamic rule, where the functional relationship changes over time, with a management target range biomass (BMSY) at 30-50% of virgin biomass (B0) and a rescaling approach used to calculate catch limits, decreasing catch limits at lower stock sizes and allowing for larger catches at larger stock sizes. This is expected to result in a high probability of the stock fluctuating within the target range (Cordue, 2014, DWG, 2014c): 

  • When Bcurrent is at 40% B0, F is set at Fmid=0.045 (assumed to be M or 4.5% of Bcurrent). 
  • If Bcurrent is at 30% B0, F is set at 0.034.
  • If Bcurrent is at 50% B0, F is set at 0.056.
  • If Bcurrent is outside the management target range, the HCR rescales the catch limits to ensure the stock quickly moves back into the target range.

The revision of the harvest strategy intended to address concerns raised in the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) pre-assessment that specific choices and uncertainties of the HCR were not clearly understood and that the effectiveness in achieving objectives was not evident (Punt et al., 2013).

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 Blim (the previous “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 is 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).
 
Based on the current stock status, three scenarios were considered at different catch limit levels, in accordance with the HSS and the NFPDMF, assuming uncertainties in the assessment, and in line with environmental interactions and identified threats (MPI, 2014b,d): option 1 continue with the catch limit at 750 tons (status quo); option 2 increase the catch limit to 900 tons; option 3 increase the catch limit to 1.250 tons. All options projected consider a high probability of biomass above the lower limit of the management target in the next five years; option 3 is less conservative than option 2 and represent a higher risk of declining (MPI, 2014b,c). 

In agreement with stakeholders’ opinions the final position of the Minister (in the FAP) recommended the catch limit at option 3 level for the 2014/2015 fishing year, regarding the overall stock status and interdependence of stocks within 3B (MPI, 2014c). For the 2014/2015 fishing year the Minister increased the catch limit to 1.250 tons for NW Chatham Rise. The overall TAC is at 5.250 tons for ORH 3B with 250 tons for ‘other mortality allowance’ (MPI, 2014d).

Quota owners had agreed to avoid this stock from 2010/2011 to 2012/2013 fishing years. The Minister, in accordance with the HSS, sets a global TACC for the stock as a whole stock (ORH 3B) and catch limits are agreed with the industry (MPI, 2014b,c). The QMA 3B includes several stock units, so there is an agreement between the MPI and industry, to report and monitor catches and not overload fishing pressure in single stocks, to evaluate fishing operations and catch limits set to each stock (MPI, 2014b).

COMPLIANCE
NW Chatham Rise
NZ Chatham Rise and Puysegur (ORH 3B)

There were years when catches overpassed the set limits (e.g. 1998/1999, 2002/2003, 2007/2008) but in the last years have been within. Non-compliance issues in QMA 3B comprise misreporting of QMS (species and weights) and fishing in closed areas, which are expected to decrease in result of the catch limit increase in NW Chatham Rise. The fishery is closely monitored by the industry and the observer coverage represents 11-40% of the tows (MPI, 2014d). Catch overrun is considered at 5% in this QMA, since 1994/1995 (MPI, 2014a). 

A Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), covering 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

BYCATCH
ETP Species

All deepwater coral species are protected under Schedule 7A of the Wildlife Act 1953 (MPI, 2014a). 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) (Ramm, 2012; Boyd, 2013).

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”.

The fishery interacts with sharks which, depending on life cycle characteristics, 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 Species

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 tons to 4,000 tons (2005/2006 and 2008/2009) and non-commercial species are 5-10% of the catch. Discards have also been decreasing from <3,400 tons (1990/1991) to around 300 tons (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 (MPI, 2014a).

In the 2012/2013 fishing year, the most recent for which data could be found, orange roughy represented 97.25% of the catch in NW Chatham Rise (based on observers’ onboard reports). Several species share the same habitat of orange roughy and the most commonly QMS species caught (required to be landed by law) were hoki Macruronus novaezelandiae (0.07%), smooth oreo Pseudocyttus maculatus (0.73%) and black oreo Allocyttus niger (0.24%). Of the non-QMS species New Zealand lanternshark Etmopterus baxteri (1.24%) and sharks & dogfish nei (Selachii order) (0.11%) are captured (DWG, 2014b). Bycatch is 20% of the overall catch (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 to discarded species are at ‘low to moderate’ (Punt et al., 2013).

HABITAT

Rowden et al. (2002) quantified and analyzed the biodiversity in the Graveyard seamount complex in NW Chatam Rise. Some recent scientific studies denote the importance of area closures to protect seamount habitats to the effect of trawling (e.g. Clark et al. 2010a; Williams et al. 2011) namely on stony corals (Clark et al. 2010b).

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

Since 2007, 30% (1,200 Km[^2^]) 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). Some portions of the Chatham Rise are recognized to harbor vulnerable marine ecosystems ( Rieser et al., 2013). Ten of the seamount closures established in 2001 and twelve of the BPAs are within QMA 3B (15% is closed to bottom trawling), namely the Arrow Plateau area and the ‘Morgue’ seamount (MPI, 2014c).

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 ≥ 8.

The fishery is regulated by quotas which are set based on a Harvest Strategy and harvest control rule which was revised based upon the determinations of a MSC pre-assessment. More conservative target and limit reference points were adopted, a dynamic rule was implemented which is expected to maintain the stock within its target range with a higher probability, and simulations were run to consider uncertainty and to test confidence in its performance.

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The Set TACC is 1.25 ('000 t). The Advised TACC is 1.25 ('000 t) .

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

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The Catch is 0.110 ('000 t). The Set TACC is 0.750 ('000 t) .

The underlying Catch/Set TACC for this index is 14.7%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is 8.9.

This measures the SSB as a percentage of the 30%B0.

The SSB is 24.4 ('000 t). The 30%B0 is 19.8 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/30%B0 for this index is 123%.

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is 10.0.

This measures the Harvest rate U as a percentage of the Target harvest rate U.

The Harvest rate U is 11.1 . The Target harvest rate U is 60.0 .

The underlying Harvest rate U/Target harvest rate U for this index is 18.5%.

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) The fishing year starts in October and lasts for 12 months; accordingly, for 2015 data fishing starts in October 2014 and ends in September 2015. The current (early September 2014) 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). 
3) The scientific advice is embedded in the management of the stock carried out by the Ministry for Primary Industries; we’re thus assuming set TACC = advised TACC. 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). 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) Fishing mortality (equivalent annual U) is represented through Equilibrium Stock Depletion (ESD), measuring 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).
5) The lower end of the management target of 30-50% of B0 is used to compute score #4. The target range for fishing intensity was estimated considering the mid-point of the target range U30-50% of B0 (40% of B0) which is related to the biomass target: 30-50% of B0 and the Equilibrium Stock Depletion (ESD) (100-40=60) (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)

No related FIPs

Certifications

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

SELECT MSC

NAME

New Zealand orange roughy

STATUS

MSC Certified on 8 December 2016

SCORES

Principle Level Scores:

Principle  3B-NWCR  3B-ESCR  7A
Principle 1 – Target Species 86.9 84.4 86.9
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87.0 85.7 87.7
Principle 3 – Management System 95.3

3B-NWCR: Northwest Chatham Rise

3B-ESCR: East and South Chatham Rise

7A : Challenger Plateau (including Westpac Bank)

Certification Type: Silver

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

BirdLife International 2012a. Thalassarche salvini. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2 [Accessed 14 August 2014]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698388/0

BirdLife International 2012b. Daption capense. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2 [Accessed 14 August 2014]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22697879/0

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), 2014a. Summary paper: Orange roughy fur seal interactions, 3 pp. http://www.deepwater.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/MPI-DWG-2014-Summary-paper-ORH-Fur-Seal-Interactions.-Dragonfly-Website-17-Jul-20141.pdf

Deepwater Group (DWG), 2014b. ORH MSC Assessment: Orange Roughy Fish By-Catch Report: 2008-09 to 2012-13, 38pp.http://www.deepwater.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/MPI-2014-Orange-Roughy-Fish-Bycatch-Report.-Report-Prepared-for-MSC-Assessment.-38p.pdf

Deepwater Group (DWG), 2014c. 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) 2012b. Conservation, Marine & coastal, Commercial fishing, Conservation Services Programme, Conservation Services Programme fisheries observers. [Accessed on 31st August 2012] http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/marine-and-coastal/commercial-fishing/conservation-services-programme/about-csp/csp-fisheries-observers/

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

Department of Conservation (DoC), 2014. Conservation Services Programme – Annual plan 2014/2015, 51pp.http://www.deepwater.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DOC-2014-Conservation-Services-Programme-Annual-Plan-2013-142014-15.pdf

Goldsworthy, S. and Gales, N. (IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group) 2008. Arctocephalus forsteri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2 [Accessed 14 August 2014] http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41664/0

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

Marine Conservation Systems (MCS), 2011. Department of Conservation, Marine Conservation Services Annual Plan 2011/12, 70 p.http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/marine-conservation-services/approved-mcs-annual-plan-2011-12.pdf

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

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture (MFA, 2011). Review of sustainability measures for deepwater fisheries for the 2011/12 fishing year, document number B11-215, 107 p. http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5812703A-F2E4-4C2B-81A0-25DA97739DB7/0/B11215ReviewofSustainabilityMeasuresforDeepwaterFisheriesforthe201112FishingYear.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 Orange Roughy 3B, MPI Discussion Paper No: 2014/19, New Zealand Government, 16pp. http://www.deepwater.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/MPI-2014-Review-of-Management-Controls-for-Orange-Roughy-3B.-MPI-Discussion-Paper-No-2014-19.pdf

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 (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), 2004. New Zealand Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated & Unreported Fishing, 52 pp. http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A7043588-9001-4B8C-A69C-BAD7CD0C3356/0/iuufishing.pdf

Ministry of Fisheries (MoF), 2011b. Review of Sustainability Measures and Other Management Controls for Orange Roughy (ORH 3B), Initial Position Paper July 2011, 15 pp. http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/15160FC9-C57B-4FAB-BB0F-9326BB03E99D/0/IPPORH3B201112.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

Tracey, D., Baird, S. J., Sanders, B., Smith, M. H. 2011. Identification of Protected Corals: distribution in relation to fishing effort and accuracy of observer identifications, Draft Final Report prepared for Marine Conservation Services (MCS), Department of Conservation, 54 p.http://www.deepwater.co.nz/f2111,104655/104655_145_Tracey-et_al_2011.pdf

References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Orange roughy - NW Chatham Rise, NW Chatham Rise, NZ Chatham Rise and Puysegur (ORH 3B), New Zealand, Bottom trawls

    comments powered by Disqus