Summary

IDENTIFICATION

Last updated on 27 October 2016

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Macruronus magellanicus

SPECIES NAME(S)

Patagonian grenadier, Hoki

COMMON NAMES

Hoki, Merluza de Cola (Spanish)

Patagonian grenadier or Hoki is distributed in the Southeast Pacific and Southwest Atlantic, from southern Chile to Argentina. Studies suggested high mixture between Pacific and Atlantic populations (Schuchert et al., 2010; Niklitschek et al., 2013) and more recent studies concluded that hoki of the Southwest Atlantic is a unique population group (stock) distributed all around the cone of South America. There have been joint workshops between Chilean and Argentine research institutes but there are two separate assessment units: Patagonian grenadier - Argentine and a Patagonian grenadier - Chilean (GIUSSI et al. 2016).


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • Stock structure has been studied and evidences indicate existence of a single Chilean-Argentine stock.
  • An external peer review of the assessment model in the Southwest Atlantic was conducted; most reviewer’s recommendations have been incorporated in last assessment, leading to significant changes and adoption of new limit and target biomass reference points.
  • According to the new assessment, stock status is slightly above target biomass level. Projections based on target levels indicate short and mid-term increments and long-term stability in biomass, while based on limit reference point a short-term decrease is expected with long-term stability only slightly below target biomass level.
  • Misreporting and discarding are assessed, and up-to-date estimates are used to correct the nominal catches and obtain total catch time series.
  • Since 2001, catch limits have gradually decreased and the lowest value was set in 2017.
  • Estimated catches are below the set Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and advised limits.
  • Fishing vessels are equipped with VMS (since 2004) and must take an on-board observer; dock side monitoring is also performed.
  • Impacts on bycatch species, protected species and benthic ecosystems are being studied.
Weaknesses
  • During the last decade, catch limits have moved from more precautionary to less precautionary, being generally close to or above the upper limit of the advised catches. In 2017 the limit is above the scientific recommendation based on the target reference point.
  • Discussions about development of a harvest control rule have not started.
  • Research cruises to estimate abundance indexes have been discontinued since 2010, increasing their uncertainty.
  • Although recommended in the model peer review, fishing mortality rates are not reported since 2009.
  • Although recommended by the assessment team, there is no evidence of the evaluation of the potential fishery ecosystem effects.
Options
  • Stock structure has been studied and evidences indicate existence of a single Chilean-Argentine stock. Both countries have interchanged peer reviews; and will probably require further sharing of information and coordination efforts in stock assessments.
  • As the fishery has a multispecies characteristic, the development of a multispecies management plan, including harvest control rules, could be suggested.
  • Successful mitigation measures for seabirds and sharks have been tested, and their implementation and complianceshould be monitored.

 

SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 6

Managers Compliance:

4.7

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

8.2

Future Health:

≥ 6


RECOMMENDATIONS

CATCHERS & REGULATORS

1. Implement a fishery management plan aimed at recovering the biomass to sustainability levels.
2. Implement an appropriate, biologically-based target reference point and set harvests in accordance with scientific advice.
3. Identify and rectify issues that are preventing the MSC certification conditions from being closed out in the agreed timeframe.

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN

1. Request that your supply chain participates in SFP’s South American Whitefish Supplier Roundtable (http://www.sustainablefish.org/fisheries-improvement/whitefish/south-american-whitefish-roundtable/south-american-whitefish-supplier-roundtable).
2. Ask that fishery managers implement an appropriate, biologically-based target reference point and set harvests in accordance with scientific advice.
3. Contact the MSC client fishery (details are available on the MSC website) and request timely implementation of improvement action to address conditions.


FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • Argentine hoki (Macruronus magellanicus) bottom and mid-water 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
Argentine Argentina Argentina Bottom trawls
Midwater trawls
Falkland Islands (malvinas) Bottom trawls
Midwater trawls
Spain Bottom trawls
Midwater trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 16 March 2017

Strengths
  • Stock structure has been studied and evidences indicate existence of a single Chilean-Argentine stock.
  • An external peer review of the assessment model in the Southwest Atlantic was conducted; most reviewer’s recommendations have been incorporated in last assessment, leading to significant changes and adoption of new limit and target biomass reference points.
  • According to the new assessment, stock status is slightly above target biomass level. Projections based on target levels indicate short and mid-term increments and long-term stability in biomass, while based on limit reference point a short-term decrease is expected with long-term stability only slightly below target biomass level.
  • Misreporting and discarding are assessed, and up-to-date estimates are used to correct the nominal catches and obtain total catch time series.
  • Since 2001, catch limits have gradually decreased and the lowest value was set in 2017.
  • Estimated catches are below the set Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and advised limits.
  • Fishing vessels are equipped with VMS (since 2004) and must take an on-board observer; dock side monitoring is also performed.
  • Impacts on bycatch species, protected species and benthic ecosystems are being studied.
Weaknesses
  • During the last decade, catch limits have moved from more precautionary to less precautionary, being generally close to or above the upper limit of the advised catches. In 2017 the limit is above the scientific recommendation based on the target reference point.
  • Discussions about development of a harvest control rule have not started.
  • Research cruises to estimate abundance indexes have been discontinued since 2010, increasing their uncertainty.
  • Although recommended in the model peer review, fishing mortality rates are not reported since 2009.
  • Although recommended by the assessment team, there is no evidence of the evaluation of the potential fishery ecosystem effects.
Options
  • Stock structure has been studied and evidences indicate existence of a single Chilean-Argentine stock. Both countries have interchanged peer reviews; and will probably require further sharing of information and coordination efforts in stock assessments.
  • As the fishery has a multispecies characteristic, the development of a multispecies management plan, including harvest control rules, could be suggested.
  • Successful mitigation measures for seabirds and sharks have been tested, and their implementation and complianceshould be monitored.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 5 October 2016

Improvement Recommendations to Catchers & Regulators

1. Implement a fishery management plan aimed at recovering the biomass to sustainability levels.
2. Implement an appropriate, biologically-based target reference point and set harvests in accordance with scientific advice.
3. Identify and rectify issues that are preventing the MSC certification conditions from being closed out in the agreed timeframe.

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain

1. Request that your supply chain participates in SFP’s South American Whitefish Supplier Roundtable (http://www.sustainablefish.org/fisheries-improvement/whitefish/south-american-whitefish-roundtable/south-american-whitefish-supplier-roundtable).
2. Ask that fishery managers implement an appropriate, biologically-based target reference point and set harvests in accordance with scientific advice.
3. Contact the MSC client fishery (details are available on the MSC website) and request timely implementation of improvement action to address conditions.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 16 March 2017

Studies suggested high mixture between Pacific and Atlantic populations (Schuchert et al., 2010; Niklitschek et al., 2013). There is no evidence on the existence of spawning areas in the southwest Atlantic ocean and available information indicates that the reproduction area is located in the south Pacific (41° - 46° SL) and there is a high similarity of observed biomass trends in Argentine and Chilean stock assessments. In the latest stock structure analysis, it was concluded that hoki of the Southwest Atlantic would belong to a unique population group (stock) distributed all around the cone of South America (GIUSSI et al. 2016). Thus, it is likely that future cooperative assessments between both countries may be needed to cover the entire stock distribution area.

In Argentina, the National Institute for Fisheries Research and Development (Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero, INIDEP) is in charge of conducting the annual assessment of this stock. The assessment is carried out using an AD Model Builder age structured analysis since 2012. The assessment model in the SW Atlantic was peer reviewed twice by external scientists, in 2014 and 2016 (GIUSSI et al. 2016).

Last assessment presents improvements, following peer reviewers recommendations, and significant changes in regard to the stock status due to changes in the assessment model and reference points. Improvements are: i) use of a single weight and maturity vector; estimation of the virginal reproductive biomass (BRo); ii) use of a stock –recruitment relationship (Beverton & Holt); iii) use of the variability of the reproductive biomass, as an index to set the Biological Reference Point (BRP).Input data include integrated abundance estimates with research survey abundance estimates available from 1992-2009 and an abundance index developed with catch per unit effort (CPUE) data from 2003-2015, on-board observer data in commercial vessels, total commercial catches (national and foreign vessels data; for Argentinean catches, estimates include corrections due to misreporting and discarding). As well, input data included catch-at-age data updated with recently estimated age structure and catches’ length frequency and updated weight at age data, proportion of mature fish at age (GIUSSI et al. 2016).

The assessment report still lacks estimation of the fishing mortality rates and uncertainties exist in relation to species biological processes, in parameter estimates,  fleet operations, and abundance indexes as biomass surveys are not conducted since 2009 . The general trend of the abundance index (CPUE from commercial fleet with on board observers) was relatively stable until 2011, with a steep decline and the lowest value in 2012, and then increasing to reach the maximum historical value in 2015. This increase observed in the last years of the analysis was recorded in January-March, in the 52ºS of latitude and by all vessels, perhaps more related to an increase in the effort in a reduced area (GIUSSI et al. 2016).

Stock assessment reports are available upon request through the INIDEP website.

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 16 March 2017

Projections to calculate 2017 Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) were done using an improved stock assessment model and recently adopted limit and target reference points. Optional catch levels are related to different proportions respect to the virginal biomass or the stock status at the beginning of the analysis (1985). In addition, two future recruitment scenarios were considered: long-term historical levels (1985-2015);and more recent lower recruitment levels (2005-2015). ABC based on the spawning stock virginal biomass (B0) is 60,000 tonnes to maintain the stock around the target biomass level (40% B0 = 196,896 tonnes). Catches around 100,000 tonnes are associated to the limit biomass reference point. Catch levels associated to the biomass at the beginning of the analysis period are similar (GIUSSI et al. 2016).

INIDEP scientists noted that the suspension of the research assessment surveys (2010 onwards) in the area extending from 45° to 55° SL, produced a significant increase in the uncertainty and this triggered an update and re-analysis of the CPUE as an abundance index (Morsan et al. 2016).

REFERENCE POINTS

Last updated on 16 March 2017

An external peer review of the stock assessment model and reference points was conducted in May 2016. The review resulted in stock assessment improvements and new dynamic biological limit and target reference points based on spawning stock virginal biomass (B0) were adopted by INIDEP scientists, following international guidelines for similar demersal fisheries, these are:

- A dynamic limit reference point at 25%B0
- A dynamic target reference point at 40%B0

B0 was estimated at 492,240 tonnes, thus 2016 Btarget = 196,896 tonnes and 2016 Blimit = 123,060 tonnes (GIUSSI et al. 2016).

Optional reference points based on the stock status at the beginning of the analysis (1985) were also proposed: target reference point at 50% of the spawning stock biomass estimated for 1985 at the beginning of the analysis (50%B1985) and limit reference point at (30%B1985). However, there are records at least since the beginning of the 1980s of average annual catches at 20,000 tonnes and estimation of the spawning stock virginal biomass (B0) produced higher values than those corresponding to B1985 (Morsan et al. 2016).  Thus, final advice was based using B0 (GIUSSI et al. 2016).

No fishing mortality reference points are defined. FMSY was recently estimated at 0.3 in the most recent stock assessment peer review, but recommended development of a harvest control rule is pending (Morsan et al. 2016).

Last updated on 16 March 2017

An MSC condition 1 was raised to explicitly define target reference points consistent with management objectives and definition of a harvest control rule to ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached and which take into account the main uncertainties.

Limit and target reference points following international guidelines for similar demersal fisheries were adopted in 2016. However, no formal discussion has been performed in regard to the harvest control rule, so this condition is behind target. It is expected that a rule that will ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference point is approached will be agreed before the finalization of the certification period (Morsan et al. 2016).

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 16 March 2017

Last assessment presents improvements, following peer reviewers recommendations and updated information (population parameters, CPUE) and significant changes about the stock status compared with previous stock assessments, due to changes in the assessment model updated population parameters and reference points. According to the current stock assessment model, spawning stock biomass in 2015 was around 42% of the spawning stock virginal biomass B0, which indicates that the stock is close to the target reference point. Fishing mortality F5-12 at 0.13 in 2009 is the last reported value and current exploitation levels are not reported in the stock assessment reports (GIUSSI et al. 2016). FMSY has recently been estimated at 0.3 and F in 2015 is mentioned to be lower than this reference value (Morsan et al. 2016).

Total estimated catches, including foreign fleets removals and corrections for misreporting and discarding, were at 72,000 tonnes and at 70,450 tonnes in 2014 and 2015 – similar to mid-1990s levels (GIUSSI et al. 2016). Since 2012, total catch levels have been well below the catch limits and the recommended catches. TAC was significantly reduced from 130,000 tonnes in 2016 to 80,000 tonnes in 2017, based on improved stock assessment and newly adopted reference points (CFP 2016).

TRENDS

Last updated on 16 March 2017

The fishery started in the early 1980s. The hoki stock has experienced cyclic increments and declines over the time series, total biomass has been stable since 1985 at ~700,000 tonnes up to the early 1990s (with spawning stock biomass at around 400,000 tonnes) , when the stock increased to its maximum observed values at around 1,300 thousand tonnes until the mid-2000s (with spawning stock biomass peaking at around 600,000 tonnes in 2000). This increase is associated to several successful recruitment events. The last half of this decade showed a decreasing trend in total biomass until the current decade.  Lowest historical spawning stock biomass was 195,000 tonnes in 2014, and a slight increase was observed in 2015. (GIUSSI et al. 2016)noted that a very similar trend in biomass is observed between the hoki populations in South-East Pacific and South-west Atlantic, mainly since 2000. The significant decrease in both populations may be related with the absence of high recruitment events observed in the mid-1990 and early 2000s.

Fishing mortality has been oscillating attaining maximum levels in 1988 at 0.28 and in 1999 at 0.37. From 2002 to 2009 has been varying from 0.12 to 0.20 (Giussi et al., 2015a). No updated fishing mortality estimates are available (GIUSSI et al. 2016).

Catches had also been very variable; these attained relative maximum values (145,000 tonnes) when foreign fleets started to explore this resource under international agreements in mid-1980s. Between 1990 and 1997 catches decreased to around 40,000 tonnes,  due to the end of these agreements. From 1998, reported catches increased again reaching again high levels in 2000 and 2006 (historical peak was 168,000 tonnes) with TACs’ increase. In the last decade, catches had decreased to below 100,000 and in the last three years, these averaged 70,000 tonnes, around half the average of the 1998-2010 period (GIUSSI et al. 2016).

  

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGERS' DECISIONS

Last updated on 16 March 2017

A system of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) was established in 2010, and the Total Allowable Catch (TAC; Captura Maxima Permissible, CMP) for hoki is set annually by the Fisheries Federal Council (Consejo Federal Pesquero) and based on INIDEP’s Acceptable Biological Catch recommendations. Between 2000 and 2003, the TAC was set at scientifically advised levels but since then TACs has generally overpassed scientific recommendations (with the exception of 2008 and 2013). The scientific recommendation has been decreasing gradually between 2000 and 2013, but the TAC has been set at 130,000 tonnes from 2014 to 2016, overpassing the advice (CFP, 2014c). TAC for 2017 was significantly reduced, to 80,000 tonnes (CFP 2016), however, this volume is 30% higher than the advice catch level to maintain the stock biomass at the new target level (GIUSSI et al. 2016).

Additional management measures include: i) a spatial closures for industrial (Surimi processing) trawlers; ii) minimum mesh size of 120 mm; iii) minimum landing size of 60cm; iv) when >50% of the catch proportion is of juveniles, the fishing operation should be moved a minimum of 5 nautical miles; v) the presence of an onboard scientific observer from INIDEP to monitor bycatch of seabirds, and an inspector.

No formal management objectives or harvest control rule are in place. The establishment of a commission for the joint management of the fishery with main stakeholders is required by CFP Resolution N° 21/2014. The commission has met in November 2016 and discussions regarding the quota for 2017 (CFP 2016).

In order to improve selectivity, work is in progress to analyze the already used (by INIDEP) and experiment new fishing gears. MSC condition 2 regards a specific monitoring program to gather information on the South Atlantic distribution stock structure, design of stock surveys to determine the degree of stock mixing between the South Pacific and South Atlantic distributions and design of a program to classify all fleets operating on the hoki stock identified by fishing gears, practices and net selectivity (Prenski et al., 2012). Significant progress was made in each of these requirements, as mentioned in previous sections, thus the condition is ‘closed’ by the 4th surveillance report (Morsan et al. 2016).

RECOVERY PLANS

Last updated on 16 March 2017

There are no recovery plans for this species.

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 16 March 2017

Four fleets target hoki in Argentinean waters: ice chilled vessels, hake freezers vessels, factory freezer vessel and surimi freezer vessel (Prenski et al., 2012). Catches have been consistently below the set TAC and in 2015 were at 70,450 tonnes. Underreporting and discarding are assessed, and up-to-date estimates are used to correct the nominal catches and obtain total catch time series (Giussi et al., 2015a; 2016). Absolute values are not available, but corrected estimated catches are 20% higher than nominal catches in 2015 (GIUSSI et al. 2016; SSPyA 2016). Fishing vessels are equipped with VMS (since 2004) and must take an on-board observer; dock side monitoring is also performed in 100% of landings (Prenski et al., 2012; CFP, 2012a; Prenski et al., 2015).

No recent non-compliance issues have been raised in the last surveillance report (Morsan et al. 2016).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

ETP SPECIES

Last updated on 16 March 2017

Interaction of Argentinian fisheries with reptiles, seabirds and marine mammals is still to be better determined and monitored (CFP, 2015a). Significant efforts have been made in recent years:

i) a National Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals has been approved in Argentina in late 2015 (PAN-Mamíferos) and one of the planned actions is to update the diagnosis of operational interactions of fisheries and marine mammals. The southern demersal fishery overlaps with the distribution of marine mammals such as dusky dolphin, Commerson’s Dolphin, Spectacled Porpoise, peale’s dolphin and hourglass dolphin (all Data deficient in the IUCN red list), which inhabit the southern part of the continental shelf and are particularly sensitive to trawl nets. There is no updated data yet on interactions of the hoki fishery with marine mammals (Morsan et al. 2016).

ii) Argentina elaborated during 2010 the National Action Plan for the Reduction of Bird-fishery Interactions (PAN-Aves) and is signatory of international agreements to protect seabirds. Up to 23 species were associated with trawlers in the Argentine Sea, and between 40 and 70% of these species were incidentally caught. Catch rates ranged varies depending on the location. Diving birds were caught by nets and a large number of species collide with the cables. Black browed albatross Thalassarche melanophrys (near threatened in IUCN red List; BI, 2014a) is the main species interacting with trawlers. Other PET seabirds such as the Atlantic petrel Pterodroma incerta (Endangered in IUCN Red List; BI, 2015a), white-chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis (Vulnerable in IUCN Red List; BI, 2015b), Southern giant petrel Macronectes giganteus (Least Concern in IUCN Red List; BI, 2012a), Cape petrel Daption capense (Least Concern in IUCN Red List; BI, 2012b) and great shearwater Ardenna gravis (Least Concern in IUCN Red List; BI, 2012c) also interact with fishing gears (Prenski et al., 2012). A pilot project to assess the effectiveness of a streamer line in the freezer trawler fleet was conducted (CFP, 2014b). A mortality rate of 0.25 birds per tow was recorded, including: Black-browed Albatross, Southern Royal Albatross (Diomedea epomophora), Southern Giant Petrel and Northern Giant Petrel ((Macronectes halli). Impacts were significantly reduced when using the streamer line as a mitigation measure (Tamini et al. 2016).

iii) A National Action Plan for the Reduction of Chondrichthyans-fishery Interactions (PAN-Tiburones) is in place since 2009. Main by-catch species in the Argentinean hoki fishery are two vulnerable Chondrichthyans: yellownose skate Zearaja chilensis (still called Dipturus chilensis in Argentina reports) (Vulnerable in IUCN Red List; Kyne et al., 2007) and spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias (Vulnerable in IUCN Red List; Fordham et al., 2006). Both are extremely vulnerable to intensive fishing pressure, due to high size at maturity and low fecundity (Morsan et al. 2016). Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus (Vulnerable in IUCN Red List; Stevens et al., 2006) is also caught by the hoki fishery. INIDEP On board observers are monitoring L. nasus bycatch; data indicate that incidental catches represent a low percentage of the total catch and describe a stationary trend between 2006 and 2012. L. nasus bycatch has high seasonality and are related with several operative variables (deep and towing speed), environmental (sea surface temperature) and ecological (prey availability).

A series of modifications were proposed to avoid the entrance of chondrichthyans to the vessels. They showed to be successful, but are not used because chains difficult the normal fishing operations. INIDEP’s chondrichthyans research group is raising awareness within fishermen about the relevance of avoiding capture of sharks and rays and acceptance of the use of devices on deck and promote to explore alternatives. More time is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of this strategy and to incorporate changes in the crew behavior . On board observer data indicated highly variable catches of these chondrichthyans in hoki’s fleet, thus continuous monitoring of bycatch in fleets operating in the continental shelf is required (Morsan et al. 2016).

Last updated on 16 March 2017

Several studies were conducted between 2015 and 2016 regarding to biological data and interactions of trawler fleets with chondrichthyans (Morsan et al. 2016). MSC condition 3, which meant to determine impact levels on main bycatch species, namely on Daption capense and Zeoraja chilensis  (Prenski et al., 2012) was ‘closed’ at the last surveillance audit.

Evidences about the indirect effects of the fishery on PET species was required under MSC condition 4. This condition was also ‘closed’ at the last surveillance audit, as the INIDEP monitoring on porbeagle shark bycatch indicate a steady trend and on board monitoring is highly likely to continue (Morsan et al. 2016).

MSC condition 5 regards the mitigation of the impacts of the fishery on seabirds, chondrichthyes and marine mammals, in accordance with National Action Plans, Federal regulations and international agreements. This condition was also ‘closed’ at the last surveillance audit (Morsan et al. 2016), although several recently recommended actions resulting from latest studies are still to be implemented.

MSC recommendation 3 requires the determination of the level of impact and assessment of retained species; is ‘closed’ by the 4th surveillance report (Morsan et al. 2016).

OTHER TARGET AND BYCATCH SPECIES

Last updated on 16 March 2017

Main by-catch species in the Argentinean hoki fishery are two vulnerable Chondrichthyans: yellownose skate Zearaja chilensis and spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias, which are considered in ETP species section.

Hoki is mostly captured in the southern demersal fishery. This fishery is mainly carried out in the Patagonian area located south of 48°, has multispecies characteristics and some of them have been largely exploited as retained species. Four fleets target hoki in Argentinean waters: ice chilled vessels, hake freezers vessels, factory freezers vessels and surimi freezers vessels. Surimi vessels caught in 2016 mostly hoki (50%) and Southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis, 40%), secondary species were grenadier (Coelorhynchus fasciatus, 5%) and southern hake (Merluccius australis, 3%). Factory vessels caught mainly hoki (70%), and several secondary species: Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides, 9%), hake (Merluccius hubbsi), southern hake (Merluccius australis, 7%), kingklip (Genypterus blacodes, 3%) and red cod (Salilota australis, 5.5%). Percentages were calculated based on species landings by fleet information from the Undersecretariat of Fisheries and Aquaculture (SSPyA 2017). Ice-chilled and freezer vessels can target hake or hoki and the main incidentally species captured is squid (Illex argentinus) (Prenski et al., 2014). These catches are considered in squid assessments by INIDEP, however on board observers monitoring should increase (Buono and Ivanovic 2015).

These species are managed under the quota system (e.g. CFP Resolutions Nº 4/2016, Nº 17/2016, Nº 18/2016), therefore are closely followed and assessed by INIDEP, except for grenadier.INIDEP continues to monitor species and size composition in Argentine hoki catches ; hoki and Southern blue whiting juveniles are mostly captured by surimi vessels. Freezers vessels capture as bycatch mostly adult southern hake and red cod individuals (Mari and Giussi 2016; Mari and Giussi 2016).

Last updated on 16 March 2017

There is a MSC condition to determine levels of impact on main bycatch species (Prenski et al., 2012), which refers specifically to bycatch of yellownose skate and spiny dogfish. Significant progress was made in recent years, thus the condition was ‘closed’ by the 4th surveillance audit (Morsan et al. 2016), although several recently recommended actions resulting from latest studies are still to be implemented. 

HABITAT

Last updated on 16 March 2017

Although midwater trawling predominates in the Argentine hoki fishery, bottom gear impact on benthic habitats need to be analyzed (Prenski et al., 2012). Several studies have been undertaken to describe the benthic habitats where the hoki fishery is conducted and to assess the specific impacts (Prenski et al., 2014). Invertebrate groups were mapped from samples collected before the hoki fishery reached its maximum development. Many identified groups are considered as indicator taxa of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME), e.g. porifera, bryozoans, hydroids, echinoderms, and their distribution pattern match with areas of main hoki reported catches by Argentine and foreign fleets operating in the AEEZ (Prenski et al., 2014). Therefore, monitoring of certain areas and vulnerable benthic invertebrates species in hoki fishing grounds was recommended (Gaitán et al., 2014).

In 2014 the INDEP began to explore, in a systematic and continued way, the state of seafloor where the hoki fishery takes place. An initial study conducted by the hoki commercial fleet with onboard observed  indicated that the amount of biomass of benthos bycatch arriving on board is very low (Marí & Giussi, 2014). Updated data indicate changes in fleets’ behavior, with increased and more spatially concentrated bottom trawling in comparison to previous years. Two main areas of high bottom trawling intensity were detected, one south of Island of Tierra del Fuego characterized by scallop Zygochlamys patagonica. The other areas is located northeast of Island of the States and is dominated by a mixture of predators such as echinoderms and the snail Fusitriton magellanicus and filters like sponges and scallop. Cumulative impacts in such concentrated areas could be important given the dominance of bottom-line trawls. Comparison between areas with different fishing intensities was requested ((Gaitán and Mari 2016).

Argentina
Bottom trawls

Last updated on 16 March 2017

Several studies have been undertaken to describe the benthic habitats where the hoki fishery is conducted (Prenski et al., 2014) to address MSC condition 6 (Prenski et al., 2012). This condition is considered ‘closed’ by the 4th surveillance report being the vulnerability of the fished and unfished areas identified (Prenski et al., 2015) and the monitoring of benthic by-catch species by bottom trawlers in the hoki fishery continuing to be analyzed from samples collected by INIDEP onboard observers (Morsan et al. 2016).

MSC recommendation 4, that concerns the assessment of the footprint of each haul, habitat mapping and determination of the fishing gear consequences on sediments and in the water column, is ‘closed’ by the 4th  surveillance report.  In 2014 the INDEP began to explore, in a systematic and continued way, the state of seafloor where the hoki fishery takes place. The activity is addressed by assessing quali and quantitatively the macrobenthic communities potentially affected by the trawling. MSC recommendation 5, which implies the determination of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem structure and function as well as on chondrichthyes, is ‘behind target’ since there is no evidence of the evaluation of the potential fishery ecosystem effects. However, some particular studies on the impact on the assemblage of chondrichthyes have begun, in particular on more sensitive species (Morsan et al. 2016).

MARINE RESERVES

Last updated on 16 March 2017

There are no marine reserves in Argentina; however, there are areas closed for trawl fishing, including part of a close area for protection of hake juveniles, which may act as a de facto protection for the benthic habitat and the whole ecosystem, as they are enforced using the vessel monitoring system. Those are: (1) areas for the protection of hake juveniles (Federal Fisheries Council Act N° 265/2000 ); (2) areas for the protection of Patagonian toothfish juveniles (Federal Fisheries Council Act N° 17/2002 of October 10th 2002); (3) areas closed for all trawling fisheries (Argentinean Federal Law Nº 23968); (4) areas closed for the protection of cold water corals at the Burdwood Bank (Federal Fisheries Council Act N° 18/2008) (Prenski et al., 2012).

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 16 March 2017

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2016 data.

The score is 6.0.

New dynamic limit and target biomass reference points were adopted, following international guidelines for similar demersal fisheries (Giussi et al., 2016a). FMSY was recently estimated at 0.3 (Morsan et al., 2016), but development of a harvest control rule is pending. Stock assessments are annually conducted, but fishing mortality or exploitation rates are not publicly available since 2009 (Giussi et al., 2015a; 2016a).

As calculated for 2017 data.

This measures the Set TAC as a percentage of the Average advised catch.

The Set TAC is 80.0 ('000 t). The Average advised catch is 60.0 ('000 t) .

The underlying Set TAC/Average advised catch for this index is 133%.

As calculated for 2015 data.

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

The Catch is 70.5 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 130 ('000 t) .

The underlying Catch/Set TAC for this index is 54.2%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2015 data.

This measures the SSB as a percentage of the 40%B0.

The SSB is 206 ('000 t). The 40%B0 is 197 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/40%B0 for this index is 105%.

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is 6.0.

Fishing mortality reference points are not defined and the estimate of current fishing mortality is not reported (since 2009). Biomass shows a cyclic trend, with high abundance periods in mid 1980s and between late 1990s-early 2000s. An extended declining period followed, with the lowest biomass estimates of the time-series in 2011-2014. These fluctuations are related to recruitment oscillations, which causes are not understood. There are several sources of uncertainty but long-term projections foresee favorable spawning biomass levels, both under high and lower recruitment scenarios (Giussi et al., 2016).

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.

No data available for recruitment
DATA NOTES
  1. There are no management-defined fishing mortality (F) reference points and no estimates for F since 2009, so scores #1 and #5 cannot be calculated and have been determined qualitatively according to the available information (GIUSSI et al. 2016).
  2. New dynamic reference points have been adopted, biomass reference levels for 2015 referring to the theoretical virginal biomass were computed, as recommended by Canales, external reviewer (Morsan et al. 2016)
  3. Several options were calculated for Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) considering two recruitment scenarios, limit and target biomass levels and stock status referent to a theoretical virginal biomass or biomass level in 1985, when monitoring of the fishery started (GIUSSI et al. 2016). The scientific advice referring to the target biomass level referring to the virginal stock status at 60,000 tonnes was used to compute score #2, as  recommended by external reviewers (Morsan et al. 2016).
  4. Catches sum national and foreign fleets inside and outside the Argentinean Economic Exclusive Zone; national catches include estimated rates of misreporting and discarding. Score #2 refers to the 2015 fishing year.
  5. The SSB time series shown is based on fishery dependent and independent data (GIUSSI et al. 2016).

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

Argentine hoki (Macruronus magellanicus) bottom and mid-water trawl fishery

STATUS

MSC Certified on 24 May 2012

SCORES

Principle Level Scores:

Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species 81.3
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 82.3
Principle 3 – Management System 87.3

Certification Type: Bronze

Sources

Credits
  1. BirdLife International (BI), 2012a. Macronectes giganteus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T22697852A40185103. [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22697852A40185103.en
  2. BirdLife International (BI), 2012b. Daption capense. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T22697879A40191317. [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22697879A40191317.en
  3. BirdLife International (BI), 2012c. Ardenna gravis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T22698201A40209759. [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22698201A40209759.en
  4. BirdLife International (BI), 2014a. Thalassarche melanophris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T22698375A62709733. [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-2.RLTS.T22698375A62709733.en
  5. BirdLife International (BI), 2015a. Pterodroma incerta. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22698084A84681773 [accessed 04 February 2016]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698084/0
  6. BirdLife International (BI), 2015b. Procellaria aequinoctialis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22698140A83475793. [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T22698140A83475793.en
  7. Centro Desarrollo y Pesca Sustentable (CeDePesca), 2010. Merluza de cola argentina Macruronus magellanicus - Ficha Técnica de la Pesquería - actualizada en octubre de 2010. (In Spanish.)http://www.cedepesca.net/cedepesca_pesquerias/PDFs/merluza_de_cola_argentina_Informe_CeDePesca_Octubre_2010.pdf
  8. Cohen, D.M., T.Inada, T.Iwamoto, N.Scialabba, 1990. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 10. Gadiform fishes of the world (Order Gadiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of cods, hakes, grenadiers and other gadiform fishes known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. No. 125, Vol. 10. Rome, FAO.ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/t0243e/T0243E00.pdf
  9. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2009. Resolución 17/2009: Establécese la Captura Máxima Permisible para el año 2009 para determinadas especies. Issued at Buenos Aires, October 1st, 2009. Link accessed on December 18th, 2009. http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/155000-159999/158484/norma.htm
  10. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2010. Resolución 14/10.http://www.cfp.gov.ar/resoluciones/res14-10.pdf
  11. Consejo Federal Pesquero, 2011. Resolución 18 (15-12-10) Se establece la Captura Maxima Permisible de las especies merluza hubbsi, merluza de cola, merluza negra y polaca para el año 2011 (Ley Nº 24.922). (In Spanish.)http://www.cfp.gov.ar/resoluciones/res18-2010.pdf
  12. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2012a. Resolución 12-2012. Establécense medidas de manejo y administración para ser aplicadas a la especie merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus). 12 December 2012. 4 pp. (In Spanish.)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%2022%20(13-12-12)%20medidas%20manejo%20merluza%20de%20cola.pdf
  13. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2012b. Resolución 26-2012. Establécese la Captura maxima Permisible para el año 2013, de las especies merluza común, merluza de cola, merluza negra y polaca. (In Spanish.)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%2026%20(19-12-12)%20CMP%20hubbsi%20cola%20negra%20y%20polaca%202013.pdf
  14. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2013a. Resolución 5 (23-05-13). (In Spanish.)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%205%20(23-05-13)%20%20Modificacion%20res%2026-12%20CMP%20merluza%20de%20cola.pdf
  15. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2013b. Resolución 16-2013. Establécese la Captura maxima Permisible para el año 2014, de las especies merluza común, merluza de cola, merluza negra y polaca. 16 December 2013. (In Spanish.)http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/220000-224999/223799/norma.htm
  16. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2014a. Resolución N°18/2014. Establécese la Captura Máxima Permisible para el año 2015, de las especies merluza común, merluza de cola y polaca. 11 December 2014. (In Spanish).http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%2018%20(12-12-13)%20CMP%20cola,%20polaca%20y%20hubbsi%202015.pdf
  17. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2014b. Acta N°31/2014. Apruébase la realización de una prueba piloto para ensayar la logística de la implementación de las líneas espantapájaros (LEPs) en la flota congeladora arrastrera. 12 pp. (In Spanish). http://www.cfp.gob.ar/actas/ACTA%20CFP%2031-2014.pdf
  18. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2014c. Resolución N°13/2015. Establécese la Captura Máxima Permisible para el año 2016, de las especies merluza común, merluza de cola y polaca. 03 December 2015. (In Spanish)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%2013%20%20(3-12-15)%20CMP%20negra,%20cola,%20polaca%20y%20hubbsi%202016.pdf
  19. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2015a. Resolución N°11/2015. Apruébase el Plan de Acción Nacional para Reducir la Interacción de Mamíferos Marinos con Pesquerías en la República Argentina (PAN-Mamíferos), cuyo texto se adjunta como Anexo I del Acta del Consejo Federal Pesquero N° 46/2015. 3 December 2015. 4 pp. (In Spanish)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%2011%20(26-11-15)%20PAN-Mamiferos%20Marinos.pdf
  20. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2015b. ANEXO I - ACTA CFP N° 46/2015. Plan de Acción Nacional Para Reducir La Interacción De Mamíferos Marinos Con Pesquerías En La República Argentina 13 December 2015. 162 pp (In Spanish)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/actas/ANEXO%20I%20-%20Acta%20CFP%20Nro%2046-2015%20PAN%20MM.pdf
  21. Fordham, S., Fowler, S.L., Coelho, R., Goldman, K.J. & Francis, M. 2006. Squalus acanthias. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T39326A10201416 [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T39326A10201416.en
  22. Gaitán, E., Souto, V. & C. Bremec, 2014. Caracterización de los principales grupos de invertebrados bentónicos presentes en los fondos de pesca de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) entre los 34° y 36° S. Inf. de Invest. N° 56/2014, INIDEP: 17pp.Inf_Inv_056_14.pdf
  23. Giussi, A., Di Marco, E. J. & A. Zavaterri, 2014b. Índice de abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) obtenido a partir de buques de la flota comercial argentina con observador científico a bordo. Período 2003-2013. Inf. de Invest. N° 55/2014, INIDEP: 12pp. Inf_Inv_055_14.pdf
  24. Giussi, A.R., A. Zavatteri, E.J. Di Marco, O.C. Wohler, 2014a. Evaluatión de abundancia de Merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) del Atlántico sudoccidental. Período 1985-2013. INIDEP Official Technical Report nº 25-2014. 22 pp. (In Spanish). Inf_Tec_025_14.pdf
  25. Giussi, A.R. Di MArco, E.J. Zavatteri, A. Wohler, O.C. 2012. Evaluatión de abundancia de Merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) del Atlántico sudoccidental. Périodo 1985-2011. INIDEP Official Technical Report nº 40. 21 pages.inftec_040_12.pdf
  26. Giussi, A.R., E.J. Di Marco, A. Zavatteri, O.C. Wohler, 2013a. Actualización de las Capturas Biológicamente Aceptables de la merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) del Atlántico Sudoccidental correspondientes al año 2013. INIDEP Informe Técnico Oficial nº 009. 21 pages.Inf_Tec_009_13.pdf
  27. Giussi, A.R., E.J. Di Marco, A. Zavatteri, S. and O.C. Wohler, 2013b. Evaluatión de abundancia de Merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) del Atlántico sudoccidental. Período 1985-2012. INIDEP Official Technical Report nº 30-2013. 24 pp. (In Spanish.)Inf_Tec_030_13.pdf
  28. Giussu, A.R., Marco, E.J., Zavatteri, A., Wöhler, O.C. 2015a. Evaluación de abundancia de Merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) del Atlántico sudoccidental. Periodo 1985-2014. INIDEP Official Technical Report nº 28. 22 pp.Inf_Tec_028_15_LIB.pdf
  29. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP), 2011. Informe Técnico Oficial 037, Evaluación de la abundáncia de la población de Merluza de cola Macruronus magellanicus en el Atlántico Sudoccidental entre los años 1985 y 2010, 22p.inftec_037_11.pdf
  30. IUCN, 2015. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. [Assessed on 19 January 2015.http://www.iucnredlist.org
  31. Kyne,P.M., Lamilla, J., Licandeo, R.R., Jimena San Martín, M., Stehmann, M.F.W. & McCormack, C. 2007. Zearaja chilensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2007: e.T63147A12623314 [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2007.RLTS.T63147A12623314.en
  32. Marí, N. & A. Giussi, 2014. Captura de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) y otras especies en la flota arrastrera argentina que tiene asignación de cuota de captura. Período 2010-2013. Inf. de Invest. N° 57/2014, INIDEP: 12pp.Inf_Inv_057_14.pdf
  33. Niklitschek, E. J., Secor, D., Toledo, P.,Valenzuela, X., Cubillos, L., and Zuleta, A. Nursery systems for Patagonian grenadier off Western Patagonia: large inner sea or narrow continental shelf? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst129. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/11/15/icesjms.fst129.full.pdf+html
  34. Prenski, L. B., Morales-Yokobori, M. L., Minte Vera, C., Bridi, J., Landa, P., Di Giacomo, E., Perier, M. 2012. Public Certification Report, Assessment against MSC Principles and Criteria for Argentine Hoki (Macruronus magellanicus), Bottow and Semi pelagic Trawl net fishery. Organización International Agropecuaria, May 2012. 822 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/argentine_hoki/assessment-downloads-1/HOKI%20Public%20Certification%20Report.pdf
  35. Prenski, L. B., Sésar, G., Medina Foucher, C. A. 2015. 3rd Surveillance Report. Assessment against MSC Principles and Criteria for: Argentine hoki fishery (Macruronus magellanicus) Certificate code: F-OIA-P-0300, Organización Internacional Agropecuaria, 87pp.https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/argentine_hoki/assessment-downloads-1/20150820_SR_HOK169.pdf
  36. Prenski L.; Morales-Yokobori M., Bridi R., Medina Foucher C., 2013. Surveillance Report: Assessment against MSC Principles and Criteria for: Argentine Hoki Fishery (Macruronus magellanicus). Organización Internacional Agropecuaria, July 19th 2013. 42 http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/argentine_hoki/assessment-downloads-1/20130730_SR_HOK169.pdf
  37. Prenski L.; Sesar, G.; Medina Foucher C., 2014. Surveillance Report: Assessment against MSC Principles and Criteria for: Argentine Hoki Fishery (Macruronus magellanicus). Organización Internacional Agropecuaria, Sept. 5th 2014. 27 pp. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/argentine_hoki/assessment-downloads-1/20140910_SR_HOK169.pdf
  38. Schuchert, P. C., Arkhipkin, A. I. and Koenig, A. E., 2010. Traveling around Cape Horn: Otolith chemistry reveals a mixed stock of Patagonian hoki with separate Atlantic and Pacific spawning grounds. Fisheries Research, 102, 1–2: 80-86 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783609002768
  39. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos (SAGPyA). 2010. Desembarques de capturas marítimas totales por especie y flota (1/01/09 – 29/12/09). Link accessed on January 5th, 2010.http://www.minagri.gob.ar/SAGPyA/pesca/pesca_maritima/02-desembarques/lectura.php?imp=1&tabla=especie_flota_2009
  40. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos (SAGPyA). 2010. Vessel Satellite Monitoring. Link accessed on January 5th, 2010.http://www.minagri.gob.ar/SAGPyA/pesca/pesca_maritima/05-monitoreo_satelital/zee.php
  41. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos (SAGPyA). 2010. Vessel Satellite Monitoring. Link accessed on January 5th, 2010.http://www.minagri.gob.ar/SAGPyA/pesca/pesca_maritima/05-monitoreo_satelital/zonas.php?imp=1
  42. 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 2006: e.T11200A3261697 [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T11200A3261697.en

Aditional references (without direct web links)

  1. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2005. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2004. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 29. 25 pages.
  2. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2006. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2005. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 23. 22 pages.
  3. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2007. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2006. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 28. 23 pages.
  4. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2008. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2007. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 52. 23 pages.
  5. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2009. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2008. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 37. 24 pages.
  6. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2010. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2009. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 25/2010. 24 pages.
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Patagonian grenadier - Argentine

    comments powered by Disqus
    ADD COMMENT