Last updated on 23 August 2018

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Micromesistius australis

SPECIES NAME(s)

Southern blue whiting, New Zealand southern blue whiting

Besides being found around the southern tip of South America, Southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis) is found on the southern shelf of New Zealand, but is occasionally considered to be a distinct subspecies – Micromesistius australis pallidus, as opposed to Micromesistius australis australis.

Hanchet (1999) found significant differences in growth rates as well as on morphometric characteristics suggesting that the 4 stocks, which present distinct spawning grounds, should be assessed and managed separately: Auckland Islands (SBW 6A), Bounty Platform (SBW 6B), Campbell Island Rise (SBW 6I) and Pukaki Rise stock (SBW 6R). These 4 biological stocks are used by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) for assessment and management purposes (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • Vessels are required to use VMS (Vessel Monitoring System).
  • Observer coverage is near 100%.
  • TACCs have been reduced repeatedly in recent years in response to indications of declining abundance. 
  • Since 2015, TACCs have not been exceeded.
  • An Operational Plan for Deepwater Fisheries helps to manage the fishery and related ecosystem impacts. The environment and biodiversity status and fishing impacts are regularly reviewed.
  • Mitigation measures are used to reduce the interaction with protected species, which are rarely impacted. The most vulnerable seabird species are identified.
  • A network of marine protected areas continues to be established, and comprises trawl restriction areas. The effect of the network of marine protected areas is being monitored. 
  • Benthic Protection Areas restrict the interaction of the fishery with protected seabed ecosystems.
  • Discarding rate and bycatches are very low.
  • The fishery is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.
Weaknesses
  • Stock is below its 5 year and long term average abundance as measure by the industry-based local aggregation acoustic survey.
  • There is no analytical assessment so stock status relative to biomass reference points cannot be determined.
  • Projections are not possible for this stock at this time.
  • There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the industry-based local aggregation acoustic survey and its catchability.
  • Stock is highly recruitment driven with wide swings in population sizes as a result. This can make management challenging.
  • Improvements in environmental data collection and management are needed for habitat and ecosystem areas.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 6

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

9.7

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

< 6

Future Health:

≥ 6


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Monitor the fishery and management system for any changes that could jeopardize MSC certification, especially management responses to continuing recruitment-driven poor stock status.

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • New Zealand Deepwater Group hake, hoki, ling and southern blue whiting:

    MSC Full Assessment

  • New Zealand EEZ southern blue whiting pelagic trawl fishery:

    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
Bounty platform NZ Bounty Platform (SBW 6B) New Zealand Midwater trawls
Semipelagic trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 7 August 2018

Strengths
  • Vessels are required to use VMS (Vessel Monitoring System).
  • Observer coverage is near 100%.
  • TACCs have been reduced repeatedly in recent years in response to indications of declining abundance. 
  • Since 2015, TACCs have not been exceeded.
  • An Operational Plan for Deepwater Fisheries helps to manage the fishery and related ecosystem impacts. The environment and biodiversity status and fishing impacts are regularly reviewed.
  • Mitigation measures are used to reduce the interaction with protected species, which are rarely impacted. The most vulnerable seabird species are identified.
  • A network of marine protected areas continues to be established, and comprises trawl restriction areas. The effect of the network of marine protected areas is being monitored. 
  • Benthic Protection Areas restrict the interaction of the fishery with protected seabed ecosystems.
  • Discarding rate and bycatches are very low.
  • The fishery is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.
Weaknesses
  • Stock is below its 5 year and long term average abundance as measure by the industry-based local aggregation acoustic survey.
  • There is no analytical assessment so stock status relative to biomass reference points cannot be determined.
  • Projections are not possible for this stock at this time.
  • There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the industry-based local aggregation acoustic survey and its catchability.
  • Stock is highly recruitment driven with wide swings in population sizes as a result. This can make management challenging.
  • Improvements in environmental data collection and management are needed for habitat and ecosystem areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 24 September 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Monitor the fishery and management system for any changes that could jeopardize MSC certification, especially management responses to continuing recruitment-driven poor stock status.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 6 August 2018

For the purposes of stock assessment it is assumed that there are four stocks of southern blue whiting with fidelity within stocks: the Bounty Platform stock (SBW6B), the Pukaki Rise stock (SBW6R), the Auckland Islands stock (SBW6A), and the Campbell Island stock (SBW6I) (Ministry for Primary Industries 2017) .

The southern blue whiting stocks of New Zealand are noted for highly variable recruitment; which can result in infrequent very strong year classes, followed by long periods of average or below average recruitment (Ministry for Primary Industries 2017) . Because of this, available biomass can change abruptly and dramatically, making for challenging management that must be highly responsive in order to optimize harvest and sustain yields over periods of high and low abundance. The drivers of these dynamics are not well understood, and forecasts often have high uncertainty (Ministry for Primary Industries 2017) .

Stock assessment is performed by the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI’s) Fisheries Assessment Working Group (DWWG) (Ministry for Primary Industries 2017); but they do not make management decisions. In recent years plenary assessment reports have been published on a yearly basis. Assessments for the past several years have been subject to inconsistencies between survey observations (recruitment, abundance) and model estimates of stock status (Ministry for Primary Industries 2017). Catch indices (CPUE) have not been included in the stock assessment model due to poor quality (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

The 2014 stock assessment, which had been the most recent assessment to be accepted by the DWWG, has since been rejected due to lack of a suitable model to fit acoustic biomass estimates. A review of the 2014 stock assessment in 2015 was never accepted. A “Level 2” (partial quantitative stock assessment) was conducted in 2017 (Ministry for Primary Industries 2017) . Inputs consisted of acoustic survey abundance data, proportions at age data from commercial fisheries and trawl surveys, and estimates of biological parameters. The assessment output is a fishery mortality (F) Harvest Control Rule derived from simulations of an age-structured model. The assessment body ranked the overall quality of the assessment as “medium quality”. No formal stock projections or prognoses are given due to lack of a suitable model.

Currently a harvest control rule is in place which uses assumed natural mortality, steepness, and the industry-based local aggregation acoustic surveys to estimate biomass and calculate risk (Fisheries New Zealand 2018). See the Scientific Advice section for more information.

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 6 August 2018

The advice for the next years TACC is based on a harvest control rule (HCR) which accounts for natural mortality, steepness, uses the industry-based local aggregation acoustic surveys to estimate biomass from the previous year, and develops risk tables as shown in the most recent assessment (See (Fisheries New Zealand 2018)  thier table 18). The HCR TACC t+1 = HCR-p (Bt – Ct/ 2), where Bt is acoustic abundance, Ct is catch, and HCR-p is a fixed proportion in year t. Steepness is fixed at 0.9 from the Beverton-Holt recruitment function, Natural mortality is fixed at 0.2, and a risk of B less than Blim of 10% (Doonan 2017). This results in a HCR-p of 0.2 in table 18 from (Fisheries New Zealand 2018) and a catch of 3,209 t in 2019 (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

This HCR is based on simulation testing, rather than derived through an analytical assessment (Doonan 2017)(Fisheries New Zealand 2018)(Doonan 2017). It’s not clear how this Blim relates to the actual abundance as measured during the industry-based local aggregation acoustic surveys as that assumption was 20,000 t compared to the current ~7,000 biomass from the industry-based local aggregation acoustic surveys. A major source of uncertainty is how the industry-based local aggregation acoustic survey relates to the full population size (Doonan 2017)(Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

The harvest strategy standard for New Zealand Fisheries defines management responses for the following reference points: 1) management target of 40% of B0 (the equilibrium “virgin” biomass: theoretical un-exploited biomass) ; 2) “soft limit” of 20% B0; 3) “hard limit” of 10% B0; and 4) a harvest control rule (HCR) guided by biological reference points, and determined based on forward projections under a range of catch projections (Ministry for Primary Industries 2017) . None of these could be estimated for this stock in the current assessment (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 6 August 2018

Stock biomass, as measured by the industry-based local aggregation acoustic survey, is below the long-term and 5-year average. A slight increase is seen in the most recent year 2017. Stock status relative to biomass reference points cannot be assessed as biomass reference points are not possible at this time (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

Overall, exploitation is said to be fluctuating around the management target. Landings have declined, from ~15,400 t in 2010 to 2,400 t in the most recent year, likely due to reductions in quota (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

 

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 6 August 2018

Managers have complied with advice, as both the advice and the management come from the same agency. The HCR in effect appears to be precautionary as it has less than a 6% of the stock being below a Blim. This probability however was formulated through simulation testing, rather then derived through an analytical assessment (Doonan 2017). It’s not clear how this Blim relates to the actual abundance as measured during the industry-based local aggregation acoustic surveys as that assumption was 20,000 t compared to the current ~7,000 biomass from the industry-based local aggregation acoustic surveys.

Managers have reduced quotas twice since 2011 in response to lower stock sizes. In practice however, stock is below the long-term and 5-year average abundance as measured by the industry-based local aggregation acoustic survey (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

This stock has been certified by the MSC since 2012 and was recertified in 2018 (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

 
COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 6 August 2018

Harvesters have complied with set quotas since 2015.

This fishery is subjected to near 100% observer coverage and mandatory reporting of catch and ETP interactions. Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) are mandatory(O’Boyle et al. 2018).

Discards are considered to be negligible: Anderson (2009) estimated 0.23% of the catch to be discarded, from 2002-2007, given that the fishery operates during the spawning season. Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is not thought to be a serious issue in the fishery (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 6 August 2018

There are few interactions with ETP species in this fishery. Some interactions have occurred with New Zealand sea lions, New Zealand fur seals, and birds. Data collection and enforcement is high, with near 100% observer coverage and VMS (Vessel Monitoring System) use by all participants.

Observed captures of sea lions in the fishery prompted National Deepwater Plan which includes Operational Objective 2.2: Ensure that incidental New Zealand sea lion mortalities (Fisheries New Zealand 2018). The government instituted a number of requirements including 100% observer coverage and the use of sea lion exclusion devices (SLEDs) on all tows. Since institution in 2014 catches of sea lions have dropped from 21 in 2012-2013 to zero in 2016-2017 (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

Fur seals, which are considered “Not Threatened” and increasing in abundance (Fisheries New Zealand 2018), have also seen a decline in captures. Total captures and capture rates have declined from 95 captures and a rate of 0.118 per tow in 2013-2014 to 11 and a rate of 0.002 per tow in 2016-2017(Fisheries New Zealand 2018). This is likely the result of the strategy and mitigation measures implemented for sea lions.

Seabird interactions are another potential area of concern. Salvin's albatross, Grey petrel, and Campbell black-browed albatross are the species most encountered. Of these only Salvin's albatross is listed as threatened by New Zealand (O’Boyle et al. 2018). Overall captures have been in decline recently. Captures in 2012-2013 were estimated 19 (0.024 per haul) but declined to 6 (0.011) in 2016-2017 (Fisheries New Zealand 2018). This is in part due to the mandatory use of streamers and other mitigation measures imposed by the national strategy. Overall this fishery has low interactions with sea birds. The fishery accounts for less than 2% of the Salvin's albatross mortality, the highest risk species (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

Other Species

Last updated on 6 August 2018

Bycatch and retention of other fish species is minimal in this fishery (Fisheries New Zealand 2018). Less than 1% of the catch is composed on fish species other than blue whiting. These include ling, hake, and hoki, with smaller amounts of porbeagle shark, jack mackerels, rattails, Ray’s bream, and silverside.  Of these only porbeagle sharks is the highest at 0.04% of the catch (O’Boyle et al. 2018), and this is a quota monitored stock which is within biologically acceptible levels of removal (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

Overall a strategy to minimize bycatch is in place (O’Boyle et al. 2018) and there is a high degree of observer coverage (near 100%) on fishing trips (O’Boyle et al. 2018). Additionally, a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) is used to track the vessels for enforcement.

HABITAT

Last updated on 6 August 2018

Benthic habitat interactions are low for the pelagic or semi pelagic gear used in this fishery. However 55% of tows are at or near the bottom (within 5 m) so some interactions are possible. This fishery accounts for 1% of the tows close to the bottom (Fisheries New Zealand 2018). Information and enforcement are high, with 100% observer coverage and the use of VMS. Additionally, protected areas and habitat classification are also in place (Fisheries New Zealand 2018)(O’Boyle et al. 2018). However direct impacts of the gear on the physical environment have not been undertaken on the fishing grounds. Detailed high quality habitat maps of the area are not available (O’Boyle et al. 2018). This is unsurprising as this fishery operates in the deep water (300-600 m). While overall fishery impact is likely low, more research is needed (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

Overall a habitat strategy is in place which attempts to monitor and classify the fisheries impact (O’Boyle et al. 2018). This includes both monitoring, increased habitat mapping, work on physical impacts, and a network of Marine Protected Areas. Some of this work is still ongoing, however.

ECOSYSTEM

Last updated on 6 August 2018

Blue whiting are considered mid-trophic level fish, eating mostly small fish and invertebrates while being prey to larger fish, sharks and marine mammals (Fisheries New Zealand 2018). Some juveniles are prone to bird predation. While some trophic and ecosystem modeling has been undertaken, results are now rather dated (O’Boyle et al. 2018). Some work indicates that increases in less resilient species have occurred (Fisheries New Zealand 2018), though it is not clear if this is the result of the 2000-2009 decline in blue whiting abundance. It should be noted that this particular ecosystem has many trophic interactions and is quite complex, suggesting that removal of any particular species might not upset the overall complexity of the system (O’Boyle et al. 2018). Overall it could be concluded that while data and analysis are limited, the multiple trophic pathway of this ecosystem make major harvest impacts unlikely.

However, there is also limited comprehensive management engagement on this subject. Ecosystem management of potential impacts is based around a well-structured, legislative, policy and operational framework (O’Boyle et al. 2018). But only a partial strategy is implemented through a patchwork of regulations, voluntary agreements, and other measures (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 12 September 2018

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

A harvest control rule is in place which seeks to keep Biomass above B limit, however B limit or any other biomass reference point cannot be defined at this time.

As calculated for 2019 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The Set TACC is 3.21 ('000 t). The Advised TACC is 3.21 ('000 t) .

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

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is 9.7.

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

The Catch is 2.42 ('000 t). The Set TACC is 2.38 ('000 t) .

The underlying Catch/Set TACC for this index is 102%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is < 6.

Current estimates of spawning stock biomass (SSB) and biomass reference points are not available. Stock is below it’s long-term and recent 5 year average as measured by the local aggregation acoustic survey.

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Stock is being harvested at a rate which fluctuates around the target F reference point (FNZ 2018)

ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS

Click on the score to see subscore

Click on the score to see subscore

Click on the score to see subscore

×

Bycatch Subscores

Observer coverage is near 100% and bycatch reporting is mandatory (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

Interactions with ETP species are unlikely to prevent rebuilding given the low and declining level of interactions and the small footprint of the fishery (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

Fishery has little bycatch of other fish species. What few there are (like porbeagle) are under quota management with mandatory reporting and observer coverage (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

Bycatch limits are in place for porbeagle sharks, and there are multiple mitigation measures in place for ETP and other bycatch species. But removals for birds are not set, though documentation of occurrences is good (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

×

Habitat Subscores

Little is known about the direct bottom impacts of this gear on the physical habitat in this area, though research is ongoing on this topic (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

Some mapping is available, but often it is older, and is not as fine scale as needed for proper management (O’Boyle et al. 2018). Broad scale protection areas and habitat classification are also in place (Ministry of Fisheries 2011)(O’Boyle et al. 2018).

Given the foot print of the fishery and the use of semi pelagic gear, there is a low probability that the fishery will reduce structure and function of habitat in the region (MSC)(O’Boyle et al. 2018).

Overall a habitat strategy is in place which attempts to monitor and classify fishery impacts going forward (O’Boyle et al. 2018). This includes both monitoring, increased habitat mapping, work on physical impacts, and a network of Marine Protected Areas. Some of this work is still ongoing, however. Enforcement is good given 100% observer coverage and VMS (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

×

Ecosystem Subscores

Dated but still useful information is available on ecosystem structure and function as well as a measure of fishery impacts (O’Boyle et al. 2018). Results however are mostly qualitative.

While some trophic and ecosystem modeling has been undertaken, results are now rather dated (O’Boyle et al. 2018). Ability to define a reference state is not apparent.

Given the complexity of the ecosystem in this region, the multiple pathways for trophic flow, and the footprint of the fishery, it is unlikely that this fishery will have a direct impact on the ecosystem structure or function (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

There is also limited comprehensive management engagement on this subject. Ecosystem management of potential impacts is based around a well-structured, legislative, policy and operational framework (O’Boyle et al. 2018). But only a partial strategy is implemented through a patchwork of regulations, voluntary agreements, and other measures (O’Boyle et al. 2018). Enforcement is good given 100% observer coverage and VMS (O’Boyle et al. 2018).

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE RISK

High Medium Low

This indicates the potential risk of human rights abuses for all fisheries operating within this stock or assessment unit. If there are more than on risk level noted, individual fisheries have different levels. Click on the "Select Scores" drop-down list for your fisheries of interest.

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. Because there is no estimate of B0, biomass reference points B10% B20% and B40% could not be derived.
  2. SSB is derived from fishery independent and fishery dependent acoustic surveys rather than  an analytical model.
  3. Exploitation and F are unknown given the change in assessment methodology.
  4. The 2018-19 TACC is the result of a “current annual yield” (CAY) calculation based on a U of 0.20, applied to survey biomass estimates minus half of the catch (as it is a mid-year survey). The value 0.20 is based on simulation modeling using a 120 year projection with less than a 10% chance of biomass falling below B20% at an assumed B0 of 100,000 t. The specifics of are not entirely clear as B0 is currently unknown.
  5. 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.
  6. The season 1998-2000 lasted 18 months, from October 1998 to March 2000, thus advised TAC, set TAC and catches were included in the 1998-1999 fishing season. From 2001 on, each fishing year starts in April and ends in March of the following year; accordingly, 2017 estimates correspond to the April 2016 through March 2017 fishing year (Fisheries New Zealand 2018).

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 Deepwater Group hake, hoki, ling and southern blue whiting

STATUS

MSC Full Assessment

SCORES

Certification Type:

Sources

Credits
  1. Abraham E. R. and Thompson F. N., 2012. Captures of birds in trawl fisheries, in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone, during the 2010–11 fishing-year [Accessed 14 August 2013]http://data.dragonfly.co.nz/psc/v20121101/explore/
  2. Abraham, E. R., Thompson, F. N. 2011. Summary of the capture of seabirds, marine mammals, and turtles in New Zealand commercial fisheries, 1998–99 to 2008–09, New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 80, Ministry of Fisheries, 172 p.http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/22898/AEBR_80.pdf.ashx
  3. Akroyd, J, Dunn, M., Pilling, G., 2016. On-Site 3rd Surveillance Visit - Report for New Zealand Southern Blue Whiting Trawl Fishery. Acoura, January 2016. 21pphttps://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/new_zealand_southern_blue_whiting_fishery/assessment-downloads-1/20160121_SR_WHI177.pdf
  4. Akroyd, J.M and Pierre, J.P. 2013. Surveillance Report New Zealand Southern Blue Whiting Trawl Fisheries Certificate No.: MML-F-121, Intertek Moody Marine, 16 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/new_zealand_eez_southern_blue_whiting_pelagic_trawl_fishery%20/assessment-downloads-1/82089_SBW_Surveillance_Report_110213.pdf
  5. Anderson, O. F., 2009. Fish and invertebrate bycatch and discards in southern blue whiting fisheries, 2002–07. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 43. New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. 42 pp.http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/22134/AEBR_43.pdf.ashx
  6. Anderson, O.F. (2014). Fish and invertebrate bycatch in New Zealand deepwater fisheries from 1990–91 until 2011–12, Ministry for Primary Industries, 64pp.Anderson_2014_Deepwater-bycatch-to-2011-12.pdf
  7. Baird, S.J., Tracey, D., Mormede, S., Clark, M. 2013. The distribution of protected corals in New Zealand waters, National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd, 96pp.http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/marine-conservation-services/pop-2011-06-coral-distribution.pdf
  8. BirdLife International (BI), 2012a. Thalassarche salvini. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698388/0
  9. BirdLife International (BI), 2012b. Thalassarche eremita. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698393/0
  10. BirdLife International (BI), 2012c. Diomedea antipodensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22728318/0
  11. BirdLife International (BI), 2012d. Daption capense. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22697879/0
  12. BirdLife International (BI), 2012e. Diomedea epomophora. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698314/0
  13. BirdLife International (BI), 2012f. Macronectes halli. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22697859/0
  14. BirdLife International (BI), 2012g. Procellaria cinerea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698159/0
  15. BirdLife International (BI), 2013a. Thalassarche steadi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22729609/0
  16. BirdLife International (BI), 2013b. Diomedea sanfordi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22728323/0
  17. DOC, 2011. New Zealand Department of Conservation Website. [accessed on February, 2011].http://www.doc.govt.nz
  18. Dunn, A., Hanchet, S. M., 2011. Southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis) stock assessment for the Bounty-Platform for 2009-10, New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2011/26, 30 p. http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/22890/11_26_FAR.pdf.ashx
  19. Gales, N. (IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group) 2008. Phocarctos hookeri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/17026/0
  20. Gales, N. (IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group) 2008. Phocarctos hookeri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/17026/0
  21. Goldsworthy, S. and Gales, N. (IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group) 2008. Arctocephalus forsteri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41664/0
  22. Hanchet, S. 1999. Stock structure of southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis) in New Zealand waters, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 1999, Vol. 33: 599-609http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00288330.1999.9516903
  23. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2011. Southern Blue Whiting – Fisheries plan chapter. National Deepwater Plan, 50pp.http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Deepwater/default.htm
  24. 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/23059/May%202012%20Plenary%20-%20Volume%203.pdf.ashx
  25. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2013a. Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2013: stock assessments and yield estimates – Volume 3. 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
  26. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2013b. Annual Operational Plan for Deepwater Fisheries for 2012/2013, MPI Technical Paper No. 2013/01, 71 pp.http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4B1B7981-8BB4-450C-9DB1-B1D48430E863/0/AnnualOperationalPlanforDeepwaterFisheries201213.pdf
  27. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2013c. Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Annual Review 2013. Compiled by the Fisheries Management Science Team, Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand. 538 p. http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/23487/2013%20Aquatic%20Environment%20and%20Biodiversity%20Annual%20Review%20FINAL.pdf.ashx
  28. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2013d. Annual Operational Plan for Deepwater Fisheries for 2013/2014, MPI Technical Paper No. 2013/52, 76 pp http://mpi.govt.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=126&id=2035
  29. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2014a. Fishery: Southern Blue Whiting Bounty Platform (SBW6B). last accessed 18 February 2014.http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=8&tk=41&ey=2014
  30. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2014b. Fisheries Assessment Plenary May 2014: Stock Assessments and Stock Status. Southern Blue Whiting (SBW), Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand, 31 pp.http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=113&dk=23628
  31. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2015a. Fisheries Assessment Plenary May 2015: Stock Assessments and Stock Status Southern Blue Whiting: 1257-1287 http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/23895/86_SBW2015_FINAL.pdf.ashx
  32. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2015b. Review of sustainability controls for the Bounty Platform southern blue whiting fishery (SBW6B) Decision Document MPI Information Paper No: 2015/01: march 2015. 23pphttps://www.mpi.govt.nz/document-vault/6409
  33. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2015c. NZ Fisheries Infosite: Fishery – Southern Blue Whiting:, Catch data. Accessed online at 28 January 2016http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=7&tk=100&ey=2016
  34. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2015. Deepwater Fisheries Management, National Deepwater Plan [Accessed 22 February 2015]http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Deepwater/National+Deepwater+Plan.htm
  35. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2015d. Review of sustainability controls for the Bounty Platform southern blue whiting fishery (SBW6B). Consultation Document for the TAC, TACC, Allowance, and Deemed Values for SBW6B MPI Discussion Paper No: 2015/06. 12pphttps://www.mpi.govt.nz/document-vault/5275
  36. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2016. Fisheries Assessment Plenary May 2016: Stock Assessments and Stock Status Southern Blue Whiting: 1322-1352. http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/24154/86_SBW_2016_FINAL.pdf.ashx
  37. Ministry of Fisheries, 2009b. Report from the Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2009: stock assessment and yield estimates. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand.http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/21791/93_SBW_09.pdf.ashx
  38. Ministry of Fisheries, 2009c. Benthic Protected Areas.http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=68&tk=278
  39. Ministry of Fisheries, 2009d. Marine Protected Areas.http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=68&tk=280
  40. Ministry of Fisheries, 2010. Southern Blue Whiting assessment report, 2010. http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/22164/96_SBW_2010.pdf.ashx
  41. Ministry of Fisheries, 2011a. Initial Position Paper: Southern Blue Whiting 6b (Sbw 6b). 10 pp.http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/AC395005-E042-46FE-AA8D-E24540DD5643/0/SBW6B_IPP_2011.pdf
  42. Ministry of Fisheries, 2011c. Final advice on 2011-12 management options for the southern blue whiting fisheries at the Bounty Islands (SBW6B) and the Campbell Islands (SBW6I), 30 p.http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5D0B3FE2-F1D7-4142-B610-756FF24F1A2F/0/SBW_FAP_2011.pdf
  43. Ministry of Fisheries, 2011d. Annual Operational Plan for Deepwater Fisheries for 2011/12, New Zealand Government, 75 p.http://www.deepwater.co.nz/f2111,104096/104096_129_MFish_2011_AOP.pdf
  44. Ministry of Fisheries , undated. Environmental Issue: Deepwater trawl (vessels over 28 metres) - Seabird interactionshttp://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=116&dk=602
  45. New Zealand Biodiversity (NZB), 2009. Consultations on regional processes under Marine Protected Areas Policy, New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. [Assessed on 09th February 2012].http://www.biodiversity.govt.nz/seas/biodiversity/protected/mpa_consultation.html
  46. O’Driscoll, R.L., 2015. Acoustic biomass estimates of southern blue whiting on the Bounty Platform in 2014.New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2015/02. 28pphttps://www.mpi.govt.nz/document-vault/5155
  47. Ramm, K. 2012. Conservation Services Programme, Observer Report: 1 July 2010 to 30 June 201, Final Report, Department of Conservation, 121 pp.http://deepwater.hosting.outwide.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Ramm-2012b-CSP-Observer-Report-2010-11.pdf
  48. Roberts, J. 2015. Review of threats to the recovery of NZ sea lions and other otariid species – Final Report. NIWA - National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd. March 2015. 29pp http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/conservation/native-animals/marine-mammals/nz-sea-lion-tmp/reivew-sea-lion-threats-2015.pdf
  49. Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E., Domingo, A., Francis, M. 2006. Lamna nasus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 [Accessed 07 January 2015]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/11200/0
  50. Thompson, F.N., Abraham, E.R. and Oliver, M.D., 2010. Estimation of fur seal bycatch in New Zealand trawl fisheries, 2002–03 to 2007–08. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 56.http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/22314/AEBR_56%20Fur%20lion%20estimation%200708.pdf.ashx
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Southern blue whiting - Bounty platform

    comments powered by Disqus